Anonymous #1 5d

Do you guys think that adding context to a quote automatically makes it better? Because half the time I see the full context it’s worse.

59

Anonymous OP 5d

Give an example

-4

Anonymous #1 5d

He was doing a pro-life vs pro-choice debate and someone brought up sexual violence against children. During the debate, the opposing party asked him, “If your daughter was raped and got pregnant from that, would she carry the baby?” Charlie was a bit put off by that question, which it is a very extreme question to ask, but from experience, a very REAL thing that happens often.

29

Anonymous #2 5d

He avoided the question at first, saying that it was a disturbing image in his mind, and the other person replied, “Yes, it is disturbing, but it’s a very REAL thing that happens to little girls ALL OVER the country.” In which Charlie responds, “The answer is yes, she would give birth to the child.”

45

Anonymous #2 5d

It does not happen “often” enough to account for the insane abortion numbers in this country

-6

Anonymous #3 5d

“and because of that, your honor, we should ban abortion for all. even when it does happen to underage girls! i would disturbingly force my daughter to birth her rapists child as should the rest of the country!” #3 core

25

Anonymous #1 5d

In what context is calling someone a racial slur during a “debate” okay 😂

13

Anonymous #5 5d

Quote you are referring to please. Chop chop

0

Anonymous #2 5d

The reasoning that you didn’t put here was, take an evil thing (rape) and bring a good thing out of evil (new life). Sounds crazy to you but it’s not ill-intended.

5

Anonymous #4 5d

Didn’t say we should ban abortion, so it’s interesting you jumped there. He was trying to address the culture of abortion and how women are being gaslit into thinking killing their babies is the best way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy 👌🏽 he was anti abortion because it went against his ethical code but currently, women are and for the foreseeable future be free to kill their kids

-4

Anonymous #3 5d

A fetus isn’t a child. It has no awareness, no memories, no consciousness, and no feelings.

16

Anonymous #2 5d

Still human. The argument is on where human value is applied and when it’s not. If it’s human, you either do or do not. It’s a moral standpoint.

-1

Anonymous #3 5d

it is interesting I jumped there. its interesting that I watched what happened in my own state after row v wade was overturned. its also interesting you probably like cuck porn because thats it reminds you of the only time your parents expressed love in front of you if you cant tell, i don’t care about having an actual debate with you, i just want to make fun of your ideas. im only spelling it out because im not sure you will recognize it otherwise

-1

Anonymous #4 5d

That’s one way to deal with not being able to handle discussions.

6

Anonymous #4 5d

Projecting much?

0

Anonymous #2 5d

Whatever you need to tell yourself to justify killing a baby 👌🏽 you’re taking away the memories, feelings, mind, and awareness that would’ve 100% existed had you (or some unfortunate complication) not intervened. It’s the same way every humans life started/why do you get to decide they can’t live the rest of their life?

-2

Anonymous #3 5d

It’s not a baby

1

Anonymous OP 5d

You’re right, it’s human.

3

Anonymous OP 5d

Claiming that babies aren’t babies, doesn’t make the baby not a baby. It just makes you either a liar or delusional

-1

Anonymous OP 5d

The state of a human does not determine the moral worth and value of that human. If you think that, you are pro eugenics.

0

Anonymous #3 5d

It’s not a baby. Not a human either. A fetus isn’t human.

4

Anonymous OP 5d

It’s a human fetus.

1

Anonymous OP 5d

If you took a dna sample, it would show the baby is 100% human… so not sure why you think it magically transforms into a human once it reaches the newborn stage of, say it with me now, HUMAN development

1