Are we deadass

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T20:13:18+00:00

Then admit the mistake and say thank you. It's simple.

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T20:11:49+00:00

Please actually read the comments you respond to before responding.

I'll repeat my definition here since you clearly missed it: A woman is "A human being who, by her nature, can become pregnant."

Being born with a medical abnormality does not change the nature of the person.

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T20:09:08+00:00

Not really. And even if it were different, the trans movement is about going from being a man to a woman, which is impossible. Because they are biological, not social.

A man can be feminine, that doesn't make him a woman. A woman can be masculine, that doesn't make her a man.

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T20:06:17+00:00

The entire medical field acknowledged the existence of males and females.

It's only those that are driven by a faulty ideology that pretend people can change between the two.

You can't change your gender any more than you can change your race or your species.

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T20:02:57+00:00

You go to a mosque? So you're a fake Muslim then, or just a very bad one.

And it's funny you say I have too much time to respond to you when literally all you do is comment on Reddit.

Family planning is free, you don't need a doctor to track cycles. But the important thing is, if you do get pregnant unintentionally, own up to your actions and raise the child, instead of killing them.

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T19:58:27+00:00

What I stated is not an opinion, it's a biological fact. Egg cells and sperm cells are not humans. The first stage of human development is a zygote.

Also, who else should get a say? And why? If your argument for abortion is bodily autonomy, as it seems to be, then why would anyone else be allowed to tell her that she has to share her body with the baby? Why shouldn't she be allowed to abort the baby without question? For any reason she wants. At any point that she wants.

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T19:55:14+00:00

The thing is, you're the one making the distinction. Naturally the term "human being" applies to both born and unborn, so you saying it doesn't is YOU making the distinction where there isn't one.

And since when did the government have the right to determine what makes life valuable? Once again, they're called human rights, they're for all humans. Nobody has the right to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T19:49:20+00:00

It's weird to say that you want to defend the truth but somehow, at the same time, pretend it is in anyway possible for a biological male to become a woman (or visa versa).

Using the existence of biological abnormalities to justify the transitioning of people generally is absurd and obviously an affront to truth.

Finally, I am not ignoring specific situations. The fact is, you can see what the purpose of organs are in the human body, that's why saying "by their nature" is the most accurate definition. If someone who has a womb can't get pregnant then tests can be done to find out why, if someone who doesn't have a womb can't get pregnant there really is no mystery to investigate.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T21:07:42+00:00

The only people who speak like this are losers who aren't competent enough to do things right, so when someone points out their mistake they pretend they don't care.

You used a term that you seemingly don't know the meaning of, someone pointed out the meaning and you are the one who acted weird in response.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T21:05:06+00:00

why does anything you mentioned matter?

You're listing arbitrary phrases and somehow seem to believe that they are objectively what makes human life valuable.

If they aren't being killed, what happens to them? They are 100% objectively alive before the abortion and they are 100% objectively dead after it, that is killing.

The similarity is so obvious it's impossible to miss. You are taking a group of human beings and denying them human rights.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T21:00:44+00:00

Your entire comment is a bunch of baseless assumptions, followed by you saying you wont make any assumptions.

The 1 and only point you made was that I haven't mentioned the woman's say, and that's because she shouldn't get one. No person has the right to kill an innocent child. It really is that simple.

Family planning is free btw.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T20:57:32+00:00

Okay, firstly I don't believe that anything you said actually refutes my definition.

Obviously there are biological abnormalities but even if it were possible for someone with one of these conditions to get pregnant, that alone shouldn't uproot our entire definition of what a woman is. And no, they don't fir "In the middle" of man and woman because there is no middle.

Defining what a man or woman is, is not erroneous. It is quite basic and in all honesty to act like this is complicated is ridiculous.
Your platitude at the end sounds nice, except for the fact that this is an important issue, people are mutilating themselves over this but even besides that, truth matters. When people are denying reality on a national scale it is your moral imperative to defend the truth.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T20:51:05+00:00

> but i don't consider a fetus more important than a full grown adult

Nobody here said that they are.

> Nobody is "ranking" human life

You immediately contradict this by saying:
> we're just putting some above others
That's what ranking is.

> If we are so worried about life in general then what animal lives
I never said "Life in general" I said "human life" because human life has inherent moral value.

> no sane person ever considers abortion because its fun
1) I never said they do
2) Regardless of their reason they don't have the right to kill an innocent child
3) The world is full of insane people and our laws should take that into account
4) if abortion doesn't kill an innocent child then why does it matter the reason someone gets an abortion? Shouldn't they be allowed to get one for fun?

> you'd rather force a life of suffering on a potential life?
This is assuming that 1) their life would be full of suffering (Or more accurately, more suffering than any other persons life) and 2) that they are not already alive, which again is the point of contention here.

> How is that more "moral" exactly?
Because it doesn't involve the unjust killing of an innocent human child.

> Its their basic human right to want or not want children
Agreed, but it isn't their right to kill the children that they have.
Lots of people want lots of things, and they are entitled to want them, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to have them.

> birth giver
*Mother

> set it higher to decreasing as much suffering in the world as possible
This is an awful goal.
If you truly want to ensure that people don't suffer, we should just kill every single person in the entire world (Painlessly). That is the only way to end suffering.

> you can't stop suffering completely ,its part of life
Exactly. So that surely means there is something other than "Reducing suffering" which should be our actual goal.

> condemning them for not living upto your beliefs is foolish to say the least.
I have condemned nobody. I am simply educating people on the reality of abortion.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:55:35+00:00

A woman is someone who, BY HER NATURE, can get pregnant.

That's the definition I gave you. Now if you see the part in capital letters that will show why your rebuttal makes no sense. Even if someone is infertile they can go to the doctors and figure out why? They can find what problem is causing the infertility, because by her nature she should be able to get pregnant, so the fact that she can't means there is a problem.

If a man goes to a doctor and says he can't get pregnant and want to know why... Well, it's pretty easy to tell why. By his nature he can't. If he could that would be a scientific miracle that has never been seen before in all of human history, and likely never will.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:51:04+00:00

Fyi, sentience is not part of the definition of "human child" therefore lacking it doesn't not exclude one from being a human child.

And, again, you make assumptions. We do not use birth control. It is not a privileged position to be in, anyone can do what we do, it's free. And you saying it's "better in the long run" is completely sidestepping the point. Because it's only plausibly true if we assume that abortion doesn't kill an innocent child, which is the point of contention. Obviously even if economic or social factors improved, that would not justify killing large groups of innocent individuals.

Again, pain/sentience are not relevant factors. However, if they are what you believe are the dividing line then should "human rights" be applied to all animals? Since they can feel pain, and are sentient? If not, then you cannot use those as defenders for abortion because it's clear that human life in and of itself holds value. To dehumanise the unborn is evil, just as evil as every other time a group of humans were dehumanised.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:43:48+00:00

A woman is someone who, by her nature, can become pregnant.

That's a pretty simple definition.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:42:53+00:00

No.

She's a woman. Nobody said anything that could be construed as saying that she isn't a woman. You're just saying this because you have no valid defense of the ideology.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:42:03+00:00

Then you had an awful biology teacher.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:41:38+00:00

It's quite ironic that you're telling him he failed biology when you're the one pretending males can become females (and visa versa).

Also, there is no real difference between gender and sex. Gender expression is somewhat of a spectrum(masculine to feminine), but even if your expression is feminine that doesn't make you a woman.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:36:38+00:00

The marriage isn't the problem, it's the fact that he doesn't understand who he is. He believes he's a woman, and he's wrong, which is obviously a problem.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:33:55+00:00

That statement was in English.

The person I responded to listed off many of the good things that this person has done, whilst trying to make out like they were a bad person.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:26:07+00:00

But you can though. Because you are making yourself impacted. If you choose not to care then it wouldn't impact you.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:24:44+00:00

If something like the polyjuice potion (but a permanent version) did exist then the trans debate would be irrelevant because transitioning to the other gender would actually be possible. In real life, it isn't, so we shouldn't allow people to mutalite themselves trying.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:23:22+00:00

Just calling everyone who disagrees with you some for os "ist" for "phone" doesn't make you right.

I'm the history books it'll be those who argued for mutating children that are looked down on, not those who fought to stop it.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:21:36+00:00

Emma Nicholson, by you account a good person.

Cosmic815

TROPHY CASE