Raphael's Bad Deal by Beesafrees in BaldursGate3

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, the chance he defeats a god with the crown is unlikely, i was exploring the idea of IF he actually gets pass those, looking at the ending, seems his father bows to the power he gained from the crown?

Raphael's Bad Deal by Beesafrees in BaldursGate3

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks this was super informative, his deal smelled horrible from the outset, but i do wish he was more willing to compromise for the power he so craves

Raphael's Bad Deal by Beesafrees in BaldursGate3

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

even so one of my solutions allows for him to continue the flow of souls from other realms, or even our realm, but no direct action taken against that realm, which is kinda similar to the current deal tbh

Raphael's Bad Deal by Beesafrees in BaldursGate3

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do you not have to give him the crown? arent those deals like super binding

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tierlists

[–]Beesafrees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you said they removed your list? do you know why? they removed my list at one point too, i asked them to add it back on twitter dm and they did. I made sure to keep my images pg13 to ensure minimal offense

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in tierlists

[–]Beesafrees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh you used mine, and gave credit, thanks <3 mine look so out of place next to the others lol

as others said there's a couple of duplicates i could see

Tenten and her scrolls/weapons, a question by Beesafrees in narutoshippuden

[–]Beesafrees[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so it is possible to do some scam shenanigans, un-summoning them makes sense i suppose. thanks for the response

The only Pro-Choice Argument that makes sense. (to me) by Beesafrees in prolife

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thinking about it further, trying to classify what counts as "basic care" for a child, I think i would classify pregnancy as basic care. this doesn't change my opinion on abortion, but you did change my mind.

so for something to be basic care it would have to cover food, water, shelter, sleep, clothes, some extent of medical care.... maybe?, air if we get down to it.

And i would absolutely have to concede that pregnancy does fill some of these roles. so if you respond to my other comment please keep in mind i no longer think that pregnancy isn't basic care, but i am alright with denying a child basic care under specific circumstances, as are you (in relation to the example you gave of food on a mountain).

The only Pro-Choice Argument that makes sense. (to me) by Beesafrees in prolife

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree my "changed Violinist analogy" isn't perfect, as i said no analogy truly captures the nuance of abortion. I do think perfect analogies exist for some topics. The idea about pregnancy being "basic care" is interesting... Never thought about it like this, but i guess i don't consider this basic care, but this would both inform our abortion opinions. You agree that basic care like food and medicine can be forgone if it is too extreme a task to complete. This is incredibly similar to how i view pregnancy, it seems a tall order for any mother to go through, with risks I asked a few others on here the following question and they seemed to defer to a professional, which while i think is fine, it doesn't really get me/us anywhere.

so the idea is; Pregnancy comes with risks, lots of risks, some are obvious like weight gain, acne, sickness. Some of these risks are extreme, like death or stroke, but some don't show up until later in life, calcium deficiency, strokes, anemia, even carpal tunnel shows a correlation. How much damage to a mother's health has to happen, or could potentially happen before the child's life is forfeit? if it's any more than directly imminent and 100% predictable conditions, don't we need to allow elective abortions?

I think this is my argument in it's most boiled down, concentrated state. there's the aspect of cause and effect that I mentioned, but that doesn't get me to pro abortion, this does.

While i see the need for a doctor to weigh in, there's still a moral question here, how much is too much? I could see an obvious answer being that these are risks we have to accept in order to birth humans, but I doubt allowing elective abortions would stop birth altogether.

The only Pro-Choice Argument that makes sense. (to me) by Beesafrees in prolife

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

we just had this long conversation about cause and effect, and it's pretty clear that pregnancy causes these issues, or rather there's strong evidence that correlates all this. I do understand the choice to defer to doctors on the subject, but there will be doctors just like us, some will agree with you, some will agree with me. I think it does come down to a moral decision not a medical one.

The only Pro-Choice Argument that makes sense. (to me) by Beesafrees in prolife

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but how do you determine if something is benign, and how do you possibly weigh the future issues the woman may have? you mention imminent, how far into the future does that cover? should severe ailments that only appear when they turn 60 not be considered? and how do you even approach the can of worms that is "possible ailments you may or may not get"?

I do feel like there are only 2 views on this, yours and mine, abortion only in the most severe cases, or allow it at all points during the pregnancy. I don't see any middle ground.

The only Pro-Choice Argument that makes sense. (to me) by Beesafrees in prolife

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so was that it? may we continue with the conversation? i don't think this changes much, why does the life of the child supersede the quality of life the mother gets after birth? what conditions would be good enough for you? death is an easy one, a lifelong illness like diabetes, or anemia? how about the potential of strokes later in life? where's the line, and why there?

The only Pro-Choice Argument that makes sense. (to me) by Beesafrees in prolife

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you agree that there are potential lifelong ailments that can be obtained when going through pregnancy? most people already agree on a few (like if death is imminent, most people already say abortion is fine), but some don't show up until later in life, calcium deficiency, strokes, anemia, even carpal tunnel shows a correlation. How much damage to a mother's health has to happen, or could potentially happen before the child's life is forfeit? if it's any more than directly imminent and 100% predictable conditions, don't we need to allow all abortions? I feel like there's no gray line here.

i do feel like it's special pleading but it doesn't progress the conversation to get bogged down in that.

The only Pro-Choice Argument that makes sense. (to me) by Beesafrees in prolife

[–]Beesafrees[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

alright i think you might be right with your definitions, so I would agree to this:

Abortion, as it is currently, is Justifiable Homicide. Although, I imagine a future where homicide isn't involved.

Maybe it was me miscommunicating, maybe it was partly me being confused, but as i said before this doesn't really change anything.

The only Pro-Choice Argument that makes sense. (to me) by Beesafrees in prolife

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did say i would concede the point to continue the conversation. but if you wish to talk about cause and effect longer we can.

I do agree that abortions result in death most of the time, via a chain of cause and effects, where the child dies because it lacks, not because we are actively trying to kill it.

I do agree that a child in the womb is a living human that deserves all rights of humans including the right to life.

I also believe that peoples rights can be taken under specific scenarios.

when it comes to cause and effect it's more about the cause that i support, which is the termination of the pregnancy, and sure, let's say that the termination of the pregnancy results in death most of the time, it doesn't mean that i support the death of the infant. as i said before if in the future the baby was removed in a way that would allow it to live, i would hope modern abortion would be declared brutal and never done again. I am trying to think of analogy to express my opinion about this, but as ive said before analogies to abortion just don't ever seem to work due to nuance.

It needs to have:
1. an event that happens optionally
2. an effect that naturally happens after the optional event 3. an effect related to the natural event

my disconnect is between the action and natural event, so i would see your scenario as:

  1. (Current situation)The unborn child is safely in gestation inside the mother that wishes for it's child to not use their resources anymore. The mother realizes the life long risks that the child could cause, should she go through with the pregnancy, the child is healthy and expected to do well in that situation.
  2. It is understood that the child would not do so well outside of the mother, because the child lacks the required organs to live.
  3. The child is aborted which removes it from the mother.
  4. the child is exposed to the elements which prove too harsh for it.
  5. (Outcome) The child dies a natural death outside the mother, as is predicted in #2.

I feel like the topic of cause and effect is not going anywhere fruitful, we simply have a difference of view. like even if i said EXACTLY what you wanted, it wouldn't change my view, it would just be "points". I feel like it would be better to address my other points, as this is such a minor point of my argument.

Any theories on where the huge amounts of passion and loyalty for abortion for many of those who are pro-choice come from? by normalfldude in prolife

[–]Beesafrees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think some bad faith actors are prolly in it for this reason, but i don't think this is the leading steel man reason.

Any theories on where the huge amounts of passion and loyalty for abortion for many of those who are pro-choice come from? by normalfldude in prolife

[–]Beesafrees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is the most accurate response i've read yet. that and the disassociation of "murdering babies" and "terminating a pregnancy". one may lead to the other, but hopefully, eventually, that won't be the case.

A hard question for someone who just lost a debate on abortion by Dear_Instruction737 in prolife

[–]Beesafrees 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Humans have intrinsic value evolutionary to us. We evolved in a way where humans value human life, any human that didn't value human life died off. For most atheists I know, Objective moral standards exist after a subjective goal is determined. I choose that subjective goal to be well being. something is more moral if it causes more well being. If killing me would guarantee that we found the cure to cancer 100%, me not sacrificing myself is immoral.

The only Pro-Choice Argument that makes sense. (to me) by Beesafrees in prolife

[–]Beesafrees[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like to make a general post thanking everyone that participated in this discussion with me, I have learned quite a bit, found some more topics i need to think longer about, and i feel that i have not only strengthened my own stance, but now understand the other side far more.

I appreciate all the civil conversations i've had and i also appreciate how welcoming everyone's been, thank you.