The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

Marshal Mannerheim said:
And most of the Electoral College voted for Trump in 2016 but that didn't stop you bitching about him for four years.
Click to expand...
It's cute when people who signed up 5 months ago act like they know what's been going on here for years. I didn't start pissing off you Trumptards by breaking up your hugbox until 2020. But anyway, whose sock are you? Since A&N isn't viewable unless you're registered, you must be someone's sock to have seen it.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Marshal Mannerheim and FEETLOAF
Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:
It's cute when people who signed up 5 months ago act like they know what's been going on here for years. I didn't start pissing off you Trumptards by breaking up your hugbox until 2020. But anyway, whose sock are you? Since A&N isn't viewable unless you're registered, you must be someone's sock to have seen it.
Click to expand...
Why do you care who it is?
 
Hellbound Hellhound said:
I addressed this point earlier in the thread, but all that's needed to highlight the ontological absurdity of this argument is to bring up identical twins. Monozygotic twins share the same DNA, yet they are clearly not the same person.
Click to expand...
Even if they have the same DNA, the value of the point is that they don't have the same DNA of either of their parents, so they can't be considered mere extensions of either even if they owe their conception to them both.

Muh Vagina said:
Fetuses and embryos can't think. Therefore, they can't decide that they "don't want to be aborted".
Click to expand...
You can't think either, but you're either clearly alive or a very complex AI able to simulate natural human vacuity.
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: Muh Vagina, LurkNoMore, Trianon and 1 other person
Zero Day Defense said:
Even if they have the same DNA, the value of the point is that they don't have the same DNA of either of their parents, so they can't be considered mere extensions of either even if they owe their conception to them both.
Click to expand...
I'm still not seeing what value this point is supposed to have. If you concede that identical twins are not the same person, then you're also conceding that DNA isn't what defines personhood. Ergo, you need to come up with a different argument if your aim is to demonstrate that an embryo is a person.

This is only the first hurdle you need to overcome, however, because even if you can find an alternative argument which lives up to this aim, you then have to find another argument to demonstrate that one person's right to life trumps another person's right to bodily autonomy. Unfortunately for you, both legally and morally, the general precedent is against this idea.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hollywood Hulk Hogan
FEETLOAF said:
What's the punchline?
Click to expand...
No punchline, it's entertaining. You were such a spaz that you got banned

But since he claims to know my posting history over the past 4 years (even though he's completely wrong about it), he must be someone's sock. You gotta be a total pussy to post from a sock account
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muh Vagina
Marshal Mannerheim said:
Interesting.

Out of interest, do you support the death penalty for murder?
Click to expand...
I don't support the death penalty, but I do recognize the right to self-defense, and in such circumstances, it is pretty clear to me that one's right to bodily integrity comes before another person's right to life when the two are forced to come into conflict. I see no reason why abortion should be an exception.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: FEETLOAF
Hellbound Hellhound said:
I don't support the death penalty, but I do recognize the right to self-defense, and in such circumstances, it is pretty clear to me that one's right to bodily integrity comes before another person's right to life when the two are forced to come into conflict. I see no reason why abortion should be an exception.
Click to expand...
Even if that was true, not all abortions take place to save the woman's life.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FEETLOAF
Hellbound Hellhound said:
I'm still not seeing what value this point is supposed to have. If you concede that identical twins are not the same person, then you're also conceding that DNA isn't what defines personhood.
Click to expand...
It's certainly part of what defines personhood. We wouldn't be having this argument if we were talking about an organism with canine DNA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FEETLOAF
Zero Day Defense said:
It's certainly part of what defines personhood. We wouldn't be having this argument if we were talking about an organism with canine DNA.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing "human" with "person". Anything with human DNA is by definition human, but that doesn't necessarily make it a person. A sperm cell can be human; an egg cell can be human; a skin cell can be human, but none of those things could ever be described as a person.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: FEETLOAF
Hellbound Hellhound said:
I think you're confusing "human" with "person". Anything with human DNA is by definition human, but that doesn't necessarily make it a person. A sperm cell can be human; an egg cell can be human; a skin cell can be human, but none of those things could ever be described as a person.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about individual cells, we're talking about collections of cells in the process of arraying themselves into the complex organism we know as a human being.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FEETLOAF
Zero Day Defense said:
And if he doesn't, what could be done?
Click to expand...
If this whole thing was about choice and equality there would be no barriers, and incentive to having men getting "legal abortion". This would mean a legal statement that he does not wish to be a father and would not be legally compelled to be one financially. Something similar as sperm donors have.

It's one of the spearpoints that MRA's care about and try to move forward. MRA's operate from the worldview where they take the feminist myth of caring about equality as truth and they simply want legal equality in such issues as paternity/maternity.

I think the worldview is wrong, but if people really cared about equality between men and women, issues like this would move forward.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FEETLOAF
Lemmingwise said:
If this whole thing was about choice and equality there would be no barriers, and incentive to having men getting "legal abortion". This would mean a legal statement that he does not wish to be a father and would not be legally compelled to be one financially. Something similar as sperm donors have.

It's one of the spearpoints that MRA's care about and try to move forward. MRA's operate from the worldview where they take the feminist myth of caring about equality as truth and they simply want legal equality in such issues as paternity/maternity.
Click to expand...
Feminists have nothing to do with it, the government is just afraid they'll have to spend more money on welfare if they can't force unwilling fathers to do it for them. If abortions cost the government money you can bet they'd be illegal as fuck.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: FEETLOAF
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back