Utopia Talk / Politics / A woman's "right" to privacy

Rugian Member	Sun Sep 03 05:46:07 ...should never be allowed to supercede the right to life that all human beings posess. If you support this sort of shit, you're a monster. "The Metropolitan Police Department confirmed to The Daily Signal on Tuesday that the department is currently investigating Cesare Santangelo and his Foggy Bottom abortion clinic. The confirmation follows news that a D.C. jury has convicted five pro-life activists of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act when they sought to prevent the deaths of unborn babies by blocking women from accessing a D.C. abortion clinic in 2020. One of these activists, Lauren Handy with the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, has said that she was motivated to stop abortions from occurring inside the clinic after she viewed an undercover video published by the pro-life group Live Action, which allegedly showed Santangelo discussing how he would allow babies to die if they were accidentally delivered during abortions. When the Live Action investigator asked Santangelo whether the baby might “move” if “it” were born alive, the abortionist allegedly told her, “That’s why I try and sever the umbilical cord first, and we wait for that to stop pulsing, and this way the fetus is expired first, so it doesn’t.” “Has it ever survived?” the Live Action investigator asked. Santangelo responded, “No, not here.” He added: “Usually at this point in your pregnancy, it is too early to survive. Usually, it will expire shortly after birth.” "But if it did, what would happen?” the investigator asked him. “Would I have to take it home, or like—” “I mean, technically, legally, we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive,” he told her, according to the video. “But you know, it probably wouldn’t. It’s all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point.” “When you have a pregnancy that is 23, 24 weeks … if you do everything possible to help it survive, there’s a maybe a 20%-30% chance that it would survive,” he said. “If you don’t do anything then, you know, the chances are much, much less.” He added that “there are things you can do” to make sure the baby does not survive. “Obviously, you’re here for a certain procedure, and if your pregnancy were—let’s say you went into labor, the membranes ruptured, and you delivered before we got to the termination of the procedure here,” he continued. “Then we would do things. We would not help it.” “We wouldn’t intubate, let’s say,” Santangelo explained, adding that he “wouldn’t do any extra” to help the dying baby and comparing letting the baby die to letting a terminally ill person die. “Like a ‘do not resuscitate’ order.” If the mother were in a Virginia hospital and went into labor, medical professionals would do everything possible to help her baby survive, Santangelo said. “We wouldn’t here,” he said. “That’s happened before,” Santangelo added, according to the video. “We’ve had patients that, you know, on the second day of the laminaria, they got some contractions, and they panicked, and they were in Virginia at the hospital. They went to the hospital, because they had some pain, instead of calling me.” “And the hospital helped them to deliver,” he added. “Which was the stupidest thing they could have done … and they did everything they [inaudible] have done, which was help them to deliver.” Santangelo’s abortion clinic, Washington Surgi-Clinic, has been around since 1973 and aborts unborn babies up until 27 weeks of pregnancy, according to the clinic’s site. In March 2022, Handy and her colleague Terrisa Bukovinac discovered the bodies of five preemie-sized aborted babies in a box of fetal remains outside the Foggy Bottom-based abortion facility. That box also contained over a hundred pulverized remains of first-trimester babies, they said. http://www...ortionist-foggy-bottom-clinic/
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 03 06:22:13 It’s ok though, because something something 25 weeks, something something cortex. Don’t worry ’bout it. Science! Consensus!
Sam Adams Member	Sun Sep 03 07:12:22 Unwanted babies grow up to be criminals, moochers, and socialists.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 03 07:54:48 Tempting, given that all these anti-natalist, sterilizing, anti fertility policies affect progressives and liberals the most. However being an ethical creature and having moral principle, means we must resist such abominable temptations.
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 03 08:11:08 Not to mention there are other options for dealing with unwanted kids that don't involve straight up murdering them. "Adopting a baby or toddler is much more difficult than it was a few decades ago. Of the nearly 4 million American children who are born each year, only about 18,000 are voluntarily relinquished for adoption. Though the statistics are unreliable, some estimates suggest that dozens of couples are now waiting to adopt each available baby. " http://www...baby-cost-process-hard/620258/
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 08:16:52 Why do you care? Its not like fetuses are American citizens.
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 03 08:22:08 American citizenship is their birthright, which means that even a one minute old fetus is automatically more important than every single Eurofag on the planet.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 09:21:22 So you are a great fan of anchor babies I take it. All these birthrights that follow if you happen to be born on US soil. But no citizenship before birth. That would make them the equivalent of illegal aliens. Except also being fetuses.
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 03 09:23:56 I have no idea what your point is. Do you find the statements made in the OP reprehensible or not?
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 09:26:07 Hey, would it not be robbing fetuses of their birthrights as American citizens if you deport pregnant illegal aliens?
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 09:26:49 I am just looking for some consistency. You seem to care a lot about potential US citizens.
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 03 09:27:31 This is a thread about abortion, not illegal immigration. Stop it with the attempted derailment.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 09:37:52 It is about unborn children who could potentially become US citizens upon birth. The planet is literally full of such potential US citizens. Why would you want to rob any of them of their potential birthright Ruggy?
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 03 09:39:18 Do you find the statements made in the OP reprehensible or not?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 03 09:45:28 You should just ignore people who start their statement in a discussion about moral principles with "why do you care?".
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 09:46:18 Of course. There are few reasons to perform abortions after 12 weeks unless health care rationing causes undue delays in service. Why do you care what I think?
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 09:50:24 Nimi Is it a moral principle though? That is what we are exploring. We know fetuses are not persons or citizens, so have no legal rights. The morality rests in their potential. ICE camps are full of unborn, potential US citizens. I am wondering what Ruggy thinks about robbing those poor babies of their American birthrights.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 03 09:51:28 Here I could be tempted to violate the advice that I just gave. But Jesus is keeping me strong :) Devil I rebuke thee!
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 09:58:19 You sure you want to run with what Jesus thought of life before quickening? Jewish faith has very liberal views on abortion. And Jesus, of course, was a jew.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 03 10:26:09 I Faderens, Sønnens og Den hellige ånds navn - Vik unna!
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 11:23:05 As they say. Better the devil you know :D
obaminated Member	Sun Sep 03 11:32:18 I like how jergul has to run into this with strawman arguments. Abortion is bad. As how technology improves our understanding of fetuses improves. As out understanding of fetuses improves we learn more of how sentient they are, not less, we learn more of how they feel pain, not less etc. This is why the left has had to abandon previous positions about heart beat and a fetus just being a clump of cells, it's a losing argument that only a psychopath would continue to use. Now the left has to use strawman (durrrrr if life is so precious why do you support the death penalty!?!?!) And emotionally based arguments about women being forced into pregnancies.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 11:56:41 Obam I have never argued heartbeats etc. Irrelevant. The moral issue here is to what extent can society assault an individual's integrity of self. You know, integrity of self is the core value of Western societies. All other values flow from it. To me, a human must be given a reasonable window of opportunity to reestablish the integrity of self by having the unwanted cell cluster removed. The inferred rights of the unborn non-person gradually increase on a gliding scale. My cut-off would generally be 12 weeks. My point still stands. Why does Ruggy care about some non-US citizens, but not all non-US citizens?
Sam Adams Member	Sun Sep 03 11:59:59 'Not to mention there are other options for dealing with unwanted kids that don't involve straight up murdering them.' Nah get rid of them before they are concious is is by far the cleanest and easiest solution with the minimum ammount of pain for all involved.
murder Member	Sun Sep 03 13:19:32 "If you support this sort of shit, you're a monster." If you support enslaving others, you're a monster.
murder Member	Sun Sep 03 13:22:20 Nothing like people who cry about having to feed kids that aren't their own, pretending that they give a fuck about the life or welfare of those kids.
obaminated Member	Sun Sep 03 16:05:10 If you support enslaving others, you're a monster. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but is murder comparing parenthood to slavery?
Forwyn Member	Sun Sep 03 18:39:33 Remember when the federal govt made peaceful protest punishably by imprisonment? I 'member
Dukhat Member	Mon Sep 04 01:22:23 Men explaining to other men why women should have less rights. Ok dumbasses.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 02:47:43 Men who think having a uterus makes moral arguments and understanding of human biology and neuroscience better. Ok dumbasses.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 03:11:01 Hard to see the moral argument of the State forcing someone to have something in their body they dont want to have there. Perhaps try with a dildo just for fun? Imagine the State has mandated you have to keep one up your ass for 24 hours. See if you like it.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 03:23:23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb This seems to me to be more important than space exploration. I don't think anyone disputes that the State certainly should care for ejected fetuses. Why are you not clamouring for research and funding into making fostering environments for these poor future US citizens? The technology could be there. Its like people actually dont really care when push comes to shove.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 04:00:13 How does the dildo up my ass prevent the death of a human being? For the hypothetical to work, that needs to happen. And I needed to have put that dildo up my ass, by my own free will, knowing that doing this would tie the life of a new human being to me keeping the dildo there, for a finite period of time. Never mind your stupid hypothetical, I am willing to the dildo, if you are stabbed in the forehead with a butchers knife and then your brain is sucked out. I like my odds.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 05:28:03 It would not prevent the termination of a legal non-person. Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of human being for reference: "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance" A dildo up your ass might help you understand why the State mandating people keep unwanted objects inside their bodies is morally corrupt. A stabbing in the forhead would also involve having an unwanted object inside my body. I get why that is bad. You are the one struggling with the concept.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 05:38:26 You really are too dumb to even understand what the questions even are. This is why you assert the definitions, which are part of the topic of discussion, and go around in a circle. e.g drugs are bad mkay? Why? Because the law says so. Why does it say so? Because drugs are mkay? A fetus isn't a human being mkay? Why? Because the dictionary says so. Why does it say so? Because a fetus isn't a human being mkay? lol
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 05:43:41 Nimi I get it. Words should mean anything you want them to mean. I sympathise with that inclination :). Abortions are a means of extrating an unwanted object from a person's body. The object is incapable of independent existence, so it dies. Sad. See artificial wombs if you want the object to survive and become a US citizen. I say US because abortion bans are unimaginable even in Islamist Sweden.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 05:45:48 "A dildo up your ass might help you understand why the" Your hypothetical is shit as I explained. It is more a primitive attempt to trigger homophobic disgust. Maybe then the primitives will understand? If my having a dildo up my ass would save a life, I would do it. Your death would free up all kinds of resource and make earth less over-populated as per your own wacky theories. You are so emotional Jergul.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 05:51:53 "Words should mean anything you want them to mean." I don't communicate my thoughts in tweets like you do. I use as many words I need to make as close of an approximation of the truth and reality as possible. I don't assert dictionary definitions as "evidence" for something, that is done as a baseline to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Artificial wombs, will unfortunately not solve people acting recklessly and then not taking responsibility. We already have a wide range of different contraceptives, there should be zero elective abortions. Like, people know that new people are created through fucking and that women bear the burden. So, don't put things in your hole, since they can burden you with responsibilities that can not be shirked. That is, unless you want that responsibility. It is, the simplest things that are the hardest for us to manage.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 05:55:44 It is only a hypothetical because you do not want an unwanted object inside your body. It is otherwise easy to implement. Emotional? Well, yes, amusement is an emotion, so I guess I am emotional right now. Unwanted objects inside our bodies is a fundamental violation of a person's integrity of self. The cornerstone of modern Western thought. All freedoms follow from the sanctity of self. I would call your way of thinking medeival, but that would be unfair to people back then. They were clear on quickening, or the ability to sustain life outside the womb, was in practice when a fetus became a human.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 05:57:13 And so, long before this thread you were aware that dictionary definitions, are not very convincing evidence, or evidence at all, since the abortion questions hits philosophical bedrock: what is a human being. Emotional troll, gonna troll emotionally. The law is the law! How would you like if gangs of criminals came and forced you to take heroine! Is that what you want?!? Emotional double digit IQ output.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 05:58:52 We are now trying to solve people behaving recklessly and not taking responsibility? You have quite the agenda. Seems it would follow quite a number of limitations on the freedoms people in the Western world enjoy. But you do you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 06:00:07 "It is only a hypothetical" I don't mind hypothetical, they have value in examining the logical conclusions and extremes of ideas, just that your example is poorly thought out. I improved it, engaged with it, and gave an answer. You came back with: The law is the law!
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 06:01:15 Dictionaries are very good at countering the use of emotionally loaded words in a context. Its not a grouping of cells. Its a tiny little human being. The neutral words you are looking for are embryo and fetus.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 06:04:34 "We are now trying to solve people behaving recklessly and not taking responsibility?" I understand this is confusing, but *you* proposed artificial wombs as a solution. The implication of what I said is that, you don't understand the problem, so you think externalizing the consequences, will solve the problem. I pointed out what the fundamental problem is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 06:10:20 "Dictionaries are very good at countering the use of emotionally loaded words in a context" "Human being" links you to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human It's many more words than the dictionary though, I warn you. It has a section about life cycle, with a picture of a tiny little embryo that looks like a tadpole. That is a human being, the entire thing from start to finish.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 06:12:54 It is actually a picture of an embryo. You seem tired and emotional nimi, but do try to use the correct terminology.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 06:15:01 The problem to you is that humans are reckless and irresponsible, so the State's job is to compel safe and responsible behavior? Perhaps using social credit scores and surveillance to ensure compliance might be a less intrusive way of doing that then forcing people to have unwanted objects in their bodies?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 06:29:11 tree -> logs -> plank -> chair The world is made up of discrete units! How do I know this? Because the dictionary says so. You have used this argument before. It all adds up perfectly when we remember that you ultimately don't understand the very scientific theory that explains how life and stuff work, evolve and develop. No surprises. "so the State's job is to compel safe and responsible behavior?" Go read the conversation again, don't ask stupid questions.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 06:33:32 I will explain it for you again, senility affects memory: You proposed artificial wombs as somehow the solution for our woes. I said, you are merely externalizing the consequence, since you don't, among a room full of things, don't understand/recognize the problem. Then you said, are you proposing the state use social credit scored and surveillance to ensure safe and responsible behavior. Either you are on too much meds or too little. Consult your doctor.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 06:45:13 Nimi Do try to keep track of your own arguments. You dont want artificial wombs because that does not resolve the issue of human recklessness and irresponsibility. Artificial wombs only resolve fetuses expiring after being removed from inside people that did not want them there. I am not sure what moral argument you are trying to use to justify your war on human immorality, recklessness and irresponsibility. There are holy books that surely have some scripture you can use as basis. Some people think that kind of literature has moral authority. But do make the moral argument against human recklessness. I will see if I can apply it to human flight to Mars. My bet is that I can.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 06:46:03 "but do try to use the correct terminology." Me: "with a picture of a tiny little *embryo* that looks like a tadpole. That is a human being, the entire thing from start to finish." I explained what I mean with human being, *the entire life cycle*, but this exceeded your CPU capacity that can only process one discrete unit turning into another. What was that gradual stuff about earlier then? PSYCHED! I am not really this retarded, I just find it amusing to act retarded in the internet! -60+ father of 3
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 06:53:57 Nimi Yes, you provided a picture of an embryo and are now extremely upset that I pointed out it was a picture of an embryo. Precision is important if you want to avoid becoming tired and emotional, you poor thing. I am personally fine that you use the term human being, just as you are fine with me calling them objects or collection of cells. Words can after all mean anything we want them to mean.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 06:57:35 "You dont want artificial wombs because that does not resolve the issue of human recklessness and irresponsibility." "But do make the moral argument against human recklessness" It is crazy that you can say these things and still not figure out what I am saying and how it strings together. I once for shit and giggles asked chatgpt to explain quantum theory for successively younger audience, ultimately a fetus. It told me: "I am sorry, Quantum theory is a complex and abstract concept,, A fetus doesn't have the cognitive capacity to understand complex scientific concepts like quantum theory. Their brain development is still in its early stages, and they are not capable of comprehending abstract ideas."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 07:04:08 Words can after all mean anything we want them to mean. Circle is complete, jergul is back to square one, after his series of rapid tweets and profound round of questions: "I don't communicate my thoughts in tweets like you do. I use as many words I need to make as close of an approximation of the truth and reality as possible. I don't assert dictionary definitions as "evidence" for something, that is done as a baseline to make sure we are talking about the same thing." Hence my chat gpt example. I am not judging you for the masochistic amusement you get from these threads. Role playing intellectually handicapped, is quite the novel fetish though.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 07:15:18 Nimi I understood your argument. That is why you are so upset and feel the need to adhom your way out of your emotions. Abortions should be banned because people are reckless and irresponsible. Ok. What is your moral argument against reckless and irresponsible? You have yet to formulate it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 07:24:18 "I understood your argument." lol no you did not. Abortion should be banned because it is ending the life of a individual member of our specie. Elective abortions take place, because people are reckless and irresponsible. That is not going to get solved with artificial wombs, the value of technology notwithstanding. Do I need to make an argument for you personal benefit of the immorality of killing other humans, through reckless and irresponsible behavior? I will keep it simple, so not to overload your brain. It's bad, mkay! Universally we frown on such actions. "need to adhom" Jergul: Look guys how retarded I am! Nima: Ok retard. Jergul: What's up with the ad homs??! My ad homs, unlike yours, are pertinent to the discussion, they are descriptive of the behavior I am seeing. It is a vain appeal to your better senses, hey dude, stop acting like a retard.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 07:29:35 The sanest thing you said in this thread was 12 weeks, but unfortunately and as evident by your retarded behavior that most likely doesn't mean anything in practice. You likely believe elective abortions should be legal even after that point. It should be pointed out to you, that the article Rugian posted described abortions in week 23-24. Then you showed a glance of nuance with the gradual thing. However, as you said you are here for amusement, and I just pointed out that this amusement you find, is some masochistic performance where you act like a retarded troll. That's all. I am sure you are great and nice and everything IRL, but here you are mostly a retard.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 07:39:22 Nimi We are not trying to solve human recklessness and irresponsibility then, are we. You want to sustain a fetus. Fair enough. I want to protect a people's rights to have foreign objects removed from their bodies. Integrity of self being the core Western value on which all other values stem (property? Read locke. Property is an extension of self by way of the fruits of labour). But one has to be practical. So in general, a 12 week window to sort out the practicalities of expulsion seems fair. You could argue a longer window. As for fetus viability. See artificial wombs. Get those or be responsible for fetus termination. They should be as common as incubators.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 07:41:42 Nimi Fair enough that you think I am a retard. You are tired, emotional and deal poorly with difference in opinions. You think many things are retarded. If only everyone just could think just like you. What a wonderful world it would be :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 08:01:01 "I want to protect a people's rights to have foreign objects removed from their bodies." I understand that using reductive reasoning and thinking about things as discrete mechanical objects is tempting, but biology while not mysterious is complex. I addressed this earlier: "So, don't put things in your hole, since they can burden you with responsibilities that can not be shirked. That is, unless you want that responsibility." There are facts about human reproduction that are inconvenient for your religion, because they physically burden women far more than men, I understand. But that is the reality, it's not equal. Unfortunately that is also the quality that gives women inherent more value than men, even in the in the most dire of social circumstances. That would vanish with artificial wombs, having been an integral part of every society, save the women and children, notice women is mentioned first? There would literally be no evolutionary reason to have women if we have arti wombs. They are emotionally so wired to the whole motherhood things, even if they don't have children, resulting in being less productive. If you were thinking muh AI will make everyone redundant, look at who all the AI developers are and who owns and starts the companies. This women sport thing, is just emblematic, not the most problematic thing with "miracle" technology - And they all are undermining women's role in society and humanity. Good luck with that :)
murder Member	Mon Sep 04 08:12:01 "How does the dildo up my ass prevent the death of a human being?" I don't know, but I'm 100% certain that it does. But only if you keep it in there for a full 9 months. Also ... TMI.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 08:19:59 Mhm, but assholes did not evolve to store dildos for 9 months. There were a lot of things wrong with his hypothetical, but I didn't want to obsess over technicalities in an already horribly constructed and incomplete hypothetical.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 10:13:19 Nimi I am just following established legal, moral and venecular practice. Personhood begins at birth. In practice, a gliding scale towards personhood is satisfactory. I would set a general limit for abortion at 12 weeks, but you could argue longer. And embryo or a fetus are objects that can indeed be anthromorphed. Like you did with your dog. There may indeed be facts about biology that ethically demand the development of artificial wombs. You should invest your energy in that direction instead of trying to find an echochamber amongst your American internet buddies. Western secular liberalism is more a philosophy than a religion. But you do you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 11:38:38 "I am just following established legal, moral and venecular practice. Personhood begins at birth." You are using warped and corrupted legal, vernaclur and practices, void of any deeper moral understanding and ethical reasoning "And embryo or a fetus are objects that can indeed be anthromorphed. Like you did with your dog." Redundant word salad. It's a *human* fetus. "You should invest your energy in that direction instead of trying to find an echochamber amongst your American internet buddies." My idea around abortion, which I have been open about on this forum, formed many years ago, in the Swedish echo chamber, against the prevailing current. "Western secular liberalism is more a philosophy than a religion. But you do you." You are at best (being generous) one of these orange Liberals, I came into contact with them 20 years ago when I joined Liberalerna/Folkpartiet, today we know them as SJW/Woke. Being pro-abortion ultimately results in a specific kind of nihilism that undermines and destroys the unique role that women hold in our specie. It's not their only role, but it is a role that they and only they have.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 11:54:13 Nimi I am sure there are isolated social bubbles even in Sweden that the established legal, moral and venecular practice is warped and corrupted. There are social bubbles for absolutely everything. Thankfully, I have given you the framework for a deeper moral understanding and ethical reasoning. "Human" is redundant in the context. We know what species the fetus belongs to. But yes, you are attempting to anthromorphise a fetus. Being pro-abortion simply follows from being a Western secular liberalist. Human integrity is our most important value. A human has every right to remove an unwanted foreign object from inside itself. It literally re-establishes the integrity of self. But one has to be practical. Hence a 12 week period of grace to get the expulsion sorted before society's heavy hand shuts the option down. You did an adhom, then an ad-absudum fallacy in your last two missives. No, I do not think all women should abort all fetuses all the time. I think it is up to them to decide if they want to carry a fetus to term.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 12:18:03 "You did an adhom, then an ad-absudum fallacy" You know I was going to let this go, but your insist on being a little bitch. You are the same person who in the other thread said "apple gut", trying to insult me for physical appearance right? Going from a passive aggressive fuzzy old pussy, to a full blown little bitch. Your behavior is the insult, I am just describing what I am seeing that is relevant for the thread, not the kind of insult jealous women use. I would show you my "gut", but I am afraid you are trying to groom me and send me dick pics. You sneaky filthy old fuck, you. I know where this is going. Was that from the hunting class picture thread, where I said put up or shut up and your bravely ran away? Don't touch what you can't grab, bitchgul ;-)
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 12:34:39 You may want to recheck that "in the other thread" Apple gut was a wierd insult. And the timing wrong. We all have extra weight after covid. I just shred 10 kgs and could stand to lose another 7 or so. Yes, like I said, you seemed tired, emotional, and deal poorly with differences of opinion. If only we could all be exactly like you would seem to be the only compromise you might be willing to accept. You do you. I don't mind :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 13:28:08 Mhm, project your bitchy insecurities all you want. I don't throw frivolous girly insults, if I insult you, it is at the back end of addressing the incoherent ramblings you call arguments. They are always related to the retardation you exhibit. Even if you did mind, what are you going to do? You keep saying the shit over and over, like it is suppose to mean something. "If only we could all be exactly like you"' Evasive bitch talk, how I am forcing you to come here and argue your thought, boohoo. Gun to your head. CHANGE YOUR OPINION OR ELSE! Pathetic. Try not being an undignified retard, it is the same thing I have told you for 15 years, it will all be just fine. We will agree, disagree or disagreeable agree, or any variation. Your grand pa age you fuck, how long are you going to keep doing this?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 13:32:26 Nimi I am not the one here throwing my dignity to the wind ;)
jergul large member	Wed Sep 06 13:20:07 Nimi After some consideration, I realized you are factually wrong. Human offspring are born premature compared to the development of all other mammals. Women's bodies are not designed for pregnacies that last this long. The price of exceeding tolerances is high birth rates. Conversely, the human body is designed to keep fecal matter in a slot easily accessable for a dildo. Dual purpose ftw! We are not suggesting you need a C-section to remove the dildo either. We just want you to experience having something inside you that you do not want there. So you can gain some relevant insights. And yes, murder assures us it will save a baby from dying. Perhaps I could even send 20 bucks to a a help starvation in Aghanistan fund and save a child more concretely if you can humour us in this mind (and body) expanding experience.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 06 13:21:13 is high maternal death rates*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Sep 07 09:01:17 You spent two day on this "witty" comeback and only managed to do cobble it together, by ignoring where I write 9 months and ramble about the "fetal" (not pre-mature) state human being are born in? I usually don't say this to people, but you should just give up and stop trying. Shit posting just isn't for you, like thinking, reasoning, creating analog examples, thought experiments and not being a bitch. Accept who you are and that you can not improve.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 07 10:43:56 To be fair, I did not spend every waking moment of the last two days truth checking your claims But it did strike me you are factually wrong. Women's bodies are designed to give birth to something significantly smaller. As opposed to a dildo. Which can fit snugly into many orfices. In this case, application would help expand both your mind and body. Far be it for me to toot my own horn, let it just rest with my being happy amusing myself. So, success! Anal'og. Nice choice of a word. I approve! Your subconscience is on my side! You quite often decide that people should stop doing things you dont like because they "are not good at it". I somehow feel quality of posts is not your primary sorting criteria.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Sep 10 03:26:33 Ignoring jergul; back @OP This seems like more fodder for an argument I've been making: "Some may wonder why "privacy" is so important to the DNC's Roe talking-points. The reason is that "privacy" is how the DNC has buried its eugenics program; hiding the full scale of abortion reporting from the public, the Malthusians have hidden another genocide from the public." [September 17th, 2022] http://twitter.com/CherubCow/status/1571093639673290752 "Privacy" regarding abortion is just a way for the horrors of abortion to be obfuscated from the public consciousness. It's a totally separate type of privacy from personal or medical privacy — which the DNC does not care about, since they prefer a surveillance state and feed their strategies with data-mining operations. (I.e., *they* want the information — they do not want the *public* to have the information.) "Privacy" here is a means to hide the statistical reality of the DNC eugenics program. While you can find *semi*-reliable studies on abortion statistics in searches, the DNC does not want there to be reliable and concrete numbers for.. • how many abortions Planned Parenthood performs, • where abortions were performed, • what the reasons given were, • what the races were, • when in the pregnancy they were performed, • what counseling was given, • what is the political ideology of the counselors, or • what health and relationship outcomes resulted. And conversations such as the OP are part of this. One of the DNC's Celebration Parallax talking points is that late-term abortion isn't happening but it shouldn't be banned. Pay attention to that. Between the lines, the realization is that they know that it's happening but they know that "privacy"-shields prevent people from seeing it. Lance of the "Serfs" (left-wing) had such an exchange that made the rounds in May 2023: [TimcastIRL] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5ZsOPdc6fA Relevant segment clipped here: [TimcastIRL] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9haWrvqMik0 Short version is that he thinks that late-term abortions only happen when a mother's life is endangered — but he refuses to admit to the case of viable children being terminated when no danger is present ("it's not happening!"). Simultaneously, he thinks that women should have the right to terminate viable babies (i.e., terminate babies that can live outside the womb) rather than having those children extracted and put up for adoption. This is the leftist position. I had an angry debate with Nim more than a year ago about my abortion position, with me sticking to the idea that an individual needs the ability to abort as a means of protecting her genetics (among other positions, like that I think life's value increases with complexity). But something I didn't communicate was that this was from a moral standpoint. I.e., this was assuming that abortion would not be used as a contraceptive. This was assuming that in the first place people should not be having sex with people with whom they do not want a future. That is not the leftist position. The leftist position is the degradation of society and eugenics in the hands of the state — beyond the citizen's control or even knowledge. • If the left-wing state has total control of abortion (as most like now: abortion as "choice"), the state directs eugenics sight-unseen. It uses propaganda and its control of hidden data to direct genetics. They breed slaves. • If the left-wing state has a total *ban* on abortion, they would simultaneously require that no one become pregnant without the state's permission — and they would require the crossing of slavish bloodlines. They again breed slaves. [murder]: "If you support enslaving others, you're a monster." Good to see murder coming to terms with what he is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Sep 10 06:09:13 CC A comment, ”Privacy” aligns well with the overall systematic drive by the left to break up every unit into individual atoms disconnected from everything and reliant only on the state. ”This was assuming that in the first place people should not be having sex with people with whom they do not want a future.” Yes my arguments are in the context of where we are. Not sure, but it seems your position is about instances where people are impregnated and forced to have offspring. It is unclear why you believe women specifically have a right to protect their genetics. Even so, I don’t see ethical issues with abortion before week 14 for any reason. Currently rape is the only instance of impregnating against your will. The concearns take new dimensions with the advance of technology such as artifical wombs. I can see very dystopian scenarios, where the issue has become far more complicated than. “among other positions, like that I think life's value increases with complexity“ Depends on what value we are talking about. For something as basic as the right to life it has to be a definitive point. I have a hard time imagining contingencies and factors that are completely beyond your control as the individual whose life is hanging in the balance.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 10 06:54:42 Nimi Is this another case of words meaning what you want them to mean? Impregnate means to make pregnant, not have intercourse. Sex is mostly recreational. Impregnation against a person's will happens all the time. Artificial wombs will be great. I wait with baited breath for the State to foster those poor evicted featuses in alternate domiciles. How many are you thinking of adopting? Or would you prefer them to remain wards of the state?
jergul large member	Sun Sep 10 07:06:11 You see the problem, right? Arguing right to life means that it absolutely is a public responsibility to care for unwanted children with all the means technology provides. Artificial wombs will give the State tons of children. Do you want the State to keep them? Is that not sort of problematic from a waah big and deep state perspective? Get out the elbow grease and start CTing about abortion being a stepping stone to gigantic "lebensborn" projects.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 10 07:11:31 CCs argument is kind of interesting in a "right to control genetic material" sense. It may not follow that a woman's rights extend only so far as to evict a fetus, but not to control what happens thereafter. Precedent seems to deal with it though. All kinds of genetic material becomes refuse at hospitals with the hospitals owning that garbage. I know, I had a part of me removed and wanted to take it home in a glass. The hospital said no.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Sep 11 03:35:43 [Nim]: "”Privacy” aligns well with the overall systematic drive by the left to break up every unit into individual atoms disconnected from everything and reliant only on the state." Agreed. The design is that we all know only ourselves while the state sees everything. That is the Panoptic society. The Sauron "Eye" has asymmetric power, and those watched only express "choice" in terms acceptable to the "Eye" (their spirits corrupted by its power over them). [Nim]: "Yes my arguments are in the context of where we are. Not sure, but it seems your position is about instances where people are impregnated and forced to have offspring. It is unclear why you believe women specifically have a right to protect their genetics. Even so, I don’t see ethical issues with abortion before week 14 for any reason. "Currently rape is the only instance of impregnating against your will. The concearns take new dimensions with the advance of technology such as artifical wombs. I can see very dystopian scenarios, where the issue has become far more complicated than." (To be upfront, I'm trying to fix errors I made in our previous conversation. I'm trying to reconcile abortion with settler colonialism and Starship Troopers franchise-protection. Not all of this is a direct response so much as me trying to organize these thoughts.) I mean protecting genetics against conquerors — a shared role of both sexes in a society — and it's specifically in the context of the (rare) rape case. And yeah, that's why I mean to clarify our previous argument: I got ahead of myself in thinking in terms of protections for the (rare) rape case and not cautioning against the left's "no restrictions"/abortion-as-contraceptive reality. So for protecting genetics from rape: a society needs to protect its genetic pool from conquerors and Darwinian manipulators. If a sovereign woman within her society wants to protect her genetics, this would mean giving sexual access only to the man with whom she wants to have virtuous children who further that society (i.e., a citizen-woman only having sex with a citizen-man). I mean this in contradiction to a globalist woman who has no sacred society or concept of genetics and gives her womb to any foreign conqueror without restriction. The former is virtuous and should have rights and honors, the latter is treasonous and she and her offspring should be deprived of franchise in society. So it has to start with recognizing female virtues such as chastity and male virtues such as courtship-chivalry and marital investment. This prevents scenarios where abortion is even necessary. And for "complexity" (which I didn't explain well in the other thread), I'm using this as a shorthand for anti-determinism (complex life is more anti-deterministic, demoralization-culture aside), but without getting needlessly esoteric again: I'm just saying that it's incredibly important to decide quickly with a (potentially unwanted) pregnancy. Every stage of fetal development makes that life worth exponentially more, since every leap into greater complexity is a proof that this life defeated miscarriage or stillbirth cellular-function-checks (e.g., apoptosis due to an un-repairable defect). Conversely, this does also mean that a new discrete life at the moment of conception has less complexity than a 9-month-old fetus. The new-conception life has great value, but it does also have *less* value than the 9-month life. Giving relative value to the new-conception breaks off into its own scale (i.e., how much value should be given to the new-conception). A new-conception between citizens has more value than a new-conception between non-citizens. In the Starship Troopers sense, citizens should be those who have proven through hard labor that they will fight for life in their society. Non-citizens have made no proof of this, and so their new-conceptions have less value than those of citizens. • If an absolute question-free value is given to any and all new-conceptions, then a conqueror is incentivized to rape a society's sovereign women successively over generations in genetic warfare — assured as they would be that the society will raise its foreign children and drift into the conqueror's own genetics. For vikings, there's an argument that this may have been eugenics ("improving" the genetics of the raped societies), but regardless of that question (i.e., Zeus as "benevolent" rapist) the world is currently looking at dysgenics. • If a society (rightly, I think) recognizes that there is indeed relative value between new-conceptions (e.g., comparing the conqueror's seed to the citizen's), then it fiercely protects citizen births and gives no power to non-citizen births. So in a virtuous society, the protections devolve like this: 1) People possess chastity/chivalry virtues and therefore do not need abortions. 2) If citizens have sex out of wedlock, society deprives those citizens of certain privileges (e.g., via ostracism, via denied political/religious rights, via damaged reputation, via restricted access in the genetic pool). 3a) If a woman is raped by a citizen, that citizen loses the franchise, and the woman must decide (quickly) if the rapist's genetics should be represented through their child's birth. 3b) If a woman is raped by a non-citizen, she has near full autonomy to terminate the pregnancy at any time (though, ideally, quickly), and the state denies any and all rights of citizenship to the woman and child if the child is born. In the DNC–totalitarian society, there are no protections; it starts with degradation: • People possess no virtues and use abortion like a contraceptive (used casually if immoral sex is unsafe and "Plan B" fails). • Via "privacy", society remains unaware that people are acting with no value system and have zero regard for life of any kind (e.g., no distinction between genetic groups, "clump of cells" argument used all the way to nine months and beyond in the case of the OP). • Women are incentivized to destroy their wombs and the future of society through a routine disregard for their own bodies and the bodies destroyed in abortion — yet retain the franchise. • The state quietly uses "privacy" in abortion to direct its eugenics program. TLDR: • Even a new-conception has immense value, and that value grows with the success of the pregnancy. • A virtuous society protects this value through the will of its citizens. • A rapist-conqueror's pregnancies should not be valued by the state. • A broken society sees no distinctions between early and late pregnancy and/or prefers the conqueror's pregnancies. Ultimately, a virtuous person needs to be able look at the genetic value of her offspring — ideally before marriage. • If it's with a citizen, this is good value within society and should be appraised equally by mother and father. • If it's Zeus' or Aegeus', this may be good value but requires leaving society and proving value for reentry. • If it's a dysgenic conqueror's, it's Rosemary's Baby; this has low value in any society. The left always falls into a dysgenics plan. I think whatever abortion ideas the right produces should recognize that plan.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 11 06:52:26 I appreciate it! The thread were we butted heads, was me making the moral case against someone who thought abortions should be legal until birth (!) and that thread started with me making connection between a specific ideology and their nihilistic, anti-natalist, anti-human stance, in practically every social and political domain. To paraphrase myself: If you view the inception of human life, in such tragic and dehumanizing terms, no wonder you continue to view man and her activities as a "virus". In a not so wierd way, everything else happening around us makes sense to me. You came into that discussion, probably said a few things while I was in fight mode against a guy who was arguing that a full term baby had the same value is toe nail clippings, and shit spiraled from there :O Reading your post, I am not sure how much we disagree, so I will briefly give my comments. I am thinking that as a moral argument I expect universality when it is physically applicable, it isn't when it comes to reproduction generally. However, protecting your genetics extends to women and men. I didn't explain this well in my previous post, but that is what was trying say with future concerns and artificial wombs. But even without getting too deep in to that question specifically, adding genetics doesn't really move the needle in either direction. The big question remains the same: where does her rights (genetic, reproductive choice, bodily integrity) end and when does the new life's right to not be destroyed begin. Complexity does matter, ethically. I have settled around week 14 because there is enough of a brain there, that can feel pain and where sentient can not be ruled out. Before that most likely, given the facts, it should be legal for any reason, though I would personally never want to see my wife have one, unless her life was in danger. I would strongly argue again the type of hedonistic lifestyle where abortions are used as contraceptives, I still think there is widespread personal and social corruption that emanates from such disregard for human life and procreation, even before that point. I just don't think I have good evidence and reasons for it to be illegal. Yes there a new human being there, yes if not for the choice to end it, it would grown to have a brain and experience all the things we associate with being human, but it doesn't have a brain currently. So, I am not sure how much we disagree, I have just pinpointed a time when it is complex enough and not sure how far we are from each other. I do think, as I said earlier, the right to life must be absolute, Nekran thought 9 months, ok, insane, but it is a definitive point. The gradual increase in value must at some point cross the Rubicon. I have literally no disagreements with you on how leftist ideology is shattering and corrupting society, I view their stance on reproduction broadly and abortion specifically, as a direct result of the inherently cynical analysis of all productive human acitivity. Though I wonder how you believe the things you mention impacts the legal and practical implications for abortion currently?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 11 09:36:09 Nimi Oh, I can think of a few things you should disagree with in CCs last post. Wilfully enabling a person in mental distress (there are harsher, more chronic terms I could use) is pretty immoral.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: