NationStates

Saiwania wrote:

Kannap wrote:Keep your fantasies about women being abused in your head, we don't want to be a part of it.

I'm looking into whether I should support or oppose the recent direction on abortion in the US.

Given your jovial posts the past few days, I'm not inclined to believe you're feeling conflicted in the slightest.

Saiwania wrote:I had assumed that it'd keep being legal by default and this SCOTUS action blindsided me and I do see a lot of downsides.

Nor am I inclined to believe you see any downsides to this.

Saiwania wrote:But it could also be very good.

No, it couldn't.

Saiwania wrote:I might be able to get rich and more because of this brave new world we're entering.

Ah, the aforementioned downside is probably "I might not be able to get rich off women's suffering." Disgusting thought process, per usual.

Saiwania wrote:I'm a male though, so my stakes in this is less personal or significantly less.

Yeah, but now if you sleep with a trans man you might get him pregnant and he cannot get an abortion, or whatever you're often rambling about in regards to transgender folks, I wasn't really paying attention all those times.

New haven america wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Such a childish retort. Literally playground material.

You could actually question why it is everyone thinks you hate women, but that's not going to happen.

And you know why that's not going to happen. Because then it'll out you and you can't have that happen.

Like, in your very post that lead to this you outright admitted abortion should be illegal in order to punish women, and yet you view nothing misogynistic about that.

I'm well aware of why you think that.

And I didn't say anything of the sort. Constantly lying will do you no favors.

Space Squid wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
No, people who come into the CDT to exercise their need to call Christianity and Christians stupid/evil/etc are told that. It's pretty telling that you can't tell the difference.



Challenging it is one thing, wanting to go off about how wrong you think Christinaity is another. Again, it's telling that you can't tell the difference.

I feel as though you've just made an assumption about what I'm talking about, and then gotten very angry at me over your assumption.

You're feeling is incorrect. You lamented something, and I responded why that is and why your bitterness over it is misplaced. Also I'm hopped on edibles battling a sinus infection, I wouldn't classify my mood as even tepid let alone Angry.

I mean, "tell the difference" between what? What two examples do you believe that I'm pointing to, as being synonymous?

Your not the only one, not even in this thread, who have lamented that very thing, and accuse us, hell me as I'm usually the one doing it, of stifling discussion in the CDT. So color me skeptical if I don't buy the "you just innocently brought up a long standing issue" routine.

All I'm saying is that "Bring the topic to the CDT," is a dishonest tactic, and an all-around terrible idea. The CDT is not known for dealing with ideas respectfully or honestly.

And again, that notion is perpetuated by the members of an NSG who went in there to slay the mighty Christian beast in its layer, and are bitter we told them to jog on. As I said, hostility breeds hostility. How'd you like it if someone bust into your house, flipped over your coffee table and then incoherently rambled about how much of a mother fucker you are. Admittedly we aren't always charitable, but I gotta say we're on the 11th incarnation. Incarnations 1-10 are chock full of intense debates between Christians/Muslims/Atheists/etc etc. Posts from these debates even made it onto the awesome quotes thread. But eventually, you get tired of having to respond to the same challenges that we've already refuted 600 times, because a poster got juiced up reading r/atheist nonsense and decided to pick a fight.


And all of this is irrelevant to the fact that the reason we say take it to the CDT is because there are very clear rules on thread jacking. This thread is to discuss American Politics, not rehash the Council of Trent or commentaries on Leviticus.

FFS, if there's theology you want to debate, we're happy to discuss it. All we ask is you do it respectfully, and be open to the fact that we do know what our religion teaches and you might be wrong.

Salus Maior wrote:

New haven america wrote: They hate the idea of out-of-wedlock sex and sexual liberation, part of the reason they hate abortion so much is because they view it as encouraging "slutty" behavior with no consequences.

There is a consequence; destroying a human life that they conceived just for fun. That's the point. Discarding an innocent human life just to enable hedonism is dystopian, and the fact you don't get that is even more dystopian.

There's nothing worth preserving in hookup culture.

Notably, fetuses aren't humans, nor is getting an abortion equal to "destroying a human life" or "discarding an innocent human life"

Kannap wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
There is a consequence; destroying a human life that they conceived just for fun. That's the point. Discarding an innocent human life just to enable hedonism is dystopian, and the fact you don't get that is even more dystopian.

There's nothing worth preserving in hookup culture.

Notably, fetuses aren't humans, nor is getting an abortion equal to "destroying a human life" or "discarding an innocent human life"

What are they then, a cat? Are they dead?

That they're living things and human isn't debatable.

Salus Maior wrote:

New haven america wrote:You could actually question why it is everyone thinks you hate women, but that's not going to happen.

And you know why that's not going to happen. Because then it'll out you and you can't have that happen.

Like, in your very post that lead to this you outright admitted abortion should be illegal in order to punish women, and yet you view nothing misogynistic about that.

I'm well aware of why you think that.

And I didn't say anything of the sort. Constantly lying will do you no favors.

Lying is a sin Salus/

Evidently women having rights over their own bodies is dystopian to you:

Salus Maior wrote:

New haven america wrote: They hate the idea of out-of-wedlock sex and sexual liberation, part of the reason they hate abortion so much is because they view it as encouraging "slutty" behavior with no consequences.

There is a consequence; destroying a human life that they conceived just for fun. That's the point. Discarding an innocent human life just to enable hedonism is dystopian, and the fact you don't get that is even more dystopian.

There's nothing worth preserving in hookup culture.

You're so against women have rights that you consider a world where they do have them as dystopian.

Kannap wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
There is a consequence; destroying a human life that they conceived just for fun. That's the point. Discarding an innocent human life just to enable hedonism is dystopian, and the fact you don't get that is even more dystopian.

There's nothing worth preserving in hookup culture.

Notably, fetuses aren't humans, nor is getting an abortion equal to "destroying a human life" or "discarding an innocent human life"

that first clause has long been disproven. the rest is what's being debated

New haven america wrote:
You're so against women have rights that you consider a world where they do have them as dystopian.

I'm opposed to hookup culture and irresponsible sex, and I'm opposed to abortion being justified for the sake of people having the liberty to get their rocks off for fun.

Men are just as responsible for that as women are.

Saiwania wrote:

Eahland wrote:You should oppose it because it's horrible. But of course you'll support it because it's horrible.

There is debate on Stormfront whether this is better or worse for White America. That is what my loyalties are to. There is concern that we need abortion, else the non-White segments of the US are going to overtake the Whites even faster, because there is less preventing more births happening from women across the board getting pregnant from the sex they're going to have.

I'm constantly amazed at how little self-awareness you seem to have regarding how utterly abhorrent every single thing you say is.

Salus Maior wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Notably, fetuses aren't humans, nor is getting an abortion equal to "destroying a human life" or "discarding an innocent human life"

What are they then, a cat? Are they dead?

That they're living things and human isn't debatable.

Scratch everything I've written because I've only confused myself in the process. Sure, they're living things. And upon some brief reading to re-jog my memory, they do appear to be an early stage of the human life cycle similar to larvae being an early stage of the life cycles of many insects.

Suppose the debatable part is how we define life from a human perspective. You'd suggest it's from conception, many people wouldn't. I, again, wouldn't equate an abortion to "destroying a human life" or "discarding an innocent human life"

So...
Do my stemcells have rights I didnt know about now?

Salus Maior wrote:

New haven america wrote: They hate the idea of out-of-wedlock sex and sexual liberation, part of the reason they hate abortion so much is because they view it as encouraging "slutty" behavior with no consequences.

There is a consequence; destroying a human life that they conceived just for fun. That's the point. Discarding an innocent human life just to enable hedonism is dystopian, and the fact you don't get that is even more dystopian.

There's nothing worth preserving in hookup culture.

something without a brain doesn’t have and is incapable of having a consciousness
you can’t murder something that doesn’t have and is incapable of having a consciousness
abortion of a newly-fertilized egg is not murder

also nobody derives fun from abortion, stop making it sound like people are trying to kill babies for fun, they aren’t.

Kannap wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
What are they then, a cat? Are they dead?

That they're living things and human isn't debatable.

Scratch everything I've written because I've only confused myself in the process. Sure, they're living things. And upon some brief reading to re-jog my memory, they do appear to be an early stage of the human life cycle similar to larvae being an early stage of the life cycles of many insects.

Suppose the debatable part is how we define life from a human perspective. You'd suggest it's from conception, many people wouldn't. I, again, wouldn't equate an abortion to "destroying a human life" or "discarding an innocent human life"

The key thing is that "alive" and "human" are not the same as "a person". A zygote that hasn't formed the barest of neural tissues may be alive and human, but it's not in any way a person, any more than HeLa cells, which are alive and human, are a person.

Salus Maior wrote:
What are they then, a cat? Are they dead?

That they're living things and human isn't debatable.

Every cell in your body is a living thing none of them are cats.

Eahland wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Scratch everything I've written because I've only confused myself in the process. Sure, they're living things. And upon some brief reading to re-jog my memory, they do appear to be an early stage of the human life cycle similar to larvae being an early stage of the life cycles of many insects.

Suppose the debatable part is how we define life from a human perspective. You'd suggest it's from conception, many people wouldn't. I, again, wouldn't equate an abortion to "destroying a human life" or "discarding an innocent human life"

The key thing is that "alive" and "human" are not the same as "a person". A zygote that hasn't formed the barest of neural tissues may be alive and human, but it's not in any way a person, any more than HeLa cells, which are alive and human, are a person.

Ah, that's the word I was looking for, "person," thank you.

Des-Bal wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
What are they then, a cat? Are they dead?

That they're living things and human isn't debatable.

Every cell in your body is a living thing none of them are cats.

If an abortion is the destruction of living cells that are human in nature then is it technically an abortion anytime you get a papercut and destroy some skin cells in the process?

The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
There is a consequence; destroying a human life that they conceived just for fun. That's the point. Discarding an innocent human life just to enable hedonism is dystopian, and the fact you don't get that is even more dystopian.

There's nothing worth preserving in hookup culture.

something without a brain doesn’t have and is incapable of having a consciousness
you can’t murder something that doesn’t have and is incapable of having a consciousness
abortion of a newly-fertilized egg is not murder

There's considerable room for debate on whether or not preventing life and terminating life are symantically different.

also nobody derives fun from abortion, stop making it sound like people are trying to kill babies for fun, they aren’t.

Stop making it sound like people who are against abortion on moral grounds, secretly want create the Handmaids tale universe. Both sides of guilty of bad faith poisoning the well. Imagine how much more productive these debates would be if both sides stopped slandering eachother and actually engaged in good faith debate taking eachother at face value.

Kannap wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:Every cell in your body is a living thing none of them are cats.

If an abortion is the destruction of living cells that are human in nature then is it technically an abortion anytime you get a papercut and destroy some skin cells in the process?

if aborting a recently-conceived embryo is murder because it’s alive, is harvesting wheat murder?

What good faith debate can there be had with the American far-right? With Qanons? With the Trumpistas?

Des-Bal wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
What are they then, a cat? Are they dead?

That they're living things and human isn't debatable.

Every cell in your body is a living thing none of them are cats.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:So...
Do my stemcells have rights I didnt know about now?

this is the exact kind of bad faith argumentation I was referring to

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:What good faith debate can there be had with the American far-right? With Qanons? With the Trumpistas?

because they're the only ones who are pro life. right.

Tarsonis wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:What good faith debate can there be had with the American far-right? With Qanons? With the Trumpistas?

because they're the only ones who are pro life. right.

They're the ones in power over your movement comrade...

Tarsonis wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:What good faith debate can there be had with the American far-right? With Qanons? With the Trumpistas?

because they're the only ones who are pro life. right.

I feel like a lot of people forget that the US actually has unusually permissive abortion laws. Abortion laws in places like Germany, Belgium, or Norway would be considered radically conservative by pro-choice people in the US.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
because they're the only ones who are pro life. right.

They're the ones in power over your movement comrade...

it's not my movement. I'm not the pro-lifer calling foul, I'm the guy who's disgusted with both of you and hopes the ground swallows you all.

Punished UMN wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
because they're the only ones who are pro life. right.

I feel like a lot of people forget that the US actually has unusually permissive abortion laws. Abortion laws in places like Germany, Belgium, or Norway would be considered radically conservative by pro-choice people in the US.

Yeah and you guys are crashing towards becoming more authoritarian than some South American countries on this matter, with nary a thought towards maybe stopping.