Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset3

like 0

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease." ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference." ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt." ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!", ">\n\nYou go Dr. Dre!" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!", ">\n\nYou go Dr. Dre!", ">\n\nDre is based" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!", ">\n\nYou go Dr. Dre!", ">\n\nDre is based", ">\n\nAs funny as this is, something to keep in mind is that Human Foot Marjorie Taylor Greene likely had very little to do with the mixing of video. She probably just hired some shitty editor who just threw some shit together." ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!", ">\n\nYou go Dr. Dre!", ">\n\nDre is based", ">\n\nAs funny as this is, something to keep in mind is that Human Foot Marjorie Taylor Greene likely had very little to do with the mixing of video. She probably just hired some shitty editor who just threw some shit together.", ">\n\nReal talk. But it's still embarrassing for her 🤣" ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!", ">\n\nYou go Dr. Dre!", ">\n\nDre is based", ">\n\nAs funny as this is, something to keep in mind is that Human Foot Marjorie Taylor Greene likely had very little to do with the mixing of video. She probably just hired some shitty editor who just threw some shit together.", ">\n\nReal talk. But it's still embarrassing for her 🤣", ">\n\nOh yes, a hilarious embarrassment. It says a lot about the competency of her office, or lack there of." ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!", ">\n\nYou go Dr. Dre!", ">\n\nDre is based", ">\n\nAs funny as this is, something to keep in mind is that Human Foot Marjorie Taylor Greene likely had very little to do with the mixing of video. She probably just hired some shitty editor who just threw some shit together.", ">\n\nReal talk. But it's still embarrassing for her 🤣", ">\n\nOh yes, a hilarious embarrassment. It says a lot about the competency of her office, or lack there of.", ">\n\nAh yes. Folks that forget about Dre in the find out stage. Love it." ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!", ">\n\nYou go Dr. Dre!", ">\n\nDre is based", ">\n\nAs funny as this is, something to keep in mind is that Human Foot Marjorie Taylor Greene likely had very little to do with the mixing of video. She probably just hired some shitty editor who just threw some shit together.", ">\n\nReal talk. But it's still embarrassing for her 🤣", ">\n\nOh yes, a hilarious embarrassment. It says a lot about the competency of her office, or lack there of.", ">\n\nAh yes. Folks that forget about Dre in the find out stage. Love it.", ">\n\nHe actually has the money to stop this." ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!", ">\n\nYou go Dr. Dre!", ">\n\nDre is based", ">\n\nAs funny as this is, something to keep in mind is that Human Foot Marjorie Taylor Greene likely had very little to do with the mixing of video. She probably just hired some shitty editor who just threw some shit together.", ">\n\nReal talk. But it's still embarrassing for her 🤣", ">\n\nOh yes, a hilarious embarrassment. It says a lot about the competency of her office, or lack there of.", ">\n\nAh yes. Folks that forget about Dre in the find out stage. Love it.", ">\n\nHe actually has the money to stop this.", ">\n\nSeems like she can be a blowhard all she wants, but doesn't want to risk opening her checkbook to pay a hefty court fine for the unauthorized use of copyrighted content." ]

[ "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs,\" she told TMZ.\n\nexcept for, she did?", ">\n\nIt is the same way they treat the Bible or the constitution. They cherry-pick the parts they like and disregard all other context and meaning.", ">\n\nThe funniest part to me is how Republicans would literally be tripping over themselves in a heartbeat to nominate this Dr. Dre as their presidential candidate if he came out as conservative in the middle of a string of incidents where he said some very offensive, politically incorrect things. They would become so obnoxious overnight about blasting his music from every diesel-guzzling vehicle in the country, shrieking about how he's a real doctor and Jill Biden is an imposter, etc. (Not that The Chronic wouldn't be a welcome improvement on its own over their current choices.)\nThey'd all sell their tacky MAGA shit to start trapping and making beats to get rich like their new god hero merely because a top 10 Q-Anon influencer was having a slow week and falling behind on rent, so she made a suggestive video wildly misinterpreting a Dre lyric about getting his dick sucked \"liberally\" or something, then highlighting his conservative bonafides like being a CEO of a huge company he created, a legacy of homophobic lyrics, and credible accusations of violence against women in public. There would be so many bad Republican thug life videos and memes for a while, many of which would inexplicably and mistakenly use pics of Ice Cube. Conspiracies would abound that Snoop was Q, Death Row was a front for white hat* conservative lunatics, and that Eazy-E was going to be reincarnated as JFK Junior.\nInteresting historical note: most of you are probably too young to remember this, but conservatives went through a similar phase briefly in the late 90s over a misunderstanding of something Silkk the Shocker said on stage. They were all suddenly sagging their pants and calling Bill Clinton wack. \nLet's also never forget how they were ideologically catfished by Soulja Boy when he first broke out, too. They simply reek of desperation for black celebrity support. A cultural icon like Dr. Dre is so far out of their league, I'm surprised MTG would even play his music and risk humiliating herself. They're tokenists without a token. Sad.\n*Think about it, my good patriot homie: Death is the same number of letters as \"white.\" And Row is the same number of letters as \"hat.\" Thus, Dre and Snoop are clearly engaged in a noble, covert existential battle for the soul of the world against evil East Coast globalists. Or, like others suggest, was '90's hip hop even more malevolent than we thought: a false flag or psy-op in a Cold War between Patriots and the deep state?", ">\n\nThey're the same people who play Rage Against the Machine without stopping to realize those songs are all about them.", ">\n\nLiterally", ">\n\nHoly fuck that article is a decade old. There is a lot more back and forth that’s happened in the last couple years", ">\n\nIt’s a newer spin on the old ‘conservatives playing Born in the USA at rallies.’", ">\n\n\n\"They can't stop what's coming,\" she captioned the video.\n\nI thought she'd denounced QAnon?\nShe probably thought that she was being smart, but amazingly, no.", ">\n\nHer and the new guy know they need someone in their corner or else they’ll be thrown to the wolves. He threw the WP symbol hoping that they’d run to his defense like they do with the other idiots. They’ve told too many lies they can’t keep their story straight at this point.", ">\n\nHer response was that the music sucks? Really? It just keeps getting weirder.", ">\n\nTypical shitbag behavior. “I can’t have this? Well fuck you, I didn’t want it anyway, it sucks!”", ">\n\n“Nice guys” when they are rejected.", ">\n\nIt’s not a coincidence that incels/“nice guys” are also MAGA Republicans (at least in my experience)", ">\n\nIt’s the entitlement", ">\n\nI so miss the days where people would apologize. Instead of; admit nothing, double down, attack, attack. Where do they learn this?\nHome? \"Remember. Magorie, you are right and everyone else is wrong.\" College? Finishing school?", ">\n\nIt's literally weakness to admit you're wrong, even when you're unequivocally wrong. Even when you've unequivocally done something to hypocritically undermine your own principles. Even when you are clearly talking out of both sides of your ass during the same nationally-televised public appearance.", ">\n\nAre you serious? Because if so, I am really curious about your definition of strength. You see, I actually consider admitting when you are in the wrong to actually be a strength. \nDoubly so if you do it on the Internet. I don’t see how it’s a weakness to state fact.", ">\n\nI completely agree with you, friend. \nI was talking about how conservatives apparently seem to think about the issue, lol.", ">\n\nOh snap. My bad. I totally thought you were advocating a different position. I was wrong.", ">\n\nI mean, there are pretty openly toxic and evil people out there, so you never know, lol. Would've been a lot of self-awareness for that type, but still.", ">\n\nMr. Dre Mr. N.W.A Mr.AK straight outta Compton gonna make MTG pay", ">\n\nDre! Dre! Dre!", ">\n\nShe made one crucial mistake, she forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nAh! The classic blunder!", ">\n\nshe has a face like an anthropomorphic shoe drawn in the 40's.", ">\n\nWhen I was younger I didn't realize \"butterface\" was just code for \"but her face.\" I thought it was someone whose face looked like it had been haphazardly sculpted out of shimmery half-melted butter. In other words, MTG's face.", ">\n\nThis made me smile. It strikes me as a much more wholesome and creative misogynist phrase your way, lol. Butterfaces by this definition would exist in the same linguistic universe as pizza faces, I suppose.", ">\n\nI read that as “porno” and threw up a bit.", ">\n\nSame", ">\n\nThis song is more fitting for ol' Marge:\nNowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say\nBut nothing comes out when they move their lips\nJust a bunch of gibberish\nAnd motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre", ">\n\nFun fact - that hook was originally meant for Snoop, Eminem just recorded some reference vocals and they were too dope not to use.", ">\n\nNothing against Snoop, but I just can’t imagine it sounding as good as Eminem did it.", ">\n\nLike the little kid who never wanted to play with your toy. Except steal it, play with it, brag about it. Then when the kid wants his toy back, you just exclaim \"stupid toy, I never even liked it, it sucks and so do you\" - MTG", ">\n\n\n\"One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country. It's possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on,\" the letter continued.\n\nUm, Dr. Dre, umm, you know she actually doesn’t have any of that? She did not serve on any committees in her first term, didn’t create any new legislation. And just being a person is a little arcane for her, you might have noticed that from her other ads and her comments about Jan 6.", ">\n\nClearly this is Dre's legal team trolling the dumbest woman in congress.", ">\n\nHow dare you slander Lauren Boebert like that.", ">\n\nI am honestly confused time and time again how people like her are voted into office. Are the alternatives even worse or are there groups of Americans that dumb? Is there a republican pill or something to ingest so crap that spews from their mouths is believable or is someone slipping something into the water used to make Kool-Aid perhaps?", ">\n\n\nIs there a republican pill or something to ingest \n\nYes, it's called FoxNews.\nAnd Rush Limbaugh, before that.\nbefore him, others... authoritarians are easy to corral and spook, and someone has been doing just that since the beginning of time.", ">\n\nFun fact, Rush Limbaugh is still dead.", ">\n\nThanks, I needed this reminder this morning.", ">\n\nIt’s funny considering her district is 78% white and rural and her thinking I’ll make a video they’ll like with a beat by Dre", ">\n\nSo far 2023 is the weirdest timeline", ">\n\nThank you Dr Dre", ">\n\nYou don't fuck with Dre", ">\n\nShe needs to call Kid Rock or Ted Nugent. I’m sure either would be happy to provide a soundtrack to her lunacy.", ">\n\nBut she wanted some good music.", ">\n\nMTG forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nFirst of all, how dare you? \nDon’t use Dre for evil.", ">\n\nYou gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?", ">\n\nFkn eh good on you doc", ">\n\nCopyright law is a hell of a drug.", ">\n\nSo she uses the song, and her response when bring told she can't use it is \"I didn't actually like it anyway\" they truly are masters of hypocrisy", ">\n\nI'd say today it was a good day.", ">\n\nYo Dre. I got something to say. \nFuck MTG!", ">\n\nShe forgot about Dre.", ">\n\nWondering if there are any musicians that would lease their music to her? Surely there are some? Any?", ">\n\nKid Rock and Nugent?", ">\n\nThey're still alive?", ">\n\nYes and infested with disease.", ">\n\nTwo severe cases of Donkey Brains", ">\n\nWhere them mad rappers at, it’s a jungle in this habitat", ">\n\nI hear by vote to make everyday Dre Day to remind everyone the day Dr Dre owned MTG", ">\n\nThis is the worst beat by Dre since Dee Barnes", ">\n\nNot many people here are going to get that reference.", ">\n\nThey should be smart", ">\n\nAnyone get this on their 2023 bingo card? Cause i didnt.", ">\n\nBeat by Dre", ">\n\nGood!", ">\n\nYou go Dr. Dre!", ">\n\nDre is based", ">\n\nAs funny as this is, something to keep in mind is that Human Foot Marjorie Taylor Greene likely had very little to do with the mixing of video. She probably just hired some shitty editor who just threw some shit together.", ">\n\nReal talk. But it's still embarrassing for her 🤣", ">\n\nOh yes, a hilarious embarrassment. It says a lot about the competency of her office, or lack there of.", ">\n\nAh yes. Folks that forget about Dre in the find out stage. Love it.", ">\n\nHe actually has the money to stop this.", ">\n\nSeems like she can be a blowhard all she wants, but doesn't want to risk opening her checkbook to pay a hefty court fine for the unauthorized use of copyrighted content.", ">\n\nshe better forget about dre" ]

[]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain)." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now.", ">\n\nEggs can fuck off, but bacon? Um, ok." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now.", ">\n\nEggs can fuck off, but bacon? Um, ok.", ">\n\nBacon makes sense to me sometimes, but egg sounds vile." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now.", ">\n\nEggs can fuck off, but bacon? Um, ok.", ">\n\nBacon makes sense to me sometimes, but egg sounds vile.", ">\n\nEvery fucking restaurant wants to put a runny egg on top of everything. They do not belong on burgers. Both eggs and bacon overpower the taste of the meat. You also get into some weird situations with what condiments you can use when an egg is involved." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now.", ">\n\nEggs can fuck off, but bacon? Um, ok.", ">\n\nBacon makes sense to me sometimes, but egg sounds vile.", ">\n\nEvery fucking restaurant wants to put a runny egg on top of everything. They do not belong on burgers. Both eggs and bacon overpower the taste of the meat. You also get into some weird situations with what condiments you can use when an egg is involved.", ">\n\nI don't eat them regularly, but there's nothing better for a hangover than a bacon and egg burger. All that protein just gets you right back where you need to be, yum!" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now.", ">\n\nEggs can fuck off, but bacon? Um, ok.", ">\n\nBacon makes sense to me sometimes, but egg sounds vile.", ">\n\nEvery fucking restaurant wants to put a runny egg on top of everything. They do not belong on burgers. Both eggs and bacon overpower the taste of the meat. You also get into some weird situations with what condiments you can use when an egg is involved.", ">\n\nI don't eat them regularly, but there's nothing better for a hangover than a bacon and egg burger. All that protein just gets you right back where you need to be, yum!", ">\n\nSpeaking as a red meated american, you are absolutely correct" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now.", ">\n\nEggs can fuck off, but bacon? Um, ok.", ">\n\nBacon makes sense to me sometimes, but egg sounds vile.", ">\n\nEvery fucking restaurant wants to put a runny egg on top of everything. They do not belong on burgers. Both eggs and bacon overpower the taste of the meat. You also get into some weird situations with what condiments you can use when an egg is involved.", ">\n\nI don't eat them regularly, but there's nothing better for a hangover than a bacon and egg burger. All that protein just gets you right back where you need to be, yum!", ">\n\nSpeaking as a red meated american, you are absolutely correct", ">\n\nNo bacon is a necessity in a burger. I understand egg maybe not but bacon?! Come on bruh" ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now.", ">\n\nEggs can fuck off, but bacon? Um, ok.", ">\n\nBacon makes sense to me sometimes, but egg sounds vile.", ">\n\nEvery fucking restaurant wants to put a runny egg on top of everything. They do not belong on burgers. Both eggs and bacon overpower the taste of the meat. You also get into some weird situations with what condiments you can use when an egg is involved.", ">\n\nI don't eat them regularly, but there's nothing better for a hangover than a bacon and egg burger. All that protein just gets you right back where you need to be, yum!", ">\n\nSpeaking as a red meated american, you are absolutely correct", ">\n\nNo bacon is a necessity in a burger. I understand egg maybe not but bacon?! Come on bruh", ">\n\nI agree. Its hard to beat a simple bun, patty, slice of cheese ketchup and some fried onions. Simple." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now.", ">\n\nEggs can fuck off, but bacon? Um, ok.", ">\n\nBacon makes sense to me sometimes, but egg sounds vile.", ">\n\nEvery fucking restaurant wants to put a runny egg on top of everything. They do not belong on burgers. Both eggs and bacon overpower the taste of the meat. You also get into some weird situations with what condiments you can use when an egg is involved.", ">\n\nI don't eat them regularly, but there's nothing better for a hangover than a bacon and egg burger. All that protein just gets you right back where you need to be, yum!", ">\n\nSpeaking as a red meated american, you are absolutely correct", ">\n\nNo bacon is a necessity in a burger. I understand egg maybe not but bacon?! Come on bruh", ">\n\nI agree. Its hard to beat a simple bun, patty, slice of cheese ketchup and some fried onions. Simple.", ">\n\nSometimes simple really is better. I actually used to be ok with bacon on burgers when I was younger, but I got tired of the texture." ]

[ "Strangely, i was just thinking earlier about how eggs aren't nearly a popular enough topping.", ">\n\nI agree that sometimes I just feel like a classic burger with cheese, onions, tomatoes, lettuce.\nThis was actually one of Anthony Bourdain’s biggest food pet peeves so you are in good company. That is why he loved In-and-Out. A burger is supposed to be a quick easy meal. If it is too soggy, large or hard to eat in general it sort of defeats the purpose.", ">\n\nI don't like tomatoes onions or lettuce on the burger. I feel tomatoes are unnesseceary when you have ketchup (if you don't have ketchup then sure) onions are great for use when cooking the burger, or when it's like chopped up pieces of onion in the meat, but I don't want to have slices of onion on my burger. And I just don't like lettuce in general. I like pickles and jalapeños tho.", ">\n\nNot a ketchup fan", ">\n\nMe neither tbh, only use it on hot dogs and home made burgers.", ">\n\nBurger King? eww, yep definitely unpopular.", ">\n\nI agree Burger King can be pretty bad. The location closest to my house is gross. But I'd say when they actually make the food how they're supposed to, it can be decent. Still any homemade burger will almost always be 10 times better.", ">\n\nThat is an unpopular opinion, at least for bacon. I might think this is a popular opinion for egg.", ">\n\nEgg is a popular burger topping in Australia. A lot of places have it on the menu (especially those that aren't a fast food chain).", ">\n\nIt's not uncommon to have an option for an egg on top in non-fast food places that specialize in burgers in the US. That said, it's not a common choice to order. Bacon is almost ubiquitous on menus for burgers, even at fast food places in the US.", ">\n\nAll fish and chip shops usually have a burger with egg. The main burger options are a plain burger or burger with the lot. It's an incredibly common order here. Burger shops usually have them as well.", ">\n\nMy friend, smoke a blunt and get you a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger from Wendy’s. Let’s see how you feel about the bacon after that.", ">\n\nI'd argue that could be an exception, I used to eat those once in a while when I was younger. I still prefer the double stack though.", ">\n\nI cant imagine a better fit for a burger than chees and bacon.", ">\n\nYou’re allowed to be wrong.", ">\n\nToss the cheese. Keep the bacon and egg", ">\n\nBut i love Denny's beef bacon slam burger ❤️ it has bacon and egg coooked to your liking and hashbrowns! 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋 😋", ">\n\nWhat's your ideal burger toppings?", ">\n\nI like the typical toppings like lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle. I generally prefer regular ketchup and mustard but I also really like different types of sliced cheese and sauces. Pepper jack or havarti cheese can be good and I often like spicy mayo or perhaps siracha mixed with the ketchup. Jalapenos or mushrooms can be good on a burger if it's done right and not too overpowering. I've had burgers I really enjoyed with shredded rib or brisket on them too, but I'd say some of those burgers can be bigger than I'd like.", ">\n\nyou diss common toppings and then say that your favorite burgers are shit tier bottom barrel fast food burgers. upvote for your unpopular opinion", ">\n\nI didn't know people had egg on their burgers. Sounds gross", ">\n\nWhen I go to restaurants and bars where I live I see them on the menu all the time. I'm really surprised eggs have become as popular as they have as a burger topping. But bacon I can definitely understand, just not a fan anymore and don't really view it as a topping either", ">\n\nPutting a fried egg on hamburgers goes back pretty much to the invention of the hamburger. It’s fine if you don’t like it, but it’s not a new thing.", ">\n\nSo, you chill at White Castle cuz it's the best, but you're fly at Fat Burger when you're way out west?", ">\n\nK I N G A D WHAMMY", ">\n\nThe tall burger is bullshit. It's all about wide burger now.", ">\n\nI'd kill for a Loco Moco right now.", ">\n\nEggs can fuck off, but bacon? Um, ok.", ">\n\nBacon makes sense to me sometimes, but egg sounds vile.", ">\n\nEvery fucking restaurant wants to put a runny egg on top of everything. They do not belong on burgers. Both eggs and bacon overpower the taste of the meat. You also get into some weird situations with what condiments you can use when an egg is involved.", ">\n\nI don't eat them regularly, but there's nothing better for a hangover than a bacon and egg burger. All that protein just gets you right back where you need to be, yum!", ">\n\nSpeaking as a red meated american, you are absolutely correct", ">\n\nNo bacon is a necessity in a burger. I understand egg maybe not but bacon?! Come on bruh", ">\n\nI agree. Its hard to beat a simple bun, patty, slice of cheese ketchup and some fried onions. Simple.", ">\n\nSometimes simple really is better. I actually used to be ok with bacon on burgers when I was younger, but I got tired of the texture.", ">\n\nEgg you right but bacon on a burger is fuckin delectable. It always improves the burger without fail" ]

[]

[ "From the article:\n'Santos on Tuesday insisted that he's \"done nothing unethical\" and brushed off any concern about the ethics complaint.'\n​\nWow." ]

[ "From the article:\n'Santos on Tuesday insisted that he's \"done nothing unethical\" and brushed off any concern about the ethics complaint.'\n​\nWow.", ">\n\nNothing unethical, you lied, pretty much the definition of unethical" ]

[ "From the article:\n'Santos on Tuesday insisted that he's \"done nothing unethical\" and brushed off any concern about the ethics complaint.'\n​\nWow.", ">\n\nNothing unethical, you lied, pretty much the definition of unethical", ">\n\nSay what! 😂" ]

[ "From the article:\n'Santos on Tuesday insisted that he's \"done nothing unethical\" and brushed off any concern about the ethics complaint.'\n​\nWow.", ">\n\nNothing unethical, you lied, pretty much the definition of unethical", ">\n\nSay what! 😂", ">\n\nSantos, proving that while Trump demolished the rule of law, Republicans are entirely against restoring it." ]

[ "From the article:\n'Santos on Tuesday insisted that he's \"done nothing unethical\" and brushed off any concern about the ethics complaint.'\n​\nWow.", ">\n\nNothing unethical, you lied, pretty much the definition of unethical", ">\n\nSay what! 😂", ">\n\nSantos, proving that while Trump demolished the rule of law, Republicans are entirely against restoring it.", ">\n\n\nListen, as Galactic Defender of Earth and Artist of world wide acclaim I've got a lot of plates in the air. I was interpreting events from a better brighter alternative future, a future where I am king of Sandwiches." ]

[]

[ "China this china that" ]

[]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.)." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing.", ">\n\nWhat's the morally relevant difference?" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing.", ">\n\nWhat's the morally relevant difference?", ">\n\nThe difference is that if I use my arm to pull a child out of a pool, it's still my arm the whole time, and it continues to be my arm after I pull the child out. Conversely, if I give blood to a child with leukemia, it's no longer my blood." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing.", ">\n\nWhat's the morally relevant difference?", ">\n\nThe difference is that if I use my arm to pull a child out of a pool, it's still my arm the whole time, and it continues to be my arm after I pull the child out. Conversely, if I give blood to a child with leukemia, it's no longer my blood.", ">\n\nSo you think bodily autonomy is violated only if you permanently lose bodily tissue?\nTwo questions:\n\nIf I rape someone without permanently taking away any of their bodily tissue, is that not a violation of bodily autonomy?\nLet's say that we know that if you try to save the drowning child in the pool, you will scrap your knee, resulting in a small loss of blood. Now, would you say that there is no obligation to save the drowning child, because this violates your bodily autonomy?" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing.", ">\n\nWhat's the morally relevant difference?", ">\n\nThe difference is that if I use my arm to pull a child out of a pool, it's still my arm the whole time, and it continues to be my arm after I pull the child out. Conversely, if I give blood to a child with leukemia, it's no longer my blood.", ">\n\nSo you think bodily autonomy is violated only if you permanently lose bodily tissue?\nTwo questions:\n\nIf I rape someone without permanently taking away any of their bodily tissue, is that not a violation of bodily autonomy?\nLet's say that we know that if you try to save the drowning child in the pool, you will scrap your knee, resulting in a small loss of blood. Now, would you say that there is no obligation to save the drowning child, because this violates your bodily autonomy?", ">\n\nAnother aspect people don't want to talk about is that life at different stages has different relative values. If the woman is likely to die if she carried the fetus to term, while the fetus had a good chance of surviving; most (so-called) pro-life would allow the abortion. This implies that the woman who likely has more friends, and family that knows her, loves her, values her presence, investment society has made in her education and skills, etc, etc. means she is more valuable than the fetus. \npeople don't like to talk about this and/or try to pretend like it doesn't exist but they all would choose the woman or fetus when presented with this scenario so that confirms the two different lives have a different value than each other.\nfor the few people who would choose the fetus or let nature take its course; I imagine this comes from either sexism and/or religion. For some religions (christian-science) medical treatment is going against gods-will. For others (Muslims, some extreme Christain secs) women are less valuable and easily replaceable; mostly just breeding stock and taking care of the house as a side task since they are too cheap/poor to hire maids. Maybe some just really like babies over adults but I fail to understand how this is rational without the religious aspect \nNow that we got that out the way, we all agree that life at different stages has different values, how much do value that woman's ability to make her own choices in life for her happiness, economic situation, etc, vs the fetus who is only known to the woman as even existing?" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing.", ">\n\nWhat's the morally relevant difference?", ">\n\nThe difference is that if I use my arm to pull a child out of a pool, it's still my arm the whole time, and it continues to be my arm after I pull the child out. Conversely, if I give blood to a child with leukemia, it's no longer my blood.", ">\n\nSo you think bodily autonomy is violated only if you permanently lose bodily tissue?\nTwo questions:\n\nIf I rape someone without permanently taking away any of their bodily tissue, is that not a violation of bodily autonomy?\nLet's say that we know that if you try to save the drowning child in the pool, you will scrap your knee, resulting in a small loss of blood. Now, would you say that there is no obligation to save the drowning child, because this violates your bodily autonomy?", ">\n\nAnother aspect people don't want to talk about is that life at different stages has different relative values. If the woman is likely to die if she carried the fetus to term, while the fetus had a good chance of surviving; most (so-called) pro-life would allow the abortion. This implies that the woman who likely has more friends, and family that knows her, loves her, values her presence, investment society has made in her education and skills, etc, etc. means she is more valuable than the fetus. \npeople don't like to talk about this and/or try to pretend like it doesn't exist but they all would choose the woman or fetus when presented with this scenario so that confirms the two different lives have a different value than each other.\nfor the few people who would choose the fetus or let nature take its course; I imagine this comes from either sexism and/or religion. For some religions (christian-science) medical treatment is going against gods-will. For others (Muslims, some extreme Christain secs) women are less valuable and easily replaceable; mostly just breeding stock and taking care of the house as a side task since they are too cheap/poor to hire maids. Maybe some just really like babies over adults but I fail to understand how this is rational without the religious aspect \nNow that we got that out the way, we all agree that life at different stages has different values, how much do value that woman's ability to make her own choices in life for her happiness, economic situation, etc, vs the fetus who is only known to the woman as even existing?", ">\n\nThere's a step you jumped, I think, which is worth pointing out. It sounds like you're equating moral badness with illegality when you make the kidney comparison, but they're not one-to-one. There's things that are immoral which are still important for us to protect legally.\nYou say the government shouldn't force kidney donations. But morally, do you think a person should donate their kidney if they're the only viable match? What about donating their bone marrow, which is much less invasive? Would you feel guilty if you didn't donate? The truth is that someone will die and you could have stopped it. That would weigh on me. I would feel like I did a bad thing." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing.", ">\n\nWhat's the morally relevant difference?", ">\n\nThe difference is that if I use my arm to pull a child out of a pool, it's still my arm the whole time, and it continues to be my arm after I pull the child out. Conversely, if I give blood to a child with leukemia, it's no longer my blood.", ">\n\nSo you think bodily autonomy is violated only if you permanently lose bodily tissue?\nTwo questions:\n\nIf I rape someone without permanently taking away any of their bodily tissue, is that not a violation of bodily autonomy?\nLet's say that we know that if you try to save the drowning child in the pool, you will scrap your knee, resulting in a small loss of blood. Now, would you say that there is no obligation to save the drowning child, because this violates your bodily autonomy?", ">\n\nAnother aspect people don't want to talk about is that life at different stages has different relative values. If the woman is likely to die if she carried the fetus to term, while the fetus had a good chance of surviving; most (so-called) pro-life would allow the abortion. This implies that the woman who likely has more friends, and family that knows her, loves her, values her presence, investment society has made in her education and skills, etc, etc. means she is more valuable than the fetus. \npeople don't like to talk about this and/or try to pretend like it doesn't exist but they all would choose the woman or fetus when presented with this scenario so that confirms the two different lives have a different value than each other.\nfor the few people who would choose the fetus or let nature take its course; I imagine this comes from either sexism and/or religion. For some religions (christian-science) medical treatment is going against gods-will. For others (Muslims, some extreme Christain secs) women are less valuable and easily replaceable; mostly just breeding stock and taking care of the house as a side task since they are too cheap/poor to hire maids. Maybe some just really like babies over adults but I fail to understand how this is rational without the religious aspect \nNow that we got that out the way, we all agree that life at different stages has different values, how much do value that woman's ability to make her own choices in life for her happiness, economic situation, etc, vs the fetus who is only known to the woman as even existing?", ">\n\nThere's a step you jumped, I think, which is worth pointing out. It sounds like you're equating moral badness with illegality when you make the kidney comparison, but they're not one-to-one. There's things that are immoral which are still important for us to protect legally.\nYou say the government shouldn't force kidney donations. But morally, do you think a person should donate their kidney if they're the only viable match? What about donating their bone marrow, which is much less invasive? Would you feel guilty if you didn't donate? The truth is that someone will die and you could have stopped it. That would weigh on me. I would feel like I did a bad thing.", ">\n\nhmmm !delta I actually do think I would feel guilty. Maybe logically the law should mandate that sort of thing. But really, there's just something icky about a mandate like that. I guess that's just my intuition speaking." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing.", ">\n\nWhat's the morally relevant difference?", ">\n\nThe difference is that if I use my arm to pull a child out of a pool, it's still my arm the whole time, and it continues to be my arm after I pull the child out. Conversely, if I give blood to a child with leukemia, it's no longer my blood.", ">\n\nSo you think bodily autonomy is violated only if you permanently lose bodily tissue?\nTwo questions:\n\nIf I rape someone without permanently taking away any of their bodily tissue, is that not a violation of bodily autonomy?\nLet's say that we know that if you try to save the drowning child in the pool, you will scrap your knee, resulting in a small loss of blood. Now, would you say that there is no obligation to save the drowning child, because this violates your bodily autonomy?", ">\n\nAnother aspect people don't want to talk about is that life at different stages has different relative values. If the woman is likely to die if she carried the fetus to term, while the fetus had a good chance of surviving; most (so-called) pro-life would allow the abortion. This implies that the woman who likely has more friends, and family that knows her, loves her, values her presence, investment society has made in her education and skills, etc, etc. means she is more valuable than the fetus. \npeople don't like to talk about this and/or try to pretend like it doesn't exist but they all would choose the woman or fetus when presented with this scenario so that confirms the two different lives have a different value than each other.\nfor the few people who would choose the fetus or let nature take its course; I imagine this comes from either sexism and/or religion. For some religions (christian-science) medical treatment is going against gods-will. For others (Muslims, some extreme Christain secs) women are less valuable and easily replaceable; mostly just breeding stock and taking care of the house as a side task since they are too cheap/poor to hire maids. Maybe some just really like babies over adults but I fail to understand how this is rational without the religious aspect \nNow that we got that out the way, we all agree that life at different stages has different values, how much do value that woman's ability to make her own choices in life for her happiness, economic situation, etc, vs the fetus who is only known to the woman as even existing?", ">\n\nThere's a step you jumped, I think, which is worth pointing out. It sounds like you're equating moral badness with illegality when you make the kidney comparison, but they're not one-to-one. There's things that are immoral which are still important for us to protect legally.\nYou say the government shouldn't force kidney donations. But morally, do you think a person should donate their kidney if they're the only viable match? What about donating their bone marrow, which is much less invasive? Would you feel guilty if you didn't donate? The truth is that someone will die and you could have stopped it. That would weigh on me. I would feel like I did a bad thing.", ">\n\nhmmm !delta I actually do think I would feel guilty. Maybe logically the law should mandate that sort of thing. But really, there's just something icky about a mandate like that. I guess that's just my intuition speaking.", ">\n\nThe problem with a mandate is that some people would really be harmed by having to donate. Mostly for medical reasons, but in the case of surgery some would have other reasons as well, like not being able to afford to take time off while they recover or to pay for doctor visits for any potential complications. We could -- we would -- have ways for people to appeal it if they were called to donate. But donations like these are time sensitive, and there's not always enough time for people to go through the process of proving they would be unduly harmed.\nA mandate would hurt people. And the people it would hurt would be the people who are already struggling, with disabilities or financial instability. It's not fair." ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing.", ">\n\nWhat's the morally relevant difference?", ">\n\nThe difference is that if I use my arm to pull a child out of a pool, it's still my arm the whole time, and it continues to be my arm after I pull the child out. Conversely, if I give blood to a child with leukemia, it's no longer my blood.", ">\n\nSo you think bodily autonomy is violated only if you permanently lose bodily tissue?\nTwo questions:\n\nIf I rape someone without permanently taking away any of their bodily tissue, is that not a violation of bodily autonomy?\nLet's say that we know that if you try to save the drowning child in the pool, you will scrap your knee, resulting in a small loss of blood. Now, would you say that there is no obligation to save the drowning child, because this violates your bodily autonomy?", ">\n\nAnother aspect people don't want to talk about is that life at different stages has different relative values. If the woman is likely to die if she carried the fetus to term, while the fetus had a good chance of surviving; most (so-called) pro-life would allow the abortion. This implies that the woman who likely has more friends, and family that knows her, loves her, values her presence, investment society has made in her education and skills, etc, etc. means she is more valuable than the fetus. \npeople don't like to talk about this and/or try to pretend like it doesn't exist but they all would choose the woman or fetus when presented with this scenario so that confirms the two different lives have a different value than each other.\nfor the few people who would choose the fetus or let nature take its course; I imagine this comes from either sexism and/or religion. For some religions (christian-science) medical treatment is going against gods-will. For others (Muslims, some extreme Christain secs) women are less valuable and easily replaceable; mostly just breeding stock and taking care of the house as a side task since they are too cheap/poor to hire maids. Maybe some just really like babies over adults but I fail to understand how this is rational without the religious aspect \nNow that we got that out the way, we all agree that life at different stages has different values, how much do value that woman's ability to make her own choices in life for her happiness, economic situation, etc, vs the fetus who is only known to the woman as even existing?", ">\n\nThere's a step you jumped, I think, which is worth pointing out. It sounds like you're equating moral badness with illegality when you make the kidney comparison, but they're not one-to-one. There's things that are immoral which are still important for us to protect legally.\nYou say the government shouldn't force kidney donations. But morally, do you think a person should donate their kidney if they're the only viable match? What about donating their bone marrow, which is much less invasive? Would you feel guilty if you didn't donate? The truth is that someone will die and you could have stopped it. That would weigh on me. I would feel like I did a bad thing.", ">\n\nhmmm !delta I actually do think I would feel guilty. Maybe logically the law should mandate that sort of thing. But really, there's just something icky about a mandate like that. I guess that's just my intuition speaking.", ">\n\nThe problem with a mandate is that some people would really be harmed by having to donate. Mostly for medical reasons, but in the case of surgery some would have other reasons as well, like not being able to afford to take time off while they recover or to pay for doctor visits for any potential complications. We could -- we would -- have ways for people to appeal it if they were called to donate. But donations like these are time sensitive, and there's not always enough time for people to go through the process of proving they would be unduly harmed.\nA mandate would hurt people. And the people it would hurt would be the people who are already struggling, with disabilities or financial instability. It's not fair.", ">\n\nLet's say a woman consented to sex, but took every legal possible way to prevent pregnancy that was available to her. She becomes pregnant. Are you saying that forcing her to carry and bear a child she does not want, that is feeding off of her without her consent, and medically affecting her body should be allowed because it got past all security measures to do so?\n\nu should bite the bullet.\n\nWhy? Why would you force someone to give birth, knowing that the child is not wanted, and would probably be hated/not given a proper life? Our foster care system is already overloaded, and adoption is inherently traumatic. Why force the child to suffer?" ]

[ "/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nI think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does \"if the fetus was a fully fledged person\" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as \"fully fledged\"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even \"fully fledged people\"?\nI guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define \"fully fledged person\" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything.", ">\n\nhmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say \"fully-fledged\" should mean \"equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth\"\n\nBut if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section\n\nbut since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. \nThis is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb.", ">\n\nI think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood?", ">\n\nI think one should be allowed even if it weren't ones fault.\nPeople can be forced to pay taxes, have jury duty, have a duty to assist, conscription even, all for the common good, but not forced to donate blood to safe a life?\nIn particular, countries that have conscription, forcing persons to risk their lives in the interest of the state should have compulsory blood donation to safe a life. Being forced to donate some blood is very insignificant compared to conscription.", ">\n\nThe analogy that was most convincing to me was this:\nThere are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\nNow, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\nIf you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception.", ">\n\n\nVery few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.\n\nyep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.\n\nShould we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?\n\nABSOLUTELY", ">\n\nTo further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation?", ">\n\nBecause the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not.", ">\n\n\nDo you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?\n\nyes. \n\nOf course not.\n\nwhy not?", ">\n\nBecause you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent.", ">\n\nBut assuming guilt is verifiable, bodily autonomy is absolutely restricted. And the more the person is \"at fault\", the more their bodily autonomy is restricted. It can be a fine, it can be removal of driver's license, it can be jail time, and it can be jail time that entails practically slavery (mostly, but not only, in the US).\nI think being forced to give blood or body parts is just another level somewhere in the middle, which society just doesn't do because it's not \"normal\" in our eyes, but I don't think it's less or more moral than life in prison when someone does verifiable harm.", ">\n\nOthers have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.\nLegally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's \"fault\" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.\nBut what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.\nSo you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say \"cold blooded murder is wrong\" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion.", ">\n\n\nthat it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else.\n\nWhy not? You think the 45 states that limit abortions after the 3rd trimester need to change those laws?", ">\n\nNow, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.\nNow, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our \"what is intuitively moral\" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)\nDeontology says that you do \"what is right in the moment\". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that \"no rights are absolute\", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.\n(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should \"maximise satisfaction (or happiness)\" of everyone (or more commonly known as \"the end justifies the means\"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.\nBut act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.\nNow, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be valid to different people.\nFrom my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.\nThe pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.\nI cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.\nI can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and \"being shunned for being unvaccinated\" is also a consequence of that.", ">\n\nWouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) \nIf we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? \nAlso, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other.", ">\n\n\nThe only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?\n\nThis analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves \"magical\" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.\nBut regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove.", ">\n\nIt sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what. I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free? \nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\nThe level of inconvenience matters in my opinion. Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience. Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them. \nPersonally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.\nThe vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience. Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway.", ">\n\n\nWhat if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.\n\nWhat if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?\n\nYou have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.\n\nWhat if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.", ">\n\n\nThis doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.\n\nOf course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. \nYour initial post stated \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else\" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with \"Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else.\"\nNow, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.\nBut this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.).", ">\n\nThis is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function.", ">\n\n\nA child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. \n\nNor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. \n\nNot sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph.", ">\n\n\nOf course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.\n\nNo? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing.", ">\n\nWhat's the morally relevant difference?", ">\n\nThe difference is that if I use my arm to pull a child out of a pool, it's still my arm the whole time, and it continues to be my arm after I pull the child out. Conversely, if I give blood to a child with leukemia, it's no longer my blood.", ">\n\nSo you think bodily autonomy is violated only if you permanently lose bodily tissue?\nTwo questions:\n\nIf I rape someone without permanently taking away any of their bodily tissue, is that not a violation of bodily autonomy?\nLet's say that we know that if you try to save the drowning child in the pool, you will scrap your knee, resulting in a small loss of blood. Now, would you say that there is no obligation to save the drowning child, because this violates your bodily autonomy?", ">\n\nAnother aspect people don't want to talk about is that life at different stages has different relative values. If the woman is likely to die if she carried the fetus to term, while the fetus had a good chance of surviving; most (so-called) pro-life would allow the abortion. This implies that the woman who likely has more friends, and family that knows her, loves her, values her presence, investment society has made in her education and skills, etc, etc. means she is more valuable than the fetus. \npeople don't like to talk about this and/or try to pretend like it doesn't exist but they all would choose the woman or fetus when presented with this scenario so that confirms the two different lives have a different value than each other.\nfor the few people who would choose the fetus or let nature take its course; I imagine this comes from either sexism and/or religion. For some religions (christian-science) medical treatment is going against gods-will. For others (Muslims, some extreme Christain secs) women are less valuable and easily replaceable; mostly just breeding stock and taking care of the house as a side task since they are too cheap/poor to hire maids. Maybe some just really like babies over adults but I fail to understand how this is rational without the religious aspect \nNow that we got that out the way, we all agree that life at different stages has different values, how much do value that woman's ability to make her own choices in life for her happiness, economic situation, etc, vs the fetus who is only known to the woman as even existing?", ">\n\nThere's a step you jumped, I think, which is worth pointing out. It sounds like you're equating moral badness with illegality when you make the kidney comparison, but they're not one-to-one. There's things that are immoral which are still important for us to protect legally.\nYou say the government shouldn't force kidney donations. But morally, do you think a person should donate their kidney if they're the only viable match? What about donating their bone marrow, which is much less invasive? Would you feel guilty if you didn't donate? The truth is that someone will die and you could have stopped it. That would weigh on me. I would feel like I did a bad thing.", ">\n\nhmmm !delta I actually do think I would feel guilty. Maybe logically the law should mandate that sort of thing. But really, there's just something icky about a mandate like that. I guess that's just my intuition speaking.", ">\n\nThe problem with a mandate is that some people would really be harmed by having to donate. Mostly for medical reasons, but in the case of surgery some would have other reasons as well, like not being able to afford to take time off while they recover or to pay for doctor visits for any potential complications. We could -- we would -- have ways for people to appeal it if they were called to donate. But donations like these are time sensitive, and there's not always enough time for people to go through the process of proving they would be unduly harmed.\nA mandate would hurt people. And the people it would hurt would be the people who are already struggling, with disabilities or financial instability. It's not fair.", ">\n\nLet's say a woman consented to sex, but took every legal possible way to prevent pregnancy that was available to her. She becomes pregnant. Are you saying that forcing her to carry and bear a child she does not want, that is feeding off of her without her consent, and medically affecting her body should be allowed because it got past all security measures to do so?\n\nu should bite the bullet.\n\nWhy? Why would you force someone to give birth, knowing that the child is not wanted, and would probably be hated/not given a proper life? Our foster care system is already overloaded, and adoption is inherently traumatic. Why force the child to suffer?", ">\n\nHonestly OP just read Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion.” She starts with the premise that a fetus is a person with a right to life. The conclusion is that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes another’s right to life." ]