Current Events > Do you personally dislike "pro life" people?

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

If the new born isn't her's how the fuck is she supposed to breastfeed it? Thats not how the woman's body fucking works.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This distinction is part of why I was getting curious about defining the start of life vs. what is defined as a living organism earlier in the topic, but that thought train got shit on by people shit posting.

Tenlaar posted...

Of course distinguishing between a fetus and a baby is not anti-science. You and others in this topic have flatly stated that a fetus isnt alive.

I don't recall anyone making those claims and I've been in this topic from pretty much the start, care to quote them?

I've never met a pro-life person that wasn't shitty in other areas

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

How the fuck is a woman supposed to breast feed a random baby? She would have had to be in the later stages of pregnancy or had just given birth herself. Women do not just constantly produce milk.

Edit: and while yes it is possible for men and women who have never been pregnant to produce milk, that is typically due it hormone imbalances or medications. It is not a typical situation so if a woman wakes up with a random baby it isn't likey she will be able to produce milk to feed the baby anyway.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yea that wasn't really meant to be a response directed at you, despite quoting your post. Was just throwing it out there because it felt like the topic might end up swinging back around that way lol

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Well you didn't specify that so I thought you did not understand how breastfeeding works, which would have made the entire hypothetical irrelevant.

As for the hypothetical with a clearer premise. She would not be legally obligated to breastfeed the child as it would violate her bodily autonomy. As for morally obligated, that would be different for everyone as morals are subjective to everyone.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It was still a completely fair response. It's part of why I believe the philosophical side of the question of what is/defines life and when it begins is still am important thing for people to think about. Like obviously if you're born your life technically started at conception, but with cells consistently changing throughout the pregnancy and even life, we run into the Theseus paradox. Which is why I ultimately believe that the rights of the person already fully alive and living should have their rights take precedence.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

What about men that masterbate? That's billions of potential people murdered everytime. Granted because it would be men they likely would be spared(lol but not really)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I thought i remember you mentioning there being enough food to keep them both alive so breastfeeding didn't really cross my mind. That's when you brought up breastfeeding it just didn't make sense to me to ba apart of the hypothetical. Which in turn lead me to believe you were disingenuous.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You might think it is the lazy answer but it is the most objectively true answer.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

What about men that masterbate? That's billions of potential people murdered everytime. Granted because it would be men they likely would be spared(lol but not really)

To be fair a lot of these people also oppose masturbation (publicly - in private they're probably rather flexible on the matter), which at least means they're consistent. I have marginally more respect for shitty beliefs if at least they're not double standards.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

We're not milk machines that can turn on like a spigot. Our ducts only produce milk when we're 3rd trimester or have already given birth. Go freshen up on sex ed courses you buffoon.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

What about men that masterbate? That's billions of potential people murdered everytime. Granted because it would be men they likely would be spared(lol but not really)

You'll hafta consult the great Monty Python for that answer.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

At least some of us actually pay attention in health class. Which is more then can be said for you.

I wonder if the person arguing that women are morally obligated to feed a stranger's baby would believe he is morally obligated to hook himself up to a stranger to act as a dialysis for them.

The answer is no. No one is morally obligated to give of their own body for another.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

You'll hafta consult the great Monty Python for that answer.

What? what did monty python have to say on the subject? And i thought that most men made millions of them every day, not billions, idk

Well there is your answer and an expansion. Trying to use "morals" to mandate anything is similarly a nonstarter as people are not morally obligated to donate organs when they die and the government can not dig them up and use their organs anyway.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I think in the hypothetical he tried to present, breastfeeding was meant to be the only way the person could feed the baby. Like if they were stranded away from anywhere to aquire formula, milk or a bottle, and the woman was lactating due to a recent pregnancy but the baby she was with wasn't hers.

Ultimately the crux of the argument is there cannot be exceptions made to the rights to bodily autonomy. It doesn't matter how shitty of a person you might think someone is for not giving up their bodily autonomy. It is theirs and only theirs to decide what to do with.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Because abortion is tied to the rights of bodily autonomy. I'm not sure why you are going so ham on people just having an evolving conversation that is tied into many facets of the human experience.

Yes they are disgusting fascists.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Because abortion is tied to the rights of bodily autonomy. I'm not sure why you are going so ham on people just having an evolving conversation that is tied into many facets of the human experience.

Probably because you're reducing her actual rights as a human being to a fun thought experiment because it doesn't effect you personally.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

What, precisely, is incorrect?

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Yes. A pro-lifer would view a babys life more important than bodily autonomy.

Theres a spectrum when it comes to the mothers life being in danger. I assume most pro-lifers are fine with abortion if the mother is at risk or as a result of rape or something.

But again, the disagreement is from
if a baby is killed.

You saying a baby is killed is the only bad faith argument here clown.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I know you weren't talking to me, but I would like to interject here.

I keep seeing bodily autonomy thrown out by you end others, but th autonomy argument fails to address the issue that others have.

The issue is if the fetus as alive. A portion will say that it is, and In that case bodily autonomy is out the window. Your bodily autonomy doesn't supersede someone else's right to live.

Now you could say the fetus is negatively effecting the mother, but then you would still have 2 conflicting autonomy stances.

I'm not trying to get any argument me here. I'm just stating that the bodily autonomy argument doesn't go anywhere with the more hardline stances.

Not directly, but over 95% of them tend to hold other views that I'll end up disliking them for.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You might find that post was directed towards someone else entirely.

But hey, you're also apparently confused why a woman might take it badly when you get all Ben Shapiro "Hypothetically, purely for the sake of argument" about something that's literally life or death for them.

DrizztLink posted...

Probably because you're reducing her actual rights as a human being to a fun thought experiment because it doesn't effect you personally.

Excuse fucking me? I have a daughter, I have a wife, I have a sister, I have a mother and I have a grandmother. Their fucking rights are just as fucking important to me as anyone. So this is a absolutely a subject that is personal to me because these are people I would fucking gladly give up everything I fucking have for. So yes it is a topic that can be personal to me. And to try and claim abortion cannot have an effect on my life is asinine when my wife(then gf) first got pregnant with our son she took forever to tell me because she had so many terrible relationships prior to me and despite having been traumatized from an abortion she was forced to get by her mother at 16 she was heavily leaning abortion. Until she actually told me and when I told her I support any decision she makes and asked for my advice I told her she needs to do what she believes is the right choice for her, that was when she decided to keep it. That lack of abortion 100% changed my life for the absolute better. So yea it is a topic that did directly effect my life and despite all of this I still fucking know and 100% respect that it is never ever ever going to be a decision I or any man ever has the right to make for someone. So you can kindly shut the fuck right up!

And with that said the fact that a topic can have a 100% objectively correct legal answer doesn't mean people should be discouraged from talking about the morality of subjects. There are tons of things that are legal yet morally reprehensible and without the ability to discuss things on a philosophical level it is harder to convince others of seeing the error in their ways.

Destroyer53 posted...

Your bodily autonomy doesn't supersede someone else's right to live.

It literally does. The courts have ruled that no one can be forced to donate organs, even to their own siblings. The uterus is an organ, ergo, there's no legal standing to be availed to the atmosphere of a woman's uterus without her absolute, ongoing consent to be revoked at any time.

celestia3 posted...

The courts have ruled that no one can be forced to donate organs, even to their own siblings.

Further, we cannot go and harvest organs from dead bodies that did not consent to donate.

They aren't even alive to use those organs but we cannot revoke their choice to not donate to save lives.