The Prenatal Holocaust

[hey]

You're still confusing murder with killing people. They're not the same thing.

No i'm not.

Whether you want to kill your fetus, or murder it, i'm ok with it. Both are possble, and i have no problem with either one.

[Sera]

Your argument about "just one" does not, and should not, hold weight in laws outside of trying to make the laws better rather than removing them.

The thing is, there's no way to make the laws "better" enough to account for all possibilities (of which there are a stupidly large number) so that no adult woman's rights are encroached upon, and the adult woman's rights > the unborn fetus at all times.

When you switch it around, you turn the woman into an incubator. And that is not ok.

[hey]

So, by extension of your reasoning, you are fine with murder of individuals post-birth as well?

Just as much as i'm fine with it being done a second before they're born, yes.

Which is to say, i think it's really silly, but i'm ok with it.

[Ksandra]

You'd rather have the kid be born to be left on the streets, sent to the w.c. or given to adoption and end up in a orphanage? Any option is SHIT if you ask me. And this is of course talking about the better countries with orphanages, pity the souls (oh yes i went there fuckers) that are born elsewhere.

You honestly think if that were to happen, the parent couldn't have made a decision wayyyyy before 40 weeks?


Also, I'd rather this happen and we work on fixing the problems with our current orphan system, than just saying "ok let's keep our system shitty and let the woman abort at the last minute"

[Yugl]

Just as much as i'm fine with it being done a second before they're born, yes.

Which is to say, i think it's really silly, but i'm ok with it.

You are awesome (To a degree).

[Greatguardian]

Depends on your reason for killing, of course. For the luls? gtfo. Self defense and/or food? No problem.

No i'm not.

Whether you want to kill your fetus, or murder it, i'm ok with it. Both are possble, and i have no problem with either one.

Pretty sure you are. That or you're incapable of being consistent for an entire page.

Murder requires malicious aforethought. You must plan to do it, and you must do it for the purpose of causing harm.

[Ksandra]

The thing is, there's no way to make the laws "better" enough to account for all possibilities (of which there are a stupidly large number) so that no adult woman's rights are encroached upon,

As is the same with all laws. Honestly, it's really not as hard as you make it out to be. If they say doctors can assess risk which they already do than that leaves a very good huge umbrella for women to work with.

and the adult woman's rights > the unborn fetus at all times.

Completely and will always disagree if the fetus is already a "baby" and just hasn't popped out yet.

woman's health > fetus I agree to, however.

[Sera]

Also, I'd rather this happen and we work on fixing the problems with our current orphan system, than just saying "ok let's keep our system shitty and let the woman abort at the last minute"

Can't account for all situations. You can't set a precedent like that. You're stripping rights away from an independently living breathing human being in favor of one that is not yet independent of biological support from another person's interior system.

[Ksandra]

Can't account for all situations. You can't set a precedent like that. You're stripping rights away from an independently living breathing human being in favor of one that is not yet independent of biological support from another person's interior system.

incorrect. You could remove that one and it would still survive. it is completely capable of independence of support from another person's interior system. It just hasn't been given the chance, but can be given that chance.

You are also only stripping their rights a way to a point. It's not saying you can't abort, just that you have to do it by a certain time.

[ronin sparthos]

You honestly think if that were to happen, the parent couldn't have made a decision wayyyyy before 40 weeks?


Also, I'd rather this happen and we work on fixing the problems with our current orphan system, than just saying "ok let's keep our system shitty and let the woman abort at the last minute"

What do you propose? Streamlining the system? A good argument except that doesn't change the trend that once a child passes a certain age that the chances of being adopted plummet and that foster care can be a nightmare obstacle course for the unlucky child to be put into that position. It'd take a helluva PR job to mainstream the idea of adoption.

Most people would be willing to adopt a child at 3-4months but a 6-7 year old? 12-14 year old? You're probably fucked at that point and it's worse when the racial factor gets put into play along with potential psychological damage that comes from having virtually no family support or social construct to cling to.

It's something the most pro-lifers don't bring up though.

[hey]

Pretty sure you are. That or you're incapable of being consistent for an entire page.

Murder requires malicious aforethought. You must plan to do it, and you must do it for the purpose of causing harm.

Yes, and it is possible to murder a fetus.

I can't imagine it's done very often, but if anyone wants to do so, you've got my blessings.

[Tajin]

You honestly think if that were to happen, the parent couldn't have made a decision wayyyyy before 40 weeks?
Also, I'd rather this happen and we work on fixing the problems with our current orphan system, than just saying "ok let's keep our system shitty and let the woman abort at the last minute"

Even with the best system, you will still have kids in orphanages (which sucks), you can not get rid of stupid people (see, your example), and the world is fucked up enough as it is, why is people so insistent on bringing more people to suffer along the rest?

So yes, I'd support abortion worldwide even if women wanted to abort for stupid reasons.

[Greatguardian]

Yes, and it is possible to murder a fetus.

I can't imagine it's done very often, but if anyone wants to do so, you've got my blessings.

So you're just inconsistent then? I mean, that's cool if you want to own up to it. Changes of heart happen over the course of 7 minutes. It's just confusing for the rest of us, you know?

Just to be clear, you went from saying "Whether it's okay to kill someone depends on why you kill them", to "Yes, killing grown people with the intent to cause harm is okay" in the span of like 5 minutes.

[hey]

So you're just inconsistent then? I mean, that's cool if you want to own up to it. Changes of heart happen over the course of 7 minutes. It's just confusing for the rest of us, you know?

Just to be clear, you went from saying "Whether it's okay to kill someone depends on why you kill them", to "Yes, killing grown people with the intent to cause harm is okay" in the span of like 5 minutes.

It only matters why you kill them once they're actually born. Before that, i don't give a shit. It's just a double standard.

[Yugl]

To be fair, the "depends on the situation" argument was directed at non-human animals.

[Ksandra]

What do you propose? Streamlining the system? A good argument except but that doesn't change the trend that once a child passes a certain age that the chances of being adopted plummet and that foster care can be a nightmare obstacle course for the unlucky child to be put into that position. It'd take a helluva PR job to mainstream the idea of adoption.

Most people would be willing to adopt a child at 3-4months but a 6-7 year old? 12-14 year old? You're probably fucked at that point and it's worse when the racial factor gets put into play along with potential psychological damage that comes from having virtually no family support or social construct to cling to.

It's something the most pro-lifers don't bring up though.

I work at a school where a good 70% of students are either in foster care or not living with their parents because one or both are incarcerated, so you are preaching to the choir.

Streamlining is a huge part of it. I have friends who have been going through the adoption process for over a year now (they want to adopt two kids around 5-7 age range, they already have one natural kid who is 3). The process is a nightmare. It is ten thousand times easier to be a foster care parent which is worse, than it is to be an adoptive parent. That shit needs to change so badly. And yes, it can be changed. I'd rather see us work towards giving reasons for people to adopt and making it easier for them to do so, rather than saying it's ok to abort a 40 week old fetus.

One major thing is to stop with the " oh noes! gays!" bullshit and actually let them marry and adopt in all states as that would be a fucking huge help right there.

Even with the best system, you will still have kids in orphanages (which sucks), you can not get rid of stupid people (see, your example), and the world is fucked up enough as it is, why is people so insistent on bringing more people to suffer along the rest?

So yes, I'd support abortion worldwide even if women wanted to abort for stupid reasons.

I'm not saying women can't abort for stupid reasons, I'm saying the shouldn't be allowed to abort for stupid reasons after a certain time where the fetus is basically a baby

[Greatguardian]

To be fair, the "depends on the situation" argument was directed at non-human animals.

It was in response to this,

Why is it wrong to kill a person, but not wrong to kill any other kind of animal?

So I assumed he was talking about both at the least. If that's incorrect, my mistake

It only matters why you kill them once they're actually born. Before that, i don't give a shit. It's just a double standard.

Just as much as i'm fine with it being done a second before they're born, yes.

Which is to say, i think it's really silly, but i'm ok with it.

It's just that the above doesn't seem to add up. He is oscillating between "It matters why you kill someone post-birth" to "I'm fine with murder post-birth". I am not sure if he is just trying to appeal to multiple audiences at once or what is up here.

Like I said, I don't mind if this is just a misunderstanding. I'm mainly looking for clarification. Does hey care about murdering (That is, killing with malicious aforethought and not for food/defense) post-birth human beings or not?

This is why I just assumed he was misusing the word "murder". It's not exactly an uncommon mistake.

[Tajin]

I'm not saying women can't abort for stupid reasons, I'm saying the shouldn't be allowed to abort for stupid reasons after a certain time where the fetus is basically a baby

Yes, I can read beyond what is written no need for bullshit patronizing with font styles. You still end up with an unwanted child whose chances of having a decent life are not very good, given our current track record.

Now I'm off to catch some zzz, think of some new fetus recipes.

[Ksandra]

You still end up with an unwanted child whose chances of having a decent life are not very good, given our current track record.

Which again, is a decision that can be made earlier....

[hey]

It was in response to this,



So I assumed he was talking about both at the least. If that's incorrect, my mistake





It's just that the above doesn't seem to add up. He is oscillating between "It matters why you kill someone post-birth" to "I'm fine with murder post-birth". I am not sure if he is just trying to appeal to multiple audiences at once or what is up here.

Like I said, I don't mind if this is just a misunderstanding. I'm mainly looking for clarification. Does hey care about murdering (That is, killing with malicious aforethought and not for food/defense) post-birth human beings or not?

This is why I just assumed he was misusing the word "murder". It's not exactly an uncommon mistake.

I was indeed referring to animals of all kinds.

Before birth, killing/murder for any reason is fine in my book. After birth, it depends on the reason. Murder is not cool. However there is nothing wrong with killing if you've got a good reason for it.