The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Penis Drager]

If murdering the murderer is justified, is it then justified to murder the pro-lifer with the pipe bomb? Does it become justified after the pipe bomb is thrown?

Murdering the murderer is fine. Murdering the murderer's murderer is a whole different story. It may even warrant murdering the murderer's murderer's murderer.

 

[Not Really Here]

If murdering the murderer is justified, is it then justified to murder the pro-lifer with the pipe bomb? Does it become justified after the pipe bomb is thrown?

'Hey that guy just murdered the mass shooter, is it justifiable to murder the guy who just murdered the mass shooter?'

 

[Eris!]

If murdering the murderer is justified, is it then justified to murder the pro-lifer with the pipe bomb?

No, because he's not a murderer. It's not murder if they deserve it.

 

[Driftwood]

Anyway, is abortion murder?

Yes. Is it murder if I just beat my cat death with a hammer? The law clearly says so, that my cat's life is not worth nothing. But a cat is just an animal, who gives a fuck? Only the most sociopathic individuals would try to argue that a cat is worth zero. Same with human pregnancies. If it is normal, you are just beating it to death with a hammer because it makes you feel better.

Spoiler: Pl

I volunteered at a spay neuter clinic. The surgeons would cry and leave when they had to abort near term dogs and cats. It was...,some of the worst I have seen without PLing too much. These were just animals, right? Days, minutes from birth. If they were trash, why weren't they?

I am also disturbed by the people in this thread that stabbing me 7 months pregnant would mean nothing to me and not murder. I would be devastated and demand justice if I survived.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

'Hey that guy just murdered the mass shooter, is it justifiable to murder the guy who just murdered the mass shooter?'

Most people who prevent a shooting still get dragged through legal proceedings, now, don't they? No jury would ever, ever convict on those charges, though, and proescutions will always softball it if they bother at all. Largely because everyone agrees that mass shooters are pretty evil.

Now, using your own logic, you pipe bomb a clinic and it magically kills only the abortion-providing doctor. You are arrested, you are charged, and you are put before a jury. Do you et why your analogy is retarded yet, or do you really think an issue which sees itself as a 50-50 split is the same deal as "are active shooters good or bad?"

No, because he's not a murderer. It's not murder if they deserve it.

Go for the high score in minecraft when you do it, then. Oh, wait, you're just gonna post some shit on social media and vote R.

Murdering the murderer is fine. Murdering the murderer's murderer is a whole different story. It may even warrant murdering the murderer's murderer's murderer.

If someone ever tells you that you'd do great on an LSAT, don't buy anything they're telling you

 

[Eris!]

Now, using your own logic, you pipe bomb a clinic and it magically kills only the abortion-providing doctor. You are arrested, you are charged, and you are put before a jury. Do you et why your analogy is retarded yet,

No.

Do you et why your analogy is retarded yet, or do you really think an issue which sees itself as a 50-50 split is the same deal as "are active shooters good or bad?"

I concern myself with how it IS, not with how society sees it.

 

[Not Really Here]

Most people who prevent a shooting still get dragged through legal proceedings, now, don't they? No jury would ever, ever convict on those charges, though, and proescutions will always softball it if they bother at all. Largely because everyone agrees that mass shooters are pretty evil.

Now, using your own logic, you pipe bomb a clinic and it magically kills only the abortion-providing doctor. You are arrested, you are charged, and you are put before a jury. Do you et why your analogy is retarded yet, or do you really think an issue which sees itself as a 50-50 split is the same deal as "are active shooters good or bad?"

It's your retarded hypothetical slightly modified.
Since I'm not retarded, I understand the difference between the legal definition of the word "murder" and the moral definition.
And pipe bombs are for tards.

 

[Penis Drager]

If someone ever tells you that you'd do great on an LSAT, don't buy anything they're telling you

Are you unironically autistic?

 

[Bunny Tracks]

Normally it's county jail, yes.

Okay, so the conclusion is that men would never get abortions because all abortions would be banned because men can never not take responsibility because they get thrown in jail for not paying child support?

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

It's your retarded hypothetical slightly modified.
Since I'm not retarded, I understand the difference between the legal definition of the word "murder" and the moral definition.
And pipe bombs are for tards.

let me just find where I discussed the legal and the moral definition - ah, I just said justified. You skated around the topic and took it to an inherently subjective plane so that you could fart around. If morality is not democratically decided, it must derive from something objective. Christians tend to take it as the Bible and various other elements of the faith. By necessity, this is not universal. So it is that if we compare systems of morality for justification, you either have to specify which group you're asking the question of or accept that there is no "objective" morality

So stop trying to argue if you're too retarded to not run away as fast as possible. If I follow the obvious implications of "uhmmm MORAL, not LEGAL" then killing half of the country on the basis of their support for free sex and access to abortion COULD be seen as moral. This is indeed the point, let me spell it out for you, for justifying the use of violence or murder on spurious grounds such as personal morality. That would indeed be the point of the exercise of asking the question "is it okay to kill a murderer?" Otherwise I fully invite you to stroll right into the arc: survival evolved pentagon and blat those war pigs

No.

I concern myself with how it IS, not with how society sees it.

Then why the fuck would anyone care about what you think if your intention is just to disagree with people on the internet and not to form any line of argument or appeal that would ever work for anyone but yourself?

Are you unironically autistic?

Do you need that jibe explained? Or do you need the implication of the jibe explained? Careful with that word there champ

 

[Eris!]

Then why the fuck would anyone care about what you think if your intention is just to disagree with people on the internet and not to form any line of argument or appeal that would ever work for anyone but yourself?

My intention is to be right. I don't judge my arguments based on what will appeal to you. I judge my arguments based on what is factually correct and true. Shifting your positions to whatever your audience will respond to is bad-faith argumentation. If truth doesn't appeal to you that's a you problem not a me problem. Truth is the only appeal I will ever make.

I'm arguing because I want one of you to show me the ways in which I am not right. So far we have shown that there are no such ways, which is good.
I am also arguing because I want to show you the ways in which you are not right. I've done this a lot, which is good. Unfortunately you are all bad-faith arguers who will not change your mind when you are shown to be wrong, because you don't care what is true, only what is appealing.

then killing half of the country on the basis of their support for free sex and access to abortion COULD be seen as moral.

Could it be CORRECTLY seen as moral?

 

[Penis Drager]

Do you need that jibe explained? Or do you need the implication of the jibe explained? Careful with that word there champ

Yes, actually. Explain, with proper sources, the jibe and all of its implications.

 

[haurchefant]

Actually...

Almost but not quite. Erischan also thinks that a rapist's parents should have familial rights to a baby that their son produced through rape:

Sure, I don't see any reason why not. They didn't rape her, and it's their grandchild.

Someone might defend this as not a big deal because ~family~ but it actually is. First of all because Matthew 7:16, "by their fruit shall you know them." A rapist will most likely be produced by a dysfunctional family that sexually abused the rapist as a child, making them unfit parents. Secondly, it strikes me as being closely related to Hermesmann v. Seyer where it was successfully argued that a female rapist can sue her male rape victim for child support. AKA it's giving rapists and their enablers more power then they deserve.

Someone who believes a rapist's family should have custody of a child born from rape is morally diseased and does not understand how family bonds operate or how they form communities. Next.

 

[Eris!]

A rapist will most likely be produced by a dysfunctional family that sexually abused the rapist as a child, making them unfit parents.

That would be a specific determination which family court makes. He asked if they can *sue* for custody, not if they can just automagically have it.

Secondly, it strikes me as being closely related to Hermesmann v. Seyer where it was successfully argued that a female rapist can sue her male rape victim for child support.

And?

Someone who believes a rapist's family should have custody of a child born from rape is morally diseased and does not understand how family bonds operate or how they form communities. Next.

"Ur dum. No I will not say why."

 

[Not Really Here]

let me just find where I discussed the legal and the moral definition - ah, I just said justified. You skated around the topic and took it to an inherently subjective plane so that you could fart around. If morality is not democratically decided, it must derive from something objective. Christians tend to take it as the Bible and various other elements of the faith. By necessity, this is not universal. So it is that if we compare systems of morality for justification, you either have to specify which group you're asking the question of or accept that there is no "objective" morality

So stop trying to argue if you're too retarded to not run away as fast as possible. If I follow the obvious implications of "uhmmm MORAL, not LEGAL" then killing half of the country on the basis of their support for free sex and access to abortion COULD be seen as moral. This is indeed the point, let me spell it out for you, for justifying the use of violence or murder on spurious grounds such as personal morality. That would indeed be the point of the exercise of asking the question "is it okay to kill a murderer?" Otherwise I fully invite you to stroll right into the arc: survival evolved pentagon and blat those war pigs

I let your retarded "justified murder" comment slide because I wanted to be polite, and not call you a retard for not understanding that a justified killing is never a "murder" either legally or morally.

Morality is never "democratically decided" law sometimes is, and in the majority of nations religious morality is codified as law.

 

[Eris!]

I let your retarded "justified murder" comment slide because I wanted to be polite, and not call you a retard for not understanding that a justified killing is never a "murder" either legally or morally.

It's insane that this needs to be explained to anyone.
It's also insane that I had to spend like 5 pages trying to explain to hulk hogan that he can't hold me responsible for something I didn't cause.

 

[Not Really Here]

It's insane that this needs to be explained to anyone.
It's also insane that I had to spend like 5 pages trying to explain to hulk hogan that he can't hold me responsible for something I didn't cause.

You didn't have to, he was trolling you.
Explain they are retarded once, and let it drop, or you are the fool.

 

[Eris!]

You didn't have to, he was trolling you.
Explain they are retarded once, and let it drop, or you are the fool.

But I got the troll to drop instead.
#winning

 

[haurchefant]

Okay, so the conclusion is that men would never get abortions because all abortions would be banned because men can never not take responsibility because they get thrown in jail for not paying child support?

Men would get abortions though the reasoning is impossible to determine. After all they are human. And men don't really like children that much unless they're related to them.

That would be a specific determination which family court makes. He asked if they can *sue* for custody, not if they can just automagically have it.

And?

"Ur dum. No I will not say why."

AKA it's giving rapists and their enablers more power then they deserve. This isn't difficult to grasp, sexual abusers are most often produced by sexually abusive families, you just have to look at your local LGBT nightclub to understand that. I suppose you're also okay for the states that allow rapists to sue for custody of the rape babies since you're okay with the parents of a rapist getting custody of the rape baby? After all they're family, never mind that the rapist is a criminal.

Throughout this entire process you have shown yourself completely ignorant of why sexual abuse occurs and how it affects the victims. The moral disease runs deep in this pagan. And the sad fact is she's too autistic to understand why she's morally diseased - she'll just keep justifying more dumb bullshit.

People like this are why we need abortion. They're a drag on society.

 

[Eris!]

AKA it's giving rapists and their enablers more power then they deserve.

No lol.

This isn't difficult to grasp, sexual abusers are most often

I literally just stop reading at "most often" because it makes everything you're saying irrelevant.
If it's probabilistic, the courts can determine when it's the case and when it's not.
That's literally their purpose

I suppose you're also okay for the states that allow rapists to sue for custody of the rape babies since you're okay with the parents of a rapist getting custody of the rape baby?

How would they sue anyone when they're hanging from a tree?

Throughout this entire process you have shown yourself completely ignorant of why sexual abuse occurs and how it affects the victims.

You people keep describing indifference as ignorance.
I don't care. It's not relevant.

And the sad fact is she's too autistic to understand why she's morally diseased - she'll just keep justifying more dumb bullshit.

Totally empty of any substance. Sad!

I am winning this argument, as always.