The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[Guardian]

I am pro life. I am not for the killing of innocents.

Murder isn’t a right. You can choose to murder but there are consequences. Just like there are consequences of unprotected sex. Cause and effect. I’m not telling anyone what to do with their own body. I’m saying they can’t tell others what to do with theirs. Isn’t that the pro choice argument as well?

[Hunter Rose]

17 minutes ago, Guardian said:

You pro death advocates are pretty out there.

In what way? To think that if the state forces a woman to bear a child through threat of force than the state also should have a responsibility for the child?

[Guardian]

In what way? To think that if the state forces a woman to bear a child through threat of force than the state also should have a responsibility for the child?

You deleted your post asking if I am pro rape or pro incest before I could comment. No. I am not.

[Guardian]

The state isn’t forcing anything. The force happens when people choose to have sex. The effect can be a child. Why should anyone be able to take the life of an innocent as a matter of convenience for their decisions?

[Hunter Rose]

31 minutes ago, Guardian said:

The state isn’t forcing anything. The force happens when people choose to have sex. The effect can be a child. Why should anyone be able to take the life of an innocent as a matter of convenience for their decisions?

I understand your above view, but the "taking the life of an innocent" portion pre-supposes that life begins at conception. Lots of fellow citizens don't share that view. Lots of people think a fetus at 8 weeks has neither consciousness nor self-awareness, so is not an "innocent life".  But I can respect your view and understand your moral reasoning.

However, what baffles me is the Texas law and other recent ones explicitly decided to leave out exceptions for pregnancy from rape and incest. So yes, the Texas law absolutely forces a woman who is pregnant from rape/incest to have an unwanted rape/incest baby, through threat of force by the state (incarceration and/or financial ruin through lawsuits by fellow citizens). This intentional oversight really cuts the legs out from under the the moral high ground proponents of these recent anti-abortion laws are trying to stand on.  This is the extreme case, but I don't find the state forcing the financial and legal burden of raising a child on a victim moral. 

The same line of reasoning holds for regular pregnancies, especially if you don't believe life begins at conception. The state is forcing a woman to have a child.

Additionally, the Pro-Life crowd is hell bent on making sure all these babies are born, but at the same time seems indifferent to the life of the child once it is out of the womb.  I see zero companion bills that promote state enforced/state paid for care standards for all these unwanted children they are forcing to be brought into the world.

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Hunter Rose

[Guardian]

A person on life suppport for say 9 months has no “consciousness nor self-awareness.” Can they be destroyed for that reason? (if you don’t like the word murder).

Imagine for a second that your mother was victim of rape, heaven forbid, aren’t you glad she elected life over death and not to avenge what had been done onto her to you? In that situation your life was chosen and everything you have experience up to today including this conversations is all because of a choice you didn’t have the ability to make.

I don’t believe punishing a different person for the sins of someone else.

Just because you or “others” don’t think or don’t want to feel that life begins at conception doesn’t make it so. A new life form with new unique independent DNA never having existed on the earth in just the way it exists in you has ever existed on earth. Science and scientists (regardless of religious beliefs) hold that it is a unique life independent that of the mother. And if you say that it wouldn’t exist 9 months later at birth if not for the mother, I would agree. I also think that the child wouldn’t exist after birth if not for someone taking care of it. So it still requires support to exist.

I agree with you. The rape and incest is an extreme and rare case. And while there are merits of arguing those rare and extreme cases, they shouldn’t lay the foundation of the majority of thought and conversation on the topic at large. Which is, is it okay to take the life of a child in the womb that has yet to be born.

So while I understand your arguments, I disagree with them and think they are made without thought, logic, or considerations for the scientific world. They are emotional arguments made to alleviate someone’s choices (good or bad). I don’t agree with paying poor choices or sometimes evil forward.


Edit: there will always be the poor and people who aren’t doing well in life that are with us. Poverty will NEVER not be a thing based off its definition alone. To say we should kill innocents because they will be a burden is not only sad it’s horrifying. Also you invite the contrary argument. I would think we could agree that 40-65 million babies have been aborted in the us alone since Roe v Casey. That’s mad man Stalin levels. I agree some of those babies would be poor in health, spirit. Financials, etc. but remember of those aborted, how many would be here that would be intellectual or industry giants that could have helped the plight of those that are less fortunate. How many Einstein’s or Musks have been aborted?

Your argument is half hearted and disingenuous in the least because you seem to fail to consider more than emotions.

[jazzdude]

The state isn’t forcing anything. The force happens when people choose to have sex. The effect can be a child. Why should anyone be able to take the life of an innocent as a matter of convenience for their decisions?

There isn't always a choice/decision to have sex (rape).

And many of the laws passed or queued up don't have exceptions for rape. "If the woman was raped, her body would know and reject the baby and prevent her from getting pregnant..."

[Demonrat]

8 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

Way to take a very nuanced topic and expose your (non?)-binary colors.  Both you and Sim are welcome to take your inflammatory hyperbolic crap over to some other forum.  What you're saying is BS and you know it.  Stop. 

 

6 hours ago, dream big said:

Your argument was valid until you made the logical fallacy here by assuming that all “pro lifers” think/act the same.  Some of the most charitable people I know (multiple foster children, etc) happen to be pro life and do more for impoverished children than many of the vocal “my body my choice” crowd.  

You guys are right, that last part was a generalization. There are pro-lifers who are very charitable. But like @Hunter Rose is arguing, nothing else is being passed to take care of the babies once they are born.

I bet if the government provided healthcare, resources, and money to pregnant women along with their babies for years after they are born you would see less abortions. Rather than dealing with the source of the issue in the majority of cases (desperation and poverty), state governments have decided to trample over women’s rights and ban abortion. 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Demonrat

[Guardian]

There isn't always a choice/decision to have sex (rape).

And many of the laws passed or queued up don't have exceptions for rape. "If the woman was raped, her body would know and reject the baby and prevent her from getting pregnant..."

Well that is an awful quote. But it being used in a cherry picking fashion to support the death of an innocent due to rape is ….well I’ll let you define it.

You’re right. Those laws apparently don’t.

I never said it isn’t an awful situation. But forcing death on the unborn not only has the affects on the child but causes a lot of trauma mentally and emotionally on the mother. Actually it does either way. So you and I are both advocating for opposing views they cause hardship on the raped mother. However one of the cases ends in life and the other in death.

[Guardian]

You guys are right, that last part was a generalization. There are pro-lifers who are very charitable. But like [mention=78794]Hunter Rose[/mention] is arguing, nothing else is being passed to take care of the babies once they are born.
I bet if the government provided healthcare, resources, and money to pregnant women along with their babies for years after they are born you would see less abortions. Rather than dealing with the source of the issue in the majority of cases (desperation and poverty), state governments have decided to trample over women’s rights and ban abortion. 

It’s not the job of the government to take care of people. Health care is not a right. It’s society’s responsibility.

Society is partially to blame for poor sexual and pregnancy decisions in the first place. And government tends to do things and it costs more and gets done in a worse fashion than if citizens take on their responsibilities.

[Hunter Rose]

35 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I agree with you. The rape and incest is an extreme and rare case. And while there are merits of arguing those rare and extreme cases, they shouldn’t lay the foundation of the majority of thought and conversation on the topic at large. Which is, is it okay to take the life of a child in the womb that has yet to be born.

I said rape/incest was the extreme case. I did not say it was rare. Based off older studies, about 5% or rapes result in pregnancy (about 30-40K rape pregnancies per year) and about 2+ million women will have to deal with a rape pregnancy in their lifetime. Add in more total numbers for incest cases. The numbers are likely higher today accounting for population growth.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357953/

I find the fact that rape/incest exceptions were intentionally left out these new laws morally repugnant. The state should not further victimize an innocent woman who was raped by making her both have the child and be legally/financially responsible for the child. The choice should be left to the innocent victim, not the state. 

Coupled with seeming lack of care for what happens to the baby once it is born, I see huge cracks in the moral superiority of the Pro-Life movement and a good bit of cognitive dissonance in the "Pro-Life" term. I think a good percentage of the Pro-Life crowd just wants to control women and force their personal religious beliefs upon all their fellow citizens.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Hunter Rose

[Guardian]

8 million rapes a year?!?

Edit: FBI says there are 135,000 reported to law enforcement rapes every year. Where are the other 6-7.8 million rapes?

[Guardian]

Wonder if they did a study from the article you linked to assess the mothers health and well being post decision to abort vs those who kept it.

I understand you think it’s morally repugnant. I think murder is morally repugnant.

[Guardian]

I said rape/incest was the extreme case.

I agree that you agree that I agreed rape was extreme.

[ClearedHot]

[lloyd christmas]

The level of intellectual dishonesty shown by the pro-abortion crowd is astounding.  It’s the most frustrating part of the whole argument.  You all know damn well that life begins at conception.  After conception, life is just a series of periods of growth and development followed by decline and death.  It’s a simple circle of life.  You just won’t say you understand that out loud.  Instead, you all come up with endless endless endless arguments about why you are for abortion as a distraction from the truth.  Just admit that you’re pro-self and that a baby will interrupt your life, finances, work, goals, etc.  I’d have a whole lot more respect for you and your argument if you were just truthful about your reasoning.  

[Hunter Rose]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

A person on life suppport for say 9 months has no “consciousness nor self-awareness.” Can they be destroyed for that reason? (if you don’t like the word murder).

This one seemed pretty weird to me, since people are taken off life support all the time for the exact reasons you quoted above. 

So you think taking someone off life support is murder, too?

[Guardian]

Let’s not move the goal posts. I said nothing about them dying or being taken off life support. All I said was that they weren’t self conscious or self aware for 9 months.


Edit: I’ll take your silence on other topics and nitpicking my speech on the first to mean you have no other comments or issues with anything else I said in that post.

[Hunter Rose]

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

Let’s not move the goal posts. I said nothing about them dying or being taken off life support. All I said was that they weren’t self conscious or self aware for 9 months.


Edit: I’ll take your silence on other topics and nitpicking my speech on the first to mean you have no other comments or issues with anything else I said in that post.

Nah, I just had to eat lunch and trying to disengage from an internet argument on abortion where neither one of us will convince the others.

I don't see the abortion issue as black and white like you do. I do't think abortion is murder as you do.

For the equivalency you've drawn between a person on life support and a zygote, not sure what point exactly you're asking? Absent a living will, the law allows the spouse/next of kin to take the person off life support and "destroy" or "murder" them as you put it. I don't have an issue with it. If I were a vegetable for 9 months I'd prefer someone take me off life support.

For the rest of that post, I found it laughable you tried to dismiss my arguments as illogical and completely emotional at the end, while in the same post arguing "How would I feel if my rape victim mother aborted me?" and "But think of the Elon Musks and Einsteins we might have missed out on because they were aborted."  

Both were silly and nonsensical to me. The first, I could care less if my hypothetical rape victim mother aborted me, because I would have never been conscious or self aware to care about it. The second point about Elon Musk and Einstein I also felt silly. Who knows, and who cares? The flip side of that argument was maybe some of those abortions were the next Hitler, Stalin, Mao, other random criminal, murderer? Maybe the next Madeline Albright, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, or Madame Curie was prevented from acheiving their full potential because they were forced to have a baby as a teenager and drop out of school to care for it? Both seemed like emotional "think of the children" arguments to me that I usually see in the gun ban debates.

Ultimately, we disagree.  From what I can tell, you see the issue as completely black and white. Abortion = murder. All pregnancies must be carried to term regardless of the consequences (rape/incest/threat to the health of the murder). 

My personal views on abortion are that I think it's an extraordinary complicated issue. I think it's an extremely difficult and extremely personal decision. I usually think extremely difficult, complicated, and personal decisions are best left to the individual to make, not for the government to mandate. I think in the early stages of the pregnancy where it's a zygote that is not conscious or self aware the the mother should be able to choose to terminate the pregnancy (especially in case of rape/incest/health threat to the mother/ extreme genetic deformity, etc.), and her decision to get an abortion would not be murder to me.  I oppose late term abortions, and think we as a society were probably pretty close with the best policy for all being abortions are legal until around the 8-12 week period.

 

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Hunter Rose

[Demonrat]

2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

The level of intellectual dishonesty shown by the pro-abortion crowd is astounding.  It’s the most frustrating part of the whole argument.  You all know damn well that life begins at conception.  After conception, life is just a series of periods of growth and development followed by decline and death.  It’s a simple circle of life.  You just won’t say you understand that out loud.  Instead, you all come up with endless endless endless arguments about why you are for abortion as a distraction from the truth.  Just admit that you’re pro-self and that a baby will interrupt your life, finances, work, goals, etc.  I’d have a whole lot more respect for you and your argument if you were just truthful about your reasoning.  

I saw the following argument on Reddit which makes complete logical sense against pro-life arguments. And for the record, I’m completely for bodily autonomy to include being against vaccine mandates before anybody starts that argument:

Aborting a fetus isn’t killing it, it’s acting on the fact that the carrier no longer consents to providing life support at their own risk.

If some guy was only alive because he was getting my blood, and I stopped giving my blood, I didn’t kill him. Circumstances killed him. The fact that he couldn’t survive without my blood killed him. No one should be able to force me to give up my body to provide for someone else’s life that way. And it’s the same for anyone who gets pregnant. They shouldn’t be forced to give life support.

They’re talking about the personhood of a fetus, but they’re completely neglecting the personhood of the person who is now forced to carry, nurture and sustain another life against their will and at their own risk.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Demonrat

[lloyd christmas]

7 minutes ago, Demonrat said:

I saw the following argument on Reddit which makes complete logical sense against pro-life arguments. And for the record, I’m completely for bodily autonomy to include being against vaccine mandates before anybody starts that argument:

Aborting a fetus isn’t killing it, it’s acting on the fact that the carrier no longer consents to providing life support at their own risk.

If some guy was only alive because he was getting my blood, and I stopped giving my blood, I didn’t kill him. Circumstances killed him. The fact that he couldn’t survive without my blood killed him. No one should be able to force me to give up my body to provide for someone else’s life that way. And it’s the same for anyone who gets pregnant. They shouldn’t be forced to give life support.

They’re talking about the personhood of a fetus, but they’re completely neglecting the personhood of the person who is now forced to carry, nurture and sustain another life against their will and at their own risk.

That is hands down the most evil, sick and twisted description of a mother carrying her own child I have ever read.  

And it is exactly why the pro-life side should, and I believe will win in the end.  This type of thinking is how you justify aborting babies up to the moment of birth.

[Demonrat]

28 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

That is hands down the most evil, sick and twisted description of a mother carrying her own child I have ever read.  

And it is exactly why the pro-life side should, and I believe will win in the end.  This type of thinking is how you justify aborting babies up to the moment of birth.

But it won’t win. A significant majority of Americans support the right to an abortion. The most sick, twisted, and evil thing in the world are conservative Christians looking to force their hypocritical ideology into the fabric of American government. Face it dude, religion is dying and the conservative ideology is dying a slow, painful death especially among Gen Z and with the changing demographics of the US. It’s only a matter of time. 
 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Demonrat

[pawnman]

1 minute ago, Demonrat said:

But it won’t win. A significant majority of Americans support the right to an abortion. The most sick, twisted, and evil thing in the world are conservative Christians looking to force their hypocritical ideology into the fabric of American government. Face it dude, religion is dying and the conservative ideology is dying a slow, painful death especially among Gen Z and with the changing demographics of the US. It’s only a matter of time. 

They support abortion, but not without any limits.

[hockeydork]

3 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

Just admit that you’re pro-self and that a baby will interrupt your life, finances, work, goals, etc.  I’d have a whole lot more respect for you and your argument if you were just truthful about your reasoning.  

 

 

Sure, I 100 percent don't want a kid right now. But do you want a pro-self/unable person raising a kid they don't want, or are unable to properly provide for? 

If my parents were to have had me so early that they couldn't properly focus on me/parent me/provide for me and I ended up sticking needles in my arm behind the 7/11,  I'd rather they have snuffed me out peacefully before I was conscious and had a clue what was going on. Now I'm not for super late abortions, nor am I for the idea of being completely irresponsible and careless with regards to preventing conception, and you should be able to figure out that you got a bun in the oven within 2 or 3 months before the thing becomes a giant human, but the idea of banning them is absurd. 

My mom miscarried before me BTW, so the other one died and I lived, we have a magnolia tree planted in the yard for him/her. Fair? No, but neither is life. 

Actually, every time you make a parent raise a kid they aren't ready for, you're killing the other kid who they would have had later in life and been able to provide for of his or her life. Kids generally don't do so hot when they aren't loved.

 

Your turn. Just admit you're either really upset/disturbed by the idea of an innocent mini human being ended (me too, this world is as ugly as it is beautiful) and you cannot emotionally process that sight even if it is for the greater good, or your following some cult like religious guidance. 

 

 

 

 

[tac airlifter]

59 minutes ago, Demonrat said:

The most sick, twisted, and evil thing in the world are conservative Christians looking to force their hypocritical ideology into the fabric of American government. 
 

This type of hyperbole is absolutely ridiculous. Have you forgotten it was only a few years ago Isis was running slave markets and murdering entire schools full of children?  do you think women in Afghanistan right now agree with your assessment on worldwide evil?  Christians using the democratic process to advocate for their beliefs is more evil than the Chinese government locking people in homes until the whole family starves?
 

you may disagree with conservative Christians or anybody else, but you can’t fault somebody for attempting to vote on issues that are important to them in a democratic system where we are supposed to vote on issues that are important to us.