Bill Burr on abortion
(youtu.be)
Comments (58)
sorted by:
It's really too bad Burr married Nia and became cucked.
Necessary disclaimer on every Bill Burr post.
MGTOW call it "one blowjob away from the plantation".
It's where you know the truth, but you don't accept it. You want to be proven wrong, you want to believe in that one good woman.
Hard to believe that married men live longer when this is what single men spend their time on.
That stat is wildly inaccurate. Single men live equal to married men if the have equal income to the married person. The single men who drink and drug to death and well the black and Hispanic community skew the numbers significantly.
huh. Dude's getting some real laughs from it too.
Bill Burr's a total vaxxcuck (as seen on Conan), but I enjoy his take on abortion here.
He's currently a total cuck in general. Still fairly based on some issues for a cuck, but a cuck nonetheless. Which is terribly disappointing, he really went downhill fast...and top comment tells you why; he married an insufferable bossy feminist bitch...the exact type of woman he railed against in his comedy for fucking years.
Bill, buddy, what were you thinking?
It’s confusing as fuck, too. A decent looking, famous, beloved multi-millionaire could take his pick from countless young, attractive, submissive women. Why would you go for an ugly, aggressive, feminist lefty cunt?
Decent looking?
If you're a dude and don't look like a goblin and have a fairly symmetrical face without exaggerated features you will look decent, and Bill does.
He's also not obese. A solid 6.5
? Based on what? Your judgment?
I'd give him a 3 or 3.5
You should, I'm a connoisseur.
And he was literally cucked by her.
I'd say: you're out, bitch.
And not to the dog.
Its been some time but wasn't it a dog she made him get, fall in love with, and then get rid of? Or was it a previous woman who got it for him?
I hadn't heard that...but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest...
Again...Bill, what the fuck?
He's said a few times that it's that or die lonely and it's not a real choice.
Guess he didn't want to die lonely.
At least marry a better woman.
No matter how fucking low someone's opinion of women is, there's still got to be better women than...that.
My issue isn't that he settled down...it's that he let himself get absolutely neutered by a fucking vile person.
That was pretty good.
It's obvious that birth is a process and interrupting that process at any stage kills the process, kills the emerging person.
This routine deals with this subtle idea really well and it's funny.
Too bad abortionists don't get it. It's also too bad Burr's latest special is a dud.
The argument did not make sense though. By definition, something that only "will be a cake" is not a cake right now. Same for a baby. If it's in the later stages, sure, it's a baby and killing it is murder.
But should I really get upset about an abortion at 6 weeks?
Why is something that is going to be a baby not still count as a baby? Where exactly do we draw the line for humans? Because I promise if it's not, conception, I can word that into letting me murder a whole lot of people.
Told that to a friend who stopped talking to me after Trump got elected, when he said that it can't take care of itself, and its life depends on another person. I reminded him that's most kids until about 5 years old, people with severe disabilities and most elderly since they need tons of constant care. So could I kill them with no repercussions?
Why would it? Does an acorn count as an oak tree?
Viability is just the ability to live outside the womb. Why on earth would you give legal protection to a fertilized egg after conception, which has no self-awareness, no brain, no heart, nothing at all that makes humans what they are.
Not really. The acorn does not need to be fertilized, after all.
And do you think an acorn that 'sprouted' as the same of an actual oak tree?
Right, but that was not the question. The question was whether it should be considered a tree as is.
Seems a bit of a psycho thing to do, yes. But supposing someone had a good reason for it, I'd rather have that than chopping down an oak tree.
Supposing that we do not understand it, how reasonable is it to draw one extreme line rather than another?
Anti-abortionists were very clever to pass such laws, because that enables this sort of 'logic'. But the act itself would be no better or worse if such laws did not exist.
Because whether you want an apple tree, palm tree or a fir, that acorn will always grow into an oak tree. The only difference is if you kill it before it has that chance to grow. It doesn't matter how many people outside the acorn say that it's just a clump of cells, if you let it grow it becomes an oak tree.
Because if you don't as I said, there are millions of people who lack the ability to live on their own, so why should they be given legal protection if a fertilized egg doesn't?
But does that make it an actual oak tree, and we don't treat it as such.
You seem to be arguing against the pro-abortion position that the fertilized egg is not "human". I'm not making that argument. Obviously, it is a human organism. But it's nowhere near developed enough to merit legal protection of any kind.
Like I said: they are viable: they're not attached to someone else's body for sustenance, nor will they die if they are disconnected.
Why does anyone merit legal protection of any kind?
Aside from being an arbitrary and subjective standard, it's also dumb and false.
We all depend on someone else's body for sustenance. Where do you think food comes from? 410 farm workers died on the job last year in the USA. Farming is one of the deadliest jobs.
I assume because I am more valuable than a clump of cells.
And they provide this voluntarily. There's no one person you can point to and say that you depend on that person.
If you did though, would that mean that this individual is in bondage to you, that he has to perform unpaid services to ensure that you stay alive? I'd say only if this is what you chose.
You are a clump of cells.
That wasn't part of your argument. In any case, the vast majority of pregnancies that are terminated are the predictable and avoidable consequence of voluntary behavior. Nobody considers obligations incurred in such a manner to be "bondage".
Seems pretty arbitrary. It can’t live outside of the womb as a baby without assistance, so why is that such a significant milestone?
Because you know what it will become in X weeks assuming that you don’t kill it. I mean, why do we give extra legal protection to children? They are more protected than adults even though they are far less emotionally and mentally developed. Yet we know they will become adults with full legal rights at some point.
Maybe that’s because they are more vulnerable, and less capable of defending themselves? Now how does a fertilized egg compare to a child? Seems even more helpless, and perhaps that makes it even more worthy of legal protection.
Am acorn isn't a human dude
The real issue, at least to me, is when do you draw the line? For the record, up till a few years ago, I've been mostly pro choice, and a part of me still is. But the pro choice arguments don't really hold up, the more you look at it. It's always the taking of a life, and of potential life. Is there a point where that can be done more humanely than, for example, eight months in? Sure. Is there an argument that the good could outweigh the bad in that more humane option? Sure, the argument can be made, and I'm not even completely in disagreement. There is certainly...utility in abortion. But is it something we need in society? Is that utility good for society?
But the fact remains, you need a limiting principle. Why is six weeks alright, and when isn't it alright? Is eight weeks alright? Twelve? And why would one be alright, and the other not? Is it a heartbeat? Is it viability? If heartbeat, why? It's the same issues as to birth; it was about to get a heartbeat, why is it alright to kill it right before, but not after? As to viability, the issue there is that it's always changing based on medical access, and current technology. If you're drawing off any arbitrary criteria, you're failing to protect the rights of the baby.
Again, not even specifically saying it should 100% be off the table, but the discussion needs to be had, that limiting principle needs to be defined, and the rationale used to reach the conclusion needs to be crystal clear. Why is it alright to kill a six week old baby in the womb, if it's not alright to kill an X week old baby in the womb?
Unfortunately, humans are not quantized objects, so there is a point where you just have to choose arbitrarily where that line should be drawn. It's a value judgement.
This is effectively a "Ship Of Theseus". When is it a new ship? After you've replaced every bolt? After you've replaced one bolt? The difference between one bolt and another isn't relevant... but we damn sure know something had to have changed.
Life doesn't begin at conception. This is because babies aren't abeogenic. Babies are a continuation of a constant state of life. We can talk about "it's a different chromosome", but that's only for sexual reproduction. In asexual reproduction it isn't different chormosomes.
At some point we chose to recognize the fetus to be a separate life. A line has to be drawn. Some people are going to get screwed over where that line is, and they are just going to have to deal with it.
When's the right time? Fuck if I know, that's still a value judgement, that's why it should be decided by the fucking states and not the feds. I guarantee that most people are going to be against allowing abortions 12 months, and also against executing a mother with first degree murder for taking Plan B. Most countries in the west seem to compromise on 6-15 weeks, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
That is the first point you get a unique being, though. If a line to be drawn, conception is certainly the cleanest. To be clear, not even saying there is no argument to be made for abortion some point after that fact, but you're certainly aborting a unique creature at any point after that. Conception is the least arbitrary and most clear cut definition you can get.
Also, we're talking humans, so sexual versus asexual reproduction is a moot point.
I tend to agree.
Also agreed.
I'll say it's certainly one of the more reasonable time frames, yes. Whether or not it's good enough is another thing but, like you said, it's a value judgement. It will be good enough for many, some will think it's still too much, and others will say it's too restrictive.
I don’t know why any time is reasonable to murder a baby. I used to be one of those people that said it was fine at X weeks, but you’re correct, it’s entirely arbitrary.
Once I realized it, it made no sense. Let’s say you think six weeks is reasonable. But all you had to do was wait a week or two, or several, and then the baby would have met the criteria that caused you to say it’s no longer reasonable. You know the “fetus” will become a baby, which will become a child, which will become an adult, barring any catastrophic events. So why are we pretending like it’s not a human as long as it’s in the woman’s womb?
As far as utility goes, to whom? To the woman who wants to be a whore? Yes, it’s very convenient for her, but that’s never a good reason to do anything.
It's absolutely arbitrary, but it's based on how much investment is actually made into the pregnancy. This is why rape is seen as a legitimizing factor in an abortion. By definition, the pregnancy was non-consensual, and the disruption of the woman's life was an injury to her. She has no investment in it. In fact, it's highly likely that the father who raped her doesn't either. So, literally no one is invested in the child. No one wants it.
As such, it is valued less than that of a baby whom was conceived intentionally by a couple who want to bring it into the world. They might have already brought equipment and baby clothes. Selected a room in their house for it to live in. It's already invested in as a much as any child is. This is why it's near universally accepted that if a man violently punches the mother in the stomach and kills the fetus, it is considered a murder of a baby.
We can even talk about the times mothers will have funerals for miscarriages. It's not even a baby to them. It's not a fetus. It's a 6 year old little boy who never aged long enough to get there.
But to a rape victim, it's horrific violation of a woman's life. A permanent reminder that she can be overpowered and forced into the life of a mother through violence. In time, she will resent the baby and the child for being a reminder of that helplessness and brutality.
The subjective investment of partnes is actually why babies are basically built to illicit an empathy response in women. The babies (and children they become) are infinitely abounding with love and adoration for their parents. Its a survival mechanism to guarantee that the baby is cared for. It dies if it's not cute.
That, fundamentally, is the problem. You're going to have to end a life if you tolerate it at any point. You can't enforce an objective standard completely on a subjective problem.
Rape is not a legitimizing factor. It only seems that way because society is currently geared towards whatever is most convenient for the woman instead of what is moral.
I don’t see how someone wanting you or not changes the value of your life. Either your life has value independently of your guardian’s desires, or people should be able to kill orphans since they aren’t wanted either.
It’s only a subjective problem if you don’t believe in morality. If you are a Christian, it’s not subjective at all.
That's my point. Morality is subjective by definition, and I'm not a Christian, and I don't assert objective morality because it's not true.
Christians assert objective morality because most religions do. That doesn't make it true. That doesn't mean Moral Relativism is correct, because it's not even a valid ethic. But it doesn't make morality not subjective.
I guess the most important question for you is: what does change the value of life?
I agree, most of them seem to beg the question, while in no way addressing the objections that are made to it. Note that I am not making those stupid arguments. I'm not denying that even a fertilized egg is human (obviously, it's not a cat) and that you therefore cannot argue that it's "her own body".
I can only imagine what it would look like to have an average of 1+ million unwanted children deposited every year, to grow up in poverty and probably fatherlessness. You'll live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.
With many things, you cannot specify an exact moment when something goes from being OK to not OK, or vice versa. For example, why is it OK for a 16-year-old to drive and not someone who is 15 years and 364 days old? Surely, that one day isn't going to break or make the thing.
Any standard that is humane is going to be, to some extent, arbitrary. You can say that it's at birth, and that's not arbitrary, but it'll enable butchery. Same for conception, which will enable great cruelty and terrible social effects.
I'd say quickening or thereabouts.
But you can take viability as a guideline and then restrict it a little further, just to be on the safe side. That's still allowing nearly all abortions, but forbidding the grotesque ones.
No answer that is reasonable and humane will be 'logically' satisfactory. Why did France allow abortion until 12 weeks, until it recently moved it to 14 weeks? Not because of logic. Laws are rarely based on logic. The question is coming up with something people can live with, not playing philosopher king and pretending, no offense, that you're deducing the form of the good from first principles.
You're correct, but I also think that it's oversimplified. We did alright without abortion for ages and, I know, a lot has changed since then. Still, I think it works both ways. People would hopefully behave more sensibly (and morally) if abortion access was in the very least severely limited.
Yeah, but the stakes are higher here; much higher. We're talking right to exist here, not right to drive. Can we afford to have a 'well, it doesn't make sense and it's arbitrary, but whatever' attitude, when we're talking about the ending of a life? Licensing laws and deciding if someone gets to live are two very different things.
I'm not sure I agree that it has to be arbitrary. Most other rights aren't particularly arbitrary. You're not allowed to take other people's stuff, that's not arbitrary. You can't go around stabbing people, that's not arbitrary. As to terrible social effects, I'm not sure I agree.
But why quickening was even a concept is itself incredibly arbitrary. They thought that was the soul entering the body, or whatever, and that's when life began. But the baby was moving prior to that. Well before. They just didn't have the means to measure it at the time but, if the initial logic for why quickening was important was adapted to today's standards, you're talking very early on in the pregnancy, and not around 15-20 weeks. If abortion is on the table, I personally think it should be well before 'quickening.'
Viability changes, as mentioned.
Which is why so many laws are fucking retarded. And I don't think that's a justification for more nonsensical laws.
I mean, it's a mix. Yeah, to some extent it's the will of the people...but the people are retarded. Which is why we strive for representational systems, and not out-and-out democracy. Laws should make sense, and the best ones do. The worse laws are usually the ones that don't make logical sense. And the idea of making laws 'people can live with' sounds pretty dangerous due to, again, the people being retarded.
Had the same argument with dechakin earlier. It's difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. It certainly isn't as easy as just banning it. Even saying that half of people would act more 'responsibly', which is a stretch, it would still mean over half a million useless brats every year. That's 10 million in 20 years, when the first of them reach the age of majority.
Of course, but it is just an example. There are few things where you cannot say: why this and not +1 or -1?
Eh, unless you have a sign that says "JUSTICE FOR GEORGE FLOYD", then it's fine. Now, yes, you can't take other people's stuff. But when does something become "other people's stuff"? That is sometimes arbitrary, and in fact, laws differ on it. Here as well, you cannot kill a human person, but when does it become a human person?
I meant the traditional view of quickening. If the baby is 'moving' before that, fine, but we could say that we only consider it significantly developed enough when the movement can actually be felt. After all, not to make the comparison, but even bacteria move, and move away from noxious substances.
And precisely for that reason do we not put the limit on viability itself, but err on the side of caution.
They're going to be nonsensical no matter what you do, because the political process is dirty. It does not aim at logic, consistency, or anything.
Yeah, about that. If I ask normal people whether they think kids should be castrated, they say no. Ask legislators, and they will call you a bigot for asking the question. Only slightly exaggerating. I wouldn't say it's the people who are retarded, but the corrupt politicians.
I disagree. You could say that allowing abortion up to birth makes more sense than 14 weeks, but it's objectively worse. Same for prohibiting it from the moment of conception. In some crazy theoretical world it makes sense to give fertilized eggs the same protections as actual babies, but not in the real world - at least according to most people.
You are assuming that there is some sort of alternative that is not retarded. It's retardation all the way down. Even worse retardation than 'the people'.
Alright, then let's cut immigration a tiny bit (or all the way) to balance out. Boom, solved. But that would require sanity from the government, or people holding the government responsible, both of which are largely a pipedream.
Doesn't make it legal. The law is clear, it's just not always applied justly.
Uh, in that instance we're generally talking people who have been born, which is quite clear.
But, again, that's just because they didn't have the tools. We now know the baby is moving pre-quickening, and for the same reasons. And, again, it's still arbitrary, considering quickening can happen at different points. e.g. it would be alright to kill one baby at 20 weeks, but not alright to kill another at 13 weeks. That makes no fucking sense.
Viability is used in some legal definitions.
There it is: kill the poor.
Tonio's liberalism raising it's head
I think "already in the oven and baking" would put it at well over 15+ weeks. A pregnancy is 40 weeks, and by the time you put it in the oven you've done all the work and you're at the last step.
6 weeks might just be that you are still mixing the batter in the bowl.
But if so, then he still has a pro-abortion position.
A large majority of people are in favor of abortion in the early weeks, and then the number drops as the weeks go up. There is a wide range of when people think life begins.
I am aware.