Is it the baby's fault its father was a rapist? It's also not like the mother couldn't give it up for adoption, so it need not be a "constant" reminder.
SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade
- Thread starter The Original Sixth
- Start date
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Yeah, this will probably open men to even more false rape claims.
The way things are now, I could certainly see that happening.
Bigking321
Well-known member
That doesn't work. If our medical stuff improves and the baby can survive removal a month earlier and you consider them human for that extra month, then they were always human even when they couldn't have survived that extra month earlier before.
...
It's not them killing themselves. It's them killing a innocent child that did nothing wrong.
That's not a win.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Ok, let us redefine it to, the subject can inhale and exhale and receive nourishment orally, without the need for an umbilical cord.
One less future leftard and mouth to feed, and one less leftist hoe sucking up handouts is a victory, even if a minor one.
exactly. By the "viable outside of the womb" theory, If we were able advance science to the point that we can raise that "clump of cells" without the mother's womb at all, then they were actually a human the whole time.
So in the course of an hour, you've already changed your mind once.
And you want to justify killing millions of humans over something you can change your mind on within 45 minutes.
You view this as an abstract political question. The religious right views this as THE MURDER OF BABIES.
You have no idea how that child will grow up to be, and you justify it as "one less leftard mouth to feed." That's repulsive.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
So you're presented with one response, and you've already changed your mind on what constitutes life. So society is supposed to center itself around that?!
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
No, I haven't, I just gave a more specific definition of what is alive and what is not.
This definition is closest to the biological one, too.
A virus for example, is not considered alive, as opposed to a bacteria, because it needs a host to reproduce/feed, it is just a roaming data packet of genetic spam.
The immediate result, that being that the hoe that spawned the child will receive some form of state monetary compensation is evident.
And as I said, politics are heavily genetic and heavily linked to upbringing.
A single hoe married to the gubrmint is likely to just breed more deadbeat leftards.
What you subsidize you get more of.
ALSO KINDLY STOP IT WITH THE OVERLY-EMOTIONAL ZOMG U KILLING BABIES spiel.
First of all, it is a cheap rhetoric trick to appeal to emotion, one the left loves to pull and makes me despise them even more.
Also, like RGE I have trained myself to despise appeals to mindless emotion and to get angry at the one trying to pull the trick, instead.
Last edited:
It's. Not. A. Rhetoric. Trick.
You can't have this conversation with religious pro-lifers until you get this through your fucking skull.
They honestly believe in God, and they honestly believe that it's killing babies. Until you learn to accept and respect this, you can not have a productive conversation with them.
You realize, from that perspective, you're in here calling innocent babies "leftist mouths" that deserve to die to save you a couple bucks.
Do you realize how evil and horrible that sounds to people who legitimately believe these are babies being murdered?
You're either trying to sound like an edge lord, or you have NO FUCKING CLUE how religious conservatives think.
I say this as an atheist independent!
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
I do not care what a few Judeo-Christian zealots think, tbh.
Conservatism, at least outside of America, is about far more than incessant bible thumping.
And being rightwing does not automatically make you a conservative or religious.
No. Being conservative means you should respect and protect individual life...babies included.
Why is your definition of when it becomes a human life, more legitimate than theirs?
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Having developed a certain level of function, in this case the ability to digest food and breathe is a stage of fetal development, it is not something you can actually change with tech.
If those abilities are impaired later then fixing them is fixing what was functioning properly in a fully developed individual.
A foetus on the other hand does not have the relevant capabilities and might not even develop them depending on the progression.
It is like saying that throwing apple seeds in a trash can is the same as chopping down a tree because it was infested with lichen.
Because biology and economics deal in hard facts, not belief.
Biology is constant, religions change, the Greko-Roman world for example was fine with exposure of defective or simply unwanted babies.
What "hard facts" mark the transistion from "clump of cells," to human being? And why is that more legitimate than basing it on other biological hard facts, like conception?
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
The capability to function independently.
By this rate you'd want to outlaw morning after pills and other stuff that prevents zygote implantation, too.
Can you show me the science that states that a fetus becomes a human being when it's able to function independently?
Because it sounds like you've picked up the idea because it sounds good, rather than any kind of scientific proof. The science shows that these phases happen, but your personal philosophy has decided that life begins at X point.
What kind of reproducable experiments can prove that it's not a human before this point, and is a human after this point?
Last edited:
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
NASA Astrobiology
If the system sustains all its functions via a direct connection that siphons off stuff from another system I do not see it as fully alive yet.
So what makes NASA's definition of life more credible than a Christian's? And before you say science backs it up, recall that science backs up the fact that conception happens, too.
Actual born babies "siphon off" resources from nursing as well. Are they not humans? They are in fact wholly reliant on humans, and will die without human care.