Young_Grasshopper (35990)
Joined 2017-12-16
Submissions: 25 (25 featured - 100%)
Creations: 78
Comments: 559

Submissions See All


Gender chart 58 genders
I have already admitted elsewhere that many people are happier after gender-change surgery, but the overall suicide rate stays roughly the same, which tells me that the underlying problem remains unsolved post-surgery
Looking for a debate?
I'll have my next reply in the debate ready in a few days or so, maybe.
Looking for a debate?
Sorry for my absence, I've been booked between finals, graduation, and a full-time job
Gender chart 58 genders
Experiences of gender dysphoria (feeling as though one's body is of the wrong gender) is certainly not a choice, and is a very unsettling experience that warrants sympathy. However, people do choose whether or not they will harm their own bodies to make them resemble the gender they think they should be. In a similar way, depression is not a choice, but suicide is. In both cases, the person experiences great psychological suffering and wants a way out. The main difference is gender dysphoric people are often encouraged to take what they see as a way out (gender change), while depressed people are encouraged to hold out and hope to get through it. (disclaimer: I am in no way saying that gender-change therapy is as bad as suicide, or trying to make light of suicide. I think it is a serious issue that should be taken seriously. What I am saying is that gender-change does not solve anything, and is in some ways even harmful)
Good Fellas Hilarious
I did answer your question, by providing reasons why I would be concerned by abortion. What I meant by my remark was that you addressed me as if I had already bought into the root of your argument. As for the "terrible life" argument, it means nothing if the unborn child is already alive (even the first cell has all the characteristics of biological life). Certainly, I think people who cannot afford to support a child should probably avoid having one, but my position asserts that they have already brought a child into poverty from the moment of conception. Unless you give some good reason to distinguish the unborn from the infant or the child, then the "terrible life" argument could be used to justify the something as heinous as burning down an orphanage. I know that poverty is terrible, and I know that it is not always the result of laziness (which is why I think charity is important), but I think poverty is better than death (not to mention that adoption is also an option). As for the economic and societal reasons, I already stated they were minor. I don't really care if you prove me wrong about them (in-fact, I enjoy learning about economics and different views on society). Losing those reasons does nothing to my basic position, since morality is not a means to an end, but a worthy goal in and of itself. So then, rather than trying to show how your conclusions flow logically from your premises (I admit that they do), let's get to the very root of the debate with two simple questions: "at what point does human life begin?" and "under what circumstances, if any, is it acceptable to end a human life?" Both our positions flow logically from how we answer those questions. This is not a matter of how we reason from our premises, but of which premise is right.