- Joined
- Oct 6, 2022
Debate Android Raptor about abortion again
- Thread starter Android raptor
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2015
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2015
gang weeder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2022
Alright I'm gonna try and use another thing as an example to make this as simple for you as possible.
Two gays dudes commit sodomy resulting in da poo poo, AIDS, etc.
Person A thinks this is extremely vile and should be banned.
Person B thinks that love is love and it's like so beautiful and touching, how dare you think otherwise homophobe.
The physical facts of the issue are the exact same. The value judgments are completely different.
If you grant the premise that it is possible for an organism to be a human being and yet not a person, you have disconnected personhood from physical reality, and thus made it into a pure value judgment of exactly this sort. Person A can sit here and look at an ultrasound of a fetus at 12 weeks and say "that's a person" and person B can say "nuh uh" and neither one has any objective metric for deciding the issue one way or another.
Is this helping you at all, or do I need to link you the Wikipedia article for "value judgement?"
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
Nope. Not at all.
You are also thinking in post modern, "personal truth/lived experience" ways.
There are things that are subjective, ambiguous and not well known.
Then there is objective, measurable reality.
Also, in your example, "love is love" is an empty statement of pure emotion and should be immediately rejected.
Increased threat of STDs and homosexual, i.e. abnormal sex are enough to warrant some sort of measures against it. The only debate is what measures.
I'm not an extremist, so I am against throwing them off buildings or locking them up.
But I am OK with marginalizing and societal ostracizing.
Now, these are subjective, value judgements of MINE, but they still have an objective reality basis.
Unlike "clump of cells without any organs has soul/is a person/is life".
gang weeder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2022
A clump of cells is life, though. In this case, human life, undeniably. No biologist would argue that a fetus isn't alive or is somehow a member of some other species besides homo sapiens. The pro-abortion side is the one claiming that this is not enough to qualify for personhood, and that in order to qualify as a person, you must possess some other mystical undefined quality that no one can seem to pin down.
The reason no one can ever seem to agree on "when human life begins" is because you already rejected the objective, reality-based answer due to political bias. This is made apparent by the fact that if you asked a biologist about when life begins for any other species except humans, they would readily agree that it begins at conception.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
The fetus is different from the germinal stage. You need to read a bit more.
No biologist would argue that the zygote or blastocyte are alive. They cannot exist alone, they are entirely dependent on the mother's uterus. Unlike plankton, or bacteria. It cannot reproduce. It cannot eat, nor can it excrete.
It lacks all functions that life has.
You seem to be driven by something else than data. That's OK, but just come clean with your motivations and driving factors.
Mine are:
- a pragmatic society based on data and research, not emotion
- balancing the delicate issue of pregnancy within a reasonable compromise that takes into accounts both the mother and the future life that could develop
Abortion should be seen as the last resort, always. Prevention, contraception, morning after pills, solutions are numerous. It should also be quite restricted and controlled and never, ever glorified or wielded as a weapon against the chuds.
gang weeder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2022
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html#:~:text="Almost%20all%20higher%20animals%20start,ontogeny%2C%20of%20the%20individual."
You are ignorant. I will admit, some biologists might argue that a zygote is ackchyually not alive, but again this is a claim made for political reasons, not scientific ones. Either way it is demonstrably extremely wrong to say that no biologist would argue that life begins at conception. Just Google the definition of "life" and you will see that an embryo fits easily into it. Well actually let me not get ahead of myself here, you appear to be both retarded and ignorant, so you probably won't see that. But still, you should at least give it a try.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
Dude, there is nothing in there that says it's alive.
NOTHING.
That seems to be Princeton's list of pro-life "arguments", not some scientific proof. It's basically equivalent to Intelligent Design.
Common. Let it go.
It's OK to want it from a religious perspective, but if you claim something without ability to consume energy and reproduce that cannot exist outside mother's uterus is alive, you lost it.
Yeah, this is from some spergy religious students.
gang weeder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2022
So your response is to say the soorce is bad, while responding to nothing it says, and ignoring that the soorce itself is just a bunch of quotes from other soorces, none of which you seem to have any interest in. All topped off by trying to make everything about religion again.
https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins
Here, I spent more than 10 seconds on Google and found something which lays out pretty explicitly how and why you are a giant retard. I'm not going to do any more research on your behalf, do your own homework from here.
Your understanding of "life" is also shit but instead of trying to explain it to you, because that seems to be a waste of time, instead I'll ask you: How do you define the word "life?" And if your definition doesn't match the ones in the dictionary, do you accept that you're a retard?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
lmao
At least they hate trannies and are against buttseks.
Stick to that!
The below is a similar sentence as "Sex is a bimodal spectrum"
Fuck you po-mo.
Fuck your lived experiences.
Fuck your religious dogma.
gang weeder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2022
Once again complaining about the soorce while addressing nothing it actually says or any of its own sub-soorces. Okay so despite pretending earlier that you think this should be left up to the debate of medical professionals, when presented with medical professionals who you don't like, I guess you are going for the typical libshit thing where you say all the experts who don't agree with you don't count.
How do you define the word "life?" And where are you soorcing your definition from?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
That necessary evil only helps so much, some people just plain choose not to use them.
Actually the whole foster care lie is an anti-natalism myth in regard to its relevance with abortion, there's virtually no babies in foster care because there's more infertile parents looking for newborns than there are available newborns.
There's literally not enough babies to meet demand, so the bullshit fear propaganda about how bad foster care is (which is exaggerated but it isn't good) has no relevance here. Not saying you're doing this on purpose but you've been fooled by pro-aborts on that topic.
Because of science & logic all definitively regarding it as such, not to mention religion.
You were that "bunch of cells" (which meets the scientific criteria for life and is offspring of the human species, plus, you are now just a bigger clump of cells); you, the very same entity, only fully developed now.
No, a newborn is not fully developed either, so you can't arbitrarily decide at what point a human is developed enough to deserve human rights. Either you have them through your entire life or you do not, and if not you need damn good reasoning beyond "lol just flush it bruh".
More women think that than men do, which is why many insist abortion be on-demand, free, for any or no reason, without any stigma and in fact praise instead. They view something good and natural as a disaster, disease, and trap.
That's an insanely unhealthy view of life and nature, even if you're not religious. If anything most men just see it as what it is, either a convenient out from responsibility or the murder of their of their son, depending on their morals.
Muh studies
Stop justifying the gorillion elective abortions by hiding behind the few kids raped by the niggers and spics you liberals love so much and flood the country with.
You're conflating way too much here, biology is settled science, vaccines are up for debate, especially certain ones like the "safe & effective" COVID vax.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2023
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
But it is. The scientific definition of life is defined, and humans meet that at every stage of their existence.
As for logic, you are literally the same being you were yesterday, and the day before that, traced all the way back to your conception. Your species never changed from that point, you're a human.
With this indisputable information we know you were both a life and a human, or...a human life from your genesis. Thus, you deserve human rights.
Please point out any issues you have, which should be none.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
Not true.
I don't believe in any of that shit lmao.
PS. I don't wanna debate you on this cause I already said my opinion on abortion numerous times and I'd rather we just agree to disagree. Plus you're clearly coming from an uncompromising religious perspective, my perspective is one of cautious compromise. People that claim the zygote is alive are typically uncompromising and their opinions are not shared by any medical institution, although that's not worth much these days.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2022
Nope. It's a convenient construction and full human invention that's 100% clearly not working at all and needs rethinking.
There is no organization (would need to be international) to protect humans, nor enforce respecting human rights.
Humans have no rights whatsoever.
What humans should have is a contract they enter with, together with a guaranteeing entity, i.e. a state, where the state grants them some security and protection IF and ONLY IF they are responsible enough and respect their part of the contract.
Just look at Gaza. Zero rights. Look at Africa. Look at dissidents in Russia or China.
Who has power, can enforce it over others and crush their opposition, nearly always with complete disregard to "rights".
We need pragmatic power relationships that are convenient and realistic for both sides, not liberal lies and illusions.