Anonymous #4 4w

Agreed- Trump sold himself to the jews

-2

Anonymous #7 4w

Never heard that excuse before wow

0

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 4w

Both murder, but guess which happens more? 🤡

-2

Anonymous oklahomarose 4w

U seriously trying to compare a medical procedure to 8 year olds being shot?

7

Anonymous #7 4w

Lowest IQ comment of the day award 🥇

-2

Anonymous #1 4w

No it’s just called double standards

-1

Anonymous oklahomarose 4w

Pardon me?

7

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 4w

They are highlighting the double standards of the pro-choice position so Idk what kinda dunk you thought this was lol

-1

Anonymous #8 4w

So yall are comparing taking 2 pills to terminate a zygote to children being killed in school. Yea…ok pal😭

8

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 4w

It’s comparing how you arbitrarily choose what lives are and aren’t valuable…. pal

-1

Anonymous #8 4w

"what lives" yes good question, care to answer

1

Anonymous #1 4w

all living beings of a rational kind deserve the right to life 😉

-1

Anonymous #8 4w

what is the rational kind

2

Anonymous #8 4w

“Of a rational kind” That doesn’t explain anything. There’s animals outside of the human species that are “of a rational kind”

3

Anonymous #8 4w

And conservatives pick and choose what lives are and aren’t valuable. U want children to be born and then don’t wanna help the parents take care of them if they need the help..

4

Anonymous #1 4w

Person: A person is a rational substance, a being who maintains their identity through change and has a nature that orients itself toward a rational function. Rational: Self-identity, comprehending reasons for actions, choosing to act, validly inferring reasons for acting and making moral choices accordingly.

-2

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 4w

The picking and choosing is done by you my friend. We apply value to all human life, you are the placing criteria upon when a human life has value. And yes, we do want to support parents so idk how you got the idea that we just force people to have kids without support 😂

-2

Anonymous #8 4w

you said living beings not person, everything you just said is tangentially relevant to what you said before. you used the following terms that id like you to identify in the context of what you initially said: 1) living beings, 2) rational, 3) right to life, 4) rational substance, 5) rational function, 6) validly inferring, 7) moral choices also can you reconcile the contradiction between "comprehending and validly inferring" with something that doesnt think

1

Anonymous #1 4w

A living being: a distinct whole organism Rational: just defined that Right to life: an inherent entitlement to live and cannot be arbitrarily deprived of life by any entity Rational substance: having a rational nature Validly inferring: logically understanding the nature of Moral choices: a decision made by weighing right versus wrong based on ethical principles, personal values, or social norms

-2

Anonymous #1 4w

I didn’t use personhood because that implies the need for conscience/sentience and neither of those conditions defined the right to life

-2

Anonymous #2 4w

Kids are different from adults

0

Anonymous #8 4w

yeah but at least kids have their own independent existence, I’ve never met a kid that lives inside their mom and steals her nutrients

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Kids outside the womb are arguably more reliant on the parent than babies in the womb

2

Anonymous #2 4w

Do people who depend entirely on their parents and only take resources have the right to life?

2

Anonymous oklahomarose 4w

but they are their own separate, independent entity, they interact with the world independently of any other being, fetuses are not that way, they don’t interact with the world at large and are entirely on dependent on another human being to survive there is a difference personhood and biological human life, fetuses that aren’t viable don’t have personhood as they can’t exist independently

1

Anonymous #8 4w

yes, the difference between kids and fetuses is that fetuses are not capable of a meaningful life outside the womb before 24 weeks, they REQUIRE the mother’s organs and nutrients, dependency outside the womb is very different than inside bc the kids are still capable of their own independent experiences even if dependent on their parents

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Are dependency and ability to gain sensory data the conditions for the right to life? Do comatose humans who can’t operate as people have the right to life? Are your conditions for life entirely arbitrary or is there some scientific reason for your position? Fetuses can gather sense data as early as 7 weeks, is that the moment they gain the right to life?

0

Anonymous #8 4w

Republicans/conservatives actively want to get rid of SNAP benefits and free school lunches…

4

Anonymous #8 4w

The specific thing I argue is that if your “right to life” requires someone else’s organs, then that someone else’s bodily autonomy trumps your right to life If someone needs a kidney to survive, people can choose not to give up their kidney bc of bodily autonomy, I see it the same way for fetuses, if you need another human being’s organs for survival, they can cut you off at any time bc of bodily autonomy

7

Anonymous #8 4w

Ok once again, not just humans are rational as per this definition

2

Anonymous #8 4w

and I don’t think being biologically alive is what makes a human being’s rights, I think that comes at birth, it’s arbitrary but so are most social constructs, unless we started giving social security numbers to fetuses, I don’t think we should give rights to them either

9

Anonymous #2 4w

Bodily autonomy isn’t unconditional. The womb is designed explicitly for a fetus’ use, it isn’t designed for the woman’s personal use only. I don’t have to give you my kidney because my actions didn’t start the chain of destruction which was already in motion. A woman has to allow the use of the womb because to do otherwise would start the chain of destruction which isn’t yet in motion.

0

Anonymous #8 4w

The biological use of the womb has little to do with this argument imo, natural law and the Christian argument I reject fully simply because I reject natural law Is the womb for holding a fetus? Yes, but that doesn’t mean it has to do its intended biological purpose. Our mouths are for eating, but oral sex is pretty nice too And I think bodily autonomy outside of certain cases where it’s a social safety hazard otherwise (psychiatric holds, vaccinations) and I don’t think abortion fits that

4

Anonymous #2 4w

It is relevant because you made the claim that the woman’s bodily autonomy trumps the baby’s use of the organs without substantiating why. I made the claim that because the womb is for the baby, then the woman’s bodily autonomy doesn’t trump it. Since you reject natural order you might enjoy this debate between Destiny and Trent Horn which reflects our respective positions on the matter https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o6nnaxitKMQ

-1

Anonymous #8 4w

This is a moral debate, morals are opinionated, there is no absolute morality Rights are social constructs, none of them actually exist, we create them as a society to promote social stability, but they aren’t physical things that actually exist or are based in any sort of objective guide

9

Anonymous #2 4w

I agree. The debate I mentioned earlier highlights the logical implications of each moral system we ascribe to. An objective way to compare moral systems is by examining what becomes permissible at the logical extremes. I hope you’ll give the video a watch, Destiny and Trent Horn are both strong debaters. If you do watch it, feel free to free to dm me so we can continue this conversation. For the moment, I’m busy but I’d love to continue the conversation later

-1

Anonymous #8 4w

I mean I’ve studied moral systems like Kant, Bentham, and natural law in college My idea is that there is no unified moral framework that fits all scenarios well, most moral frameworks are absolutely destroyed at their extremes whether it be natural law, utilitarianism, or Kantian ethics

7

Anonymous #2 4w

Yeah, exactly. So… like I said, it comes down to which position has the better logical extremes.

-1

Anonymous #8 4w

or perhaps we either simply haven’t found a strong moral framework as a society or that morality is merely relative and not absolute

12

Anonymous #2 4w

If you truly don’t subscribe to moral systems at all then all things are relatively permissible and there’s no reason for someone to have a position on moral issues. Do you have a framework through which you form your opinions?

1

Anonymous #7 4w

Btw, one of the fundamental issues with abortion is that it has correlation with the eugenics movement. Black women are significantly statistically more likely to have an abortion than all other racial groups. A fight against systemic racism should include a fight against Planed Parenthood.

0

Anonymous #8 4w

systemic racism is why black women have more abortions, if black women weren’t disadvantaged in this country the abortion rates would be similar to that of other races

6

Anonymous #2 4w

Please read the following document. Policy Report THE EFFECTS OF ABORTION ON THE BLACK COMMUNITY congress.gov

1

Anonymous #9 4w

I’m talking about 90% of abortions (baby murder) that are elective, not TFMR

-1

Anonymous oklahomarose 4w

Still, one is sentient life capable of feeling pain and fear, the other is alive but not exactly sentient. Also abortions aren’t made as a light decision many have to deal with potential side affects of abortion.

9