Sally's temp

Isn't that normal for like circumcision

it really isn't.

Okay then pick a new topic and we'll do that

It has to be a topic I know very well about

Okay you can pick

Why trans people should have rights

What kinda rights

Sex change

Okay why do you think they should?

Trans people should have the right to sex changes because everyone deserves control over their own body and identity. For trans people, transitioning helps them live as their true selves - it can reduce depression, and suicide risk, and improves overall wellbeing. Denying them this right would be denying them basic healthcare and human dignity, we'd be denying who they truly are at the heart.

I think trans people should not have access to gender affirming care because I belive being trans is a form (or result) of mental illness. If we allow people to mutilate their bodies in that way, we're failing them. It's lwk like if someone told you they were struggling with depression and wanted to self harm so you give them the knife and tell them to go for it. You hear stories about people de transitioning and talking about how destroyed their bodies are, and most of them did it very young

I understand your point - people should be protected from harm. But gender-affirming care isn’t about hurting trans people - it’s about helping them live safely and happily in their own skin. Every major medical organization recognizes that it reduces depression and suicide rates. The few who detransition don’t erase the fact that the vast majority of trans people feel better and healthier after transitioning. Denying them care is what actually puts them at risk - not giving it

But changing your gender is never one quick thing. No matter what they do they'll never feel like the other gender, because they never will be. It's just an attempt to get the people around them to conform to their view of themselves

Not true at all. Being trans is all about how they feel - trans people feel like they have been born in the wrong body, the wrong gender

You're right, it's similar to the way a skinny person with anorexia believes they're fat even when they absolutely are not. Would you tell the anorexic girl that she's fat and tell her to get a tummy tuck?

How

Legally: Murder means unlawfully killing a person; a fetus isn’t legally a person until birth in most places.
Biologically: A fetus is dependent and not yet conscious or self-aware.
Ethically: Ending a potential life is different from killing an actual person.

So abortion is a medical procedure, not a criminal act.

Legally - where do we draw the line? When do we legally consider them to be real people?
Biologically - what about people with special needs? They're dependent but it'd be a crime to kill them
Ethically - when does that "potential life" turn to an "actual person"?

Legally: Murder means the unlawful killing of a person — and under the law, personhood begins after birth. That’s why abortion isn’t treated as murder anywhere in U.S. law; the fetus doesn’t have independent legal rights until it’s born.
Biologically: Life is a process, not a switch — sperm and eggs are alive too, but we don’t call them people. A fetus depends entirely on the pregnant person’s body; it can’t exist independently. Biologists see viability (when it can survive outside the womb) as a key marker, and that happens much later in pregnancy.
Ethically: “Potential life” isn’t the same as “actual personhood.” We protect existing, sentient individuals who can feel pain, think, and have experiences. Before that stage, ethical priority belongs to the person already living — the pregnant individual.

Legally - what if a man kills a baby while the baby is 35 weeks old, still in his mother's womb. Is that murder? Or is it okay? If it is murder, then why isn't it if the mom does the same? Why does she have the right to chose whether this human being lives or dies, simply based on whats convenient for her?
Biologically - you said we don't call them people, are you saying life is objective? Like the answer to "when does life start" might be different by each person? If so, why would we be allowed to kill babies based on something objective? And again going back to the special needs scenario, there are lots of people who are entirely dependant on other people to survive but they're still human and if they were to be killed, it would absolutely be murder. And even a newborn baby relies entirely on other people. So why wouldn't we also kill newborns and people with disabilities, if killing anyone who relies on others to survive is okay?
Ethically - I get what you're saying, but babies in the womb are alive lol. It's a beautiful thing, pregnant women can sometimes feel their baby kick and hiccup from inside of them.

Look, I understand why abortion feels like it could be murder — it’s a life developing in the womb, and that can be emotionally powerful. But if we look at it carefully, that’s not how the law or science define it.

Legally, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person. In most countries, a person is someone who has been born alive. That’s why if someone intentionally kills a baby after birth, it’s murder — but if someone harms a fetus, the law treats it differently. Many states have fetal homicide laws, but even those recognize that a fetus is not the same as a born person; otherwise, abortion would automatically be illegal everywhere. When a woman chooses an abortion, it’s a legal medical procedure. Consent matters — it’s not the same as someone else taking a life.
Biologically, life doesn’t suddenly start at conception or birth; it’s a continuum. A sperm and egg are alive on their own. A fetus is alive too. But being biologically alive doesn’t automatically make something a person. Personhood is about characteristics like consciousness, self-awareness, and the ability to survive independently. That’s why society draws moral and legal lines at viability or birth, not at conception. Science shows us potential life, but the law and ethics define what counts as a person deserving of full legal protections.
Ethically, this isn’t about convenience or ‘just killing a baby.’ It’s about recognizing that the pregnant person’s body, health, and life are directly affected. Pregnancy isn’t just a minor inconvenience — it’s a major medical and life-altering event. Giving a woman the choice respects her autonomy while balancing the developing life of the fetus. Abortion is a moral and personal decision, and framing it as murder oversimplifies a deeply complex issue.

So, while it’s understandable to emotionally equate abortion with killing, legally it’s not murder, biologically it’s not a person yet, and ethically it’s a decision about bodily autonomy. Calling it murder ignores the nuances of law, science, and morality.

This is just ai now, if you wanna have a real conversation abt it yk u can dm me but if ur just gonna use ai I'm not gonna respond

im not using ai

gang want me to screen record me typing this shit? Just bc when i wanna get my point across i uses proper grammar in agurements - and i acc pay atention in my english classes - and check for the right spelling doesnt mean its f**king ai

(ik shit spelling bc im typing fast)

Hey its fine, it just struck me as odd because you didn't answer any of my questions and gave me a very general and politically correct answer so it just kinda stood out to me that it didn't feel real, and it did turn out to be ai. That's okay but it kinda wastes my time yk I'm tryna compare thoughts and I find out I'm comparing with ai 😭

but u really wernt - i dont use ai and i f**king hate it bro

If this is stressing u out we don't have to debate abt it, I just like talking about my faith

How is this stressing me out tho? I;m tryna get my point across by giving u straight facts - and ur turning around saying its ai

If it's not then we can continue, when does life start?

is there any point in cotinuring at this point? its clear ur mind isnt gonna change and tbh we all have dif opinions

I just think it's interesting and I wanna have a real conversation

We were? werent we not

Until chat gpt took over

ykw think that - it wasn't
Just because you're small minded and ik how to write proper arguments, does not mean I use Ai

❌🧢

I agree with the abortion one, but not so much the pill. Contraceptives are a means to avoid direct abortion in my mind. You get pregnant, you raise the baby. End of discussion. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Yeah I get that, it's just I believe that the second the sperm gets to the egg thats when life begins and the morning after pill is technically stopping life but that I'm more iffy on

Fair points

Well well well we have a scientist here

Real

It doesn't matter if it was caused from incest or rape, it is still a living being.

Fr

Yessss

i entirrly disagree with everything you just said but im already in an argument with two people about abortion so im too lazy to argue

Wait then why comment

Idk

Technically the egg would not be fertilized by the time the morning comes.

Hmmmm