better tools = more death
guns in general are a force multiplier. If you're going to use that argument, you might as well ban guns entirely...
RIP Alec Baldwin's career, kek.
From the comments:
journalist subs Lauren to a mailing list journalist uses Lauren's sub to smear politician profit
Sounds way too plausible for current journalism.
I think that study conflates not wanting to have kids ever with not wanting to raise kids under current (and predicted) circumstances.
Carl Benjamin (Sargon) put it very well(paraphrasing): If you can't explain it simply, you don't know what you're talking about.
Pfft, that alone could destroy OnlyFans. So many simps would instantly spend their money on a robot waifu that appreciated them from time to time instead of "disinterested e-thot you will never meet or earn reciprocation"
I guess it only extends to human infection. And if it is... I DON'T FUCKING KNOW, HOW IS THIS LEGAL IN A 1ST WORLD COUNTRY WTF?!
No, no, my dog is CLEARLY pillow-sexual. Sometimes he even has a side-cushion.
I think it is, they just outsource it to somewhere it isn't like China or Ukraine.
Old enough to count; old enough to mount -Hasan Piker
I think we can all agree that the suicide chemical could be age restricted.
Imagine thinking Trending is organic
he fucked my hometown over to the tune of millions when he moved Discovery HQ
The sheer fucking entitlement to believe it's somehow your right to have someone else's business.
So if it's 10 months, it's suddenly bad
No, after 9 months it's induced because much longer would probably kill both. However long we stretch the analogy, end of a normal pregnancy is the working limit because considering cases longer than it lasts in reality is pointless.
A brain-dead person is still a human life
"dead" means you don't expect it to return to a functioning human being. Almost all babies will grow into functioning humans.
You're not entitled to life support on my body unless I consented to you being so attached to me.
The baby didn't consent to being attached to you either. If you in any way find elective abortion abhorrent, then this is the same; you are just scrambling for justification to feel okay with ending an innocent life. 2 wrongs don't make a right; killing the unborn is a wrong in addition to impregnating the unwilling.
They are viable though
We disagree that humanity is conferred on viability. I don't think there's any distinct line we can draw for the start of human life besides conception- anything else is arbitrary and can be argued up or down since there's no solid basis for it. I err or the side of caution.
If you don't get rid of it until then, you have implicitly consented
And if the victim is too young or ignorant to know? Viability is a blurry line at best and can vary greatly depending on available medical technology. Also, abortion isn't an easy decision for the sane, so maybe they they remain indecisive until "too late".
I have yet to see a convincing argument for why aborting a rape baby differs from elective abortion. I understand your point that the victim didn't consent, but once a human life starts, it doesn't deserve to be ended just to make you feel better about what happened to you. Again, any distress the victim suffers in unwillingly carry the baby to term is in addition to the original crime- 2 victims instead of 1; the baby also deserves life.
You didn't get my question. What is the line for how long it's OK for me to be forced to allow someone to be attached to me
9 MONTHS. I'M TALKING ABOUT PREGNANCY- I DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED SPELLING OUT.
But it is not in such a stage of human development that it is entitled to the same protection as proper human persons
Then you don't consider it a human life, and that's the point.
I think that you are not entitled to the sustenance of someone else's body, so detaching you is not 'murder'
ALL unborn babies are entitled to the sustenance of the mother. If you wouldn't make the exact same argument for a non-rape baby, don't make it for this case either. "detaching" a baby is murder in the same way pulling someones' life support is murder.
Would support post birth abortion for a rape baby? They can't survive on their own. You could just leave it to starve to death since it's not "entitled" to food. Why is there a duty to care for it just because it's outside the womb? Where do you draw the line on when it's no longer okay to abort rape babies? Do you even draw one?
Why is 'a few months' OK
Because unborn babies tend to eventually exit the mother one way or another.
But let's make it more apt to the situation
That's the problem: you don't see the embryo as "another life". You could easily say an adult and a child if age is your problem. If you want it to be more apt, you would have to leave both as kids, but one of the kids has claustrophobia or something. Give the kid counselling or something, but you haven't made an argument for morally righteous murder.
If I surgically attached someone to you, who would die if you removed him
If it would take only a few months of inconvenience before they can live on their own, no. The "surgeon" is just more guilty beyond the initial crime of "surgery" for having forced the situation on her. If there's a reasonable way to save both, you take it.
Let me put it this way. There's 2 kids stuck in a well: you can kill one now and safely remove the other or wait a few months, keep them alive and then rescue both. If you pick the 1st option, you're a monster, but if it's an abortion- suddenly okay to murder.
More importantly, I seriously doubt he's talking about 40y/o men, but teens their own age getting married and starting a family. At that age, forget forcing them to have sex, it's hard enough to get them to stop. The only novel thing he's saying for this day and age is that teens should be committed to each other before they do...
Like an all-you-can-rape buffet...
Hans, get ze luger
the only thing that should surprise you about this is the ignorance
Wut? That should be the least surprising thing about regressives.
Literally the only rational response required.
The standard for men has and always will be "slightly better than average in every aspect". It's an ideal because it should be unreachable to pretty much every woman. The standard for women is "will dating him increase my status/make other women jealous"
Oddly enough that does seem to be the case. You would think that they would go for the most taboo acts last, but I guess since they hate humanity, animals are held more sacred than the innocence of children.
Anyone with any level of self-respect and the barest hint of pattern recognition shouldn't have watched either. You would have to force me Clockwork Orange-style to watch any remake/reboot/reimagining/adaption of media I like.