Demonrat

But it won’t win. A significant majority of Americans support the right to an abortion. The most sick, twisted, and evil thing in the world are conservative Christians looking to force their hypocritical ideology into the fabric of American government. Face it dude, religion is dying and the conservative ideology is dying a slow, painful death especially among Gen Z and with the changing demographics of the US. It’s only a matter of time.

I saw the following argument on Reddit which makes complete logical sense against pro-life arguments. And for the record, I’m completely for bodily autonomy to include being against vaccine mandates before anybody starts that argument: Aborting a fetus isn’t killing it, it’s acting on the fact that the carrier no longer consents to providing life support at their own risk. If some guy was only alive because he was getting my blood, and I stopped giving my blood, I didn’t kill him. Circumstances killed him. The fact that he couldn’t survive without my blood killed him. No one should be able to force me to give up my body to provide for someone else’s life that way. And it’s the same for anyone who gets pregnant. They shouldn’t be forced to give life support. They’re talking about the personhood of a fetus, but they’re completely neglecting the personhood of the person who is now forced to carry, nurture and sustain another life against their will and at their own risk.

You guys are right, that last part was a generalization. There are pro-lifers who are very charitable. But like @Hunter Rose is arguing, nothing else is being passed to take care of the babies once they are born. I bet if the government provided healthcare, resources, and money to pregnant women along with their babies for years after they are born you would see less abortions. Rather than dealing with the source of the issue in the majority of cases (desperation and poverty), state governments have decided to trample over women’s rights and ban abortion.

I'll bite on the obvious post meant to bring about an emotional response. I will attempt to describe this from the emotional point-of-view of a pro-lifer (complete satire) with my counterarguments in parentheses. Panel 1: Fetus's hands are out, which makes it seem like he is reaching out to the world. Fetus really wants to join the world. The area surrounding him is colored blue because blue is a calming color. (That fetus has no cognition and can't think about anything. The eyes of a fetus don't open until week 27-28, so an accurate depiction of this piece of work would be complete darkness.) Panel 2: Huge, scary scissors that are wide open are coming down to murder the fetus. The blue area around the fetus is significantly more strained because of the scissors. The fetus is beginning to freak out due to the position of it's hands and feet. (Fetus would have no idea this is happening, and the use of forceps directly on a baby and other tools are typically only used for late term abortions, which are very rare and typically only accomplished for medical emergencies.) Panel 3: The big scary scissors have come together, meaning the fetus has been cut and the fetus is seeing blood dripping down it's face. The clash between red and blue makes this panel particularly scary, knowing that the fetus is now gone. I'm basically crying right now. (See above argument for panel 2. Fetus knows nothing and feels nothing. Fetus never knew it existed, and it's the right of the mother to determine whether or not she wants this fetus to enter the world) Panel 4: Some dumb THOT just got that baby cut so she could laugh and party and have a drink in her hand. She got rid of that fetus because she is an irresponsible monster and just wants to laugh and have fun. (Women are allowed to have fun, and they are allowed to control everything that is in their body. It does not affect you AT ALL what ANY woman on the Earth does besides those closest to you. You need to focus on those people rather than this woman in panel 4 enjoying herself which is her God given right.) Pro-lifers don't care for life at all. They want her to be saddled with debt taking care of this baby in a society that doesn't give two craps about the fetus once its born. This picture might be the most ridiculous piece of work I have ever seen in my entire life. Bravo for posting such an obvious piece of bait trash.

Bro, you need to take a chill pill. You’re the one making personal attacks based on 3 tongue-in-cheek but partly true comments made on an Internet forum. The E-7 is a stopgap, already obsolete piece of crap that shouldn’t be anywhere around a near-peer adversary, and it’s just another example of a failed acquisition process just like the KC-46. Put that on top of, from what I’ve heard, an E-3 community full of toxic ABM leaders (see Tinker OG recently removed from command) that grew up in a fractured system and you have a recipe for disaster. I’m not being a bully or troll, but a realist. Edit: I also like how if somebody says something you disagree with or take personally, they are immediately a “troll”, or “bully”, or “Karen”, or “idiot”. Nobody can make a joke, say something slightly controversial, or poke fun at something without a white knight flying in ready to accuse them of being a troll.

Man, there is a ton of butthurt all over this forum for some of the most insignificant comments. I call it like I see it, and I'm relaying things directly told to me from people in the community and based on my interactions with ABMs.

For the record, I’m not an 11R. But I know some 11Rs and have worked with some ABMs and what I have said is the sense I get from both communities.

You are an “AC” that basically has to answer to an ABM SLIC “Msn/CC” who probably went to Weapons School and thinks he/she is equivalent to a fighter pilot. Not my cup of tea.

You didn’t address my next post that addressed the “wall of irrelevant text”, linking the emotional argument with a logical argument. You cannot call a zygote a human being and not afford it every right a human being has in the eyes of the law. It makes no sense.

The Wedgetail may be a piece of junk, but I wouldn't mind getting a sweet 737 type rating out of it. Too bad you are still a front-ender beholden to some goober in the back.

You guys are right. I'm willing to change my point-of-view on this subject. I still think something needs to be done about disinformation because it's another significant crack in the foundation of American society, but the "Ministry of Truth" isn't the best way to get there. It's a problem where the solution is basically an overhaul of the education system, which probably isn't going to happen in our lifetime. Arguing on the internet may be pointless, but after seeing that my argument got to the point of being indefensible it was an easy call to make.

It's an emotional argument meant to describe the absurdity behind calling a fertilized egg a person using a whole-of-society point-of-view beyond religion and science. It accounts for laws and norms that help prevent radical Y'all Qaeda/Q-anon/Handmaid's Tale/Authoritarian/Communist/Far-Left Antifa beliefs that aren't compatible with a modern day America rooted in what's in the Constitution. If a zygote, fetus, or whatever inside the womb is a person, then shouldn't they be afforded ALL of the rights a human being gets according to the law? Why are we picking and choosing what rights a human being fetus gets and doesn't get? For your arguments to work, it either has to be all or nothing. It makes NO logical sense to say "a zygote is a human being," but then not afford it EVERY right a human being has. Just like Bible Thumpers cherry pick the Bible to fit their arguments, pro-life individuals want to cherry pick the rights of what what they call a human being. "Yeah, that fetus is a human being according to science and religion, but it doesn't get afforded all the rights associated with being a human because it's a fetus. How about we call a fetus 3/5ths of a human?" That argument makes zero sense. Either the fetus is a human being and has full protection of the law, or the fetus is not a human being and has no protection of the law. In the second case, the mother is 100% in control of her body and is the entity that has the protection of the law.

Ok, let's take the scientific viewpoint that is "clear and unequivocal" and see how that plays out in society. A human being is created at fertilization because it creates human specific tissues, DNA, and whatever else. 6 weeks later my one night stand girl shows me the human being creation test and it says "You have a human being in there according to science!" We are both freaking out because once you have a positive human being creation test you have to go to the doctor within 24 hours to confirm the presence of a new human being. We go to the doctor and he confirms the brand new human because of the scientific definition. At this point we fill out all of the paperwork, name the 6-week old human (age now starts at conception), and make sure we get a social security card. We aren't married, so the human being creation certificate lists me and the mother as unwed. I am now on the hook for child support if I fail to perform my fatherly duties. If the mother does anything to endanger the new human being while he/she is in the womb, she may face murder charges and I may face criminal charges as well. The mother has insurance, but it doesn't fully cover human creation so we are on the hook for thousands of dollars of fees. Too bad the government doesn't provide some form of healthcare even though they require every woman to birth their newly created human beings. Also, once the human being makes it appearance everybody else doesn't give two s about that baby. We go home after the doctor's appointment and we are both terrified. We don't want to do anything that could affect the new 6-week old human being in the womb. Some weeks go by and the stress of the situation got to the mother. She ended up drinking alcohol with the human being inside. As the father it is my duty to report the woman to human being protective services. I do so, and she is summarily arrested for endangering the life of a human being. She ends up being placed in a facility for unfit mothers, where she is watched 24/7 due to having a human being in her womb. The government has decided the girl's family and father will foot the entire cost of being in this facility because of their responsibility toward the new human being. If you haven't caught on by now, using the scientific definition is still absolute buffoonery. The "scientific definition argument" is just another red herring argument that doesn't take the whole situation into account. Calling a zygote a human being in the eyes of the law due to the scientific definition is asinine and has negative societal implications way beyond abortion. Women will bear a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the life of this "human being," and their personal freedoms will be severely limited while pregnant. That doesn't sound very American to me, and the enforcers have to be the government. I'm sure @ViperMan wants more government intervention. That's probably his dream come true.

"Assault on the Constitution and the American ideas of freedom and liberty?" Since when did forcing conservative Christian values on the populace as a whole in a nation with freedom of religion count as "the American ideas of freedom of liberty?" If anything, forcing religious ethical and moral opinions on the entire nation is an assault on the Constitution and the American ideas of freedom and liberty. Christians then take the Bible and basically any passage and warp it with twisted logic to support their claims that the Bible sees life as starting in the womb. You can basically interpret anything in the Bible exactly the way you want to support whatever argument you are making. This leads to a lifestyle where Christian women go get an abortion, then turn around and scream about others who do the same. You see it all the time, and it's quite pathetic. I always laugh when I see somebody say "we murdered X amount of babies." I truly think nobody really believes that having an abortion is equivalent to killing a 1-month old baby. Show a video of a woman having an abortion, and then show a video of somebody murdering a 1-month old baby. Which is going to garner a stronger reaction across the vast majority of people? You don't truly believe that aborting a fetus is equivalent to murdering a baby who is out of the womb. If you really believe that a person is made at conception, then put your money where your mouth is. Start supporting research that helps stop miscarraige, because there are nearly 1 million of those every year where "people" end up dying. If you regard abortion as murder, then you would support first degree murder sentences for 1 in 4 American women who end up getting abortions by the age of 45. I hope that's not your wife, your daughter, your grand daughter, or anybody you hold close. I hope I can start taking out life insurance policies on my newly conceived "person." If you kill a pregnant woman, it better be a double homicide. If you skip out on a woman while she is pregnant? Better start to pay child support while their "person" is in their first trimester. The list goes on and on with the implications of calling a fetus a "person" at conception. If you want all that, then more power to you I guess. That's not the type of society I want to live in.

I'm not railing against being a white conservative Christian. It's a perfectly valid worldview, but something has to be said for changing demographics and for preventing extremist policies (both far-left and far-right) to permeate American society. You are right, government overreach into the lives of private citizens is absolutely an issue that needs to be reigned in, but there are some (limited) situations where the government should be able to operate to safeguard US interests. No system will ever be perfect and the government likes to push and exceed its legal authorities, so I appreciate people like you who are willing to call the government out when it misuses its power. I just think absolute government distrust is a step too far, especially if you serve in the military.

The Hunter Biden Laptop Russian Disinformation subject is so politically charged that getting to the truth of that situation is as futile as arguing on the internet. I do think it's extremely unfortunate for America that Russian hackers can leak politically sensitive information in a bid to sway US elections. Information that is illegally acquired by an external actor and then presented to the American public to serve purposes that are not in the interest of the United States is disinformation. Now, if the source is an American journalist or organization that legally had access to Hunter Biden's laptop information and leaked it to the press, then that is a different story. If that is the case here (it's basically impossible to find non-partisan information on the Hunter Biden laptop subject), then the information within that laptop is fair game. I don't worship President Biden like some people worship "God-Emperor" Trump, but both of them have done things that I agree with and things that I disagree with. I still find value in at least presenting dissenting viewpoints on a forum like this. We all will be working with, working for, and leading members who may have differing worldviews than the majority conservative Christians within the USAF operations world. Practicing some tolerance and understanding of why a person thinks the way they do can go a long way in connecting with people who hold different beliefs and values, and part of that starts with at least being exposed to different viewpoints. Trying to change people's minds is almost always a waste of time, but getting them to at least consider a different opinion for one millisecond has value. I've been getting downvoted like crazy, but I expect that in an echo chamber of a profession mostly made up of people with similar worldviews.

I’ve been a long time lurker of these forums. I’ve always wanted to post to provide some different points of view from the white conservative Christian background/worldview that dominates these forums and the USAF pilot community as a whole. However, it seems like it’s an exercise in futility and a massive waste of time. Nobody is going to change their mind on any topic no matter how convincing of an argument one puts forth. Emotional reactions like “it’s the beginning of the end for free speech in America” with zero substance galvanize the majority on this forum with any dissent summarily stamped out. These type of reactions are prevalent in all forms of social media, preventing constructive discourse and garnering reactions like “I can’t believe there are people who support the government deciding what is disinformation or not like in the book 1984 with the Ministry of Truth.” The fact of the matter is that disinformation is a serious problem in all of society and something needs to be done to combat it, especially from external sources who are looking to cause harm in America. If you can verify the source as a Russian or Chinese internet troll, then the information should cease to exist. This is an extremely limited portion of the disinformation that is out there. Free speech stays free speech within America, but countering misuse of our First Amendment Rights by external governments looking to generate chaos in the US is a national priority. I definitely share the concerns shown in this forum about government overreach, but I think a balance can be found with the proper authorities in place and a strong legal review of any actions taken by the organization. I think it’s better than doing nothing and letting malign actors slowly rip the fabric of US society apart.

Something has to be done to combat disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive information made by unreliable sources like Russian and Chinese troll farms. There are too many dumb people in this world who live in their disinformation echo chamber. There are limited exceptions to the First Amendment, and fraud is one of them. While all disinformation couldn't fall under the fraud exception to the First Amendment, there is a subset of disinformation that could. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860211 for a better argument than I can give since I am not a lawyer. Your response is extremely emotional, especially with saying something like "the Constitution is Dead." Take a step back and put on an analytical lens. Not everything Biden does is an extremist "end of the Constitution action," and the same held true for Trump during his Presidency.

Hey guys, long timer lurker, first time poster. This thread is rapidly devolving much like the other locked thread. I don't think anybody is going to change their position on mRNA vaccines/military mandates/masks/general mandates/school closures on a forum for Air Force flyers. You could have George Washington resurrected from the dead, take a position, and people would still disagree with him. At some point all of us are going to have to just accept that people will always have differing perspectives. There may be negative outcomes for our choices, but that's life, and we all are responsible for the choices we make. Me personally? I'll be the first in line to get my 69th booster shot, and I have no requirement for anybody else to do the same.