Anonymous #1 6d

This was actually hilarious. Comedic gold

7

Anonymous #5 6d

nobody has a right to life we just made it up buttwipe lmao

16

Anonymous #6 6d

that's laughably false.

8

Anonymous #5 6d

it’s so sad that people justify abortion just because a child would be inconvenient to them and their plans for the future. stop hooking up with people during school (or a time having a child is not a desire) and you won’t have to worry about it. easy as that.

9

Anonymous #4 6d

and the second child wouldn’t have survived if the timing was more convenient. so womp womp ig

-2

Anonymous #5 6d

laughably false? alright then where’d you get it? the bible?

-2

Anonymous #6 6d

have you read the ICCPR? the right to life is literally considered a supreme human right, foundation to ALL OTHER rights.

-3

Anonymous #5 6d

doesn’t mean it’s not completely made up

-3

Anonymous #6 6d

you're ignorant and need to read the ICCPR (or the declaration of independence). for your information, the ICCPR was adopted in 1966 by the UN and it's a treaty.

11

Anonymous #5 6d

okay just because a bunch of stuffy old people wrote up a treaty in 1966 it doesn’t mean you have some god given right to life, we made it up assbrain

-3

Anonymous #6 6d

mega skeptic over here? with that logic, everything is made up and you cant trust anything or have laws and rights. have fun chasing that void. also, debating a right to life is crazy to me. are you against a right to life?

11

Anonymous #6 6d

you should go to a country not part of the UN, then :)

6

Anonymous #7 6d

I just don’t like the moral grandstanding of someone arguing an “inherent” right like that justifies anything in the world that may disagree with that right, do we outlaw all capital punishment because people have a right to life? Permanently imprison anyone who directly or indirectly violates someone else’s right to life? Where does it end? It’s an “inherent” right after all, and that makes you a criminal of the highest order for violating it

0

Anonymous #6 6d

Especially when there’s no such thing as an inherent right, all rights are obviously made up, that’s why committing a crime is punished by having your rights taken away, which makes your rights actually privileges

-2

Anonymous #6 6d

these are not good arguments. the only issue of a person having the right to life are unborn children. you realize that we DO imprison or enact the death penalty against those who murder others, right? the violation of a persons right to life is TAKING THEIR LIFE. you're trying to find a logical loophole that doesn't exist.

10

Anonymous #5 6d

If a right can be taken away, then it wouldnt be a right, would it?

-2

Anonymous #6 6d

you're resorting to moral nihilism. if all rights are "made up", then your argument that abortion is justified is also made up. you're still appealing to moral rules, you just don't want them applied consistently. either human life has objective value, or nothing does. you can't argue for exceptions without admitting the rule.

3

Anonymous #5 6d

he says “if” like rights aren’t made up, but abortion is justified because it’s the most effective means of improving lives and keeping society at large on the right path, not because of some childish moral idea about personal autonomy/pursuit of happiness or whatever

-2

Anonymous #6 6d

Arguing that abortion is right because the right to life doesn’t exist is a new one lol. Just curious does this mean you’d be morally neutral if someone killed you or someone you care about?

3

Anonymous #6 6d

now you've moved to utilitarianism. you just admitted your position isn't about rights, but outcomes. once “improving society” becomes the standard, any group can be sacrificed if someone in power decides their lives are inconvenient (i.e., slavery!). history has a long, bloody record of what happens when human worth is measured by utility instead of dignity. what you've laid out is demented.

7

Anonymous #9 6d

i get that you just got here but im not gonna explain an entire complex moral framework over yikyak

-5

Anonymous #5 6d

actually i believe in rights, just not a right to life, i think the idea of that is kind of dumb because we toss it out the moment things get difficult, you would know that if you bothered to ask but you care more about pushing a narrative than being accurate

-1

Anonymous #6 6d

yikes.

4

Anonymous #5 6d

oh no you just were forced to acknowledge your government kills people and doesn’t care about a right to life in any way shape or form, normally id be sarcastic but actually you should be scared

-1

Anonymous #6 6d

your cylinders aren't firing.

5

Anonymous #6 6d

I believe it’s a right that should be respected in all cases except in dire circumstances to save innocent lives or future grave injustices that can’t be prevented any other way. Do you not believe this as well?

6

Anonymous #9 6d

No. You believe it’s a privilege, rights don’t get taken away, you believe it’s a privilege that should be respected except in dire circumstances. That’s where I take issue with

0

Anonymous #10 6d

such an ignorant take. you want to plan a family? take the preventative measures that don't bring a life into this world before you're ready because guess what? THEY EXIST. if you don't want a child you've brought into this world, there's plenty of families willing to adopt. killing the unborn IS NOT the solution.

-1

Anonymous #6 6d

Rights can have limitations and still be rights. I believe in a right to free speech for example, but you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater because that would put innocent lives in danger violating their right to life with needless danger in the stampede to the exit. Similarly I believe in a right to self defense so if someone tries to violate my right to life I am justified in stopping them, which includes deadly force if needed.

9

Anonymous #9 6d

Very well put. That “limitation” is called a consequence lol. A person can say the N work at work but they may not be employed shortly after. Just because we can say wtvr we want doesn’t imply there wont be some sort of consequence that follows.

1

Anonymous #3 6d

Damn #5 you sound like someone I would be friends with. Good for you and thanks for taking the time and energy to explain this even though #6 wont give a fuck. Unfortunate that he wont experience what it’s like to be told he has to birth a child regardless of the circumstances.

1

Anonymous #9 6d

Rights have limitations based on harm, which I don’t think actually makes them rights, but regardless all your examples are based on harm, so as the pro lifer here you should understand the right to life is forfeited when harm is caused. Which is why abortions are permitted in the first place, by your own logic.

1

Anonymous #6 6d

Are you implying that being pregnant is equivalent to an attack or injustice that constitutes deadly force against a fetus? I wouldn’t go down that rabbit hole if you are but im happy to listen to your explanation

1

Anonymous #6 6d

Also I never said that right is forfeit when harm is caused. I said that it has limitations when someone else’s right to life or equivalent is directly threatened and the only way to stop them is with deadly force. I do not believe in the death penalty except in cases where that persons’s continued existence is a danger to others in a way that cannot be stopped, which in this day and age doesn’t seem likely considering we have modern prisons.

1

Anonymous #9 6d

You may not have said this yet all the examples you gave were harm based, even now you admit a right shouldn’t be forfeited unless continuing to permit it shows clear future harm to other people. So does a fetus not limit someone’s right to life through causing harm? Rarely is pregnancy not a harmful ordeal, it leaves permanent damage to the body in most cases and limits the right to life. To suggest the state can both override your health decisions and monitor them is ridiculous.

0

Anonymous #9 6d

“Deadly force” only applies when you’re using it against a person, fetuses legally and morally do not have personhood. You can’t be charged for using deadly force against a deer looking aggressively threatening you, nor can you be charged with deadly force against something that does not have legal protections like that.

0

Anonymous #6 6d

How is pregnancy harmful? It changes the body yes but it usually isn’t harmful. The mother actually gets a lot of benefits from being pregnant even after delivery which has been studied fairly extensively. Not sure how it limits your right to life maybe you can explain that. And yes the state can’t make health decisions for you but it can stop u from killing someone. Also in terms of legality if a pregnant woman is murdered it is ruled as a double homicide.

1

Anonymous #6 6d

Also why don’t fetuses have personhood from a moral standpoint? What makes them different than you or I? Also don’t just say clump of cells cause we r all clumps of cells lol

1

Anonymous #9 6d

(Also there is a huge rabbit hole with semantics on that which is boring and leads nowhere so let’s just skip to the part where a more rigorous statement is made about whether they do have worth as a person or not)

1

Anonymous #5 6d

But how many of those children end up in the foster system, are abused, abandoned, traumatized? And the world we live in is not safe. How many of those kids grow up and have horrible life experiences?

0

Anonymous #5 6d

Also life doesn’t begin at conception. Biologically you are merely a clump of cells. No soul. No conscious. Its not living. Its brain dead essentially

0

Anonymous #11 6d

YES ABSTINENCE RULES!!

3

Anonymous #8 3d

She’s literally a murderer.

2

Anonymous basedgigatruecel 3d

bro you just post bait, idgaf abt your opinion

4