Poll of the Day > Do you support texas's new fetal heartbeat abortion law ?

(+) Yeah! (+)

---

Big oof

---

Kotenks posted...

So I'm not certain what this person means by men being excluded.

It's because they don't neuter a man after an abortion case

---

Kotenks posted...

So I'm not certain what this person means by men being excluded.

Yea can't understand what it means when old white men tell women what to do with their bodies.

adjl posted...

That logic would support never aborting a fetus, though. Consciousness will eventually develop (barring anything that interrupts the process) as soon as conception occurs.

not if it ends up being a conservative

---

Kotenks posted...

This is not a men vs. women issue. The constant framing of it in this way is dishonest. Half of women are pro-life. When we look at gender, we see the same about 50/50 split.

The existence of pro-life women doesn't change that this isn't an issue men should be weighing in on at all. The men (and it is overwhelmingly men) passing legislation like this will never have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, no matter what laws are passed. Much like straight people voting against gay marriage, it's a matter of people who have the privilege of not caring about such legislation creating it and hurting people without that privilege.

Kotenks posted...

So I'm not certain what this person means by men being excluded.

That post spells it out: Every single aborted pregnancy has a man attached to it, yet that man is never subjected to any of the penalties people seek to apply to that abortion. The narrative is consistently "you (the woman) should have been more responsible," completely ignoring that another person was equally complicit in creating the pregnancy. Overwhelmingly, the attitude is that women should be punished for having sex by being forced to carry their pregnancy to term, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of pro-lifers stop giving a shit about the child the instant it's born.

You still haven't answered: Why is it that you feel "they had to get the ball rolling"?

---

Pro life people suck so much

I hate them

---

Mead posted...

Pro life people suck so much

I hate them

I am strongly against calling them "pro-life" because they legitimately aren't. The demographic that tends to identify as anti-choice tends to be in favor of the death penalty and hatred of the poor.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I am strongly against calling them "pro-life" because they legitimately aren't. The demographic that tends to identify as anti-choice tends to be in favor of the death penalty and hatred of the poor.

Honestly, I hate both labels. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" exist purely for the sake of implying that the other side is "anti-life" and "anti-choice," because apparently neither side is capable of making a convincing argument without resorting to painting the other as monsters.

---

adjl posted...

Honestly, I hate both labels. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" exist purely for the sake of implying that the other side is "anti-life" and "anti-choice," because apparently neither side is capable of making a convincing argument without resorting to painting the other as monsters.

You quoted me explaining how they aren't prolife to try a both sides argument?

BlackScythe0 posted...

You quoted me explaining how they aren't prolife to try a both sides argument?

It's a personal gripe that's tangentially related to what you were saying, not really meant to argue with your point at all (particularly where I completely agree with you). I would generally agree that "pro-life" does a considerably poorer job of representing their position than "pro-choice" does the other side, but I don't typically bother comparing them because they both suck and we should just be talking in terms of abortion access instead of life/choice.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZijLQGH1v0

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

I am strongly against calling them "pro-life" because they legitimately aren't. The demographic that tends to identify as anti-choice tends to be in favor of the death penalty and hatred of the poor.

yes, instead murderers should get to live the rest of their life, getting free food, access to tv, etc. ....
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

yes, instead murderers should get to live the rest of their life, getting free food, access to tv, etc. ....

If offered a life sentence in a Norwegian prison, would you take it?

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

yes, instead murderers should get to live the rest of their life, getting free food, access to tv, etc. ....

Basically better treatment and resources than what our high schools receive...

---

yes, abortion is murder since human life begins at conception.

college esque anti life retorts you can find in ben shapiro q&a videos incoming

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

And people claim the US is controlled by liberals. Its really very conservative compared to most advanced countries and even some so called "third world" ones where abortion is not even an issue.

read up on federalism

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

I am strongly against calling them "pro-life" because they legitimately aren't. The demographic that tends to identify as anti-choice tends to be in favor of the death penalty and hatred of the poor.

i'm not pro death penalty and that is a divided issue among conservatives for the obvious reason that it gives the government more power, specifically the power to execute anyone they want, which goes against the core of conservatism which is limited government, so this is a strawmanning of conservatives.

but even so, there is no equivalence between an innocent baby whose only "crime" is simply existing to a grown up who is a rapist or a serial murderer, if we wanna take slogans literally when it's convenient then i can also say liberals aren't pro choice because they don't let the fetus choose his fate, wait till she's 18 when she can give consent to her getting aborted.

aren't conservatives the poor uneducated hillbillies? you gotta get your strawmen in order, they contradict each other.

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

yes, instead murderers should get to live the rest of their life, getting free food, access to tv, etc. ....

Yes. Your point?

---

Someone link me. OP couldnt do it themself. I know people here want to confirm their bias about me.

---

Zangulus posted...

Theres so much incorrect in this post, its amazing just how densely packed full of bullshit that it is.

Ill simply point out that you need to learn what a strawman argument really is, and your use of it is literally the political equivalent, and just as deaf toward, and self imposed ignorance as anyone who states not all men

so much wrong with it yet you couldn't point or correct anything

guess it was 100% accurate then

straw man
/str man/
noun
noun: strawman
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

"we, the liberals who never go outside nor have actually talked to any real conservatives in our life know what conservatives think better then you, an actual conservative who has a conservative discord server and interacts with hundreds of conservatives daily"

---

zebatov posted...

Someone link me. OP couldnt do it themself. I know people here want to confirm their bias about me.

there is no unbiased source, texas basically banned abortion from the point of heartbeat which is at 6 weeks of pregnancy
here is the bill itself though if you insist on a source

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB01515I.PDF

---

Wanded posted...

yes, abortion is murder since human life begins at conception.

Have you ever stopped to consider why murder is actually bad?

---

adjl posted...

Have you ever stopped to consider why murder is actually bad?

Because that is the very definition of the word? A wrongful/unlawful killing.

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Because that is the very definition of the word? A wrongful/unlawful killing.

and death penalty isn't unlawful
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Because that is the very definition of the word? A wrongful/unlawful killing.

That might be what hes getting at. Murder would be a wrongful/unlawful killing. Which to many people doesnt fit abortion Or didnt until this new law
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

and death penalty isn't unlawful

Again, depends on the country.

---

i think abortion is bad. i assign a lot of moral weight to unborn people starting pretty early in pregnancy. i still don't think you can legally require people to bring babies to term. you can't force people to give up their organs to the state for the purposes of keeping other people alive. that's fucking creepy

---

"Pro-choice" because the alternative is fucking insane, forcing women to term. However abortion is horrible and I feel horrible for anyone who has to go through it.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Because that is the very definition of the word? A wrongful/unlawful killing.

The statement "It's wrong because it's illegal" is mostly devoid of semantic value. To answer my question, you need to look at why it's illegal (recognizing that "it's illegal because it's wrong" puts you into a loop, so you need to dig deeper than that).

---

pro sega!

---

I think abortion is fucking rad

who wants a bunch of babies growing and pooping all over the place

---

Mead posted...

I think sega is fucking rad

who wants a bunch of babies growing and pooping nintendo over the place

---

arv neither mead arv neither

---

adjl posted...

The statement "It's wrong because it's illegal" is mostly devoid of semantic value. To answer my question, you need to look at why it's illegal (recognizing that "it's illegal because it's wrong" puts you into a loop, so you need to dig deeper than that).

Yep, the question is what makes a killing justifiable or wrong. Pretty sure (self-)defence is one of the few exceptions.

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Yep, the question is what makes a killing justifiable or wrong. Pretty sure (self-)defence is one of the few exceptions.

Nope, deeper than that. It is always considered bad to kill somebody. The question of "justifiable" entails looking at the alternative and making a judgement call on which is worse. Why, though, is it considered bad to kill people?

---

adjl posted...

Nope, deeper than that. It is always considered bad to kill somebody. The question of "justifiable" entails looking at the alternative and making a judgement call on which is worse. Why, though, is it considered bad to kill people?

not always
---

adjl posted...

Have you ever stopped to consider why murder is actually bad?

nope, that notion seems pretty basic and uncontroversial, i never had any reason to question that notion and i can't imagine a reason other than wanting to justify and rationalize some murders.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

if i repeatedly built them you can point them out, like you should have been able to point out the wrong things in my previous post. seems you are unable to do neither.
the people with eyes and two brain cells to rub together can read my posts and the posts i replied to and decide for themselves who is truly strawmanning

straw man
/str man/
noun
noun: strawman
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

---

adjl posted...

Why, though, is it considered bad to kill people?

You want that level of depth? We are emphatic as a species. We know losing someone we like is emotionally devastating to us and thus most of have the capability to understand that the same is probably true for most people.

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

not always

Nah, I'd say always. Exactly how bad varies, and there are plenty of instances where not killing them would be worse than killing them (we'll skip Godwin's foreplay and just jump straight to using Hitler as an example), but killing people is always bad.

Wanded posted...

nope, that notion seems pretty basic and uncontroversial, i never had any reason to question that notion and i can't imagine a reason other than wanting to justify and rationalize some murders.

You disagree with killing in self-defense, then? Or the aforementioned example of killing Hitler?

Nichtcrawler X posted...

You want that level of depth? We are emphatic as a species. We know losing someone we like is emotionally devastating to us and thus most of have the capability to understand that the same is probably true for most people.

This is indeed a major part of it: We understand that killing someone would cause someone else to suffer a feeling of loss, and because of empathy and the desire to avoid that sense of loss ourselves, we try to avoid inflicting that on those other people.

That rationale, however, leads to a thought experiment: Consider somebody who has completely isolated themselves from all others. They have no friends, no family, no acquaintances or dependants of any sort, and they live their life in such a hermetically closed system that there won't even be a mouse that would miss their food scraps if they were to disappear. Absolutely no entities will suffer any sort of loss whatsoever (practical or emotional) if they die. Is it still bad to kill them?

---

---

adjl posted...

That rationale, however, leads to a thought experiment: Consider somebody who has completely isolated themselves from all others. They have no friends, no family, no acquaintances or dependants of any sort, and they live their life in such a hermetically closed system that there won't even be a mouse that would miss their food scraps if they were to disappear. Absolutely no entities will suffer any sort of loss whatsoever (practical or emotional) if they die. Is it still bad to kill them?

If yes, our inherent value of our own life is worthless.

What you want is a nuetral outcome, a victimless crime, which is not possible in this situation.

The outcome has to be better, not neutral or worse. Thus self-defence is acceptable, but also the ending of suffering. (medical euthanasia, to be clear)

---

Zangulus posted...

It took you that long to basically just repeat what you already said, all the while still ignoring my original claim that you've been utterly unable to refute.

So yeah, I still don't owe you shit.

you are aware most conservatives have a life right? you know, that thing with a job and family and stuff? i know liberals such as you have all the time in world, but you'll have to be patient.

what was your original claim?
adjl posted...

You disagree with killing in self-defense, then? Or the aforementioned example of killing Hitler?

there is no extra human life lost in self defense, it was either your life or the attackers to begin with

---

Is this topic a bunch of men arguing over women's reproductive rights again?

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

What you want is a nuetral outcome, a victimless crime, which is not possible in this situation.

That's kind of the point of the thought experiment. It's pretty impossible to engineer a scenario in which somebody's death is truly of no consequence to anyone or anything around them, but in such a hypothetical situation, would it still be immoral to kill that person? If so, why?

Wanded posted...

there is no extra human life lost in self defense, it was either your life or the attackers to begin with

So now we've walked back from "murder is always bad and I don't need to think about why" to "it's okay to murder if it saves another life" (noting that "murder" is distinguished from other killings only by being illegal, and in a debate about what the law should be, the current state of the law is meaningless). Obviously you've put some thought into the morality of murder, then. Why the reluctance to share your thoughts?

---