{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/28/2017 11:48:08 PM
21
Heh heh. No, I will never support those things. First off, transgenderism is just stupid period. Also, abortion is killing a human being. Which is strange because when people say that a fetus isn't living and a pregnant woman is murdered it counts as double homicide. Btw you cannot become a woman by cutting off your balls off. Changing a body part doesn't change your gender.
English
-
Disagree with you here, one: Transgenderism is a natural occurenxe. Identifying as something other than male or female is not though. Two: The Fetus is a non sentient paracite. It is not a human.
-
So what do you think the appropriate punishment for a man who kills a woman is?
-
I never said a man killing a woman who is pregnant shouldn't be counted as double homicide, I'm just saying that if that is the case then abortion should come under the same punishment since in the previous scenario the fetus is considered a living being.
-
What you do to your own body and what a stranger does to your body without permission are of course treated completely differently. Isn't that sort of obvious?
-
Just find it strange that in one case it's considered a life and in another it isn't. How is the hypocrisy not glaring?
-
Because the circumstances are completely different. I have the right to put a bolt through my eyebrow, but if a stranger does it to me without my permission, it's a crime. That's not hypocrisy, it's a totally different sotuation. Same with your example.
-
Not really. Because how in one case can it be considered a piece of nonliving tissue and another a human being?
-
It's never considered a piece of non living tissue, it's considered to be a living fetus. That is of course different from a developed and independent human being. If you want to discuss this you need to be accurate about what you're saying.
-
I'm not saying a fetus isn't living, I believe it is. But when people support abortion they say it's not alive so I'm just wondering why in one case it is alive and another it isn't.
-
Christ. I wasn't saying you thought a foetus isn't alive, I'm saying that [b]no-one says a foetus isn't alive.[/b] No one says that. Of course it's alive. What they say is it's not the same as an independant human and therefore cannot be afforded the same rights; since a fetus's rights and an adult's rights will sometimes clash, we have to give precedence to the actual fully fledged human being that can articulate what it wants. It's literally the only way that works. You could ban abortions but we'd just see a big rise in 'miscarriages' because if a woman doesn't want a baby inside her she has many many ways to get rid of it, and no one would ever know. The problem is that these ways are much less safe for the mother; we have a responsibility to keep the women safe if they're going to do it anyway.
-
But do we just kill an innocent human being? You may not believe it is a human but I still do. I think abortion is wrong. If a mother doesn't want the child there are many other families who do want it. It isn't necessary to kill it.
-
Edited by Stickman Al: 7/30/2017 3:13:56 PMBut you can't violate the woman's bodily autonomy by forcing her to carry and care for that foetus. She should have a right not to have the foetus inside her if she doesn't want it. Of course, the moment we have the technology to keep an 8 week old foetus alive outside of the womb, things will get interesting, because we'll be able to (And some would say we have an obligation to) respect both parties rights; the woman gets bodily autonomy back and the foetus still gets to live. Perfect. But... certain people will not like having to pay extra taxes for medical care and support for all those extra children. And the bill would likely be very high - there are approximately 700,000 performed in the US alone every year. If you let your population increase that quickly (25% extra kids every single year!) it will result in mass starvation, disease and likely war, and in the end it will be way worse than the alternative. In a perfect world with the right technology and care infrastructure, we could get rid of abortions, and that would be nice. But it's not at all realistic right now without having disastrous effects on those of us that already live here. I'd much rather come up with a realistic working system than some hopelessly idealistic and naive system that would cause more harm than good. In that respect banning abortions is a bit like communism - makes some sense on paper but in reality it's a disaster.
-
Not really. You want to know how we keep the population in control? Allow 700,000 less immigrants every year. Also, if the woman has a right to her own body, how come prostitution isn't allowed in most states?
-
Prostitution [i]should[/i] be legal. What two consenting adults do with their own bodies is not the concern of the government. Immigration, different issue completely. Every country has a right to decide who they let in. Really you just sidestepped the discussion.
-
Edited by Liam_the_Censor: 7/30/2017 6:31:33 PMNo I didn't. The immigrants have no right to come into our country so I believe we should prioritize citizens who would be born in our own country. Might I add even if the fetus wasn't alive it is later on. So you're taking away potential life. How do we even know that starvation and disease would occur?
-
Still trying to work out what this means and whether you meant to reply to me with it.
-
Fixed it
-
I'm just asking, what do you think murder should be punished with?
-
Why is this even relevant? By some you will keep asking either life sentence or death
-
So you realise they're not going to get that if charged with a single murder.
-
Omg I was pointing out the hypocrisy. They say, "oh it's not alive" yet when a pregnant woman is killed it's considered double murder. This has nothing to do with single murder.
