NationStates

Northern Davincia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Why should a fetus get special rights no one else has?

Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

You try and enslave my person just so you can live and by golly gosh am I going to defend myself upto and including killing you.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

You try and enslave my person just so you can live and by golly gosh am I going to defend myself upto and including killing you.

Pretty much this
Even if it is killing someone it’s justified

Northern Davincia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Why should a fetus get special rights no one else has?

Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

Can I have your kidney?

Genivaria wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

Can I have your kidney?

I mean if you want I’m not using mine

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Can I have your kidney?

I mean if you want I’m not using mine

You giving consent kinda deflates my point.

Genivaria wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I mean if you want I’m not using mine

You giving consent kinda deflates my point.

Then the proper request woulda been: “I’m taking your kidney right meow. I need it for my collection!”

Hello NSG, So basically I want to ask you guys a question so on friday my school will be hosting a state senator to talk about Reproductive Health Act. We are gonna be asking questions to the state senator is there any questions you guys wanna ask him?

(Context: our history teacher gave us an assignment to write on the RHA bill in New York, which basically evolved into this.)

Republic of Turbin wrote:Hello NSG, So basically I want to ask you guys a question so on friday my school will be hosting a state senator to talk about Reproductive Health Act. We are gonna be asking questions to the state senator is there any questions you guys wanna ask him?

(Context: our history teacher gave us an assignment to write on the RHA bill in New York, which basically evolved into this.)

You realise asking for homework help is against the rules, right? Also, this thread is for discussing abortion, not for generating questions for you to ask a senator.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

You try and enslave my person just so you can live and by golly gosh am I going to defend myself upto and including killing you.

What on earth are you talking about?

Jebslund wrote:

Republic of Turbin wrote:Hello NSG, So basically I want to ask you guys a question so on friday my school will be hosting a state senator to talk about Reproductive Health Act. We are gonna be asking questions to the state senator is there any questions you guys wanna ask him?

(Context: our history teacher gave us an assignment to write on the RHA bill in New York, which basically evolved into this.)

You realise asking for homework help is against the rules, right? Also, this thread is for discussing abortion, not for generating questions for you to ask a senator.

1. The question is not a grade I was interested to see what questions people are asking from nsg.
2.This topic does correlate with the topic seeing as we are asking questions to the senator concerning the Reproductive Health Act.
3. I wanted to ask the question not for myself but to hear the thoughts of the nsg.

Republic of Turbin wrote:

Jebslund wrote:You realise asking for homework help is against the rules, right? Also, this thread is for discussing abortion, not for generating questions for you to ask a senator.

1. The question is not a grade I was interested to see what questions people are asking from nsg.
2.This topic does correlate with the topic seeing as we are asking questions to the senator concerning the Reproductive Health Act.
3. I wanted to ask the question not for myself but to hear the thoughts of the nsg.

Here: https://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... stions.pdf

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:
You try and enslave my person just so you can live and by golly gosh am I going to defend myself upto and including killing you.

Pretty much this
Even if it is killing someone it’s justified

Except it's not in this circumstance.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

You try and enslave my person just so you can live and by golly gosh am I going to defend myself upto and including killing you.

Define slavery.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Pretty much this
Even if it is killing someone it’s justified

Except it's not in this circumstance.

Yes actually it is.

Woodfiredpizzas wrote:
You try and enslave my person just so you can live and by golly gosh am I going to defend myself upto and including killing you.

Define slavery.

There's a bunch of definitions, some of which actually come very much into parallel with rape. Why are you even asking? You going to try and no-true-scotslavery or something?

Godular wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Define slavery.

There's a bunch of definitions, some of which actually come very much into parallel with rape. Why are you even asking? You going to try and no-true-scotslavery or something?

If you cannot define slavery, we have no common ground for what is and isn't slavery. If you believe a fetus is part of the mother's body, we are left with the conclusion that the mother is enslaving herself.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Godular wrote:
There's a bunch of definitions, some of which actually come very much into parallel with rape. Why are you even asking? You going to try and no-true-scotslavery or something?

If you cannot define slavery, we have no common ground for what is and isn't slavery. If you believe a fetus is part of the mother's body, we are left with the conclusion that the mother is enslaving herself.

That in itself is a rather silly claim to make, with rather impressive jumps of logic completely irrespective of what the definition of slavery might be.

The ‘enslavement’ comes from forcing somebody to do something they do not want to do. It falls closely in line with the point that no person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent. To claim that the woman has enslaved herself by getting pregnant is rather silly because such would imply she is forcing herself to remain pregnant... a rather ludicrous notion.

No, she would have identified a situation in which she is being harmed (and she most definitely is, whether ‘intent’ to harm existed or not) and seeks to remedy the situation.

Northern Davincia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Why should a fetus get special rights no one else has?

Does anyone else have the right to kill you or me? Does anyone else have the right to plunge scalpels into our heads or poison us?

If you attach yourself to my body, draining my nutrients and pumping me full of hormones... certainly.

I'm pro-life although I don't believe in "rights".. hah...

Yeh, there could legitimate circumstances were an abortion in the first trimester could be kinda justified (rape, risking severe injure or death, the fetus already being brain dead etc.). After all, on some occasions the body will reject the fetus.

But I have to say I'm still pro-life in the general sense. I think I was even before I was an X-tian too, and I still am after saying goodbye to X-tianity, since its not really a religious issue. People making decisions about when a life is a life doesn't feel that swell imho. Because it's always gonna be an arbitrary thing. I feel more positive about the "rights" of fetuses more than those of adult humans for the same reason I support animal rights - these are innocent beings who cannot defend themselves and have done nothing to deserve suffering or death.

On top of that - the social implications are very bad. It's another symptom of the "sexual revolution" that was all about men's desires, were women have to suffer the consequences. Without any sense of decency or ethics, a man is just a primitive sex machine, as he is physically designed like that (I don't think I have to do sex education with you guys and explain the anatomy behind this lol). And we have a culture that doesn't do enough to teach men ideals about their natural duty to protecting women, but rather urges women to adopt bad male qualities for the sake of "equality".

Women are by nature generally speaking (not always on an individual level) more empathic and have a greater sense of beauty and dignity than men. Abortions are a corruption of what it means to be a woman.

The Feylands wrote:People making decisions about when a life is a life doesn't feel that swell imho. Because it's always gonna be an arbitrary thing.

Pro-choice people don't claim that the fetus isn't alive...

---

The Feylands wrote:I feel more positive about the "rights" of fetuses more than those of adult humans for the same reason I support animal rights - these are innocent beings who cannot defend themselves and have done nothing to deserve suffering or death.

If an animal, let's for example's sake say a dog, was inside my body leeching nutrients to stay alive and I don't want it there, and the only way to get rid of it is to remove it through a procedure that will result in its death, then that's what must be done. Sorry.

---

The Feylands wrote:On top of that - the social implications are very bad. It's another symptom of the "sexual revolution" that was all about men's desires, were women have to suffer the consequences.

I think that you have grossly misrepresented what the sexual revolution was.

---

The Feylands wrote:Without any sense of decency or ethics, a man is just a primitive sex machine, as he is physically designed like that

Fucking load of nonsense. If man was solely for sex, then man would be a sphere (a testicle...?) with hundreds of penises protruding out of it.

---

The Feylands wrote:(I don't think I have to do sex education with you guys and explain the anatomy behind this lol).

I think you need to re-examine the human body, if you think that the human body is just for sex.

---

The Feylands wrote: And we have a culture that doesn't do enough to teach men ideals about their natural duty to protecting women, but rather urges women to adopt bad male qualities for the sake of "equality".

The fuck is this? How is this in any way related to abortion?

---

The Feylands wrote:Women are by nature generally speaking (not always on an individual level) more empathic and have a greater sense of beauty and dignity than men.

Again, what the fuck is this? How is this in any way related to abortion?

---

The Feylands wrote:Abortions are a corruption of what it means to be a woman.

Only if you consider women to be nothing more than baby factories...

The New California Republic wrote:If an animal, let's for example's sake say a dog, was inside my body leeching nutrients to stay alive and I don't want it there, and the only way to get rid of it is to remove it through a procedure that will result in its death, then that's what must be done. Sorry.

Here's the problem. You have this unnatural "logical" way of thinking that a baby is somehow relatable to a virus or whatever because "muh rights" and humans have a "right" to do whatever they want with their bodies. No, you don't.

We were all on that stage at some point. It's not just some random bacteria we have a "right" to get rid of.

The New California Republic wrote:Fucking load of nonsense. If man was solely for sex, then man would be a sphere (a testicle...?) with hundreds of penises protruding out of it.

Now you're being black-and-white and red tapely. I never wrote that men were solely for sex. But the way male sexuality works would make a man a fairly primitive beast if he had no sense of morals and ethics and such. These differences can even be noted across the sexual orientations. Gay men watch a lot more porn with men than women do.

Men and the Power of the Visual

Abortions are thus a negative male influence on our culture. They exist so that men don't have to control their primitive sexual desires. And women have to bear the consequences of that.

The New California Republic wrote:Only if you consider women to be nothing more than baby factories...

To deny the fact that only women can bear children is to deny nature. Yeh - women are many things, individually as well as collectively, but having babies is a typical female trait. This is probably one of the reasons for women being more empathic than men.

It's relevant because radfems are others are masculinizing women and brutalizing what it means to be a woman according to some egalitarian mumbo jumbo that some "logical" men (typical male behaviour btw) have thought out. And abortions are part of this. I don't want women to have to become like men to get acceptance.

The Feylands wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:If an animal, let's for example's sake say a dog, was inside my body leeching nutrients to stay alive and I don't want it there, and the only way to get rid of it is to remove it through a procedure that will result in its death, then that's what must be done. Sorry.

Here's the problem. You have this unnatural "logical" way of thinking that a baby is somehow relatable to a virus or whatever because "muh rights" and humans have a "right" to do whatever they want with their bodies. No, you don't.

First of all, it isn't a baby, it's a fetus. Be careful with your terminology.

The woman has a right not to have her body occupied by a foreign organism that she doesn't want to be there. That said, the alternative is to have the woman's body enslaved to the fetus for 9 months if it remains there against the woman's will.

---

The Feylands wrote:We were all on that stage at some point. It's not just some random bacteria we have a "right" to get rid of.

Nobody said that it was bacteria.

---

The Feylands wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Fucking load of nonsense. If man was solely for sex, then man would be a sphere (a testicle...?) with hundreds of penises protruding out of it.

Now you're being black-and-white and red tapely. I never wrote that men were solely for sex.

Uh huh, you pretty much did say that they were physically for sex:

The Feylands wrote:Without any sense of decency or ethics, a man is just a primitive sex machine, as he is physically designed like that

---

The Feylands wrote:But the way male sexuality works would make a man a fairly primitive beast if he had no sense of morals and ethics and such.

So? Women would be too. What is that meant to prove in relation to abortion?

---

The Feylands wrote:These differences can even be noted across the sexual orientations. Gay men watch a lot more porn with men than women do.

Again, what is that meant to prove in relation to abortion?

---

The Feylands wrote:Abortions are thus a negative male influence on our culture. They exist so that men don't have to control their primitive sexual desires. And women have to bear the consequences of that.

Non sequitur. An extreme one at that.

---

The Feylands wrote:To deny the fact that only women can bear children is to deny nature. Yeh - women are many things, individually as well as collectively, but having babies is a typical female trait.

You said the following:

The Feylands wrote:Abortions are a corruption of what it means to be a woman.

The only way that abortions could be seen to be a "corruption of what it means to be a woman" is if you think the only meaning of woman is to pop out babies.

Something I've asked repeatedly on this thread that noone has answered is this:
Why should a 'future person' carry the same importance as a 'present person'.
In most cases when we talk of something that 'will be' we understand that the implication is that the thing doesn't yet exist.

Neutraligon wrote:

Christian Confederation wrote:I think Ben Shapiro put it well at the march for life in DC last weekend. I also agree with most of his points.

Which where?

Sorry I forgot about this thread.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6X1M4pNM-cI

Genivaria wrote:Something I've asked repeatedly on this thread that noone has answered is this:
Why should a 'future person' carry the same importance as a 'present person'.
In most cases when we talk of something that 'will be' we understand that the implication is that the thing doesn't yet exist.

This was always my issue with 90% of the pro-life arguments. If a fetus is given human rights based on the fact that its purpose is to develop into a walking, breathing human, then could you not use the same argument to defend sperm cells? Do they have human rights, too? If a fetus absorbs its twin (which happens more often than I initially expected), is that murder? There is no possible explanation for a fetus counting as a separate human being that doesn't bring up many other questions that, while definitely answerable, do not have answers that make logical sense.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Something I've asked repeatedly on this thread that noone has answered is this:
Why should a 'future person' carry the same importance as a 'present person'.
In most cases when we talk of something that 'will be' we understand that the implication is that the thing doesn't yet exist.

This was always my issue with 90% of the pro-life arguments. If a fetus is given human rights based on the fact that its purpose is to develop into a walking, breathing human, then could you not use the same argument to defend sperm cells? Do they have human rights, too? If a fetus absorbs its twin (which happens more often than I initially expected), is that murder? There is no possible explanation for a fetus counting as a separate human being that doesn't bring up many other questions that, while definitely answerable, do not have answers that make logical sense.

That's because 90% of pro-life arguments are essentially knee-jerk reactions to killing what they perceive as a baby and imagining a born infant being torn apart with no regard for context. I noticed in IM's Operation Big Dog thread that people seemed to be making the same sort of knee-jerk reactions: Ignoring the context (there, dogs that had essentially been driven to the point of madness, here, a nonsapient clump of cells) and reacting based on a worst-case-scenario version of it (there, reacting as if the dogs in question were normal house animals, here, reacting as if we were talking about dismembering infants) out of a sense of moral outrage.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:This was always my issue with 90% of the pro-life arguments. If a fetus is given human rights based on the fact that its purpose is to develop into a walking, breathing human, then could you not use the same argument to defend sperm cells? Do they have human rights, too? If a fetus absorbs its twin (which happens more often than I initially expected), is that murder? There is no possible explanation for a fetus counting as a separate human being that doesn't bring up many other questions that, while definitely answerable, do not have answers that make logical sense.

I actually agree. Pro-life people who are making a "human rights" issue out of it are predestined to be losers. Sorry. But you know.. if you accept the vocabulary of the enemy, you've kinda already lost. These group of folks have the same issue as animal rights activists who wanna make animal rights some kind of extension of "human rights". It goes against the nature of that ideology, those ideas. You're only gonna end up like a bunch of masochists licking the hand that constantly beats you, and being thankful for it. And it just makes you look pathetic. The special snowflake "I have muh rights" thing is the ultimate consequence of a way of thinking that ignores reality and nature and treats humans like some kind of logical clusters of data and thoughts who just "deserve" things because they do lol. No.. you don't... And this is not an issue of "human rights". It's an issue of abominable behaviour that ought to stop and some of us want to take the "right" to stop it because we feel it is right to do so. We can all see the justifications behind this practice, "the woman has a right not to have her body occupied by a foreign organism", etc. This is a threat to the survival of any sort of society, and the practice itself leads to people jumping into such conclusions. It completely ignores the essence of say, the difference between a little human in development, and a "foreign organism", which is in the nature of such beliefs about "rights"... I fear.

Like when the "pro-life" moment in the US got into a mental state similar to a sudden urgent need to pee, collectively, because Trump had said something that could be interpreted as that if abortions were illegal, they should be punished. I don't wanna sound unnecessarily mean/harsh, but... like.. what a bunch of spineless cowards... -.- They're probably like that because they are often Christians and wanna seem like Good™ people. I'm not a Good™ person, thank you. Good™ people are the most unsexy group of folks imaginable. No offence lol.

I rarely use terms like "cuckservative" since I'm probably among those who could fit into that label myself, being quite liberal etc. But that's exactly what I felt when I saw that. What a spineless bunch of losers. Of course there should be a punishment for something as serious as killing another living being, but the woman still needs therapy/help etc. unless she's a complete psychopath, and the person who really deserves the strictest punishment possible is the male who makes a profit from killing babies in their mother's womb. He's an enemy of dignity, and probably a psychopath to boot. Those who doubt me can go check what an abortion actually looks like.



Which is also why I don't really know how to respond to one of the above posters. He (?) seems to live in a different, very typically male ("rational") reality. I don't accept some pseudo-intellectual special snowflake discourse/terminology that turns babies into "foreign organisms" "occupying" the female body, while talking about pseudo-religious "rights" of humans to compensate their lack of responsibility/effort and desire for various stuff. This is just some silly egalitarian revolt against nature based on ideas that men sitting in a room somewhere being "intellectual" have come up with.

It's frightening to think that even in the middle ages they got that women are generally better and more virtuous than men and modern feminism tries to accomplish the exact opposite. I mean - what the h***, many don't even believe that women exist as a biological fact... but that's a matter for another thread, I guess...