[Abortion Thread] Opine Fresh.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Maybe we should not circumcise infants who cannot give any form of consent to this procedure conducted by 70 year old untrained mullahs... purely on the basis of the writings of Bronze Age tribesmen who believed that the foreskin was abominable to their God.

Besides, this is not about abortion anyway.

[New haven america]

Maybe we should not circumcise infants who cannot give any form of consent to this procedure conducted by 70 year old untrained mullahs... purely on the basis of the writings of Bronze Age tribesmen who believed that the foreskin was abominable to their God.

Besides, this is not about abortion anyway.

Still waiting on sources proving Exodus happened as is in the Bible.

Been ~24 hours now, should'a found somethin'...

[Owonyaania]

we should not circumcise

Rare Saiwania and Austria-Bohemia-Hungary agreement ദ്ദി

I have just seen someone claim men can’t have an opinion on abortion.

Based.

But aren't you a man? And isn't majority of people here? If it's really based why not spam "IF YOU AREN"T A WOMAN GO AWAY YOU CAN'T POST HERE" instead of sharing opinions?

[Yerachmeal]

we should not circumcise

Rare Saiwania and Austria-Bohemia-Hungary agreement ദ്ദി

Based.

But aren't you a man? And isn't majority of people here? If it's really based why not spam "IF YOU AREN"T A WOMAN GO AWAY YOU CAN'T POST HERE" instead of sharing opinions?

Are the majority male?

[Owonyaania]

Are the majority male?

what do you mean by asking that?

It's not equivalent to say women cannot do something to say they may do something. I do think that if a man was pro-choice it would be valid, but I'd not respect him if he encouraged or forced women to abort, for the same reason I find it invalid for men to encourage or force women to continue a pregnancy.

It's still having an opinion because it's about deciding it's something they can do. Really different than not having an opinion. But I get what you're saying and it makes sense, so I can just agree with how you see it.

[Necroghastia]

Yes, I am unwilling to pay out of my pocket to help others deal with their mistakes.

Punishment should be as reversible as possible. Because people assume that judges are perfect Gods that will always act fully rationally and know who is guilty and who is not. They are not.

By making harsh and non-reversible punishment, you either enforce it "too much" and end up with innocent people being punished for crimes they did not commit because of an inadequate judge, or you compel the judge to enforce it "too little" and end up with guilty people walking out away because the judge, will it or not, will be compelled to declare someone innocent if proof is not overwhelming.

If 2 rapes are proven tattoo them after their sentence is over, if 4 are proven castrate them (male and female), and if 6 then they are executed.

Gotta love the absolute refusal to engage with the point GAR is making in favor of continuing to fantasize about mutilating and executing the crims, which is tangential to the topic in the first place.

[Vuvuvia]

Maybe we should not circumcise infants who cannot give any form of consent to this procedure conducted by 70 year old untrained mullahs... purely on the basis of the writings of Bronze Age tribesmen who believed that the foreskin was abominable to their God.

Besides, this is not about abortion anyway.

You mean bronze age tribesmen that could read and write and were also well educated and lived in cities?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Maybe we should not circumcise infants who cannot give any form of consent to this procedure conducted by 70 year old untrained mullahs... purely on the basis of the writings of Bronze Age tribesmen who believed that the foreskin was abominable to their God.

Besides, this is not about abortion anyway.

You mean bronze age tribesmen that could read and write and were also well educated and lived in cities?

if living in cities and 1% literacy qualified people to speak about universal morals then Qin Shihuang did nothing wrong, and strict Legalism was right all along.

[Vuvuvia]

Maybe we should not circumcise infants who cannot give any form of consent to this procedure conducted by 70 year old untrained mullahs... purely on the basis of the writings of Bronze Age tribesmen who believed that the foreskin was abominable to their God.

Besides, this is not about abortion anyway.

Still waiting on sources proving Exodus happened as is in the Bible.

Been ~24 hours now, should'a found somethin'...

It didn’t happen as exactly in the way it’s portrayed, but it is likely that the Hyksos were a part of the kingdom of Israel and the. It is likely that exodus was inspired by the slavery of Asiatics (including hyksos) by the Egyptian so persistent and common the word asiatic and slave were practically synonymous, the Hyksos were expelled from egypt and were also canaanite in origin, they also worshipped set who lime Yahweh is a storm and war god.
Its actually really fascinating.

You mean bronze age tribesmen that could read and write and were also well educated and lived in cities?

if living in cities and 1% literacy qualified people to speak about universal morals then Qin Shihuang did nothing wrong.

15% actually. And people weren’t “dumber back then”, they are very likely more intelligent than you and me and far more educated on the history of their people and religion (religion and history were very intertwined) than us. The bible was also constantly updated and built upon.

[Vuvuvia]

If 2 rapes are proven tattoo them after their sentence is over, if 4 are proven castrate them (male and female), and if 6 then they are executed.

Gotta love the absolute refusal to engage with the point GAR is making in favor of continuing to fantasize about mutilating and executing the crims, which is tangential to the topic in the first place.

You guys keep bringing up rape like its constantly flipping a coin when someone walks home, carry a gun. Is it cruel? Yes of course it is cruel, life is cruel, rape is cruel, but dogs get neutered and we don’t have a problem with it, in my opinion a rapist is worth far less than a dog.
And much less than a innocent fetus.

Ultimately it is disappointing to see you engage in bad faith when you should really know better.

[Necroghastia]

Gotta love the absolute refusal to engage with the point GAR is making in favor of continuing to fantasize about mutilating and executing the crims, which is tangential to the topic in the first place.

You guys keep bringing up rape like your constantly flipping a coin when walking home, if you legitimately are, carry a gun. Is it cruel? Yes of course it is cruel, life is cruel, rape is cruel, but dogs get neutered and we don’t have a problem with it, in my opinion a rapist is worth far less than a dog.
And much less than a innocent fetus.

Ultimately it is disappointing to see you engage in bad faith when you should really know better.

I think there's a difference between that and getting into the nitty-gritty of "we should tattoo and castrate them," particularly given, as GAR has brought up and you have refused to acknowledge, the possibility of false convictions.

Y'know. Since you claim to be so concerned with innocence.

[Vuvuvia]

You guys keep bringing up rape like your constantly flipping a coin when walking home, if you legitimately are, carry a gun. Is it cruel? Yes of course it is cruel, life is cruel, rape is cruel, but dogs get neutered and we don’t have a problem with it, in my opinion a rapist is worth far less than a dog.
And much less than a innocent fetus.

Ultimately it is disappointing to see you engage in bad faith when you should really know better.

I think there's a difference between that and getting into the nitty-gritty of "we should tattoo and castrate them," particularly given, as GAR has brought up and you have refused to acknowledge, the possibility of false convictions.

Y'know. Since you claim to be so concerned with innocence.

3 judges.
If one judge is unsure a ruling will not be made. What solution do you suggest?
I also doubt you really care, you don’t REALLY care about rapists getting some ink on their hands (after prison so they don’t get killed), you are merely trying to use a “violent and dark” image to smear me as if I personally would be lobbing dicks off with a butchers knife and no anesthesia.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

what if we didn't bring back Bronze Age barbarism? what if we carried on with our current justice system? One that is a vast improvement over whatever horrid memes 12th century BCE people conjured up?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Crimes, regardless of the punishment levied on them, happen.

No penalty for rape, no matter how heavy, will liberate us from the need to handle rape and rape victims in our society. Discussions of what that penalty should be is thus irrelevant to the point of what those victims ought to be entitled to.

[Frinor]

So you're not really pro-life as aren't a lot of other anti-abortionists, considering you support war and the death penalty just like them. Hardly bad faith, I'm just calling things what they are. My point that it's not really about life ergo the 'pro-life' framing being a lie stands.

Both 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are convenient labels for specific policies. One can be in favor of legalizing abortion because of 'choice' without being in favor of 'choice' in making all drug usage legal. One can be in favor of restricting abortion because of 'life' while believing that some crimes are so heinous or some individuals so dangerous that execution is an appropriate punishment. Both terms are labels, not complete moral and political philosophies.

There is such a philosophy known as consistent life ethic employed by people of different faiths, including Christians. Of course pro-life is a convenient label for otherwise anti-life people to use. Their use of the label is not consistent, hence not that honest. To quote the late great George Carlin once again, "CONSISTENCY".

[Vuvuvia]

Both 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are convenient labels for specific policies. One can be in favor of legalizing abortion because of 'choice' without being in favor of 'choice' in making all drug usage legal. One can be in favor of restricting abortion because of 'life' while believing that some crimes are so heinous or some individuals so dangerous that execution is an appropriate punishment. Both terms are labels, not complete moral and political philosophies.

There is such a philosophy known as consistent life ethic employed by people of different faiths, including Christians. Of course pro-life is a convenient label for otherwise anti-life people to use. Their use of the label is not consistent, hence not that honest. To quote the late great George Carlin once again, "CONSISTENCY".

Would a better label be “Pro innocent life”? I think that it is a semi valid statement you are making though admittedly it is very minor.

[Frinor]

There is such a philosophy known as consistent life ethic employed by people of different faiths, including Christians. Of course pro-life is a convenient label for otherwise anti-life people to use. Their use of the label is not consistent, hence not that honest. To quote the late great George Carlin once again, "CONSISTENCY".

Would a better label be “Pro innocent life”? I think that it is a semi valid statement you are making though admittedly it is very minor.

No, because the god you believe in alone holds the right to judge the innocent from guilty.

[Yerachmeal]

Something to bring up is the reverse hypocrisy on display. How do those of you who are simultaneously pro-choice, despite an innocent fetus dying, and anti death penalty for those who committed heinous crimes, make the view consistent?

Unless the only reason you're pro choice is because it can't be enforced of course.

[Heavens Reach]

Something to bring up is the reverse hypocrisy on display. How do those of you who are simultaneously pro-choice, despite an innocent fetus dying, and anti death penalty for those who committed heinous crimes, make the view consistent?

The entire foundation of pro-choice is that no human or person has a claim on the body of another human or person, no matter how dependent upon that body they may be, which is in no way contradictory with holding the position that giving the power to take the life of a person to the state is unacceptable, for any number of reasons, but most importantly that the state responds to extrajudicial pressures to foist that punishment upon people who are later found to have committed no wrongdoing. It is an unfortunate result of human biology that an embryo or fetus is unable to sustain its life once separated from the body of the pregnant person upon which they depend, but that is not sufficient justification for denying said pregnant person a claim over the degree of selflessness they show with their body in the sustenance of the life of another, just as we would not expect to be able to impel people to donate blood during a shortage even if it resulted in loss of life.

[Vuvuvia]

Would a better label be “Pro innocent life”? I think that it is a semi valid statement you are making though admittedly it is very minor.

No, because the god you believe in alone holds the right to judge the innocent from guilty.

Im agnostic.

[The Black Forrest]

Something to bring up is the reverse hypocrisy on display. How do those of you who are simultaneously pro-choice, despite an innocent fetus dying, and anti death penalty for those who committed heinous crimes, make the view consistent?

The entire foundation of pro-choice is that no human or person has a claim on the body of another human or person, no matter how dependent upon that body they may be, which is in no way contradictory with holding the position that giving the power to take the life of a person to the state is unacceptable, for any number of reasons, but most importantly that the state responds to extrajudicial pressures to foist that punishment upon people who are later found to have committed no wrongdoing. It is an unfortunate result of human biology that an embryo or fetus is unable to sustain its life once separated from the body of the pregnant person upon which they depend, but that is not sufficient justification for denying said pregnant person a claim over the degree of selflessness they show with their body in the sustenance of the life of another, just as we would not expect to be able to impel people to donate blood during a shortage even if it resulted in loss of life.

Wow.

And here I thought "Pro-choice" is a stance supporting a pregnant person's right to choose whether to have an abortion, emphasizing bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom……

[Heavens Reach]

The entire foundation of pro-choice is that no human or person has a claim on the body of another human or person, no matter how dependent upon that body they may be, which is in no way contradictory with holding the position that giving the power to take the life of a person to the state is unacceptable, for any number of reasons, but most importantly that the state responds to extrajudicial pressures to foist that punishment upon people who are later found to have committed no wrongdoing. It is an unfortunate result of human biology that an embryo or fetus is unable to sustain its life once separated from the body of the pregnant person upon which they depend, but that is not sufficient justification for denying said pregnant person a claim over the degree of selflessness they show with their body in the sustenance of the life of another, just as we would not expect to be able to impel people to donate blood during a shortage even if it resulted in loss of life.

Wow.

And here I thought "Pro-choice" is a stance supporting a pregnant person's right to choose whether to have an abortion, emphasizing bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom……

I mean, yes; that is what I said without the usual jargon

[Necroghastia]

Something to bring up is the reverse hypocrisy on display. How do those of you who are simultaneously pro-choice, despite an innocent fetus dying, and anti death penalty for those who committed heinous crimes, make the view consistent?

The entire foundation of pro-choice is that no human or person has a claim on the body of another human or person, no matter how dependent upon that body they may be, which is in no way contradictory with holding the position that giving the power to take the life of a person to the state is unacceptable, for any number of reasons, but most importantly that the state responds to extrajudicial pressures to foist that punishment upon people who are later found to have committed no wrongdoing. It is an unfortunate result of human biology that an embryo or fetus is unable to sustain its life once separated from the body of the pregnant person upon which they depend, but that is not sufficient justification for denying said pregnant person a claim over the degree of selflessness they show with their body in the sustenance of the life of another, just as we would not expect to be able to impel people to donate blood during a shortage even if it resulted in loss of life.

This, plus the fact that the vast majority of elective abortions take place before the brain has fully formed and begun function.

[Page]

Something to bring up is the reverse hypocrisy on display. How do those of you who are simultaneously pro-choice, despite an innocent fetus dying, and anti death penalty for those who committed heinous crimes, make the view consistent?

Unless the only reason you're pro choice is because it can't be enforced of course.

A fetus isn't innocent. In order to be innocent, one must have the capacity to be guilty or evil or otherwise, which a fetus does not have because it does not possess sentience.

And there is a whole myriad of reasons for opposing the death penalty that aren't rooted in compassion for murderers. Like the fact that 3% of people executed in the US are posthumously exonerated. 1 of every 33 people executed being wrongfully convicted isn't a ratio anyone should feel comfortable with.

Moreover, my position on each issue is perfectly consistent. I'm pro-choice because the freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies yields positive utility and I'm anti-death penalty because capital punishment yields negative utility.

[Humanlonia]

Still waiting on sources proving Exodus happened as is in the Bible.

Been ~24 hours now, should'a found somethin'...

It didn’t happen as exactly in the way it’s portrayed, but it is likely that the Hyksos were a part of the kingdom of Israel and the. It is likely that exodus was inspired by the slavery of Asiatics (including hyksos) by the Egyptian so persistent and common the word asiatic and slave were practically synonymous, the Hyksos were expelled from egypt and were also canaanite in origin, they also worshipped set who lime Yahweh is a storm and war god.
Its actually really fascinating.

if living in cities and 1% literacy qualified people to speak about universal morals then Qin Shihuang did nothing wrong.

15% actually. And people weren’t “dumber back then”, they are very likely more intelligent than you and me and far more educated on the history of their people and religion (religion and history were very intertwined) than us. The bible was also constantly updated and built upon.

In reality, everything is a little more complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodu ... istoricity