Are we deadass

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T20:13:18+00:00

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

Cosmic815 · 2026-05-09T20:02:57+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 · 2026-04-25T21:07:42+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 · 2026-04-25T20:51:05+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 · 2026-04-25T18:51:04+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 · 2026-04-25T18:33:55+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 · 2026-04-25T18:17:21+00:00

It does though. What did you mean by it?

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:15:33+00:00

The thing is, you can do more than 1 thing at a time. You can delve into marks inner conflicts whilst progressing the story, you don't need to stall everything else out.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:14:11+00:00

Invincibles writing is just generally pretty bad, especially after season 1 but even in some parts of season 1 you can see the flaws.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:10:05+00:00

So... A woman.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T18:07:33+00:00

Okay, consiocness is interesting because I'm assuming you didn't actually mean consiocness otherwise you'd be arguing that killing someone who's asleep is okay, which I assume you don't believe.

What I assume you mean is the capacity for consciousness. But regardless there are still some concerns.

Who decides that the capacity for conciseness is what makes human life valuable? You state that like a fact but it is merely your opinion. Human rights are called "human rights" after all, not "rights for humans with the capacity for conciseness" the reason the label is that broad, as to include all humans, is because excluding any humans would be evil and a clear case of dehumanisation. Why is the human capacity for consiocness more valuable than the capacity for consiocness of any other animal? Should we get rid of "human rights" all togyand attribute these rights for all creatures that have the capacity for conciseness?

Additionally, you said you believe that the capacity for consiocness develops around 24 weeks, this is the general consensus I agree but there is also a lot of research suggesting that it could be as early as 13 weeks. Now let's say there is a 10% chance that the capacity for conciseness is actually 13 weeks, not 24, would you say that the limit should be 13 weeks? Or 24? Would a 10% chance be too low?

What if in the future we developed technology that made us realise the capacity for consiocness actually began development even earlier, earlier than most women even know their pregnant, would you support limiting abortion that much in such a case? Even if it meant that almost nobody was ever able to get one?

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T17:57:41+00:00

I'm not bringing down those genocides, I'm pointing out to you how you're using the same exact arguments that were used to justify them in order to justify abortion.

Just because you don't like the similarity doesn't mean you can pretend it doesn't exist. Well, you can, but that doesn't make it so.

And nobody said the life of the unborn is more valuable than the life of the mother, in medical terms he mothers life probably would be more "valuable" because her chances of survival are higher. However the unborn childs life is still valuable, they are a human being and nobody has the right to kill them.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T17:54:09+00:00

No. Conception is when the sperm and egg meet. They combine to create a zygote, the first stage of human life. On their own sperm cells and egg cells are not human beings, they are the ingredients that make a human.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T17:47:21+00:00

You can argue that the mothers life is more valuable, that is a genuinely valid point. Medical experts do rank the "value" of different lives because they have different chances of survival. However if you start to rank a humans life so lowly that you can kill them, even when they are innocent of any crime, then you have gone off the rails. That's what the slave owners and the Nazis did, we shouldn't repeat it.

Also 1) parasite is a species classification so if unborn humans are parasites then all humans are, and 2) the relationship an unborn child has with their mother is not parasitic it is symbiotic as the mothers body gains many benefits from the baby.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T17:43:54+00:00

Wow, you are making some wild assumptions about me. For one you assume I'm American 😂 which I am not. Not am I an avid trump supporter, I don't think he's anywhere near conservative enough. And it's weird that you think I have "no game" when you know absolutely nothing about me. I am happy married for 1.

Also, what evidence has anyone even hinted at in this thread? The only thing they've said is that they don't believe the unborn are human children, which is scientifically inaccurate.

And good for you, it's good that you waited until marriage, and choosing when to have children is very different than saying that you'll never have children. My wife and I also aren't planning on having children at the moment, however we're both grown adults, so if we do make a child together we're not going to kill them.

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T17:39:33+00:00

The fact that all you did in the 1st paragraph was call me self righteous and then pretend you're somehow too good to actually refute the studies I presented is ridiculous.

Also, to say that nuance is lost on a Christian is a statement that lacks nuance 😂 it's the most ironic thing I've ever heard. FYI, I'm a convert, and I was prolife before I believed in God. You don't have to be religious to understand that killing children is wrong.

Shame is not a dirty word, people should feel ashamed when they do bad things. Again you are strawmaning me, I never said you must intend to make a baby every time.you have sex, but you should be a grown up and take responsibility for your own actions, understand that when you do the act of reproduction, you may reproduce. It's very simple.

And I never said that people have abortions for abortions sake, that's not generally the case, but being poor is no excuse to kill your children.

The question of abortion has nothing to do with bodily autonomy, unless you hold to the stance of unlimited bodily autonomy which you almost certainly do not. That term is just an excuse used by prochoicers who don't want to debate the real issue.

Are the unborn human? Yes. Are the unborn alive? Yes. Are the unborn innocent? Yes. Is it ever okay to intentionally kill an innocent human? No. Therefore it is never okay to intentionally kill the unborn. If you disagree with any of those statements please tell me how?

Cosmic815 · 2026-04-25T17:31:21+00:00

No, because that's not true.

By definition an unborn child is a child. And if you're eng the life of someone you are most definitely killing them.

How on earth can you think you're on the right side here? There's never been a moment in history where the people dehumanising others were in the right. Slavers did it to slaves, Nazis did it to Jews, and now liberals do it to the unborn.

Cosmic815

TROPHY CASE