You want to be taken seriously, phrase the debate in a way that acknowledges the unborn child’s existence as a different being from the mother.
Everyone I've seen respond to that idiotic argument has done just that, those responses have just been ignored in favor of repeating the same stupid assertion repeatedly like you just did because apparently beating up a strawman is easier.
Anything else is dishonest, just as much as saying this is about the mother’s body. It’s not.
Yes, however could people come to the mistaken impression that an argument about a women's right to control her own body is about her, truly people are just so silly to think that women are people.
'It wasn't a racially-motivated excuse to harass a bunch of black students, it was a baseless fishing expedition to harass a bunch of people and it was just a coincidence that they were all black' does not make for the excuse the lying sheriff might think it does.
If someone wants to frame free speech as consequence-free speech then they have essentially neutered the term and made it useless since they are describing something that has never existed.
Even when you may be free from government penalties for acting terrible there has always been social consequences for acting in ways that the society around you doesn't agree with, from people not wanting to be around you to active shunning you, so someone complaining that social media is 'attacking free speech' is essentially complaining that something that the speaker never had is under assault.
That's like saying that drinking alcohol causes drunken behavior so drinking lemonade also causes drunken behavior. Even if one category of content has a correlation with an act(and so far all you've provided is an assertion to that effect) that doesn't automatically follow that another category would have a similar correlation, you would still need to demonstrate the latter by providing evidence of the link.
It's called the internet, and that's why politicians hate it so much.
The best thing we can do to reduce abortion is to increase access to comprehensive sex education and contraception while also making the having and raising of a child much more affordable for those who choose to have children.
Ah, but that would involve the dreaded Socialism and require admitting that the heinous and super-sinful 'sex' thing exists, both much worse crime than checks pro-birther notes 'murder' apparently.
Forced pregnancy is slavery, hey look, other people can do that too.
Another way to put it perhaps would be that they care about what's in a woman's body only so far as it doesn't require anything of them.
Pushing for and passing laws that control what other people are allowed to do? Perfectly fine.
Pushing for and passing laws that might take money out of their pockets to help those other people? Absolutely not.
any “smart person”(lol) knows to never talk to the police.
Minor but important typo in your comment there.
'Hey I know that a ruling that's been on the books for decades is slated to be overturned leaving women significantly worse off, but let's talk about my cats and how dogs are great because they know their place!'
Bloody hell does that man need someone to whack him with a rolled up newspaper with a stern 'No, bad exec!' any time he reaches for a communications device to share some of his 'inspiring' messages.
There's not being able to read the room and then there's trying to do a comedy act at a funeral.
But even then there's an option to say 'no', which I'm fine with, in my hypothetical making use of the pro-birther argument that your bodily autonomy can be usurped if someone else needs it that would not be an option, turning it from a choice to mandatory where everyone would be an organ donor whether they wanted to be or not.
Truly your mind is a strange and erratic place if you think that was an answer to his question...
So sites aren't allowed to moderate unless that moderation is allowed under federal law, setting aside that pesky first amendment which is what actually allows moderation 230 is a federal law so that should cover all moderation choices except 230 was allowing platforms to moderate conservative values like pro-terrorism, anti-vax and holocaust denial so a state law needed to be put in place that both drastically reduced platforms' ability to moderate but didn't touch the federal law that covers all moderation...
Oh yeah, clear as mud.
Common misconception, while there certainly are lunatics and idiots that make it into office it's probably a safe bet to assume that the ones making insane statements/laws are not stupid but corrupt.
They know or should know the problems with what they are saying/doing they just bank on not enough people catching and/or calling them out on it.
If the court is that broken and corrupt, and at this point it's certainly starting to look like it, then public pressure like that might do squat for the court but it could be used in other ways.
I've heard many a whining about expanding the court by the same people who stacked it in their favor, having it openly ripping off the mask of neutrality and going straight for partisan politics certainly seems like a good justification to push to turn that into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Hell, even if all the constant calling out does it ensure that any time the justice's names are brought up it's seen in a negative light that would still be worthwhile; they want to screw over millions then they should get to enjoy a public reputation to match.
When they started censorship over politics, people’s political views, and political rhetoric they crossed a line.Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
... what? Just to be clear are you arguing that Twitch should be sued for taking down a video of a mass-murder, because that's what it seems like you're saying.
Also it's not possible to infringe upon a right you don't have, and as you seem(though again I could be misreading your comment so by all means clarify) to be arguing that social media is infringing upon your first amendment rights that's just wrong as you have no first amendment rights to use someone else's property to speak from against their wishes