Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Are we having a girl or an abortion?
I'm not sure if you wrote this in jest or as thought provoking commentary.
I approve either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
As of right now, I am not arguing against rape cases, I am only arguing against consensual sex cases as of right now.
If your objection to abortion is that a human being ceases to be because if it, then that is true no matter how the pregnancy occurred. Is the unconscious person in the analogy not a human being? Is the unborn not a human being because it was conceived from rape? There is inconsistency in your position here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Nothing in Nature is just made purely for pleasure.
That is a grand claim I doubt you can substantiate. And this is the wobbly base you're building an argument on?
Yes it does. That is my whole argument. Whether someone forced you to be in that situation or not.
Just to be clear, taking rightful control of your body is 'murder' in one case and not the other? Ok
You also made an analogy with pregnancy being like a saw game....little concerning.
This is based off a famous thought experiment which came long before the gruesome Saw movies. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it before:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Sexual desire is biological.
I agree and that undermines your distinction of pregnancy being somehow unavoidable because it is biological...just like sexual desire.
That goes against what you said earlier - that person is not your body. So is it 'my body, my choice' or not?That does not go against what I said earlier.
Either you maintain control of your arm (and someone dies), or someone else effectively owns your arm. The kidnapping does not mitigate your decision.
Let me give you an example If you agree to rob a bank with some guys
You're comparing sex to a gang robbing a bank? Eek. Nothing in this analogy resonates with me. Sex is, more often than not, about pleasure and intimacy, and not family building. You have overemphasized one aspect of sex while overlooking the vast majority of sexual experiences.
Where did you get that assumption? I am not trying to do that at all. In fact I want to hear what you have to say about this response to your argument.
You failed to use the reply function again. I am starting to question your sincerity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@YouFound_Lxam
Please clarify which week of pregnancy forward you are opposed to ending it.
It seems as though he is generally opposed after conception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No. It is through Choice and Choice alone, that a repeat process could be conceived. It is through Biological processes that a pregnancy could occur.
You're arguing pregnancy is biological but sexual desire is not? Ok. 😆
FYI, if you use the reply function, it helps keep the conversation flowing. If you don't, it seems kind of like you are trying to end the conversation and have the last word. I'm happy to give you the last word, buddy. Just tell me you've said your piece.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Simple answer, you ask them.
I guess I wasn't clear on that - they are unconscious.
Either way on what they say, it's not your decision if they die. It is the person who put you in that situation, who will be the real killer.
That goes against what you said earlier - that person is not your body. So is it 'my body, my choice' or not?
Another fact also. You didn't consent do being kidnaped.Again I at this point I am only arguing against abortions that have been done with consensual sex.
Consent to sex is consent to sex right now...not anything else; not pregnancy. That is simply a gross misunderstanding on your part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok then. Another question. Has the person who is attached to your arm also been kidnapped?
Unknown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Is the person who is attached to your arm, the one who kidnapped you?
Nope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, if someone latches on to your arm, that is effectively their arm now?No. And you can remove them from your arm without killing them.
Let's say you can't. Lets say you wake up in the morning to discover you were kidnapped in the middle of the night and someone was attached to your arm. You start to remove the tubes from your arm, but are told they will die without compounds in your blood. They should be independent in 9 months or so. What do you do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The womb belongs to the woman. Her womb, her choice, right?Yes, but were not talking about her womb. Were talking about the fetus/baby.
So, if someone latches on to your arm, that is effectively their arm now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
So do you believe that the autonomy of the instructor ought to trump to life of the kids and that they should be able to break the agreement to keep them safe, instead opting to drive off to leave them for death?
This is not analogous. There is no contract for pregnancies, kids are undeniably people and have undeniable rights (debatable for the unborn), and the instructor is not required to sustain the children with his/her own flesh and blood (and no contract would stipulate that).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I believe entirely on people should have the right to whatever they want to there body, but a fetus/baby isn't part of the woman's body, therefore, its not her choice.
The womb belongs to the woman. Her womb, her choice, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I am making the point that when you are having sex with someone else, there is a probability that through biological processes, a baby could be conceived.
I am making the point that when you have sex with someone else, there is a probability that through biological processes, a repeat performance could be conceived. The same overly broad definition which conflates consent to sex/consent to pregnancy distorts consent into a nonsensical and meaningless conception.
Sex is defined as a way to impregnate, or become pregnant, or a way to feel pleasure [...]
Even by this definition, pleasure and pregnancy are not tied together. Sex can be for pleasure, pregnancy, or both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let's put it this way:If you are consenting to sex, then you are undeniably accepting the fact that there is a possibility that you will get pregnant, therefore, consenting to pregnancy as well.
If someone consents to sex, are they undeniably accepting the fact that there is a possibility their partner might want sex again later, therefore, consenting to sex with that person forever?
That's just not how consent works...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, giving consent to someone having sex with you, and you getting pregnant is slavery.
Consent to sex isnt consent to pregnancy, so....no, not even close. Consent is conditional and limited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And how is it enslaving women, if it's not their body to begin with.
Every person (or proposed person) needs permission to use the body of another. Pregnancy requires the use of someone's body. So...it IS their body and taking away control of it is slavery.
Created:
-->
@Barney
tl;dr: both major parties suck.
One definitely sucks worse than the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The cite I stated states that 95% of biologists believe a zygote is a human being. Not just human DNA. A human being.
Ok. You've not cleared up the definition. Is that "human being" in the legal sense? If so, biologists aren't legal experts. If not, how does agreement among a small group of biologists on non-legal distinctions matter to whether abortion is legal?
Saying that a woman can kill the human being inside of her on the grounds of self defense is like saying a deadbeat dad should be allowed to opt out of child support payments of his own free will in the name of self defense.
That doesn't make any sense. A woman can defend herself regardless. An ectopic pregnancy can kill just as easily as a teenager with a gun. At the very least, we should be able to agree abortion is warranted in some cases.
You don’t get to use self defense as an excuse to avoid taking care of the children that you chose to bring into this world.
Of course you can - see above. Also, someone can choose to stop a pregnancy before 'bringing a child into the world'. It seems like you've got the chronology all wrong. Abortion doesn't happen after birth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I have enjoyed the exchange between you and YouFound_Lxam. It has been very interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
this proves my point even more. Yes, a lot of babies died, but at least the doctors gave the baby's a chance to survive. Even if they were allowed to get abortions, it would have ended even worse than it did, because one baby survived with no abortion, and no babies would have survived if there was abortion.
At least 27 women had to suffer and have their health endangered unnecessarily. And, yes, one infant was still alive at time of publishing with "a long list of complications from extreme prematurity, including bleeding in the brain, brain swelling, damage to intestines, chronic lung disease. and liver dysfunction". Survival is/was not a given in spite of the suffering and/or death of nearly 60 individuals.
At what point are the (maimed?) Infant lives not worth the risked lives and suffering of mothers and babies?
If the choice is more (avoidable) deaths or reasonable exceptions for abortion you choose death.But it's not more death. You are comparing the 930,160 babies killed, to the 700 women who have died, then I would say that that is proving pro-life given that there was a lot more lives saved.
I am pointing out how "no exceptions" is clearly harmful and unreasonable in, at least, some extreme situations. You've agreed.
Have a good night.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If the choice is more (avoidable) deaths or reasonable exceptions for abortion you choose death. That's about as far as one can be from "Pro-life".
You really should read the article I provided. It provides some nuance you're missing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Also, the CDC is giving stats for one country (The US) not the entire world. Additionally, laws like those in Texas will increase maternal morbidity and possibly maternal death rates. If 700 deaths is your threshold and anti-abortion laws stand to push us beyond that, you'll either need to allow more death or more exceptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You're allowing some exceptions - that's progress.
Is death your only consideration? As the Slate article explains, abortion can prevent life-threatening scenarios and, just as important, prevent the suffering that comes with them. The Texas Law forces doctors to wait for something bad to happen rather than preventing something bad from happening. Do you accept the necessity of abortion here too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No exceptions, eh? Sounds like you are either very cruel or have no idea why disallowing abortions causes greater suffering of women AND infants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you support legalizing abortion, at least acknowledge it kills a human being.
There is a lot to address in that one statement. First, abortion is generally legal - no need to advocate for legalization. Secondly, there is ambiguity in the term 'human being'. If we simply mean 'human DNA with a lot of potential' and not a legal status, then why is the legality of abortion in question? Finally, there are legitimate reasons why individuals who are undeniably people can be killed. Should we acknowledge self-defense kills human beings? What about assisted suicide? The statement is emotionally manipulative.
I'm am willing to stipulate abortion ends life... and that this is justified by self-ownership and (in the most extreme cases) self-defense. If you oppose legalized abortion, can you acknowledge this undermines the basis of human rights while endangering the lives and futures of individuals who have undoubtedly achieved personhood?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1: The SingularityWe hear from scientists that the singularity, means something that popped into existence from nothing.
Singularity does not mean "popped into existence from nothing" and science doesn't make that claim. 'Something from nothing' is a religious claim, not a scientific one.
2: Design Has to Have a Designer
To show something is designed, we need something that is NOT designed to compare it to. If it is your contention that all of existence is designed, then what have you compared it to?
We see parts of our body that are some of the most advanced things we know of like for instance, the brain.
The hallmark of good design is simplicity - not complexity.
3. What Created Life?Yet every biological experiment we have done with chemicals and elements, has not produced life or any actual signs of life at all.
That's a deceptive statement. We certainly have seen components necessary for life coming about in these experiments which strongly suggests there is a path for abiogenesis.
So, if life didn't arise from non-living chemicals, then how did life arise? The only explanation is a supernatural being.
It is not a dichotomy between chemicals or your god-concept for the origin of life. It is not even a choice between chemicals and supernatural. It is much more reasonable to embrace 'I don't know' rather than assume the most fantastical of all explanations is true.
4. Moral LawIf some things are objectively morally wrong, and some things are objectively morally right, then there must be a God.
The only thing needed for something to be "objectively" right or wrong is a standard. This is plain to see. Take chess as an example: we (humans) made up the rules and changed them over time. Yet, people routinely determine chess moves to be good or bad as judged against the goal of the game (win... or not lose).
Morality has changed over time too. We now eschew some acts condoned in the Bible such as slavery, rape, and genocide. If the immutable god of the Bible were the standard of morality, these things should still be moral.
5. Human ReasoningWe humans have the nature to reason, and to wonder why things exist, why we exist, and that's why we have science. Why are we the only species that does this? Animals don't wonder why they exist, they just do? What gave us that need to find out? God did that's who.
That's not an argument. You are making a bald assertion. I can do the same as a legitimate counter: I think you don't know what you think you know.
Also, I think it should be pointed out that we don't really know what is going in inside the brains of other species. Are all other animals really incapable of reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Physical "attractiveness" has ZERO to do with intelligence, compassion, empathy, courage, etc. etc. etc.
Agreed - and that's the point: These attributes stand apart from attractiveness and add value to humanity nonetheless.
Boy meets girl, girl is physically smoking hot! Girl thinks boy is incredibly handsome. Both say to themselves after a few dates, "Even if he/she gets fact, ugly, loses all his/her teeth and smells bad...so long as he/she has intelligence, compassion, empathy, courage, ingenuity, etc., ... he/she is my soulmate for life!" Sad no one ever!!!
It happens all the time. People often commit to each other for "better or worse". It's like you've never seen a wedding vow. I bet you would really scratch your head at a beautiful woman with a not so beautiful man, but, again, this happens all the time. Not everyone is so vain and egotistical that they would dismiss potential partners because they aren't fit for magazine covers. Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (its not an objective measure) and there are other factors that might be more crucial.
The fact that we did not stop degenerates from procreating has led us to the epidemic of the mental health, health care and crime crisis that we have had [...]
That is quite the claim. Could it be the frequency of mental health issues has not changed, but awareness is higher? Or perhaps, frequency of health care issues and crime has increased because of unique factors straining all aspects of modern society like, say, a worldwide pandemic? Suffice to say, I question your assumptions and your conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Wrong. The knee was on his shoulder. You were mislead to believe it was on the neck.
If there weren't eye-witnesses, expert testimony, video evidence, and ...a murder conviction(!) this might be a plausible argument. Unfortunately for you, these things exist and your position is absolute absurdity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
If that were true, the moral of the story should be don't kneel on a dying man's neck. At best, Chauvin actions exacerbated the problem and he willfully contributed to Floyd's death. That's still murder.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
[...] explain what Jefferson meant by "the creator"
The religious terminology was strategic imo - window dressing meant to appeal to the social conventions of those he spoke for and best communicate with a king who thought he ruled by divine right. It's fair to say, Jefferson's religious views were unusual for his day ...and ours.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't know, but context is obviously important. Endorsing an insurrection based on lies is a bit different than opposing, say, an oppressive and violent regime.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Parler was dropped for inciting violence and violating community standards. This is a huge no-brainer. Amazon should win.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is aws, and what was the context?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You literally pay for service from the phone company and have a reasonable expectations to get service. That's not the case with social media.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
OP associates humans value with attractiveness. I think this overlooks a few things. What of intelligence, compassion, empathy, courage, ingenuity, etc? I mean, if beauty is the only standard, then humanity is going to be worse off in the long run...also, eugenics is fucked-up elitist thinking.
Created:
I'm not AI expert, but I don't think Shila is a bot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I never said I was unconvinced. Nor that I was convinced for no good reason.
No, of course you didn't SAY that, but you did express you were convinced and provided no good reason.
What is truth? How do you know if you see it?
Truth is that which conforms to reality.
Not all Christians think sex is dirty.
Perhaps. I came from a fundamentalist/evangelical background. This is where many religiously motivated disagreements stem from in society and what I am referencing.
Absolutes do exist - what are they is a different question?
Absolute certainty is not a universal principle. You have addressed something other than my criticism.
It does strike me as ironic that you can detect what is flawed if you do not yet know what truth is.
I recognize many 'truths' which are sufficient to mark flaws in overarching (over-reaching) worldviews. I'm dubious there is a capital 'T' truth though, and reality doesn't demand there is one. This is not ironic in any way. For example, a basic understanding of mathematical truths can tell us what an answer is *not*. I don't *know* the answer to -982637^2 is, but I know the answer is not a negative number.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Why is it illegal to smash bald eagle eggs., but not rip apart a human fetus. Yet oddly legal to take all the chicken eggs we want and do what ever we want with them? Abortion is about the arbitrary establishment of when human rights begin not when human life begins.
This isn't a very good analogy. First, there is no potential for competing rights between eagle embryos and the egg in which the reside. If we wanted to protect eagle embryos - which we do because bald eagles are endangered (unlike chickens) - we can make a simplistic law treating eggs as though they were de facto eagles.
On the other hand, a womb is not an extension of an unborn human. If anything, it is the other way around since the womb is part of a sentient, conscious, autonomous being with attached rights. Women should not be equated to mere incubation chambers (or eggshells). Also, I think it is a bit of projection to claim abortion is about when human rights begin. Abortion has everything to do with established rights, not establishing rights. Every person has the right to self-ownership and no person has the right to use the body of another without consent. If someone is arguing for exemptions to this, then they are advocating for special rights which would undermine rights altogether.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Life does not begin at conception. Life does not count until viability outside of the womb. If I smash all the bald eagle eggs in the world I have killed nothing. None were viable forms of life outside the egg.
I take your point, but eggs, unlike humans, have no bodily autonomy and consent is not required.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
What part of what I just wrote to you did you fail to comprehend? What part of what others wrote about the "clear skin" reference did you fail to understand?
I've already addressed this and find nothing compelling in the counter arguments.
You've also neglected to address my previous criticism: The Disney version is undoubtedly distorted from the original story, yet you're holding it as canon. What standard allows such drastic modifications to the original story and insists on no changes in skin tones?! What is the standard? It sure isn't 'sticking with the author's intent'.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And humans have skin. Skin has some sort of color to it.
...what color is human skin? Suffice to say, it's not limited to white. You're making my point. The character being fish, human, or human-fish doesn't require a particular skin tone.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
The story isn't a metaphor about white people, representative of white history, or in any way affected by skin tone. The storyline is neutral regarding skin color. It doesn't care what color the actors are. I think you should be asking yourself why neutrality equates to Caucasian in your world.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
ultimately it is a fish in a fairy tale.Well that’s a bit deceptive, now. Is a centaur a horse?
Deceptive? You're grasping at straws.
A fish has basis in reality while a mermaid doesn't (what is the taxanomic classification of mermaids?!) If anything, I'm being kind in not showing how completely absurd the "blackwashing" charge regarding the Little Mermaid is.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It seems to me OP is upset that the Disney "whitewashing" is being questioned, but ultimately it is a fish in a fairy tale. It's not worth getting overly bothered about exact physical characteristics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Have I converted you that spaghetti is not a monster?
Have I converted you to accept his noodly appendage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Don’t you like pasta?
Love it. Although, I prefer fettuccine and Alfredo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You are both familiar and speak with conviction about your illusory beliefs. You are a self declares Pastafarian.
Are you saying there's not really a spaghetti monster?!
Blasphemy. 😏
Created: