The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Not Really Here]

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?

Did you think mixing a hypothetical opinion, and fact question was very smert?
Are you drunk?

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

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.

You're gonna make neo jim jones a very happy man some day. "Shown to be wrong" is here synonymous with "I am telling you what I believe, and you cannot disprove it!" Belief by necessity cannot be disproved, which I am sure you realized early on when you started intertwining the idea of "belief" with "truth" and used yourself as the fulcrum for which all truth is decided (hence, based on your own belief). That "no such ways" exist should come as no surprise when your very explanation of your goal is itself circular self-worship.

You live, presumably, around other people. In a democracy, things are decided upon based on what people believe. If your belief truly is the "truth," yet you have difficulty making even the most basic appeal for why people should get on the pro-life position, your "rightness" can wind up turning people off and achieving the opposite end of what is "right." Pressing forward despite this suggests that not only is society's belief inconsequential, but that what happens in reality is inconsequential; hence the only "rightness" is to be found in the self, hence "self-righteousness."

The point of this is that if you make arguments that realize the opposite of what you want... how are you helping the cause

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_School_Admission_Test

The LSAT tests your ability to make logical reasoning, it tests your legal comprehension, your ability to participate in shit that involves those functions, and your ability to make a persuasive argument making use of those functions.

The joke, then, is that if someone tells you that you would be great at this, I am warning you that they're a liar and as such you should not be trusting of them. The implication of this is that you're very bad at logical reasoning, comprehension, and rhetoric and thus would do poorly on the LSAT.

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.

Hahahah, alright, semantics, alright. Let's break it all down. Hit it, johnny!
Change the line to:
If homiciding the homicider is justified, is it then justified to homicide the pro-lifer with the pipe bomb? Does it become justified after the pipe bomb is thrown?

Then throw in the caveat that the borshun doctor, at current, is neither guilty of homicide nor murder in the eyes of the law, so we have to change that to:
If homiciding the by-certain-moralities child-murderer is justified, is it then objectively morally justified to homicide the pro-lifer with the pipe bomb? Does it become justified after the pipe bomb is thrown?

And let me point out the A->B phrase
IF If morality is not democratically decided,
THEN it must derive from something objective.

I am agreeing with you that it is not democratically decided, but I point instead the question at wherefrom it is. What the objective thing is. The point of this exercise is to show that it turns out that there are a myriad kaleidoscope of moralities from which nothing objective truly emerges, but rather varying interpretations of what truth is. Hence anything can be viewed as morally justifiable, if you just tweak the lens. And that is why it's not the best thing to rest your case on, if your goal is to get enough people to your side to actually affect the change you want to see. Because "what is it derived from in the objective world?" has infinite potential answers.

 

[haurchefant]

No lol.

I literally just stop reading at "most often" because it makes everything you're saying irrelevant.

And yet you kept going on to read the rest of it, which is self defeating.

If it's probabilistic, the courts can determine when it's the case and when it's not.
That's literally their purpose

So you literally don't know how abuse works? Damn dude, I would've thought that was common knowledge by now: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-perpetrator/A98434C25DB8619FB8F1E8654B651A88

Among 747 males the risk of being a perpetrator was positively correlated with reported sexual abuse victim experiences. The overall rate of having been a victim was 35% for perpetrators and 11 % for non-perpetrators. Of the 96 females, 43% had been victims but only one was a perpetrator. A high percentage of male subjects abused in childhood by a female relative became perpetrators. Having been a victim was a strong predictor of becoming a perpetrator, as was an index of parental loss in childhood.

Perpetrators of any kind of abuse are very commonly victims themselves. How on earth do you not know this?

You also should not trust family courts with matters this delicate, as I previously spoke of Hermesmann v. Seyer set precedent that rapists can sue their victims for child support. Jesus, you actually think it's a good idea to leave these decisions up to a court that legalized rapists suing for child support, that is flat out disgusting lol.

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

It is very rare for a rapist to be executed for rape. The sentences for rape in the US can also be very light, such as in the case of rapist Brock Turner. Now, it is not always the case that a rapist does not face appropriate justice but rapists getting off lightly (heh) is a common enough problem that it's a legitimate campaign issue for politicians. No one gets hanged for rape and its unreasonable to expect them to be.

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

"I don't care that I've proven to this thread that I don't understand how morality works and I demand that they take me as an authority on abortion after I have proven the extent of my moral disease."

Totally empty of any substance. Sad!

I am winning this argument, as always.

We'll need judges to ascertain that friendo lol.

 

[Penis Drager]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_School_Admission_Test The LSAT tests your ability to make logical reasoning, it tests your legal comprehension, your ability to participate in shit that involves those functions, and your ability to make a persuasive argument making use of those functions.

The joke, then, is that if someone tells you that you would be great at this, I am warning you that they're a liar and as such you should not be trusting of them. The implication of this is that you're very bad at logical reasoning, comprehension, and rhetoric and thus would do poorly on the LSAT.

Wikipedia is not a proper source. Try again.

 

[Eris!]

"Shown to be wrong" is here synonymous with "I am telling you what I believe, and you cannot disprove it!"

Well, yes. Whether or not ideas are disproven in arguments is how we establish who is right.
This is why I say I'm winning. Because people make arguments, I rebut their arguments, and they offer no counterrebuttal. If the chain of argument ends with my statement, I won.
It's not my fault you don't play to win.

Belief by necessity cannot be disproved,

It very much can. I have been doing it consistently in this very thread.

which I am sure you realized early on when you started intertwining the idea of "belief" with "truth

I have at no point intertwined these ideas. I have mentioned beliefs at no point, only truth.

and used yourself as the fulcrum for which all truth is decided

Yeah that's called being rational what the fuck else am i supposed to do, not judge reality for myself?
Am I supposed to ask you to judge it for me?
Am I supposed to ask some dead jews who wrote a book to judge it for me?

Yeah. I have opinions, and I'm arguing that they are true. Why are all of you acting like this is weird?

You live, presumably, around other people. In a democracy, things are decided upon based on what people believe.

Yeah, that's why democracy is a terrible system of government.

f your belief truly is the "truth," yet you have difficulty making even the most basic appeal for why people should get on the pro-life position, your "rightness" can wind up turning people off and achieving the opposite end of what is "right."

I don't care. I'm right, that's what matters. Being right is an ends, not a means.
If they choose, of their own volition, to be wrong, then that's on them, not on me.

Pressing forward despite this suggests that not only is society's belief inconsequential,

Correct. Society's belief is inconsequential.

but that what happens in reality is incosnequential;

Correct. Life in reality is a moral test. Literally the only thing that matters is making moral choices and being right.

hence the only "rightness" is to be found in the self, hence "self-righteousness."

Righteousness is to be found in truth and moral choice.

Then throw in the caveat that the borshun doctor, at current, is neither guilty of homicide nor murder in the eyes of the law,

But he's guilty of both in actual fact.

IF If morality is not democratically decided,
THEN it must derive from something objective.

Yes.

am agreeing with you that it is not democratically decided, but I point instead the question at wherefrom it is. What the objective thing is.

The objective thing is morality.

The point of this exercise is to show that it turns out that there are a myriad kaleidoscope of moralities from which nothing objective truly emerges,

No there aren't. There is one morality. There are myriad OPINIONS about what that morality is. Disagreement does not invalidate the existence of a right answer.

Hence anything can be viewed as morally justifiable, if you just tweak the lens.

Yes. Duh. Anything can be viewed as anything. The question is whether or not that view is correct.

And that is why it's not the best thing to rest your case on, if your goal is to get enough people to your side to actually affect the change you want to see.

My goal is to be right.

Because "what is it derived from in the objective world?" has infinite potential answers.

Literally everything has infinite potential answers. "What shape is the Earth?" has infinite potential answers.
There is only one correct answer.

 

[Driftwood]

I guess, why should recreational abortion legal when all birth control is legal? Are we all that retarded and why is that exucsible in the exception of rape, incest, medical? A fetus never was dead. Since I was conceived , my egg cells have been alive.

 

[Eris!]

I guess, why should recreational abortion legal when all birth control is legal? Are we all that retarded and why is that exucsible in the exception of rape, incest, medical? A fetus never was dead. Since I was conceived , my egg cells have been alive.

Because whores are psychopaths and liars.
Don't be confused: There is not a single person on earth who doesn't know that abortion is murder. There is no actual disagreement on this issue. All professed disagreement is performative.

 

[haurchefant]

My goal is to be right.

Shouldn't your goal be convincing people not to have abortions so that they stop killing babies? That's a much more pressing issue then "being right."

 

[Eris!]

Shouldn't your goal be convincing people not to have abortions so that they stop killing babies? That's a much more pressing issue then "being right."

No, it's not. Nothing is.

 

[Not Really Here]

Hahahah, alright, semantics, alright. Let's break it all down. Hit it, johnny!
Change the line to:
If homiciding the homicider is justified, is it then justified to homicide the pro-lifer with the pipe bomb? Does it become justified after the pipe bomb is thrown?

Depends on the exact circumstance, but if the tard is using an area effect weapon, probably.
Also hypotheticals are retarded.

Then throw in the caveat that the borshun doctor, at current, is neither guilty of homicide nor murder in the eyes of the law, so we have to change that to:
If homiciding the by-certain-moralities child-murderer is justified, is it then objectively morally justified to homicide the pro-lifer with the pipe bomb? Does it become justified after the pipe bomb is thrown?

See above.

And let me point out the A->B phrase
IF If morality is not democratically decided,
THEN it must derive from something objective.

I am agreeing with you that it is not democratically decided, but I point instead the question at wherefrom it is. What the objective thing is. The point of this exercise is to show that it turns out that there are a myriad kaleidoscope of moralities from which nothing objective truly emerges, but rather varying interpretations of what truth is. Hence anything can be viewed as morally justifiable, if you just tweak the lens. And that is why it's not the best thing to rest your case on, if your goal is to get enough people to your side to actually affect the change you want to see. Because "what is it derived from in the objective world?" has infinite potential answers.

The particular 'murder is immoral' is very nearly a human universal, in the exact definition of the word 'unjustified killing of a human'.
The origin of this racial meme is likely the expression of a racial genetic survival trait that predates humanity.
I mean, unless you are a psychopath.

 

[haurchefant]

No, it's not. Nothing is.

Can you expand on this?

 

[Eris!]

Can you expand on this?

Correct. Life in reality is a moral test. Literally the only thing that matters is making moral choices and being right.

 

[haurchefant]

So you see nothing wrong with refusing to teach people about the difference between good and evil?

 

[Eris!]

So you see nothing wrong with refusing to teach people about the difference between good and evil?

This would imply that it needs to be taught to people.
Everyone knows what is good and what is evil.

 

[haurchefant]

This would imply that it needs to be taught to people.
Everyone knows what is good and what is evil.

Lol, nice
And that's a wrap people, we finally have confirmation that this was all an ego trip for a retard. At least this way we don't have any more legitimate arguments against abortion, we just have to point to this thread as a warning to others.

 

[Eris!]

And that's a wrap people, we finally have confirmation that this was all an ego trip for a retard. At least this way we don't have any more legitimate arguments against abortion, we just have to point to this thread as a warning to others.

nigga what

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Wikipedia is not a proper source. Try again.

Law School Admission Test LSAT | The Law School Admission Council

The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is an integral part of law school admission in the United States, Canada, and a growing number of other countries.

www.lsac.org

would you have been less assblasted if I just called you a dumb nigger or something

so on

Half of my points you responded to by repeating what I said. Now the problem here is when you said

I have at no point intertwined these ideas. I have mentioned beliefs at no point, only truth.

Which would necessarily be the same as your belief if you intertwined them, and given that every one of your positions is a belief - "fact rooted in fact, morality rooted in morality" suggesting that the only font from which both fact and morality could ever be understood would be from you,
You gave away the gamut! I'd give you the drink icon if I could, you clever troll. That's a remarkable amount of work just to make people moti, but I'm just as guilty.

No, it's not. Nothing is.

...Or are you an antisocial, nihilistic teenage neet? My god, you're good at this, poe. Zvarri!

Depends on the exact circumstance, but if the tard is using an area effect weapon, probably.
Also hypotheticals are retarded.

See above.

The particular 'murder is immoral' is very nearly a human universal, in the exact definition of the word 'unjustified killing of a human'.
The origin of this racial meme is likely the expression of a racial genetic survival trait that predates humanity.
I mean, unless you are a psychopath.

...Huh? The exact circumstance in that hypothetical was some guy homicided an abortion doctor. If one believes that such a homicide was justified, would one believe the same thing if someone were to homicide the original homicider specifically because of their killing the abortion doctor?
This, of course, asks the other question: "should someone who homicides an abortion doctor specifically because they provide abortions be free from any retribution at all for the act, and by what justification?"
You can dig up just about any case of someone shooting at an abortion clinic and have a non-hypothetical version of it.

We have courts to decide what we call murder and what we call justified homicide in legal terms. When we consider it on moral terms, the definition of "unjustified" rolls right back in. This is probably why countries with well-developed legal systems and codified law don't tend to have child slaves mining cobalt in them, since law allows us to try to create something close to a unified definition for what is and what is not permissible that are not necessarily subject to individual or collective morality.

the tl;dr point is that for every person who sees shooting borshun doctors as morally justified, another sees shooting the shooter as morally justified, and this daisy-chains continually until violence gets removed from the list of potential solutions. And to think, the poe got us here!

 

[Penis Drager]

would you have been less assblasted if I just called you a dumb nigger or something

Bro...
I took not one but two psychology classes. I feel qualified enough to diagnose you with autism.

 

[Eris!]

Which would necessarily be the same as your belief if you intertwined them, and given that every one of your positions is a belief - "fact rooted in fact, morality rooted in morality" suggesting that the only font from which both fact and morality could ever be understood would be from you,
You gave away the gamut! I'd give you the drink icon if I could, you clever troll. That's a remarkable amount of work just to make people moti, but I'm just as guilty.

I have made conscious effort to phrase all of my arguments from outside my own perspective. I never said "I believe X," but instead said "X is true." I never said "As a woman...." or whatever because who I am and what my specific perspective are is irrelevant. The only perspective that should matter in this argument is the objective and infallible perspective of reality itself.
This is how you should behave. I assure you I am not trolling.

...Huh? The exact circumstance in that hypothetical was some guy homicided an abortion doctor. If one believes that such a homicide was justified, would one believe the same thing if someone were to homicide the original homicider specifically because of their killing the abortion doctor?

No. We already explained to you why. Why are you still asking?

This, of course, asks the other question: "should someone who homicides an abortion doctor specifically because they provide abortions be free from any retribution at all for the act, and by what justification?"

Yes. Because the person he killed deserved it.
We have literally already said this. Why are you asking a question we just answered?

We have courts to decide what we call murder and what we call justified homicide in legal terms.

I'd rather we abolished courts and just used lynch mobs.

This is probably why countries with well-developed legal systems and codified law don't tend to have child slaves mining cobalt in them, since law allows us to try to create something close to a unified definition for what is and what is not permissible that are not necessarily subject to individual or collective morality.

A dictator is better.

e tl;dr point is that for every person who sees shooting borshun doctors as morally justified, another sees shooting the shooter as morally justified, and this daisy-chains continually until violence gets removed from the list of potential solutions. And to think, the poe got us here!

I genuinely don't understand why you people repeat this argument so much. "People disagree with you. That means there's no right answer at all."
That makes no fuckin sense.

 

[Not Really Here]

...Huh? The exact circumstance in that hypothetical was some guy homicided an abortion doctor. If one believes that such a homicide was justified, would one believe the same thing if someone were to homicide the original homicider specifically because of their killing the abortion doctor?

Dear god you are bad at this.
Was the last person in fear for their lives? What was the last person thinking at the moment they fired?
In this dumb hypothetical we take as a given that the person who killed the doc believed the doc would murder again. Does the last person?

This, of course, asks the other question: "should someone who homicides an abortion doctor specifically because they provide abortions be free from any retribution at all for the act, and by what justification?"
You can dig up just about any case of someone shooting at an abortion clinic and have a non-hypothetical version of it.

Yes, killing babies is anti racial survival.

the tl;dr point is that for every person who sees shooting borshun doctors as morally justified, another sees shooting the shooter as morally justified, and this daisy-chains continually until violence gets removed from the list of potential solutions. And to think, the poe got us here!

Only in your vapid mind.
Infanticide was removed as acceptable long ago, both morally and legally, why would it now become acceptable once more due to the location of the infant?