Thread: I'm not ashamed to admit I hate feminists.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

You do realize when I said "more" I meant a conscious being right? Cause with that your whole other argument about other life goes out the window. I believe there is a natural order of things, and that sentient beings are at the top of it, so there is your answer on that.

Im not talking about "imposing" my opinion. Im talking from personal experience here. My brother's first fiancee was pregnant and she had an abortion without even consulting my brother. Can you imagine how devestating that was to him and my family? Needless to say she is an ex-fiancee now. If you think that the man having a say is "imposing" your opinion then we are on two different wave lengths.

Wanna talk from experience? My mother had to go through an illegal abortion once (due to locality and the laws of the land at that place in time), and nearly died from it. Not to mention, she had to go to work the next day so not to raise suspicions. Now, had she died, I wouldn't exist, so the picture ain't fucking black & white.

Also, did you stop to consider she may have not wanted to have a child? You can't force a woman to bare a child she may not want. To do that is to remove her rights to her own body. And to me, that is by far more disgusting than an abortion.

For the 'natural order', what sets that order? What is it that sets us apart from another ape? Life itself is not meaningful, it is consciousness. When the foetus develops to the point it starts to exhibit brain activity, then yeah, I would be against abortions at that term, but that happens at around 20 weeks onwards with the pregnancy. Before that, it can't even be said to be conscious, so what's the big deal?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Wanna talk from experience? My mother had to go through an illegal abortion once (due to locality and the laws of the land at that place in time), and nearly died from it. Not to mention, she had to go to work the next day so not to raise suspicions. Now, had she died, I wouldn't exist, so the picture ain't fucking black & white.

Also, did you stop to consider she may have not wanted to have a child? You can't force a woman to bare a child she may not want. To do that is to remove her rights to her own body. And to me, that is by far more disgusting than an abortion.

For the 'natural order', what sets that order? What is it that sets us apart from another ape? Life itself is not meaningful, it is consciousness. When the foetus develops to the point it starts to exhibit brain activity, then yeah, I would be against abortions at that term, but that happens at around 20 weeks onwards with the pregnancy. Before that, it can't even be said to be conscious, so what's the big deal?

And why did your mom HAVE to go through this illegal abortion? Not being cynical, actually serious.

Im gonna say it again, it is not only rights to her own body, it is rights to a child's body as well, which to me is disgusting since the to be child doesnt even have a say. If she didnt want the child, fine, we would have taken it. but, if you are old enough to play around you are old enough to accept the consequences which she didnt want so she found herself a loop-hole. I know not all abortion cases are like this but this one was.

You answered the question yourself. What determines the natural order is we have consciousness.

I really dont have a problem with your view. The fact you are against it at some stage is still good enough to me. but, if you are so against my view I will stick around and defend it.


Sekrat: You know full well there is plenty of difference, the difference is that no other cells will evolve in to a living human save the ones from a sperm and egg joining. Saying they wont cause we abort them so it doesnt matter really makes more sense when you realize they are the only cells that can do this.

oye, the point of the leg thing was to take your analogy and spin it cause its not only her baby, it is both her's and the man's.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

And why did your mom HAVE to go through this illeagal abortion?

Im gonna say it again, it is not only rights to her own body, it is rights to a child's body as well, which to me is disgusting since the to be child doesnt even have a say.

You answered the question yourself. What determines the natural order is we have consciousness.

Well, first of all, with the ban on abortion, there was also no contraceptives either. So that made things a little hard not to get pregnant if you were young and dating. So considering circumstances, such situations are bound to happen, whether it was my mother or not in that period of time (and it happened more often than not).

You can't force someone to bear children. I mean, I could decide I don't even want to knock up a girl (near-term and long-term) and go and have a vasectomy. Am I being inconsiderate towards any future girlfriends who may want to become pregnant? No, my body, my choice. It's the same with them. Besides, if it was really a problem, then there's always adoption.

As for the 'order' of things, consciousness is the key factor, but a clump of cells is not conscious. In fact, I actually see no objective reason why humans should be valued any more than the next animal. Any reasons are purely sentimental and subjective in such a case. As for you, you also proved a point, it is not life you value, it is consciousness. Therefore you shouldn't really have a problem with early-term abortions.

As the late (and awesome) George Carlin framed the whole thing: "Pro-life is Anti-woman"

Never was a big fan of him, anyways:

ok, no conctreceptives is pretty retarded.

wait wait wait. So, I cant force a woman to bear children PRE conciousness, but once there is conciousness I can? Then it really is not her body's rights, it is the child's rights. Am I following right here?

Yes, objectively I should not have a problem with early term abortions, but from the reasoning above, I do.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Never was a big fan of him, anyways:

ok, no conctreceptives is pretty retarded.

wait wait wait. So, I cant force a woman to bear children PRE conciousness, but once there is conciousness I can? Then it really is not her body's rights, it is the child's rights. Am I following right here?

Yes, objectively I should not have a problem with early term abortions, but from the reasoning above, I do.

No, I may have qualms against it, but that's personal sentiment. I would never impose personal sentiment against someone else in order to force them into doing something they may not be willing to. Just as someone has no right to deny me my vasectomy, you don't have any right to deny a woman the choice whether to bear a child or not. Denying someone the right to their own body is fucking evil, in my opinion. We are not reproduction machines.

It is fing evil to deny a child life. This is not only about the woman, that is a completely selfish view. A vesectomy is not equal to abortion, having the woman's tubes tied is. Which i have no problem with btw.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

It is fing evil to deny a child life. This is not only about the woman, that is a completely selfish view. A vesectomy is not equal to abortion, having the woman's tubes tied is. Which i have no problem with btw.

Note the wording, child. The correct term is foetus. If the foetus is not conscious, then it is just a clump of cells. There's nothing there to suggest a human in the eyes of someone who values consciousness.

It is about the woman. We have come a long way to ensure equal rights to women, why the fuck should we start taking steps back all of a sudden? Why should you deny a fully conscious, fully developed, sentient being the right to its body, just because there's a clump of cells (which are not conscious, not aware) inhabiting inside that being's body? Where is the logic in that?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Sekrat: You know full well there is plenty of difference, the difference is that no other cells will evolve in to a living human save the ones from a sperm and egg joining. Saying they wont cause we abort them so it doesnt matter really makes more sense when you realize they are the only cells that can do this.

oye, the point of the leg thing was to take your analogy and spin it cause its not only her baby, it is both her's and the man's.

There's no baby. It's a clump of cells. A potential baby is not a baby. You're arguing potentialities. That is highly illogical and I will ask you to refrain from doing that. Potentialities are no more than mental masturbation. You can't deny a potential child life because there is no potential child.

I know that you will answer with the same nonsensical arbitrary distinctions again ad nauseam, so please just don't write anything.

arguing potentiallity? How often do they not? In the rare times there is a miscarriage? Maybe to your view it is illogical, I will ask you to refrain from acting like your opinion is worth more than mine because it is not. I can just as easily say to me it is illogical that you can value the developing life at one point and not another, because there is no guaruntee that the baby will be ok until after it is out, but does that make it worth less? No

Originally Posted by tkdyo

arguing potentiallity? How often do they not? In the rare times there is a miscarriage? Maybe to your view it is illogical, I will ask you to refrain from acting like your opinion is worth more than mine because it is not. I can just as easily say to me it is illogical that you can value the developing life at one point and not another, because there is no guaruntee that the baby will be ok until after it is out, but does that make it worth less? No

It doesn't matter whether it will be a human or not. It is not, hence we can abort it. Simple, ain't it? The potentiality argument is really the worst of all. Potentialities don't mean anything because they are not real. They are mental masturbation. At least try and come up with something a bit more convincing... tell me why a batch of cells has human moral properties (as opposed to could have and will have). Until then...

because the reason for getting the abortion is exactly the same. because it will become human, the abortion occurs. The potentiallity goes both ways. If I you can argue for it because it will become human, I can argue against it because it will, simple aint it?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

because the reason for getting the abortion is exactly the same. because it will become human, the abortion occurs. The potentiallity goes both ways. If I you can argue for it because it will become human, I can argue against it because it will, simple aint it?

Yes. I'm not denying that it will become human if not aborted. I'm arguing that whether or not something will be something is irrelevant to it's moral status. What counts is what it is. And it's a batch of cells. If tomorrow I get hit by truck and have to live in a wheelchair, that doesn't mean I can demand disabled benefits today.