"pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:46 pm

It's really pathetic when Texan former military alex-jonesers think they have a clue what they are talking about.

You have long been criticized for being a homophobe and antisemite here. That is a fact. I get it all the time from former members who are too disgusted to deal with your likes to continue. That includes more than a few members I am friends with who point to you and few others specifically. Toxic entities. Sick or stupid players.

You are a sick fuck and would have been BAN HAMMERED long ago if it was the old days. Yet, you whine and whine.

So, You don't do martial arts, you don't live in China anymore. You are just some Alex Jones dick licker. Why the fuck are you still pedaling your antisemitism, Anitmuslem, antigay, antitrans shit here?

You have never even done martial arts.

GET THE FUCK OUT!

Seriously. You, like sick fucks like Milo and your ilk bitch about being deplatformed, but the real issue is that no one wants to hear your bull shit. It's drivel. You are an internet educated baffoon. A fool. You have nothing new to say. Your comments on my argumentation are simply hilarious, you just don't get the joke. Again, you are the jester.

Here is the problem that you should worry about (not abortion). You are a fucking loser. You couldn't make it in your own country. So, you moved to another country where you also clearly couldn't make it. You then turn to fringe media that makes you feel like it's not your fault. But guess what, IT'S ALL YOUR PATHETIC FAULT. Take Jordan P's advice and get your shit together and quit being a misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobic, piece of shit. If you can do that, you might actually get over your BS and make something of yourself.

By the by, it's not fallacious if it's a matter of testament. Look that shit up you Racist, Antisemite, Homophobic cunt.

I welcome any other members to make it clear that Mike and people like him are not welcome here. It wouldn't have taken so much in the old days.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Michael on Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:04 pm

You're over-reacting in an abortion thread. It was always gonna end this way, but you lost it. Try to stay centered, Ian-san. You're a martial artist. Wax on, wax off. Don't let others get your goat. And try to laugh once in a while.
Diversity is our strength. Wait, I mean ignorance is our strength. Err no, war is peace. Freedom is definitely slavery.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12296
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Steve James on Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:10 pm

Ah, I see. "Britain's first pregnant man." :) You next.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18214
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Michael on Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:58 pm

The brave new world is upon us. Maybe chromosomal conversion therapy will be the next big thing. Change that X to a Y or vice versa. We have the technology. We can rebuild you.
Diversity is our strength. Wait, I mean ignorance is our strength. Err no, war is peace. Freedom is definitely slavery.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12296
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Steve James on Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:27 am

Get pregnant, Mike. Let us know how it feels and how it was done. Would you choose artificial or natural insemination.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18214
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby oragami_itto on Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:23 am

This is a slow clap for Ian's last post.
"My own knowledge is shallow and I await corrections from the intelligent."
-Hermit of Jade Well
User avatar
oragami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Michael on Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:29 am

Steve James wrote:Get pregnant, Mike. Let us know how it feels and how it was done.


On the plus side, I would rise in the transgressive left caste system from untouchable deplorable to woke Brahmin and Ian would have to kiss my bindi.

But on the other hand, I could end up like this father in British Columbia found guilty of family violence for mis-gendering his daughter as Maxine and she, instead of calling it Max and he, after the child received hormone therapy against parental wishes.
Diversity is our strength. Wait, I mean ignorance is our strength. Err no, war is peace. Freedom is definitely slavery.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12296
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Michael on Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:34 am

oragami_itto wrote:This is a slow clap for Ian's last post.


Come see the deplatforming inherent in the system!

Image
Diversity is our strength. Wait, I mean ignorance is our strength. Err no, war is peace. Freedom is definitely slavery.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12296
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby edededed on Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:10 pm

oragami_itto wrote:It's very simple. The woman has a right to control what happens to her body, and that right is absolute. Just as men have the absolute right to control what happens to their body.

Do you have any idea how hard it is for a woman to obtain a tubal ligation? Using the same excuses you're parroting here, concern for their future husband, and the children they might want to have. Most doctors simply will not perform the procedure unless you're a woman who is married and already has kids and your husband says it's okay.

But men can have a vasectomy any time despite their status as parents or husbands, and nobody else has to approve the decision.

THIS is the problem, which also extends to abortion laws and restrictions, lack of agency and bodily autonomy. The use of faux concern for the children to justify depriving citizens of fundamental rights.

Having a child is not a trivial endeavor, you're talking around 9 months of irreversible changes to your anatomy and biochemistry, and then either a lifetime of caring for the product or foisting it off on an already overburdened and in many cases corrupt foster care system. Having an abortion is not a trivial endeavor, the drive to reproduce is our most primal motivation. When for some reason the woman does not want to go through the process, that desire is more powerful than that primal motivation. The state has no right to interfere with that woman's life and livelihood.

Perhaps most importantly is the penalization of poverty. The rich will always have access to safe abortions for when they or their little darlings have accidents, but those of little means who are least capable of providing for new children are forced to resort to unsafe butchers without proper environments or equipment.

The tl;dr, restricting legal abortion restricts the rights of woman to be in control of their own bodies, and disproportionately affects the poor negatively and honestly I'm just done with the conversation at this point. There is nothing more that needs to be said, but I'm sure that won't stop what doesn't.

Oh, and I am the father of three children, and have paid for one abortion, and have no regrets about any of them.


Hey - no worries, like most debates, I don't expect me or you to convince the other. It's okay to have different opinions.
Thank you for detailing your argument. I do agree with bodily autonomy (e.g. tubal ligation, vasectomy, etc.), the rich/poor differences, etc.

I am just curious to ask though - do you think an unborn baby is part of his/her mother's body?
And when does a baby begin to have its own bodily autonomy rights?

I am guessing that this is the only part that we may not really agree upon.
Last edited by edededed on Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
edededed
Great Old One
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:21 am

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Dmitri on Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:18 pm

Kudos to Ed for a "reasonable adult" style of posting.
User avatar
Dmitri
Great Old One
 
Posts: 9592
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (USA)

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Steve James on Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:43 pm

I am just curious to ask though - do you think an unborn baby is part of his/her mother's body?
And when does a baby begin to have its own bodily autonomy rights?


[Just for ededed] It's an interesting question, but humans can't be property. So, no, the "baby" does not belong to the mother in the sense of property. When a "baby" gains bodily autonomy is a different question. In reality, the mother (or someone) has bodily autonomy over a newborn, and will have that responsibility for at least a decade. Do, does a mother autonomy end when the baby is born? If she leaves it in a wastebasket, should she be held responsible?

Autonomy entails having rights, and consequently having responsibilities. A newborn could not be convicted of a crime because he has no responsibility for his actions, even if he stabs his mom in the eye with a pencil.

At best, what you present is a conflict of rights. It presumes that (in your argument, when sperm enters egg) the potential being is rational and would make the choice that you would make. I don't think that is possible to say. I agree that babies have the desire to live, as much as any living thing. However, I don't believe that we can define when sentience begins.

In any case, we can't assume the decision a rational unborn baby would make. Today, there is an extremely high rate of maternal mortality. In the US, it is bad, but in some countries it is astronomical. I don't know, but I don't think I would want to kill my mother at birth. Yeah, Tyrian Lanister's life is not for me. But, my point is that giving the unborn the power of reason and rationality, we're giving it a choice --that we can only assume. The unborn may be able to make a choice, but you can't make it for him. The mother will have the responsibility after the birth.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18214
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Steve James on Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:47 pm

On the plus side, I would rise in the transgressive left caste system from untouchable deplorable to woke Brahmin and Ian would have to kiss my bindi.


Tsk, tsk, your reference to the pregnant British man was brilliant. It makes an analogy easy. Suppose a couple of guys holds you down and inseminates you. If there were a pill you could take to stop from getting pregnant, would you do it? If the guys demanded to have visitation rights, would you be okay with it?

I mean, you pointed out, it "is" possible. The question is whether you would want to have any choice in the matter? If not, ok. Happy parenting.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18214
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Michael on Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:20 pm

Steve James wrote:I mean, you pointed out, it "is" possible. The question is whether you would want to have any choice in the matter? If not, ok. Happy parenting.

It's a subtle point that has escaped you, but it is not I who pointed out it is possible. I pointed to a report about insane people who think it's possible and implied the madness is spreading.

This stuff about rape and abortion, as well as the apparent incongruity of social policies that are anti-welfare next to laws preventing abortion has already been covered. So have the instances of family courts giving parental rights to rapists, forcing rape victims to pay child support, etc. These have been discussed.

But repetition is part of learning, so I'll repeat: it is granted that rape and incest are excuses for abortion.
Diversity is our strength. Wait, I mean ignorance is our strength. Err no, war is peace. Freedom is definitely slavery.
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12296
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: 自由 国家

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby edededed on Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:29 pm

Dmitri wrote:Kudos to Ed for a "reasonable adult" style of posting.


Thanks Dmitri - Steve and others I think have been reasonable adults as well ;)

Steve James wrote:
I am just curious to ask though - do you think an unborn baby is part of his/her mother's body?
And when does a baby begin to have its own bodily autonomy rights?


[Just for ededed] It's an interesting question, but humans can't be property. So, no, the "baby" does not belong to the mother in the sense of property. When a "baby" gains bodily autonomy is a different question. In reality, the mother (or someone) has bodily autonomy over a newborn, and will have that responsibility for at least a decade. Do, does a mother autonomy end when the baby is born? If she leaves it in a wastebasket, should she be held responsible?

Autonomy entails having rights, and consequently having responsibilities. A newborn could not be convicted of a crime because he has no responsibility for his actions, even if he stabs his mom in the eye with a pencil.

At best, what you present is a conflict of rights. It presumes that (in your argument, when sperm enters egg) the potential being is rational and would make the choice that you would make. I don't think that is possible to say. I agree that babies have the desire to live, as much as any living thing. However, I don't believe that we can define when sentience begins.

In any case, we can't assume the decision a rational unborn baby would make. Today, there is an extremely high rate of maternal mortality. In the US, it is bad, but in some countries it is astronomical. I don't know, but I don't think I would want to kill my mother at birth. Yeah, Tyrian Lanister's life is not for me. But, my point is that giving the unborn the power of reason and rationality, we're giving it a choice --that we can only assume. The unborn may be able to make a choice, but you can't make it for him. The mother will have the responsibility after the birth.


Good points, Steve. I think that almost everyone agrees on human rights. Your post explains a bit further what people don't agree on (which may be the root cause of the disagreement) - from when does baby receive these rights?.

- Upon birth? (But premature babies born 4 months early now have a good chance of surviving, making timing of birth somewhat arbitrary as medicine improves.)
- Upon sentience? (But it is very hard (impossible now) to measure sentience, so we can only make an educated guess on when it begins. Scientists say that newborns do not have self-awareness yet.)
- Upon ability to make decisions? (But it is usually still a crime to kill those in vegetative state, or just unresponsive; plus, as some in such a state actually "revive" after many years; it is also complicated by the inability to confirm it)
- Upon having responsibilities? (But in the US, etc. it is often a crime to kill/abuse dogs or cats, who do not have responsibilities - but we do give them some rights.)

(For dogs/cats, it seems that the only right we give them is the right to a painless death, though.)

Incidentally, there are some very interesting giant one-celled organisms (Xenophyophores) that live on sea bottoms. They live on their own, reproduce, etc. - no idea if they have sentience, but at least they have no brains (they are independent cells after all, although they have many nuclei). Unfortunately due to their fragile bodies, scientists have not been successful in studying them yet (they just fall apart if anyone tries to bring them to the surface).

But anyway, as you say, it is in the end a conflict of rights, and the question of what the result is.
User avatar
edededed
Great Old One
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:21 am

Re: "pro life" politicians seek death penalties for women

Postby Steve James on Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:29 pm

Exactly, at best it is a conflict of the right to choose. My point was that it did not mean that once could substitute their view of what that choice would be. It is undetermined, but we can know what the mother's choice is. We can only assume that we are going against the will of an unborn child, one way or the other.

Ultimately, I think the argument that an abortion violates the father's rights is stronger. He can express his choice. That doesn't mean it must automatically be accepted. It simply means that he is an actual stakeholder in the situation. I.e., he has some responsibility. That's why courts order child support.

As I've said elsewhere, if it were my body concerned, I would want the choice. That's all. Most of the abortion debate today is really about funding for facilities that provide abortions. People argue that using public funds to support abortion clinics violates their religious freedom.

Again, I say that every rational person wants the ability to choose. There are times when he or she will choose death or the risk of it. There are times they won't. I think that the people who argue that life begins at conception can hold that position, but still argue that the woman must take responsibility. And, if all abortions become illegal, including "morning after" pill, or vaginal scraping abortions, what will the punishment be?

No matter the logic, either some abortions will be permitted or none will. If any are permitted, then the woman has priority in the decision. If she's unconscious, and hasn't left instructions (which happens), then someone has to take responsibility. There's a 60s novel that became a movie, "The Cardinal." In it, the main character has a sister who's pregnant, but has been in a coma. The doctors tell him that something about the baby's position would make a birth difficult and would risk the life of the mother. One or the other would not survive. So, the cardinal had to make a decision. He said to let the baby be born. That's a terrible decision to have to make. I think the woman in question should make it, no matter my beliefs. And, I don't know if I'd risk my wife --but that's a completely different question.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 18214
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest