Change My Mind

You're absolutely wrong.

Abortion is vacuuming, forceps-ing, skull-crushing murder.

Half of women say abortion is murder.
Science says abortion is murder.

History indicates that human law is not always moral.
Slavery was fine.
The Holocaust was fine.

I think that’s what Kylie was saying. I think she was making fun of how the fact that it’s legal makes it correct.

Not at all.

The fact that it’s legal doesn’t make it correct, necessarily. But: the fact that all 9 SCOTUS justices all hold the view that abortion is not murder is a strong reason to conclude it’s not murder.

That’s right, all of them. Even the conservatives, including Clarence Thomas who is both the most conservative and most esoteric justice.

The Supreme Court are neither Nazis nor slavers but some of the finest legal minds in our country.

Some of the finest legal minds that are wrong in this case.

What is morality determined by?

Stating other people’s opinions isn’t evidence that it’s correct.

Now imagine none of the 1.8 billion babies had been aborted. Imagine there were 8.8 billion people in the world right now. Suddenly, the world governments decided to kill 1.8 of those living, out-of-womb people at random. Does it have the same outcome as abortion? Yes?

So why does the fact that they were inside the womb make ok to kill them?

I’ve debated this so many times here and it’s getting exhausting. I’ll be brief.

The main point is this: What makes abortion different from the Holocaust, slavery, and everything else, is that the fetus is attached to the mother’s own body and she therefore has a say in what happens to it.

Not allowing her to decide what to do with her own womb is the position more tantamount to slavery. In my opinion.

So now it’s part of her body...

Does that mean she has a p**is when she carries a baby boy?

"What makes abortion different from the Holocaust, slavery, and everything else, is that the fetus is attached to the mother’s own body and she therefore has a say in what happens to it."

Because classifying certain groups of people as parasites on the larger body of ethnic Germans or Europeans isn't the same, only on a macro scale?

Slavery likewise had part of its justification in claiming slaves worked for their owner - their host - as they lived on his property and was fed and clothed by him, in effect dependent upon him and thus... you see where this is going?

There are some similarities, but here's what I would say:

1. The Holocaust = Classifying certain folks as "parasites" merely because you don't like their religion or ethnic background simply does not make it true.

2. Slavery = A practice that unjustifiably infantilized both children and grown human beings for profit.

In the case of abortion, there's an objective, biological (and, in language that might please Timber, "natural rights") basis for viewing women as being in control of their own wombs.

And: in language that most certainly would *not* please Timber -- The U.S. government does not recognize you as a fully-fledged person until you are born.

What else makes slavery and the Holocaust different? Those victims were people!

Not unborn fetuses with no personal background, history, emotions, opinions, or perhaps any mental functions whatsoever of their own depending on the exact stage of fetal development.

Recall that Timber and folks like him want to ban abortion from the moment sperm touches egg. Taking Plan B 4 hours after intercourse, and partial-birth abortion, are exactly the same thing to them: murder.

Skip your argument by proxy dance and take it up with him, you sniveling little worm.

Oh my — let’s see if I can handle you all!

P.S. I know you’re not really a rightie but it’s hard to tell sometimes

I ain't part of any of y'all silly wingies.
How do yous manage to jerkoff so much with them wings anyways?

Guy, if you can't handle getting poked in the eye by those you pass/aggr antagonize, perhaps memeing behind everyone's back ain't the best course of action?

Both the Nazi racism and slavery identified certain people as non-people, untermensch, chattle, subhuman, non-autonomous.... While individual beings, they looked were at as subservient parts of a larger whole to be dispensed with as that larger mass saw fit.

Likewise with abortion, the offspring - regardless of the mother's will - is a separate individual. How functional it is independent of the mother (which according to law it won't be till 18) does not alter that basic scientifically proven fact.

Uh Timber, as much as I like support, saying stuff like that only sends KylieFan the message that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Believe me. I’ve checked her account. She made a meme saying that exact thing.

Kyle memes about everyone here that butthurts him.
He then posts it in one of his streams that no one pays mind to so he can claim to have the last laugh.

Yeah. I know you were talking to him. It’s obvious you weren’t talking to me. Sorry if I made it look like that.

Here’s the meme he made.

imgflip.com/i/3olxgb

60% of women think abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances.

No real difference between men and women on this.

Okay, so 60% of women are evil and wrong in this instance.

What do you appeal to on this issue?

What is your source of morality?

7.7 billion humans. We're doin' alright!

Not if our world goes belly up tho

I see no evidence humans are going to stop being fruitful and multiplying any time soon, and indeed plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Falling birthrates are fine and indeed probably welcome at this point

If you were really concerned about the survival of humanity, you’d be paying more attention to climate change and other environmental issues

7.7 billion humans and counting is hard on the earth any way you slice it, even if you think our atmosphere is somehow immune to all the CO2 we belch into it

Your sincerity is noted

“Brain-damaged”... uh-huh... that old saw again

I have no problem with the concept of natural rights. I wish you had bothered to explain the source of your morality the last half dozen or more times I’ve asked!

Still pretty hand-wavy though. Which natural rights are we talking?

I’m sure we’d have agreement and disagreement on what exactly those natural rights are.

It’s worth noting that those 18th-century philosophers who wrote about natural rights inhabited a world where state-sanctioned slavery was all over the world.

A practice which has since been done away with in all civilized countries. So: our understanding of natural rights is capable of broadening over time, and that happens through law and politics.

What other rights have we since discovered?

A woman’s right to choose, as determined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

The right to a same-sex marriage, as determined by the Obergefell decision.

In time, we may come to recognize that humans hold something like the right to a livable climate

Not a constant climate, mind you... but a livable climate.

Holy crap. Neither of you people are competent arguers. Timber you’re not helping the prolife argument at all. KylieFan, you’re blurring the whole subject by bringing up the legality of the issue and bringing up other issues like same-sex marriage. Legal does not mean correct.

Every time when we start really getting into the substance of an issue

Oh well, another missed opportunity to educate me

Morality is not determined by polls. Agree!

But: we live in a representative democracy (cue your howls of: REPUBLIC!!!) and therefore majority viewpoints matter.

As do the opinions of the Supreme Court. Also not an infallible source. But: in our system of government, their opinions carry the day.

What do you bring to the table?

Why? See: Comment you just replied to