Wanting people to not murder their children, and to show restraint and responsibility is the definition of inceldom now? My God, this word really has lost all meaning. Its the new "racist".
Its also an objective fact that the law can be changed, and that something being legal doesn't make it moral or ethical. Murder is immoral and that is not determined by it legality.
Abortion is murder. That is the argument. If you can't beat that argument, no argument toward responsibility will work. Period. Murder is not showing responsibility, no matter how hard you try to argue that. And if you try to make that argument, then the easiest way to defeat it is to take it to its logical conclusion and point out that unless you argue that murdering infants and children in similar situations is also justified, you are being a hypocrite.
I'm pretty sure one guy did specifically answer that question. And my answer is the same as his: the embryos would come before the baby because more lives are at stake. But its a pointless hypothetical. Like asking whether or not you'd save 1 adult man versus 100. Most people would choose the 100, but it doesn't change the fact that 1 man lost his life. Its a pointless hypothetical because it does nothing to elucidate on the main point.
I don't think anyone here has ever expressly or implicitly said they were okay with that. The general consensus I've gotten from people talking about IVF clinics is that they are a necessary evil because they are the only way for some people to have children. In the end its a moot point; the morality and issues with the IVF industry is a different animal entirely compared to the abortion industry. If you want to talk about whether or not IVF clinics operate morally, create a thread for it.
You still on that bodily autonomy bullshit, after multiple people have shot that argument full of holes a mile wide? You keep bringing up points other people have already answered or there was never a focus on, while ignoring the fact that people have already eviscerated your main arguments.
Is this our allotted edgy /pol/ post for the day?
Why are you even entertaining the question? It elucidates nothing about the actual value of human life. That aside, the only thing the trolley problem is good for is as a philosophical Rorschach test.
I think it's meant to be satire.
Abortion isn't murder because fetuses aren't people, and even if they were they still wouldn't have a right to use and endanger someone else's body without consent. And no, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. That's like saying consent to donating blood is consent to donating a kidney. Or that consent to receiving a bj is consent to a surprise finger up your asshole.
and even if some people don't agree with IVF, you don't see people trying to ban it or protest against it or harassing patients outside clinics. Or committing terrorism against said clinics. If it was just about killing "babies" (embryos), you'd think IVF clinics would be public enemy no. 1 since far more embryos are destroyed by them than are destroyed by abortion.
Half of it was already in your body, and in most cases, you let the other half in on your own.
Bruh I'm gay. The other half has no consent to be in my body either.
Half of it was already in your body, and in most cases, you let the other half in on your own.
Today I learned you can't be pregnant if you're gay.
I'm learning so much today-- before today, I didn't know you couldn't conceive if you're gay (and/or gay people have no uteruses), or that apparently blowjobs are causatively linked to anal play as a matter of nature because anuses are sexual organs.
You have consistently failed to offer a persuasive argument as to why a fetus isn't a person. If that is your argument, you have to actually prove the supposition that a fetus isn't a person. Period. I've offered arguments as to why a fetus is a human being, based on very basic scientific facts and common sense. You have failed to do the same.
And here you are still misusing the word consent and making a lolcow tier argument. Pregnancy doesn't require consent genius. Pregnancy is a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of sex. If you have sex, pregnancy may result. If you have sex, you are consensually rolling the dice on whether or not you will get pregnant. Cause and effect nigga. That's like me saying "Me jumping off this bridge does not mean I consent to dying when I hit the ground." No wonder motherfuckers are still going out and getting pregnant out of wedlock. They think basic fucking biology doesn't apply to them!
Are you even trying to make coherent arguments at this point? Neither one of those analogies works, at any level. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of ejaculating into a vagina, donating a kidney requires conscious action on someone's part. The conscious act on your part to start pregnancy is you deciding to have sex in the first place. Everything else is nature taking its natural course.
To quote a very good film, "You keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means."
I never argued that point. Where oh where did I say that? So are you one of those people that, when you realize you can't win an argument, you create another one whole cloth so you can attack it instead?
This is called a straw man argument. Its a sign of not being able to argue in good faith. Since you can't win the argument by attacking a fetus's personhood, you raise the false argument nobody made about your opponent trying to go after women, because "muh feminism" or some such, and act like that was actually the argument anybody was making when it wasn't.
And there we go, ad hominem. If you have to rely on logical fallacies and putting words in your opponents mouth to win, you've already lost.
Oh unfortunately you can get pregnant if you're gay. Why do you think I'm so terrified of it? It's just that any pregnancy that happens to me wouldn't involve consent to penises being in my body either.
Then what was the point of anything you said before in response to me saying that half of your fetus was already in you?
But that has less to do with you being gay and more to do with you having a fear of fetuses. Women identifying as gay get artificially inseminated, after all, and that doesn't involve a penis... some of them have sex with men despite identifying as gay,
By people who project their paraphilic energies onto the orifice, yes. The anus serves no sexual purpose, however.
Ignoring that the only thing the existence of the clitoris proves is the existence of the clitoris and that you couldn't use its existence and present function to also refute a proposition that the clitoris is a vestigial structure... I literally italicize the following:
Bolding mine.
What about child rearing? Can a parent withdraw their consent to taking care of a child they already gave birth to/sired? And if so, does it matter how they do it? Why does it?
The anus has about as sexual a purpose as the mouth does. Technically that might not be its main function, but clearly enough people enjoy using it that way that's it's a documented thing just about everywhere and has been for a long-ass time.
It's not just not a main function-- it has no defined sexual function. It has nothing to do with reproduction nor does it have anything to do with the support or development of reproductive structures. You may as well argue that the spleen has a sexual purpose because some girl likes poking her boyfriend there and the guy enjoys it.
...yes, particularly if they find themselves into giving it. For the receiver, it makes sense that they enjoy the stimulation of their actual sexual organ.
The conception of the idea of the "male G spot" is an ass-backwards rationalization of gay anal sex that presumes that a pleasurable response from stimulating the prostate, particularly with a penis, has to be evidence for the natural place of gay sex in our biology... even though there's zero theories for the formation of this response through our evolution, and it may as well be a complete fluke of biology especially given that the only natural path of this stimulation is an oblique one, through the exit door of the gastrointestinal system.
As I noted.
I didn't say anything about "adoption". Does it matter how you revoke your consent?
So the mouth is an erogenous zone if someone enjoys giving oral sex, but the anus isn't an erogenous zone even if someone enjoys anal sex?
This might come as a shock, but you don't have to be gay to enjoy prostate stimulation. Straight dudes have buttholes and prostates too, and women have everything from fingers to a wide array of toys they can use to stimulate them.
As I mentioned my mom revoked her consent to caring for her kids by literally dropping us off on our dads doorstep, which was fine by me as long as I didn't have to deal with her shitty ass anymore. She still should've aborted me as an embryo though.
I have considered ethics. It's unethical to force a woman to be an incubator.
You were expressly told that it isn't under the legal definition. Facts over feels.
You're an actual monster.
This is Zero Day Defense we're talking about. The only thing he's ever stuck his dick in is a hot pocket.
You might say the same about male nipples and you can give the same alternate explanation: that they're vestigial bodyparts as a result of males and females starting from the same blueprint before it diverges.
Embryos don't have a future if they're aborted either.
Nor do people if they're murdered.
Instinctually it's harder for most people (or at least, for me) to slaughter a cow than to buy it in the supermarket too, but morally I consider the acts comparable and don't see why someone would disagree.
Hey man, at least they can't complain now about me edgyposting about killing babies when this dude admits he would run one over with a trolley
Probably, I'm actually kind of impressed he even knows what a clitoris is even though he's still pretty clueless about the purpose (that thing has more nerve endings than dicks do, shit ain't just vestigial). If he does ever manage to get his dick sucked I kind of hope the other person surprises him with some reach-around butt stuff.
