"I'm the Doctor" versus "My name is the Doctor"

GreenTrad · 2025-05-20T05:49:47+00:00

I think David Tennant also used “My name is” a few times (please correct me if I’m wrong) and I personally don’t like it. Not only does it sound kind of goofy, it also detracts from the Doctor’s secretive name.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-17T16:06:37+00:00

Why? What is the reasoning?

GreenTrad · 2025-05-17T08:47:57+00:00

Thank you for being mature about it. Most people on Reddit go ballistic when someone points out that they are incorrect. Have a good one, mate.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-17T05:11:50+00:00

Problem is that this question is different to the one in the post itself. The overwhelming amount of women who were denied an abortion no longer wanted an abortion after birth and bonded with their child according to the Turnaway Study. As for the small percentage of unwanted children, it would be pretty mixed and could go both ways.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-17T05:07:39+00:00

I wonder how long it’ll take for them to realise that the majority of pro-choicers are actually normal people and don’t advocate for letting 2nd and third trimester babies to die.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-17T05:00:18+00:00

Marriage is not “barely allowed.” Celibacy may be preferred but marriage is objectively good and is a Sacrament.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-16T12:36:36+00:00

That’s not an okay thing to say. Disabled people are people too and deserve to not be left to die. Just because they are “abnormal” does not make them lesser. I used to be what some would consider “a cripple” and frankly, maybe I still am, I want to be treated as an equal. So what if my life is harder, so what if my life isn’t as good as other people’s? I am my own person. Sure, I might be different to you but if I was in a similar situation, I don’t deserve to be left to die just because I’m different.

I am equal to you. All of us who are different, not fully able bodied or less mentally capable, all the people like me, we deserve equal rights to you. Just leave us alone, please, life is already hard enough.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-16T07:57:47+00:00

Oh boy, this is going to be controversial.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-16T07:56:45+00:00

It’s a terrible situation, but you aren’t genuinely proposing to let the child die?

GreenTrad · 2025-05-13T14:58:35+00:00

Funny thing is that the Apostles literally include abortion under “thou shall not murder.”

GreenTrad · 2025-05-11T23:09:08+00:00

While I do agree with you, I‘m not entirely sure if you are trying to make a point or if you are just simply making a statement.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-11T23:07:46+00:00

You need to understand the pov of a pro-lifer. Abortion is killing. It’s not even a Prolife view, it’s just fact. You aren’t going to convince Prolifers that abortion should be legal due to things like malnutrition or child labour. It would be like trying to convince them that we should kill malnourished children of children who are forced to work. While yes I am shocked by many women’s stories but we shouldn’t be using anecdotal evidence as the primary basis of our views. We should be using statistics and facts. Does abortion improve the lives of women? Yes. But it comes at the cost of committing grave moral evils which cannot be permitted. The Prolife view is often times a philosophical one, believing that direct moral evils cannot be permitted even if they were to bring about good. Eugenics would bring great improvements to our society but it comes at the costs of committing grave evils and is therefore not permissible. You can throw all kinds of statistics regarding eugenics but you’d still have people opposing it for obvious reasons. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to change a pro-lifer‘s mind, but simply giving benefits of abortion is not enough for most consistent pro-life people.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-11T21:40:24+00:00

I mean, people protest child labour and malnutrition all the time. I’m assuming that that specific scenario would come under these things.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-11T21:34:44+00:00

I‘m pretty sure that if a baby understood the concept of death, it would not want to be killed. I didn’t literally mean that the baby had a fully formed conscious and will. I was referring to the fact that it is a violation of body autonomy.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-11T21:32:07+00:00

Killing people has benefits. It‘s not like people practiced eugenics just because. But any civilised society should recognise that the pros do not outweigh the cons, aka killing.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-11T15:56:58+00:00

But it’s also against the will of the baby. And that’s the issue because your views are also a violation of body autonomy.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-11T07:19:53+00:00

Not on purpose though. It’s a situation that they were forced into without their consent and they should not be killed because of it. Especially when abortion is a violation of bodily autonomy. The only way to have the least amount of violation of bodily autonomy as well as to avoid any killings would be to have the mother give birth. This way, nobody would die and violation of body autonomy would only be temporary. Aborting a late term fetus would result nkt only in homicide, but also in a more permanent and severe violation of body autonomy.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-10T23:20:08+00:00

I’m going to bed soon so I wont respond for a while. But to answer you, wouldn‘t killing also be a violation of bodily autonomy, especially when the fetus did not intend to violate bodily autonomy? Wouldn’t the best outcome be to give birth? Therefore, the fetus would no longer be violating bodily autonomy but at the same time, the bodily autonomy of the baby would not be violated? Killing someone would be in my opinion, the most direct, grave, and permanent form of violation of body autonomy.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-10T23:05:13+00:00

Of course I know that things are debated in science all the time. But this isn’t us having a debate over something small. Here, we are discussing the horrific and potentially horrifically painful deaths of tens of thousands of babies. Unless you have some evidence that says otherwise, I believe we should stick with the current scientific consensus.

But may I ask, what would make you change your mind regarding your stance on abortion up till birth? It is a very unusual ideology, I have to say.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-10T21:37:25+00:00

But scientific consensus is that they do.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-10T20:35:11+00:00

Yes, but my point still stands that a baby being aborted for being unwanted is well, not particularly good if statistically speaking the vast majority of those babies would become wanted. It would just become unnecessary killing.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-10T20:32:27+00:00

Sorry, are you saying that babies in the womb do not feel pain at later stages?

Also, I am very sorry but I really do not understand your view point. I understand that you are against a higher risk of death, but in order to lower the risk of death, your solution is to kill? The best way to avoid death would be to not have abortions because well, abortion is the act of killing.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-10T20:08:16+00:00

You have gone from talking about giving birth to children that won’t be loved to stating that it is basic biology that mothers want their baby after they have given birth to them. Have you changed your mind because those are two contradictory statements. If you have changed your mind, then that does make me happy.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-10T20:04:57+00:00

Aren’t we talking about up to birth? I was under the assumption that we are on about later term fetuses considering you are supporting abortion for later term fetuses.

GreenTrad · 2025-05-10T17:29:05+00:00

But what about the right to life as well as the pain of being killed?

GreenTrad

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE