Unworthy of Life

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2021.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    also this needs to be said i am militantly pro choice because i firmly believe as a non uterused person that is the only moral choice to have because i will never truly be able to understand the choice. my preferred number of abortions is zero. ideally i would love for no pregnancy to be terminated and that every fetus is born into a loving family and will get every chance to succeed. which is why i support wic, universal child care endeavors, allowing gay people to adopt, fully funding foster programs, agressive vetting of adopting and fostering parents. every child born deserves to be loved, taken care of, and be safe.

    if you are pro "life" and anti taking care of the children brought into this world. you aren't morally superior, you are just an ahole.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Act like its a young girl that you care about an she was raped an pregnant... woud you want her to have the choice on whether to abort or not... or woud you rather that the choice be left up to you.???
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    That choice ain't my problem. and I decline to make it mine.
    (ergo:All parents (should?) have the right to kill(murder) their own children.)
    kinda takes my interests outside that particular box--------------huh

    It's a timing thing that peaks my interests.

    Societal mores are where psychology and anthropology intertwine in very interesting(if not; well understood) patterns.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Ok... so stated in a way that peaks you'r interests:::

    A young girl was raped an pregnant an chose to have an abortion... woud it not be murder at 4 weeks... but it woud be murder at 4 mounths.???
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    once again:
    "not my problem"
    I think that killing your own children is both a right, and a sign of mental illness
    and, now
    the timing thing becomes the issue
    On the one hand, we would, most likely, find that grabbing your baby by the ankles and swinging it against a brick wall until it was just a bleeding corpse was unacceptable behavior.
    is eliminating your progeny ever not a sign of mental illness(broadly defined)

    non compos mentis?
    begs a timing assessment

    long ago, I read of a northern culture wherein unwanted babies were placed outside on the ice(and left to die)
    these actions were well within their societal mores.
  9. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    oK... so timin ant you'r issue... you just want to label choosin abortion as mental illness... which is fine wit me as long as the woman has the choice.!!!
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    not a label
    words are poor reflections of reality and labels are shortcuts for the mentally lazy or inept.
    (in one psychology grad seminar we attempted to define mental illness, and........................?)
    Let us start with ; successive approximations toward a goal of understanding ...
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Vocabulary lesson:
    analogy - a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.​
    You're argument has no logic. If it did, you'd have realized that you just made my argument for me. In your brilliant example, the victim of organ harvesting has no choice in the matter, just like the baby in the womb. Oops, you were so busy cherry-picking an extreme example that you completely failed to rebut the crux of the argument, that the donor made no choice that led to that fate. Are you similarly claiming that no woman has any agency to take birth control, the morning after pill, or, God forfend, abstain?
    "someone being harmed to provide aid to another"? No, that sounds like a complete straw man. No idea how you got that from anything I said. Maybe try again.
    The morning after pill is only meant to be used as an emergency contraceptive, assuming women, who don't want to become pregnant, are responsible enough to be taking a regular contraceptive. Sadly, studies have shown that many aren't:
    The study, published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, compared the effectiveness of various types of birth control in a group of about 7,500 sexually active women in the St. Louis area. Over a period of three years, 9.4% of women using birth control pills, patches, or vaginal rings became pregnant accidentally, compared to just 0.9% of women who opted for IUDs or implants.
    “It’s not that birth control pills aren’t effective, because they are – when they’re used perfectly,” says Jeffery Peipert, M.D.,...“But humans aren’t perfect, and it’s normal to forget to take a pill every day or file for prescription refills every month.”
    And responsible women should know if they can't take the morning after pill and plan accordingly. But do tell, how many women are allergic to levonorgestrel and ulipristal acetate or cannot stop taking barbiturates or St. John's wort? Hopefully a woman being overweight kind of takes care of itself. Even if not an option, there's many regular birth control options. So exactly how much accountability do you want to completely absolve women of?
    Excusing women from the consequences of their own choices, by taking the extreme measure of killing a human life, literally presumes they have no agency in their choices. It's the same thing that happens when someone succeeds at an insanity defense, where they are found incompetent to face the full consequences of their actions. Are you saying women are functionally insane or incompetent? Sure sounds like it. You're not arguing for women to have choices. You're arguing for women to have choices without consequences. We generally only try to shield children and the incompetent from the consequences of their own actions. So which are you saying we should be treating women as?
    When you "get injured from your decisions," you've already experienced the consequences. You have no other choice but to accept what has already happened. You've once again made my argument for me. Saying "fuck it what happens happens" is exactly what a woman does when she does not take all available precautions against an unwanted pregnancy. I agree. Most responsible people don't do that.
    Quit lying. I already told Bells what other options there are for children the mother support. Leaving them in a household primarily reliant upon welfare is often a recipe for learned, generational poverty and crime. That's lifelong harm.
    Personally, I've benefited significantly from women willing to have sex without any intention to get married or have a baby. I wouldn't want to punish them for that. Heaven forfend! Sex is important to relationships, and just fun, beyond just procreation. It's a false dilemma (and a straw man) that women are either irresponsible (make bad choices) or must only have sex for procreation. That's your own problem with dichotomous thinking. What you seem misogynistically incapable of realizing is that women are capable of having recreational sex responsibly. You talk like that's just never occurred to you. Now, maybe they have to be irresponsible in order to have sex with you (get drunk, etc.), in which case, I can understand why you'd make such a nonsense assumption.
    Arguing that a long history of something somehow makes it right is obviously bullshit, otherwise it would also apply to slavery, human sacrifice, etc..
    But I agree, the woman's choice on whether she wants to get pregnant does matter. It matters when she chooses to take birth control, the morning after pill, have sex without a condom or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc.. You know, every opportunity to be a responsible adult. Instead of killing a human because she couldn't be bothered.
    I invite you to show where I've ever said there should be no consequences for Chauvin, because that's an obvious lie. Go ahead. Try.

    Okay. Would you agree with banning all abortions except in cases of immediate threat to the life of the mother, rape, and incest? If not, you're just lying by making that argument, as it has nothing to do with you being pro-abortion.
  12. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    oK... so now that you take back the mental illness label you'r issue is resolved.!!!

    Glad to help

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    I agree that the choice is up to the pregnant female.!!!
  14. Bells Staff Member

    This "human life" cannot exist without taking up space in another person's body. That person, according to you, suddenly loses all their human rights and bodily autonomy, because people such as yourself, have deemed that whatever exists inside her uterus is a "human life" and thus, takes precedence over her rights, choices or say in the matter.

    I never attributed it as being a "human life", because it is not. It has the potential to be a human life. And that's it, nothing more, nothing less.

    As far as I am concerned, no woman should be forced to endure a pregnancy for 9 months if she does not wish to be pregnant. To force any woman to do so is a gross abuse of her human rights and is literally denying her any bodily autonomy.

    I honestly don't get how people like you demand that no one can force you to take a vaccine, but you see fit to demand that women be forced to remain pregnant, even if she does not wish to be. It is frankly obscene.

    I have always maintained that the issue of abortion is a means to control women and their bodies. The only reason abortion gets the panties of the right in a twist, is because it's a woman who is making a decision about her body. None of you give a shit about what happens to that "human life" or that "baby" once it's born. You aren't willing to use government money to help feed, clothe and house it. You care about "the baby" or the "human life"? Then perhaps you should start addressing the horrific rate of children living in poverty in the US at present. Because those are humans, many of whom are babies, who are suffering. "Human life"? Killing "human life"? Your lack of gun laws and lack of restrictions has seen tens of thousands of children killed in the US over the last 2 decades.

    So don't give me this level of utter BS about "human life":

    When thousands of children are killed each year because your guns your rights, you don't get to start bitching that women have a fundamental human right to determine what happens to their body.

    What is wrong with you?

    What others is she harming?

    There's no "others".

    While it's in her body, attached to her uterus, it's not an "other". Only she gets to determine if it's an "other" or not. Do you know why? Because it's inside her body. It is not recognised as a person until it is born. Do you know why? Because until it's born, it's sole existence is entirely reliant on sucking the life out of the mother if she chooses for it to do so.

    Hence my point. Your issue with abortion is not that a "human life" is being taken. You don't give a shit about "human life" when a man walks into a school and kills dozens of children. You refuse to allow any policies or regulations that would even prevent such a thing from happening. You only give a shit about abortion, because it's about the woman and most importantly a woman who has had sex and is thus, for incels and puritans such as yourself, no longer pure. For example:

    A woman who has sex is apparently like a drunk driver who kills someone..

    Note your language.

    Your issue and that of the psycho in the OP, is that women are having sex and then making choices about their bodies. It's not about the "children". Your carrying on about how it's killing a "human life" or "murder" or "the child".. The only time you seem to care about any of those things is if a woman has had sex.

    What if you don't have a say in the matter?

    What if I just tell you to take your gun and shove it up your coight and move in anyway? Why won't you feed me and get rid of my waste for 9 months Vociferous? What if your evicting me would see me die? Is my "human life" not worthy of your consideration?
    You have been crowing about Floyd's murder for months now. You don't think the guy who killed him did anything wrong.

    Not every woman gets pregnant by choice. Sometimes accidents happen. Sometimes she is raped. Sometimes her circumstances change and she cannot have a baby. Sometimes she is sick and risks dying if she continues with her pregnancy. Sometimes her father raped her when she was 12. Sometimes the lack of education about sex and reproduction because the education system has failed her, results in her being pregnant. Sometimes she just does not want to have "a baby".

    That is her choice. However she proceeds, it is her choice. Not yours. Not mine. Hers and hers alone.

    You're all about choice, but you seem to ignore her choice over her own body.

    As I said. Your issue with abortion is that women have the say and it's because women had sex.

    Or maybe, Floyd could not have been murdered.

    And a woman who decides to have an abortion because she does not want to, can't have, etc, a "baby" is making a responsible choice. Perhaps it's time you accepted that. That abortion for women, is the responsible choice for her.

    Because it is her body.
    James R and pjdude1219 like this.
  15. Bells Staff Member

    When a man walked into a school and shot up dozens of innocent human lives, the responsible choice would have been to prevent others like him from doing something like that again. But you don't support gun laws, do you?

    And when the woman has an abortion, there's no "human life". It's the possible potential for human life. It's actually quite a vast difference.

    Your narrative is quite harmful, by the way. Do you tell women who miscarry that their body murdered or destroyed an "innocent human life"? That it's an accident, but "an innocent human life" ended? Or do you save that narrative for the women who have sex and abortions?
    That's why so many dangerous people are still allowed to own guns in America...

    You only care because the process involves women making choices over their own body. Incels and puritans like you always think the same way.

    If she can't have a child for whatever reason, the actual responsible thing for her is to have an abortion. Because we all know that if she has a baby and is in no position to care for it, people like you would deride and abuse her for her choices in not being able to care for her child. Funny that, isn't it? She makes a choice to have a baby, people like you abuse her. She makes a choice to not have the baby, people like you abuse her.

    As I said. It's never been about "the baby". It's always been about the fact that women have human rights.

    You think it's acceptable to force a woman remain pregnant for 9 months, go through the arduous and frankly horrific and at times, life threatening process of childbirth, cope with months of recovery..?

    This is acceptable for you?

    Because this is what you are supporting when you start prattling on about how the child can be put in care along with hundreds of thousands of others.

    For that "child" to get into care, the mother has to remain pregnant, against her will and without her consent, go through childbirth and risk her own life, face months of recovery..

    It's essentially torture and forcing women into a form of prison over their own bodies.

    I think killing babies is always wrong.

    But that has nothing to do with abortion.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Who is killing it 1 minute before birth?

    Your argument was and remains completely ridiculous.

    Abortions can't be performed past 30 weeks or so weeks, I believe, and even in those circumstances, it is solely dependent on the woman and her doctor and the circumstances surrounding it. Not by you or some random morons. It is literally a medical decision between herself and her doctor.

    Many women are unable to access an abortion earlier and for that, you can thank governments who have imposed limits and obstacles on accessing abortions earlier. Many women are not even able to access the morning after-pill or even adequate birth control.

    That's infanticide and not abortion.

    Do you understand the difference?

    If you wish to reduce the number of teen pregnancies in the US and the risk of infanticide, then perhaps you should lobby to teach actual sex education, pregnancy prevention and provide free access to birth control and the morning after-pill instead of the constant puritanical culture that is forced on girls so that they are too afraid to approach others if they do find themselves pregnant.
    pjdude1219 and exchemist like this.
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    You notice he still hasn’t even addressed my basic point of why he thinks pregnancy some how negates a women’s internationally recognized human right to bodily autonomy.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    He is not the first, nor will he be the last to fail to do so.

    Because the moment one recognises our fundamental human rights, the abortion debate goes right out the window.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Then your mention of rape and incest is just a red herring that has nothing to do with what you're advocating. That's a intellectually dishonest argument.

    Then you are a science-denier, plain and simple. Another joke of a moderator on a purportedly "science forum." Science defines a human as a member of the species homo sapiens. So unless you can explain how a fetus of the species is actually a different species, you cannot refute that a human fetus is human. Science defines life as that which is not inanimate matter. So again, unless you can explain how a fetus is inanimate matter, you cannot refute that it is alive.
    Weighing the rights between one life's temporary inconvenience and another's complete termination really isn't as hard as the morally bereft pretend. Especially when the one suffering only temporary inconvenience played an active role in the choices that led to the existence of the other. A woman should exert her bodily autonomy (by being responsible with birth control↑, morning after pill, etc.) before there's a another human body involved. Failure to do that doesn't impart the right to take another human life, unless of course, women are children, who cannot be expected to be accountable for their own choices.
    To take a human life is the worst violation of human rights. And making arbitrary excuses about some people "not being human" has a grotesque history in slavery, where other people claimed the human lives of others as their property, to do with as they saw fit. The vast majority of women who become pregnant do so due to their own choices and actions. So you saying "no woman should be forced to endure a pregnancy" ultimately means that you think no woman should have to face the consequences of her own choices. You know, protect them from themselves, like we do children.
    No one can force a vaccine because people do not make any choices that would make it a natural consequence.
    What you "have always maintained" has nothing to do with reality. It's just your quasi-religious ideology you proselytize without any actual evidence or support. I really wish more women would take better control of their own bodies, by being responsible with birth control, morning after pill, etc.. There are plenty of Christian churches, charities, adoption agencies, etc. that belie your claims of not caring. News flash, government redistribution isn't the only way to care for children. Children living in poverty since COVID is a direct consequence of Democrat economy-destroying policies. I really wish we could keep Democrats from harming people, but that's not how our government works. That goes for Democrat soft-on-crime policies too. Aside from said criminals, guns are used to defend life, just like the pro-life try to do. Pretty damn consistent.
    We do not legally allow people to kill children, with guns or otherwise. Big difference from allowing woman to kill babies for any or no reason at all. And as soon as you want to get on board with more hard-on-crime policies, only then will you have any basis to whine about guns. Law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves for early released violent offenders.
    The baby.
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member


    More of your science-denying. Science says that it has its own unique DNA by the fifth day after conception. But go ahead, try to explain to us how one person has two unique DNA codes directing her growth, has 20 fingers, 20 toes, etc.. You don't "get to" decide scientific facts for yourself. But if you're admitting you're a crackpot, we can dismiss all your arguments right here and now. A person does not "get to" decide what something is just because it's in their body. I don't get to decide my stomach is goat or a virus I carry is really unicorn tears just because it's in my body. That's pretty damn idiotic.
    Making up an arbitrary definition like "person," is no more valid than a slave owner claiming a slave wasn't a "person." Do you like perpetuating that disgusting history?
    Believe it or not, even once born, a child is still wholly dependent upon others for its survival for many years. It doesn't suddenly become less dependent upon birth, nor suddenly more human.
    More of your unsupported lies. It's Democrats who won't allow policies or regulations that would stop school shootings, like allowing teachers to be armed, etc.. You won't ever stop criminals from breaking the law. Like I told pjdude, I actually appreciate women who like to have sex, with no intention to get pregnant or married. It's a false dilemma that women have to either be irresponsible about birth control or abstain until marriage. New flash, sexually active women can actually manage to be responsible with their birth control, morning after pill, etc.. Why don't you seem to believe they can?
    More unfounded lies. Quasi-religious ideologues often do feel the need to resort to that.
    A choice that results in the completely predictable death of another is a choice that results in the predictable death of another. Period.
    Hey, if you think you can make illegal demands of someone with a gun, you're in for a very bad surprise. Again, you're still missing the painfully obvious point that I wouldn't make any choice that would lead to you mooching off of me, unlike a woman whose direct actions/choices led to the creation of a baby. If you're so big on "choice" why can't you seem to understand very simple concepts, like consent?
    Again, you're just lying. I haven't been "crowing" about anything. You're just trying to demonize and poison the well because you are intellectually dishonest. I never said Chauvin didn't do anything wrong, and I dare you to find that I have. Go ahead. Try.
    Never said every woman gets pregnant by choice, as obviously every abortion was not an intentional pregnancy. "Accidents" are very often due to irresponsibility, like failing to take a pill every day, getting too drunk to make responsible choices, etc.. And we all know risk of dying, rape, and incest are red herrings, as you'd never go for banning all abortions except for immediate threat to the mother, rape, or incest. Women are either adults, accountable for the consequences of their actions, or they aren't. No matter the excuse (failure of education, etc..) a guy would be held responsible. So why do you, apparently, think women are inferior to men, in their capacity to be responsible?
    Yes, Floyd could have not chosen to be high on drugs (that had already recently sent him to the hospital), passed a counterfeit bill (whether from his drug dealer or not), or repeatedly and consistently resist arrest and every command given him. His choices started that whole chain of events. Just like a woman's choices generally lead to her becoming pregnant (aside from your obvious cherry-picked red herrings).

    Killing a human in anything but self-defense is never a "responsible choice." The mental gymnastics you display to avoid that simple fact lead you to repeatedly deny science. Hope your ideological belief is worth your complete lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2021
  21. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Already answered above. No idea why you felt the need to repeat yourself.
    No woman makes a choice that leads to a miscarriage, unless they are actively irresponsible to trying to induce an abortion. Humans die from natural causes all the time. Most women, and their families, mourn a miscarriage as the loss of a baby. Not the lose of a "potential person." It can be very traumatic.
    Do you tell women intending to give birth that "it's not a baby"? If so, what's wrong with you?
    No, criminals are not "allowed to carry guns in America," but Democrats love to release them from prison.
    Already rebutted these lies above. Again, no idea why you feel the need to repeat yourself...other than that you may only have so many canned responses to parrot on the subject.
    The only other option is to assume women are children, who are so inherently irresponsible or incompetent that we must excuse them killing another human.
    Try telling that to the women intending to have a baby.
    pjdude might have wanted to start by actually mentioning body autonomy. Your body autonomy doesn't entail you having the right to kill someone.

    You're also agreeing with a guy who twice made my own argument for me.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I think you'll find there's a bit more to it than that. Not that it matters, in the present context.
    There is no completely arbitary notion of personhood, so I could hardly do that.
    Why do you think that human life is sacrosanct?
    And, given that's what you're telling us you think, why do you also think it was acceptable for Chauvin to end Floyd's life?
    Are you still doing that? Didn't you and I have a word about that nonsense earlier? Slow learner?
    I know what you said.
    I think you've lost track of what you were talking about. Too busy foaming at the mouth, maybe.
    And again? What's wrong with you?
    Tell me why it gets to use to a woman's body against her will, then. Because you say so?
    Apparently so. Didn't you read your own link?
    See how they clarify that the term "baby" is not "offical" (i.e. technically correct)?
    Calling it Frederica doesn't turn a foetus into a baby. You missed the point. I'm predicting you'll now go on to miss it a second time.
    And again with that nonsense? That's three times in the one post.

    Don't you realise that rubbish is no substitute for a reasoned argument? You ought to stop it. People won't like you if you're constantly trying to insult them. It's also incredibly immature. How old are you? Haven't you outgrown that schoolyard bullying tactic yet?
    You're still as wrong as you were the first time.

    All in all, not a lot of substance to your post there, was there?
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Lots here about women being held responsible for their choices. Not so much about men being held responsible. Last time I checked, conception required both a man and a woman, in the usual run of these things. But you're exclusively focused on the women.

    Tell me, Vociferous: how do you recommend that the men be held responsible for their choices to have sex, knowing the possible consequences? Why are you laser-focused on what you will and won't allow women to do, while you're giving the men free rein?

    You mention treating women like children. What you really advocate is treating women like (your) property. For some reason, you think that you have the right to tell a women what she must do with her own body. What gives you that right? Who made you King of the Women?

    You mention that after you've forced a women to carry her unwanted pregnancy to term, that there are plenty of eager people looking to adopt the baby. How many babies have you adopted, Vociferous. How many are you willing to take on and support? Please tell us.

    Here's another novel idea: that baby has a father. Why are you not advocating that he be responsible after the baby's (forced) birth?

    You also mention the government. How much extra tax per year are you personally willing to pay to ensure that the government takes and cares for all the unwanted children that you insist must be born? Also, how will you ensure that those unwanted children grow up as loved and privileged as the ones their parents chose to have? Does that matter to you at all?

    What about the men, Vociferous? You're a man. Tell me how you're stepping up to care for the little ones after you have forced them to be born.

Share This Page