So how do you suppose we keep premature babies alive up to full-term?
My brother's friend was born at 14 weeks, and had it not been for an artificial womb and a form of "baby life support" in an oxygen tank, he would not be alive today.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Abortion: The Thread
- Thread starter The Amazonian Rainforest
- Start date
My brother's friend was born at 14 weeks, and had it not been for an artificial womb and a form of "baby life support" in an oxygen tank, he would not be alive today.
Personally I think murdering children should be legal.
if you dont choose to have sex you still run the risk of pregnancy cause women can still be raped, whats so different about it when a choice is made to have sex?
isnt the most relevant choice what the woman wants do w her life? doesnt her agency matter at all? does the fact that most sex ppl have isnt for reproduction, the fact that they choose to have abortions of unwanted pregnancies, not indicate that these ppl's purpose isn't reproduction at all?
i think we can all agree that the purpose of sex for most everyone is not procreation, this is obvious from the fact that they act to have sex not with the intention to conceive, but instead for the pleasure itself or perhaps some other reaons
like can u even read? if you choose to have sex, then your choice was uh, and i dont know how else to say this, to have sex. not a choice to have a baby or some other thing. no one is going around thinking 'man shes looking good, i hope she'll conceive a child w me tonight' except for patriarchal minded men i suppose, which is kind of the point here, women's life choices are being relegated to the supposed interests of a set of cells incapable of feeling pain or expressing preferences. women really dont seem to matter much on this view except for as vehicles for turning men's sperm into life. everytime you spill ur seed masturbating you could have been using those gamete cells for their "biological purpose" having sex to make a baby, the biological function of the sperm ducts is to send that sperm to procreate w a vagina right? yet no one goes on about how every sperm is sacred, or maybe they do we'll see itt i suppose
isnt the most relevant choice what the woman wants do w her life? doesnt her agency matter at all? does the fact that most sex ppl have isnt for reproduction, the fact that they choose to have abortions of unwanted pregnancies, not indicate that these ppl's purpose isn't reproduction at all?
i think we can all agree that the purpose of sex for most everyone is not procreation, this is obvious from the fact that they act to have sex not with the intention to conceive, but instead for the pleasure itself or perhaps some other reaons
like can u even read? if you choose to have sex, then your choice was uh, and i dont know how else to say this, to have sex. not a choice to have a baby or some other thing. no one is going around thinking 'man shes looking good, i hope she'll conceive a child w me tonight' except for patriarchal minded men i suppose, which is kind of the point here, women's life choices are being relegated to the supposed interests of a set of cells incapable of feeling pain or expressing preferences. women really dont seem to matter much on this view except for as vehicles for turning men's sperm into life. everytime you spill ur seed masturbating you could have been using those gamete cells for their "biological purpose" having sex to make a baby, the biological function of the sperm ducts is to send that sperm to procreate w a vagina right? yet no one goes on about how every sperm is sacred, or maybe they do we'll see itt i suppose
Last edited:
hard agree, theyre not cute anymore once they leave the womb and some of them are criminals by nature
I mean can you read? I gave my opinion on rape in the very beginning of the last page. That's where I will give some creedence because the woman did not have control in that situation, however I do still consider it a life. There's a big difference between deciding to have casual sex and being forced to have sex (i.e. rape). I'm sorry if you don't believe the purpose of sex is procreation, but that's what it does biologically, it procreates. I'm not stopping you from having sex, do what you want its your life I don't care, but you cannot kill a baby as a result of it being produced unintentionally through sex.
Edit: if sperm is a life, I would be committing mass genocide every time I decide to jack off. Humans are a combination of a human sperm and human egg, and they have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. :I
Last edited:
i think that it's uncharitable to claim that sex is just sex as an act. it's the act AND a potential for fertilization. if you want to have sex without any risk for fertilization, then you can do millions of different sexual acts that doesn't involve PIV sex. it is entirely within your control barring rape.
now deceit is gonna completely ignore the content of my post and just jump on the fact that i mentioned rape and he already said he is ok w an exception for rape, so now he doesn't have to read my post
or
maybe he thinks they should be forced to carry a child to term for the state to adopt. sounds good to me, i had always hoped some poor women would sacrifice her body to birth my children so as to save the costs to my trophy wives' bodies, and now the state is finally gonna make it happen w these new abortion bans
"although welfare is making black women marry the state, when it comes to forcing births, the state should act as a strong father!"- i always say this
i had this written before deceit replied a min ago js that is how predictable his disingenuous engagement is
or
maybe he thinks they should be forced to carry a child to term for the state to adopt. sounds good to me, i had always hoped some poor women would sacrifice her body to birth my children so as to save the costs to my trophy wives' bodies, and now the state is finally gonna make it happen w these new abortion bans
"although welfare is making black women marry the state, when it comes to forcing births, the state should act as a strong father!"- i always say this
i had this written before deceit replied a min ago js that is how predictable his disingenuous engagement is
I did read and give you an answer based on your inquiry, you just don't like it.
Edit: I'll restate it. You don't decide whether sex is for procreation or not. That's its primary biological function. You dont control biology.
the violinist argument is not persuasive for me. the logical conclusion of violinist argument is that it's okay to kill anyone who is dependent on you if they restrain your personal liberty. Thomson's argument is as it follows: two innocent people are placed in a situation where one (A) is excessively dependent on other (B) to the point where B no longer has liberty. therefore, there is no expectation placed on B to continue the dependence for A.
personally, i think that it should be legal for people to randomly walk into hospitals and shoot people in coma at this point.
biologically the primary function of your sperm is fertilize an egg to make a baby, thats what it does 'biologically'. you can't control biology (except w abortions and birth control pills and all other sinful and unnatural manner of things), but u can always make more sperm to fertilize more eggs. each moment u rub ur donger, think of all the unfertilized eggs in that same moment that u could have helped biologically that are going lonely w/o a sperm to complete them biologically, youre practically a murderer for not having at least 2 children by 2 different women each biological year imo
ppl also have recreational sex whose primary biological purpose is to reduce stress, same as in individual masturbation
maybe your confusion stems from the fact that sex as an act, has a purpose determined by the intentions of participants. sometimes, the intention is to satisfy the biological urge for stress reduction, in which case it should be called genital mutual masturbation or recreational sex, and that way we can tell the difference from the ppl engaging in the true reproductive sex for the purpose of conception that youre talking about.
now we can see that the purpose of sex is not always reproduction, but often stress reduction, so people shouldn't be punished with a consequence that they never intended. if the possibility of an abortion or the use of a condom allows ppl to control which biological imperative they are fulfilling, I for one welcome their freedom and don't believe in undoing women's rights to bodily autonomy in the name of an unscientific conception of an uncontrollable never changing biological destiny, or for the sake of some dubious claim that uncertain procreation potentials have the primacy to define all sex acts, or in the name of ensuring that sex always carries with it the risk of pregnancy out of some religious commitment to the sanctity of sex as a procreative act. I especially dont support this because science literally allows us to control that biology by using various procedures called abortions, that are based on scientific methods and findings and allows anyone who wants to have sex for a reason besides procreation to do so and thus to control their biology.
ppl also have recreational sex whose primary biological purpose is to reduce stress, same as in individual masturbation
maybe your confusion stems from the fact that sex as an act, has a purpose determined by the intentions of participants. sometimes, the intention is to satisfy the biological urge for stress reduction, in which case it should be called genital mutual masturbation or recreational sex, and that way we can tell the difference from the ppl engaging in the true reproductive sex for the purpose of conception that youre talking about.
now we can see that the purpose of sex is not always reproduction, but often stress reduction, so people shouldn't be punished with a consequence that they never intended. if the possibility of an abortion or the use of a condom allows ppl to control which biological imperative they are fulfilling, I for one welcome their freedom and don't believe in undoing women's rights to bodily autonomy in the name of an unscientific conception of an uncontrollable never changing biological destiny, or for the sake of some dubious claim that uncertain procreation potentials have the primacy to define all sex acts, or in the name of ensuring that sex always carries with it the risk of pregnancy out of some religious commitment to the sanctity of sex as a procreative act. I especially dont support this because science literally allows us to control that biology by using various procedures called abortions, that are based on scientific methods and findings and allows anyone who wants to have sex for a reason besides procreation to do so and thus to control their biology.
How do I hide a thread
Also the sheer ignorance of the economics arguments presented in a thread about abortion is staggering
I don't see how your second point connects to your first, why do you disagree with it?
people in coma are dependent and place an unreasonable burden on healthcare industry. wouldn't it increase healthy people's liberty if we simply killed the people in coma?
if you dislike my example of coma patients in hospital. what about the parents of child with severe mental impairment? should the parents be allowed to shoot them? the parents will likely have to sacrifice their life taking care of the child, yet there is expectation from society on the parents to not murder the severely mentally impaired child.
e: to clarify my proposition: if there is no expectation placed on you to kill or to not kill, it doesn't mean that killing is justified.
Last edited:
something something false equivalency something
violinist argument in a nutshell.
Wheres that meme about kakyoin using a puppet
So those situations are pretty distinct from the ones in the example and in her argument she distinguishes between shooting someone and letting them die pretty clearly (it's about 3/4 of the way through), by cutting the violinist loose or having an abortion you're asserting your own agency in a way that causes someone's death, it's a situation where the only way to have bodily autonomy is to kill the person you are attached to. That is not the case in either of your examples, especially since the moral difference between individuals and societies (represented through the hospital) further complicates the analogy. Your example of the mentally disabled child is hard to line up as there are alternatives to killing the child that will free the parents of the child, primaily by depending on the government to take care of the child. It is a nice thing for the parents to take care of the child but I think that they should be under a legal obligation to take care of that child is a difficult argument to make. Suppose for the sake of argument there was no alternative to free the parents of the child but to stop caring for them (thus killing them), while its a nice thing for them to do to continue care the legal/moral obligation is hard to argue.
You can stop denying science any time now. When you have sex, you run the risk of creating a baby. Period. Sex is sex, even recreational sex. Also, you understand that I was not arguing against contraceptives, right? Do what you want, but no matter what there will always be a slim chance of getting pregnant. Condons can break, an egg can still go down the canal and attach, what have you. It does definitely reduce the risk significantly though, I never argued against that. I'm just telling you reality.
Then why have people woken up from comas? Are they magically resurrected or were they alive this entire time but brain dead?.jpg)
Man I can't believe I actually thought I had a hope in hell of being the best troll on this website
First, nobody has ever woken up from brain death. Absolutely nobody.
The 'rights' of coma patients are an interesting discussion. But is taking somebody off life support murder? If u think yes then how far do you take that; is not giving somebody in cardiac arrest resessitation murder? Is not preventing someone from smoking themselves to death murder?
If you don't think it's murder, what's the difference between removing a fetus from its life support system?
Then again it doesn't matter what u think because ur a life begins at conception etc etc so there's really no point
The society and law already disapproves parents killing that child in this situation. Why the inconsistency? Why not extend this moral stance to people in the womb?
cool was he also immaculately conceived?
