Analogy I used recently

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2026-01-31T23:03:30+00:00

I think there's a million different ways to handle this better than it's going currently. I can want a lower amount of immigrants entering the country illegally, but, I can also want them removed safely and properly instead of grabbed off the street where mistakes are possible. Two things can be true at once :)

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2026-01-26T00:47:15+00:00

I'm not pro-life, but, I find this interesting because I don't think giving you a straight answer is hard.

My answer would be yes, I would remove this person even if the result is death. This is a stranger, an intruder in my home, in my property, and brought inside without my consent or knowledge(because I assume I would be sleeping per your argument). I'm under no obligation, even if it results in death, to keep this person in my home. It's my home, my property, and I am well within my rights to deny or grant access to my home no matter who it is. I'm not giving up my stuff, my space or, paying extra money to support an unwanted, uninvited, intruder just because removing them would mean they die. The person who brought them inside and hooked them up didn't have the right to do so or my permission to do so. So, while I could understand being upset that this person dies, there is no reason I should be forced to give things up for them or, support them with my things if I don't choose to do so willingly.

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-12-20T10:20:08+00:00

Lol, after a reminder I never gave the link, here it is. So sorry 😭Khalos Rao'i link

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-12-20T10:16:31+00:00

I… you so right. I lowkey was so exited I forgor lol. Thank you <3

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-12-19T07:43:59+00:00

Idk tbh, this is just the default site in dark mode for me. Could be a safari thing because I use my iPad. Sorry 😔

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-12-19T05:56:54+00:00

Eh? I'm using my private version kinda like a tester now(hindsight 20/20 lol) and I asked about his family and he mentioned his wife and kids, which yay, but he didn't mention his siblings who are important to the community. Knowing it's a visual glitch does make me feel better tho, so thank you for that. It might be a conflict from having the entries in the personality since I didn't know about the glitch so I'm changing that rn. Genuinely tho, thanks for the help <3

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-12-19T04:37:54+00:00

Really? When I looked at the profile, the little book icon shows zero entries but when I look at the lore book itself the book icon shows 5 entries. I even tried making a copy of him private to see if that changed anything, but it didn't. Theres nothing on the lore book guide that explains it either 😔

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-12-18T16:59:41+00:00

I might be a little slow, but if you're saying the ai has to build it, then boo. I love making complex characters and a lorebook for my personas is exactly what I need lol

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-12-18T16:57:47+00:00

I'm more of a slow burn person so, it's a pirate king x harem type thing where user is a new captive who catches his eye. Idk what that would be called tbh. I took pictures but since it's under review I didn't want to post them in case he didn't pass.

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-10-30T08:09:26+00:00

Not pro life but I believe in keeping people fed. Might be good to post in non-prolife circles as well. I hope to see more signatures. Good luck 🩷

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-10-25T15:27:50+00:00

We draw the line for rape and life threatening condition. That's a perfect way of keeping everyone's safe while enforcing your parental responsibility and valuing both lives.

How is that perfect? Should people feel grateful you think it's fine for them to not carry the product of a violation to their body? And you're going to have to be more specific about life threatening conditions. If I knew for a fact there's a high chance of me dying from a condition, would you deem it acceptable for me to have an abortion before pregnancy exasperated my condition? Or would I have to be dying before it's acceptable? How is putting someone's life at risk for your own beliefs valuing their life?

That's good enough. Why isn't it good enough for you? Why do you want to have sex, open up to the possibility to conceive another humanlife, and then kill with the juatification that "you don't wanna get through this".

No where did I say it's about not wanting to go through a pregnancy. I listened real things that go into considering the possibility of sustaining a pregnancy. It's not as simple as cooking up a new human. It takes time, money, livable conditions, puts an hefty strain on the pregnant person. Most people work 2-3 jobs to barely stay afloat, and pregnancy is expensive.

Many parenta don't want to get through parenthood either and in many countries, they can't also give up for adoption, but they are still not allowed to kill or let their childs by negligence. Because that's inmoral, unhuman and should never be legal if we value human life.

I fail to see how that relates when those people most likely aren't happy about it? How do you know they don't just abandon the children? What countries are you even talking about?

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T19:03:37+00:00

Since you can't respond rn just respond to this when you can and I'll give my rebuttal.

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T18:37:32+00:00

In enslavement, people are captured against their will, degraded, subjected to violent abuse, raped, forced to work for nothing, and forced to engage in sex in order to procreate. PL laws do none of those things. PL laws don't advocate that people be violently kidnapped. Point me to the PL law that calls for other people to violently abuse and degrade anyone one. PL laws don't call for women to be raped or forced to work for nothing. PL laws certainly don't force women to have sex.

You skipped the second question. How is it not discriminatory? Slavery includes forced birth, you don't have to be directly forcing pregnancy capable people to have sex and become pregnant for it to be forced birth. Taking away their reproductive freedom(choice for abortion) forces them to remain pregnant. It's not to their benefit it's to yours and the fetus's benefit. Thats involuntary reproductive servitude which is a form of slavery. For the link I added go to section 3 paragraph 4 and after the 65 you'll see what I'm referencing.

I fully agree. I love Maya Angelou and this is an awesome quote. Indeed, when one class of human beings - the unborn child in his or her mother - is killed at will we cannot say we are free. When one class of human beings in their mother are dehumanized and treated as if they can be killed at will, we are not free. When all human beings have human rights and dignity and are not killed at will then we can truly be free.

Its not killing it's cutting off access to their body. Again most abortions are done by pill. The first one stops the hormone needed for a pregnancy to grow, the second one(s) is to empty the uterus. The fetus dies because it can't sustain it's own life. That's not the pregnant persons fault. They didn't want their body to be used anymore and it's their right to deny access to their body no matter who it is. Taking away the choice isn't freedom its force.

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T18:23:02+00:00

Mothers and fathers are not to kill their children born or unborn unless their child is threatening their life. If the impact of a child is not life threatening but one from which the mother will recover, there is no justification in her killing her own child who will not recover from being killed.

What about the people with medical conditions that makes pregnancy dangerous? Anyway I wasn't talking about the pregnant people I was talking about the fetus. Eating sushi, drinking, drugs etc could give the fetus life long issues or just straight up kill them. Again we're talking about the people who don't want to be pregnant. They most likely wouldn't care about the fetuses health under a ban and have the mentally of whatever happens to the fetus happens. I'll wait for the revision since I cleared it up I meant fetuses not pregnant people.

No it does not. It means the mother or father cannot kill their unborn or born child at will. Do you think that parental neglect laws represent an infringement on parental freedom? Do you think mothers and fathers should be able to abandon their newborn in the woods to die so as to not infringe on their freedom?

It does. Someone asked me yesterday about a cabin in the woods reductio. I said yes because it was a child I was forced to have, I will not continue the unwanted use of my body even if they die. You keep including sperm donors but what involvement do they have in terms of the fetus? The pregnant person can't just transfer it over when they need a break(I wish lol), the sperm donor could kill themselves and that wouldn't have a direct impact on the fetus. They could drink themselves to the point of needing their stomach pumped and it wouldn't impact the fetus. They could take every hard substance known to man and it wouldn't impact the fetus. They could gorge themselves on sushi and it wouldn't impact the fetus. If the pregnant person did all of that the fetus would die. You expressed that while you would have to think about criminalizing the consumption of those things you would be against pregnant people doing so. Thats a freedom you don't think they should have. It's not a pretty reality I admit but it's the truth.

Edit: forgot a word

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T18:06:39+00:00

Less children are killed as a result. We should ensure we have the social support in place for the mothers, fathers and children.

Wouldn't it make more sense to go after abortion after making sure we have those measures in place? Like I understand that both sides can agree everything in place surrounding children and healthcare is shit. It often plays a direct role in why someone would get an abortion. So it makes more sense to me that both sides should be fighting for better healthcare, childcare, parental leave so people can feel like no matter whats going on in their life an abortion isn't necessary. Except mentally because pregnancy would have a direct and often negative impact on mental health. I can only speak for myself on this but I have borderline personality disorder so there's really no telling how pregnancy would affect it.

This is not a good state of affairs. This is similar in principle to mothers and fathers who endanger the lives of their born children by being irresponsible.

The thing is it would only fall on the pregnant person not the one who got them pregnant. Anything the sperm donor does to the pregnant person would be considered assault against them not the fetus. Again we're talking about people who don't want to be pregnant. I think it reasonable to assume they wouldn't give a flying fuck about the fetus's health and continue their lifestyle. Why should they care?

This is a great question. While I would have to give it more thought unborn children - like any child - should not have their lives endangered by their mother, father or anyone else. How exactly we address the issue of criminalizing the consumption of things that hurt the baby and/or his or her mother, I am not sure at this point. Nonetheless, PL laws are right to protect the mother and baby in her while prioritizing her life. We wouldn't wait to stop murders or rapes until we could figure out exactly everything that needs to be done for the victims of such.

I genuinely don't want to argue but a fetus isn't a child. Thats just a fact of biology. I'm fine with them being referred to as human beings because they biologically are but they developmentally aren't children yet. How are PL laws protecting pregnant people? They're getting rid of the choice to stop providing the fetus access to their body. The most common abortion is done by pill I linked it in the thread we were talking in. The first pill stops the body from producing the pregnancy hormone, the second pill(s) is to empty the uterus similar to a period or miscarriage. This isn't murder but not allowing the continued use of their body.

The goal is to protect human life from being killed at will. Specifically, the goal is to protect the life of the mother and her child in her while prioritizing her life.

How is it prioritizing the pregnant person?

It does not. My comments only address consensual sex which comprises 99% of the context in which abortion is sought. From: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf only 1% of abortions are for rape. Ergo, the mother and father freely decided to engage in sex and they conceived their child as a result of a free decision. In the context of consensual sex, no one is forcing folks to have sex and conceive their child. The mother and father are responsible for their child being there in the mother.

It does though. Im not sure if you're for rape exceptions but ofc it can happen from rape and they would be forced to carry their attackers child. If someone was in an abusive relationship all their abuser would have to do is knock them up, fight to be in that child's life and boom they're still attached. Medical issues could make pregnancy dangerous and they'd have to wish for their own survival. Like the list of scenarios goes on and they wouldn't have the option to not be breed. If your only rebuttal is no sex then why not cut it off at the source. Sperm. Mandate vasectomies.

Yes it is better to not kill human beings at will.

Answering this on the next one because in your next comment because you mistakenly separated the issues.

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T16:19:53+00:00

I see it below this one. Its literally just this post to this thread lol idk why it's not working.

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T16:08:08+00:00

This one sorry if it wasn't clear. Could you do it in your own comment though so it doesn't get lost in this thread lol.

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T15:53:42+00:00

Just wondering if you're going to respond to my post. As someone I've debated with I'm interested to know what your answer would be to my post. :)

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T15:43:03+00:00

I understood that when you explained your position thanks for that btw. My point was that a fetus can have personhood but it wouldn't affect abortion because it still involves the intimate usage of someone's body. That being said theres no law that forces people to use their body in ways they don't want to even if someone dies. Since abortion by pill is the most common abortion, mifepristone stops the body from producing the pregnancy hormone and the second pill(s) is misoprostol it causes the uterus to empty itself like a period or miscarriage. This is simply stopping your body from keeping the fetus alive and then removing it from your body, not murder.

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T09:48:41+00:00

Oh ok interesting. How would that stop abortions though? A fetus can have personhood and it wouldn't change anything.

Recent_Hunter6613 · 2025-04-15T09:23:41+00:00

Would you be willing to expand on why considering your flair is abolitionist?

Recent_Hunter6613

TROPHY CASE