From a lefty I know..."Yeah, it's murder, but that's okay as long as I view the victim as an inconvenience."
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (88)
sorted by:
She writes this but I guarantee these same people support mandatory covid jabs. The real reason women don't like anyone bringing this argument up is because it makes them think more deeply about how badly they fucked up with their choices in life.
I'm pro-choice at the end of the day, but even if you don't believe in life at conception, you're still killing a potential life, that's a potential son and daughter you've taken away because you couldn't keep it in your pants and are now regretting it and we know how common it is for western women especially these days to go around banging total strangers they won't even remember the names of a few weeks down the line. This is guilt on display and she fucking knows it, which is why leftist women especially often get so vicious when they get called out.
At the end of the day it's women who have to live with their consequences when they pull shit like this and like a lot of leftist women they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their actions so they're using the state to avoid that responsibility and it pisses me off.
This is the true Voluntaryist/Libertarian perspective as far as I'm concerned on the issue of abortion. We can debate the morality of it until the end of time, at the end of the day yes freedom means doing stuff that is understandably morally questionable or outright fucked up by anyone's standards even if it's not technically illegal. Many people are realising that they're not comfortable with that so they immediately seek the comfort of a higher power to come in and save them from that. Which is how you get people like the WEF and western women are pretty much running into their arms.
This is hilariously unscientific
It’s a life after a zygote is formed, there is no other biological definition of life. Semen and eggs are potential lives, not zygotes.
Granted I'm switching it up to suit my argument but if we're going to be that specific I'd call it a form of non-sentient life. It's not unscientific, the reason being is because we do know for a fact that the nervous system and brain patterns don't form until a certain point and that's roughly where my own personal limit lies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/when-does-a-fetus-develop-a-brain#anatomy
Just plucked this off the search engine, but it's purely to backup my point since you started going on about science and actually this article has a ton of helpful information I'm quite interested in lol think inadvertently found a good source.
Which is a nonsensical argument. The zygote is designed to develop at a certain rate and sentience is not an objective measure, it’s a subjective one, it’s like saying marriage is between people that love each other. A zygote will always reach sentience if there is no interference. This is the same argument as a man put into a medical coma, if he is expected to fully recover is he not alive?
I've been wondering if a brain or nervous system is even a requirement for sentience, given what we know about green plants and other so-called "lower forms of life."
That's not even true because there are such things as stillbirths etc. even when the fetus is developing in a natural state and of course there's the issue of disease or babies becoming disabled. Also sentience absolutely can be objectively measured, we do it with animals all the time. It's the sort of thing that drives people especially vegans nuts to even consider. Then there's the issue of AI where people are fooling themselves into thinking that lines of code can have sentience.
This is something I've got a massively autistic interest in because of my own work with code and the issue of machine learning but I'll try not to get too off topic with that lol. I've been pondering a lot with regards to abortion/brain pattern argument the issue of artificial brains.
Sentience is the ability to feel physical things. If someone was unable to feel things for longer period of time, just like how, for instance, a few people on Earth don't feel pain at all, do you call them non-sentient and you think their mothers can "abort" them just for that?
More generally speaking, why is the ability to feel pain or pleasure be the argument for whether or not you can or can't kill a baby? I really don't see how the 2 are connected at all. Is a human, to you, just defined by their nervous system?
You are the communist of conservatism.
Noticed a strange uptick in angsty posts from weirdly specific users and I doubt that's a coincidence, you wouldn't happen to be with ForkliftCertified and Sneak_King would you? Or did you all just happen to behave like redditors at exactly the same time?
I'm with u/current_horror in regard to lolbert fatigue. Nothing personal, but your standard moral vs legal line is pretty ridiculous and has been the means by which neoconservatives (ie Trotskyites) have backed leftists for 70 years. "You can't legislate morality" has been a conservative line my whole life and its dead wrong.
All laws are written to promote a moral good. Homocide laws are written because preventing and punishing murder is a moral good. The Crean Air Act was written because preventing a polluted country is a moral good. Even fucking tax laws exist because supporting the operations of the government is (perceived) to be a moral good. Now some of these may be bad calls, but the principle remains.
Or, I should say the principle remains unless an actual conservative advocates for a law or moral position out of line with progressive ideology, then it's back to "you can't legislate morality" as our betters often tell us.
If you think that neo-conservatives and actual Libertarians can be compared in any capacity you don't know anything about Libertarianism and you're stretching as much as leftists do when they frequently try to pretend we're all in the same sphere of the infamous 'far right'.
You've got fatigue from Libertarians? Tough, I've had to put up with right wingers since the 90's, I especially hate the fact that they thought they could invade my hobbies and get away with it just like leftists thought they could.
I disagree.
These things are done to maintain the authority of the state, which is based on moral principals enshrined in the Constitution. It may be a bit pedantic but I think it's an important distinction.
While it's acceptable to question, protest, and even disobey laws and still be a loyal citizen, opposing the Constitution is treason. While laws are dynamic, the Constitution is not (or at least shouldn't be).
The reason for this is that governments should never be the arbiters of the Constitution, that's for the courts to do in order to ensure a division of power so that special interest groups can't arbitrarily change everything.
You might think this is unimportant, but take a look at a country with no Constitutional authority, like Canada, to see the difference.