[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[The New California Republic]

"Pregnancy as punishment for sex"! Everybody drink!

A range of sparkling waters and cordials are provided for those who prefer to remain sober today.

Lightweights.

[Ifreann]

A range of sparkling waters and cordials are provided for those who prefer to remain sober today.

Lightweights.

Can't imagine how anyone in 2019 could want to remain sober.

[Estanglia]

Oh, I believe in morality. I reject the idea that there is any form of objective morality, or that at the very least we are largely incapable as a collective of finding out what that objective morality is, considering the sheer amount of moral systems out there that all claim legitimacy.

There's a word for things that aren't objective: "fake."

Are emotions fake? Emotional responses to events are subjective.

If something doesn't exist for everyone, it doesn't exist. If the sun doesn't exist for both you and I, it doesn't exist.

One, incorrect.

Two, morality does exist for everyone. We each have our own moral codes.

[Estanglia]

This just in, opinions are fake.

Opinions aren't fake, they are true for everyone. If I like ice cream, you and anyone else can accurately say "The person behind Antityranicals likes ice cream," even if they don't like it.

I think I may have misinterpreted what you mean by objectivity.

[Estanglia]

At least you're ideologically consistent. Too many "pro-life" people are in favor of capital punishment, despite that it violates their stated principle "don't kill another human".

False equivalence.

Is it though?

If your principle is "don't kill another human", and you advocate for the killing of another human, you're not ideologically consistent. That the human is a fetus or a murderer is irrelevant, because there is no condition on that principle that is affected by that.

[Estanglia]

I destroyed that corpse argument you tried to mount, as well as that tumor argument.

"Destroyed".

Your """destruction""" amounted to "no it isn't", ignoring parts of the argument, ignoring every followup question for further clarification and then ignoring the principle point relevant to the argument.

If that is destroying an argument, your arguments have been comprehensively nuked into oblivion.

They were so bad that I'm being charitable and not considering them as arguments, because that would be embarrassing.

Or you didn't want to address actual arguments against your points.

[West Leas Oros 2]

At least you're ideologically consistent. Too many "pro-life" people are in favor of capital punishment, despite that it violates their stated principle "don't kill another human".

False equivalence.

It isn't though. If you claim that you're pro-life, and yet also support sentencing someone to death, you're blatantly being a hypocrite, violating the "don't kill people" principle.

[Estanglia]

Im being realistic, cut the shit man. I know people who have been sexually assaulted and how it ruined their fucking lives. If I were to become a victim of rape I don’t know what I would do and frankly I don’t know if I could deal with the shame and disgust; getting pregnant from it would just be the awful cherry on top. You really do not know what it’s like nor what you are talking about, and that’s what makes every single word you say so unbelievably frustrating.

I'm being realistic. Imagine this woman has gone through everything you've ever described, but a thousand times worse, and she can make it all go away by killing you. Would that be okay? Don't let emotion cloud your thoughts, come to a serious conclusion on this serious question.

Read the past couple of pages before this post. Your question has been answered at least three times.

[Antityranicals]

I destroyed that corpse argument you tried to mount, as well as that tumor argument.

"Destroyed".

Your """destruction""" amounted to "no it isn't", ignoring parts of the argument, ignoring every followup question for further clarification and then ignoring the principle point relevant to the argument.

If that is destroying an argument, your arguments have been comprehensively nuked into oblivion.

They were so bad that I'm being charitable and not considering them as arguments, because that would be embarrassing.

Or you didn't want to address actual arguments against your points.

You can't kill a corpse, because it's already dead. Of course something which is dead can't have a right to life. That's a stupid argument. The tumor, as I've already discussed, is not a human, but simply an object which can be described by the adjective "human." There's a difference, just like there's a difference between the planet Earth and dirt which we call "earth." A fetus is actually a human, because it is a single individual member of the species "homo sapiens." I'm sorry I can't respond to every single argument I'm fronted with, I'm one man up against a number of opponents. If there's anything else I'm missing, I'll happily respond to it upon request.

[Antityranicals]

I'm being realistic. Imagine this woman has gone through everything you've ever described, but a thousand times worse, and she can make it all go away by killing you. Would that be okay? Don't let emotion cloud your thoughts, come to a serious conclusion on this serious question.

Read the past couple of pages before this post. Your question has been answered at least three times.

All y'all have come to are vague complaints about how "it's not the same," or worse, "you're mocking the plight of women." No straightforward yes or no, unless I've missed it.

[Estanglia]

"Destroyed".

Your """destruction""" amounted to "no it isn't", ignoring parts of the argument, ignoring every followup question for further clarification and then ignoring the principle point relevant to the argument.

If that is destroying an argument, your arguments have been comprehensively nuked into oblivion.



Or you didn't want to address actual arguments against your points.

You can't kill a corpse, because it's already dead. Of course something which is dead can't have a right to life. That's a stupid argument.

And yet it's a conclusion that comes about if you make "human" = "person".

The tumor, as I've already discussed, is not a human, but simply an object which can be described by the adjective "human."

But it fulfils your conditions.

It's human, if you remove it from the person and sustain it artificially it's its own entity. So why is it not a human?

A fetus is actually a human, because it is a single individual member of the species "homo sapiens."

What makes it a single individual instead of merely a component of the mother?

[The New California Republic]

I'm sorry I can't respond to every single argument I'm fronted with, I'm one man up against a number of opponents.

The problem is that at many points it looks like you are ignoring what is being asked of you. A case in point is many of the things that Free Joy has asked.

I'm being realistic. Imagine this woman has gone through everything you've ever described, but a thousand times worse, and she can make it all go away by killing you. Would that be okay? Don't let emotion cloud your thoughts, come to a serious conclusion on this serious question.

Read the past couple of pages before this post. Your question has been answered at least three times.

All y'all have come to are vague complaints about how "it's not the same," or worse, "you're mocking the plight of women." No straightforward yes or no, unless I've missed it.

We have spelled out many times to you over the life of this thread regarding why they are not the same, so pleading ignorance just isn't going to wash I'm afraid.

[Estanglia]

Read the past couple of pages before this post. Your question has been answered at least three times.

All y'all have come to are vague complaints about how "it's not the same," or worse, "you're mocking the plight of women." No straightforward yes or no, unless I've missed it.

The response has been "it's not the same because I have rights and the fetus doesn't". You haven't followed up with anyone who made that iirc except for NCR, who pointed out as a counter we consider fetuses human but not people, and rights are based on personhood not humanity.

Beyond that, you haven't asked for any further clarifications as far as I've seen.

[Asle Leopolka]

Read the past couple of pages before this post. Your question has been answered at least three times.

All y'all have come to are vague complaints about how "it's not the same," or worse, "you're mocking the plight of women." No straightforward yes or no, unless I've missed it.

A fetus is a lump of cells that lacks consciousness and does not meet the scientific or legal definitions of "life." Aborting a fetus that lacks stimulus or consciousness (i.e. before 24 weeks) is not the same as killing a person; it's no different than removing a tumor in my eyes. Call me callous or insensitive, IDGAF.

[Verivania]

All y'all have come to are vague complaints about how "it's not the same," or worse, "you're mocking the plight of women." No straightforward yes or no, unless I've missed it.

A fetus is a lump of cells that lacks consciousness and does not meet the scientific or legal definitions of "life." Aborting a fetus that lacks stimulus or consciousness (i.e. before 24 weeks) is not the same as killing a person; it's no different than removing a tumor in my eyes. Call me callous or insensitive, IDGAF.

Comparing babies to tumors is probably peak NSGeneral/Reddit moment.

[The New California Republic]

A fetus is a lump of cells that lacks consciousness and does not meet the scientific or legal definitions of "life." Aborting a fetus that lacks stimulus or consciousness (i.e. before 24 weeks) is not the same as killing a person; it's no different than removing a tumor in my eyes. Call me callous or insensitive, IDGAF.

Comparing babies to tumors is probably peak NSGeneral/Reddit moment.

He didn't tho.

[Asle Leopolka]

A fetus is a lump of cells that lacks consciousness and does not meet the scientific or legal definitions of "life." Aborting a fetus that lacks stimulus or consciousness (i.e. before 24 weeks) is not the same as killing a person; it's no different than removing a tumor in my eyes. Call me callous or insensitive, IDGAF.

Comparing babies to tumors is probably peak NSGeneral/Reddit moment.

A fetus isn't a baby.

[Antityranicals]

All y'all have come to are vague complaints about how "it's not the same," or worse, "you're mocking the plight of women." No straightforward yes or no, unless I've missed it.

The response has been "it's not the same because I have rights and the fetus doesn't". You haven't followed up with anyone who made that iirc except for NCR, who pointed out as a counter we consider fetuses human but not people, and rights are based on personhood not humanity.

Beyond that, you haven't asked for any further clarifications as far as I've seen.

Fetuses do have rights, they are humans, and humans have rights. The question is simply how these rights relate to the woman's right to bodily sovereignty. That the latter supersedes the former is the only halfway decent argument y'all have fronted. I've countered it by noting that aggression is required in order for lethal force to be justified (Justified, not right, killing is never right). Y'all seem to think that a sleepwalker should be killed if he seems like he's going to attack, which is a far, far too low bar for homicide, and the bar of the situation of a fetus is even lower.

[West Leas Oros 2]

The response has been "it's not the same because I have rights and the fetus doesn't". You haven't followed up with anyone who made that iirc except for NCR, who pointed out as a counter we consider fetuses human but not people, and rights are based on personhood not humanity.

Beyond that, you haven't asked for any further clarifications as far as I've seen.

Fetuses do have rights, they are humans, and humans have rights. The question is simply how these rights relate to the woman's right to bodily sovereignty. That the latter supersedes the former is the only halfway decent argument y'all have fronted. I've countered it by noting that aggression is required in order for lethal force to be justified (Justified, not right, killing is never right). Y'all seem to think that a sleepwalker should be killed if he seems like he's going to attack, which is a far, far too low bar for homicide, and the bar of the situation of a fetus is even lower.

Except they aren't really humans. They aren't even really an independent entity.

[Antityranicals]

Comparing babies to tumors is probably peak NSGeneral/Reddit moment.

A fetus isn't a baby.

A baby is defined as a very young child, while a child is defined as a young human below the age of puberty. A fetus is a very young young human below the age of puberty. Thus, it is a baby.

[Antityranicals]

Fetuses do have rights, they are humans, and humans have rights. The question is simply how these rights relate to the woman's right to bodily sovereignty. That the latter supersedes the former is the only halfway decent argument y'all have fronted. I've countered it by noting that aggression is required in order for lethal force to be justified (Justified, not right, killing is never right). Y'all seem to think that a sleepwalker should be killed if he seems like he's going to attack, which is a far, far too low bar for homicide, and the bar of the situation of a fetus is even lower.

Except they aren't really humans. They aren't even really an independent entity.

Biologically, they are. They are not part of the mother, their genetic code is completely different, and from the moment of conception, there is a new human, at least if you trust science. I'll edit this to add some sources in a minute...

https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientifi ... fe-begins/

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-spea ... ife-begins

https://www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/wh ... al-answer/

[West Leas Oros 2]

A fetus isn't a baby.

A baby is defined as a very young child, while a child is defined as a young human below the age of puberty. A fetus is a very young young human below the age of puberty. Thus, it is a baby.

Uh... I don't think that that's the definition of child or baby.

[Antityranicals]

A baby is defined as a very young child, while a child is defined as a young human below the age of puberty. A fetus is a very young young human below the age of puberty. Thus, it is a baby.

Uh... I don't think that that's the definition of child or baby.

Look it up. I literally just Googled it.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Uh... I don't think that that's the definition of child or baby.

Look it up. I literally just Googled it.

You missed parts of the definition.

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
a son or daughter of any age.
an immature or irresponsible person.
"she's such a child!"
a person who has little or no experience in a particular area.
"he's a child in financial matters"
the descendants of a family or people.
"the children of Abraham"
a person or thing influenced by a specified environment.
"a child of the Sixties"

Same with baby, it has more definitions.

[The New California Republic]

Fetuses do have rights, they are humans, and humans have rights.

This argument does not hold, as it was pointed out to you that rights apply to persons who have been born, not humans as such.

---

A baby is defined as a very young child, while a child is defined as a young human below the age of puberty. A fetus is a very young young human below the age of puberty. Thus, it is a baby.

Wrong.

child
noun [ C ]
UK /tʃaɪld/ US /tʃaɪld/
plural children UK/ˈtʃɪl.drən/ US/ˈtʃɪl.drən/

a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult.

baby
noun [ C ]
UK /ˈbeɪ.bi/ US /ˈbeɪ.bi/

a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk.

A fetus is neither a child, nor is it a baby.