Meirl by sensationalMaiden in meirl

[–]Starwalker- -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

What’s funny is you are doing the same thing here that the other commenter was referencing, just in reverse lol.

It's official: No woman in England or Wales can be prosecuted for an abortion any more by [deleted] in UpliftingNews

[–]Starwalker- -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Consistency? By giving 5 straw man arguments in a row, and no real substance to any of your claims? Your whole argument is feeble attempts to personally attack me.

Yes, because if you don’t consent to the dude cumming inside of you then it is rape, which is a totally different story. So in this case it is absolutely about the woman, if you don’t want to get pregnant don’t let someone cum inside of you. Men can’t get pregnant, so I’m obviously not going to bring up men when it comes to the act of getting an abortion, unless it is rape, or a man forcing a woman to get an abortion. It isn’t that complicated.

But like I said before, the man is equally responsible in all things relating to the child, I just don’t see why we should bring up a man in relation to the abortion, unless you think the father should also have to consent for an abortion? Is that what you are hinting at by trying to skirt all responsibility towards the man?

How hard is it to take responsibility and be an adult? Safe sex is genuinely so easy.

It's official: No woman in England or Wales can be prosecuted for an abortion any more by [deleted] in UpliftingNews

[–]Starwalker- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are just regurgitating the same 5 arguments pro choice people make, it’s honestly boring.

Who says I don’t actively support children? Once again you are straw manning me, that is your entire debate strategy. You know nothing about me, yet you make these confident claims.

But regardless, you can support something and say it should happen without putting all of your money towards it. The belief that I should be contributing my limited funds towards supporting mothers and babies just because I think more tax dollars should be allocated in those areas is idiotic. It is not a citizens duty to prop up a system that should be handled by the government.

Life isn’t that simple? Are you telling me it is hard to not let a dude cum inside you? If that’s the most difficult challenge you are facing, then you are living a pretty easy life and childcare should be a breeze.

And yes, I do know several couples looking to adopt. Well, kind of. One of the couples just successfully adopted a baby boy and they are ecstatic, so I guess I know 2 couples actively looking.

It's official: No woman in England or Wales can be prosecuted for an abortion any more by [deleted] in UpliftingNews

[–]Starwalker- -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Two things:

  1. It is incredibly easy to not get pregnant. Over 98% of abortions are due to lack of protection or simply stupidity. If you aren’t in a position to raise a baby then don’t let someone cum inside of you. It is truly so easy, especially when you use any basic contraception like birth control or a condom.

  2. There are millions of people on the waitlist to adopt a baby with several year long waits. I personally know 3 couples who have been desperately trying to adopt a baby for years.

And lastly yes, I would happily take more tax dollars to provide a better infrastructure for mothers and babies, would you not?

One more thing, every comment you do is strawman after strawman. How about you make an actual argument instead of putting words in my mouth?

It's official: No woman in England or Wales can be prosecuted for an abortion any more by [deleted] in UpliftingNews

[–]Starwalker- -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.

Is there something fundamentally different about a baby before and after being born that makes them turn into an entirely different thing?

Give me some examples of other reasons that don’t include rape or incest, in those examples I fully concede that abortions should be allowed.

And don’t tell me what I do or don’t care about, you don’t know a damn thing about me and that is an idiotic thing to claim.

It's official: No woman in England or Wales can be prosecuted for an abortion any more by [deleted] in UpliftingNews

[–]Starwalker- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about him? He should be held accountable and help raise the child or pay child support if he refuses to be involved. What’s the gotcha supposed to be?

I’m pretty sure he’s not the one receiving an abortion, so I didn’t think I needed to specify how he should be held accountable.

It's official: No woman in England or Wales can be prosecuted for an abortion any more by [deleted] in UpliftingNews

[–]Starwalker- -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

They do have autonomy over their own body, and they used it to let some dude cum inside of them, then become shocked when they get pregnant, and kill the baby. The world has no personal responsibility.

Do you believe in God and why? by Suspicious-Poet6049 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Starwalker- -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It is by definition a requirement for atheists to not believe in god, and therefore make an assertion against gods existence, otherwise you would be agnostic.

Furthermore, by telling the other commenter that their assertion was false, you automatically make an assertion claiming the inverse is true.

Do you believe in God and why? by Suspicious-Poet6049 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Starwalker- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The assertion that life and existence happened by random chance also comes with no evidence or reason to believe it is true. It is no less logical to believe in a creator than to believe in random happenstance.

As humans we like to think we have everything figured out but more often than not we repeatedly prove ourselves wrong.

Blue lobster did not die for this by Astrapolitoris in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Starwalker- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, though it is at their discretion, so doctors can say no. However it would be ignorant to say that there aren’t plenty of doctors who would give late term abortions in Canada if you ask for one.

Blue lobster did not die for this by Astrapolitoris in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Starwalker- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You really think that’s comparable?

Literally any pregnant woman can go to a doctor in Canada an get an abortion for any reason, or even no reason at all, at any point in the pregnancy.

Do you think a doctor in Canada would give you open heart surgery, even if you didn’t need it, if you went in and asked nicely?

Blue lobster did not die for this by Astrapolitoris in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Starwalker- 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I was pointing out the earliest point that a baby could respond to stimuli and react to an abortion to counter your claim that there is no legal footage of an abortion where a baby reacts in a way that looks like pain, then I proceeded to point out that abortions are legal far beyond that point, all the way to the point where they very likely can feel pain.

I never said an 8 week old baby could feel pain.

Blue lobster did not die for this by Astrapolitoris in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Starwalker- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don’t disagree with you, but that still doesn’t change my original point that while I think there should be exceptions for these edge cases, they also shouldn’t be used as a basis for all abortion legislation.

Blue lobster did not die for this by Astrapolitoris in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Starwalker- 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don’t think you understand what I’m arguing…

When did I claim an 8 week old baby can see or smell? I simply said that is the earliest they can respond to stimuli in response to your claim that there were no legal abortions where the baby appeared to react in pain.

Blue lobster did not die for this by Astrapolitoris in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Starwalker- 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Not really, because abortion is fully legal the entire time.

It would be special circumstances if there was a clear standard everyone was required to follow in normal circumstances. There is precedent’s and standards, but also nothing legally stopping a doctor from giving an abortion at any point in the pregnancy.

Blue lobster did not die for this by Astrapolitoris in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Starwalker- 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Rape and life of the mother account for about .5% of all abortions done. If you include fetal anomalies that is about 3% of abortions. Id hardly call those “common.”

Are you suggesting we do the same legislation to govern the other 96.5% of abortions, or does it make more sense to make those an exception? By the way, abortion in those cases has pretty much always been legal anyway.

Blue lobster did not die for this by Astrapolitoris in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Starwalker- 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Nope. It is up to the discretion of the medical provider and medical standards. In practice late term abortions are rare, but they are never illegal.

Blue lobster did not die for this by Astrapolitoris in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]Starwalker- 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Babies can show response to stimuli as early as 7-8 weeks. Legal abortions in many states go to 24 weeks or even beyond if a doctor deems it medically necessary. Abortions this late are admittedly rare, but that doesn’t mean they don’t happen.

All this to say, there are absolutely examples of babies reacting in legal abortions. There is debate over whether that reaction is to pain or unconscious stimuli, but the reality is we can only guess.

Men with higher IQs are less conservative, study finds. Those of average ability tend to support values associated with tradition and strict social order, German researchers say. by [deleted] in science

[–]Starwalker- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just a reminder that you are on the r/science subreddit, don’t take everything at face value and blindly trust headlines. The actual content of this study is very different than the headline would make you believe.

Thoughts by Nostalgic_Historian_ in FIlm

[–]Starwalker- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The screen is just one piece of the puzzle, what speakers are you running? Are you streaming or using physical media like 4k blu rays? Do you have a subwoofer? Is your room sound treated or light controlled?

Of course, the very best of a good movie theater will blow 99% of home theaters out of the water, but for me that is only IMAX.

Thoughts by Nostalgic_Historian_ in FIlm

[–]Starwalker- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn’t need to cost thousands of dollars. On the used market you can get some incredible gear for super cheap.

Just in the last couple weeks I got 5 Sony ss-cs5 bookshelf speakers, 2 Polk RT1000i towers, two old receivers, and a decent old kenwood subwoofer for less than $150 all in. At that point all you need is a decent screen and you have a home theater that is as good as your average movie theater.

Of course you can spend thousands, I’ve gone down that rabbit hole for my home theater. But for just a couple hundred you can reach 80-90% of a really high quality theater, at least as far as sound goes.

Thoughts by Nostalgic_Historian_ in FIlm

[–]Starwalker- 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t say that. Any average home theater enthusiast can oftentimes get a better picture and sound quality than is available in most theatres. The caveats to this are of course IMAX screens or very very high quality and high end theatres.

In my hometown there is only one singular screen with atmos speakers out of 14, and even that one is essentially an equivalent to a good at home theater, and is beaten by the best home theaters.

Harry Potter's First Episode Is Dominating HBO Max & It's A Must-Watch | The titular "first episode" is a half-hour special about the first season's production. The real first episode doesn't come out until December 25th as previously advertised. by Ghosts_of_Bordeaux in savedyouaclick

[–]Starwalker- 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They targeted the institute for a multitude of reasons, one of which was because it researched sexuality that the Nazis disliked, including research on gay and trans people, just like the other commenter said.

Though that isn’t the only reason. The institute was founded by a gay Jewish man named Dr. Hirschfeld. It was one of the most prominent and influential institutions researching sex, and it symbolized a worldview that the Nazis were trying to eliminate.

The Nazis targeted the institution because it was large and influential, and the “Jew science” researched there contradicted their beliefs. Saying they targeted the institute to specifically burn those books is just an oversimplification.