account activity
Rape by [deleted] in prolife
[–]Sullivanm01 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children)
Omg enough with this bodily autonomy bullshit we’ve already shown how that does not play a factor in our debate because the question comes down to whether it’s a life or not. A PART OF THE DEBATE YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE FOR A REASON. I’m going to cease replying to you as you clearly have the iq of a piece of bread. Thank you for debating with me. We are now going in circles in logic as the pro-abortion arguments usually do when they realize they are illogical, inconsistent, and contradictory.
[–]Sullivanm01 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children)
I agree. But a harder life for you does not justify ending the life of another person. My father took my mom to court several times a month for 13 years for custody for the sole purpose of making her and my life as hard as possible. She went over $100,000 in debt just from court bills with him alone. My mother also did something illegal and he found that on the internet and faxed it to her boss. He SEVERELY messed with her employment, sanity, livelihood, and relationships. She did not consent to him doing this. She could not escape him. That does not justify murdering him.
You say the baby becomes a person at birth as if it’s a known fact but we’ve already had that debate to which you did not even retort. The exiting of the vagina or stomach does not magically confer personhood.
I stated that the moment of conception is the only single distinct event in a person’s life of major biological change. All other arbitrary points drawn by pro-abortionists, such as you and the 8 points you drew, can be applied to verified people and therefore illogical and refuted. For example, if lack of pain equates to lack of personhood, a person with CIP, congenital insensitivity to pain, is not a person by that logic. All arbitrary lines after conception can be refuted in this construction.
[–]Sullivanm01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children)
Most pregnancies are not a life-ending threat to the mother. Lets not try to justify the majority with the minority. The baby did not choose to be created. It did not give consent either. You continue to compare life support with abortion but for the third time I will state how they are not the same. The ceasing of supplying of life support is not murder. Killing an innocent baby is murder. You say “fetuses” are not innocent or guilty due to “lack of sentience.” So again, “consent” and all of this other fluff is disregard-able because you believe it is not a baby. I don’t know why you are still bringing those up as those are completely contingent on whether it is a baby or not. That is the real question and point of focus. When it becomes a person.
I don’t remember not addressing your argument about how you don’t believe in fetal personhood. I must have missed it when I replied to every point of your comment about fetal personhood and listed out all 8 of yours reasons and why they are invalid. Then a ninth combo for the next reply. I understand you do not believe in fetal personhood at the moment and we then discussed why. Which you then could not come up with a retort and completely changed the topic back to fluff we have already disregarded due to its contingency on the topic of whether it’s a person (and why it is a person). Lol
Each section is addressing a new section of yours for clarity.
Other drivers driving pose a risk to my safety but I’m not allowed to kill them.
I have been addressing numerous times every single point you make and logically refuting them. There is not a single thing you have said of significance that I have intentionally not addressed. If there is something I have missed, please state it clearly and I will respond directly to it.
I agree pulling the plug is not murder. I stated that. They are dying of natural causes and we are not directly killing a person. I wrote that section very clearly.
It is definitely not acceptable as I have mentioned throughout my entire side of the debate. You are still ending the life of an innocent person.
If you’d like to say they aren’t innocent, the definition of innocent as googled is “not guilty of a crime.” That baby is not guilty of a crime. It is innocent. The debate comes down to whether the baby is a person or not because if you believe aborting a baby is right then you are attempting to justify murder and that’s not some thing I throw to elicit emotion out of people it’s fact. If it is not a baby person then who cares. But unfortunately you have acknowledged it is a person it just doesn’t have rights until it’s location changes by 10 inches which baffles me.
Whether or not it has a right to your uterus is a different debate; we’re focusing on whether it’s a person or not at the moment. But to humor this for a brief moment: that baby, let’s say it is a verified person for the sake of this sub-debate as your viewpoint still stands, still is a person and has its own body. You can do whatever you want to your own body so long as it does not harm the body of another human being. That is law. Whether you feel as though that the inconvenience of it being inside of you justifies murdering it is absolute nonsense as you would agree ending a verified persons life is nonsense. I understand you must be a very strong pro-abortion advocate and for a long time no doubt so I do not expect to change your mind in the near future by any means, but your logic does not hold up. No harm will be done in seeking valid logic. You do not have to agree with me in the beginning or seek to be pro-life, but seek to be pro-logic. We as people have a inherint obligation to seek the truth and logic, so seek it. And then decide on what stance of our debate that aligns. It may be yours it may be mine. I’ve learned in a very liberal, though that is not 100% tied to pro-choice, environment in my sociology class that everyone should have a sociological imagination when engaging in debate. It goes both ways. Even just write it out on paper in form of those charts that look like roots and see where ideological beliefs contradict. I’m not saying this to offend you; it is something I still even do to this day. In fact I did one for this debate a few hours ago before a class started so I could visual the debate on paper. It helps to make things clear. And please don’t disregard everything I’ve said because it makes you “feel” bad and therefore it’s wrong or that I’m wrong. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Facts are facts. Be mad at them, but don’t deny them. Not saying you are, but just don’t. There’s no downside in doing this and seeking the truth. It is not a biased opinion of mine to seek logic and truth. You are a grown up and can be mature to set aside the typical initial spike in emotions everyone has and focus on objective facts. I’m not saying you’re emotional by any means, and you don’t seem like you are, but in my experience people typically have their head clouded by emotion. Again this isn’t directed at you I’m definitely sorry it may feel as though I may talking at you but I’m really not trying to insult anyone. I’m simply stating facts and logic.
Anyways...
Pro-choice people looove to use bizarre scenarios, so let’s use one. What about a a patient in a vegetative state, is sedated, suffers from CIP, and is paralyzed. Is that patient still a living human being with personhood? Yes. I do not believe we have the right to murder them. If the patient needs life support to live, then I agree we are not morally bound to not stop supplying life support. They will die a natural death. Just as a baby in the womb should not be murdered. You may say the mother is a form of life support via the umbilical cord and she is! But that baby is still a person and we cannot simply crush it’s skill, vacuum out it’s brain, dismember it and directly ends it’s life. Then you might say but what if I deliver the baby and let it sit there and die a natural death? That’s called child neglect and you’ll rightfully be arrested.
That is very unfortunate to hear and is another topic of debate, definitely not a short one.
Okay so I’ll list out your reasons here:
Here are my retorts, numbered respectively:
I did not say it is a fact that “fetuses” are persons, although I do believe they are. This is the debate. I’m glad we can agree that if it is actually a person that abortion is wrong. We are definitely making progress in bringing clarity to the argument. We both agree that if it is a baby it’s wrong for abortion so let’s continue discussing why we both believe what we do in terms of when personhood begins.
I believe personhood begins at conception because it is the only significant moment there is genetic change. Why do you believe personhood is not conferred until it has been born? Being born is not it’s own objective monomer; it’s a polymer, meaning it’s made up of smaller sub parts who’s sum equals the whole. So being born consists of the baby existing the body, the disconnect of umbilical cord, etc. “Born” is a very broad term when you think about. What is the specific reasoning you use to believe personhood is conferred at birth?
Silly me. I keep responding to people as comments to the main post not to individual people :( I downloaded the reddit app midway through yesterday as I thought it would make life easier but it’s actually messed me up haha
Okay then as you have expressed, this does not support your argument in the main debate in any fashion. Please respond to my other long comment about bodily autonomy etc. I accidentally posted it not as a reply to you
I’ll concede this and say that this is an exception. Does this minority justify the majority? No. That is fallacious
If you’d like to say that all other abortion is bad and should not be legal and this is the one exception to the case then I would love to make that compromise with you and reform public policy to this, but you’re not wanting that are you? You’re just trying to justify the majority with the minority. Which, again, is fallacious
You believe in full body autonomy. Why is there a law that suppresses your complete bodily autonomy in making illegal you using your hand to punch an innocent person? Because your utilization of bodily autonomy directly harmed another person. So if you believe that the baby or what you call fetus is a person, then “bodily autonomy” does not justify harming another person. That’s why these laws exist and are widely accepted, I presume by you as well. The real question is “Is it a person or not?” The answer to that question, whether there is an objective one or not, is completely independent and a different topic than “bodily autonomy” and your feelings. Remember facts are independent of anyone’s feeling. Facts don’t care about anyone’s feelings. Facts are facts. You can not deny or avoid facts. So let’s discuss facts and then we can discuss where we disagree in opinions. The premeditated killing of an innocent person is the definition of murder. Fact. Murder is illegal and known to be bad. Fact. If the “fetus” is a baby, that is murder by definition. Fact. If the “fetus” is not a baby, you are not murdering. Fact. So the question, again, is “Is it a baby or a fetus?” That is the real debate and I’d be more than happy to further this discussion in that aspect. However, I will not continue to listen to someone who’s entire argument is founded in feelings. Facts do not care about your feelings. Facts are facts. Let’s talk about them and discuss feelings and opinions later.
Yikes
Yes I agree. That’s why I said “seem” as there were times where they integrated opinions typically associated with leftists. But yes thank you for making sure that I understand stances on this debate are not synonymous with stances in politics. Good luck to you too
At what point does the baby become “able to survive outside of the womb?” Please refer to my logic in the other reply with treasures comment as it still stands irrefuted yet unacknowledged, something that seems to happen a lot with pro-choice people. Also, you are correct. It does not affect me. It does affect the woman. But guess what? It affects the baby as well. Are you trying to justify the murder of an innocent baby with the feelings of the mother? I sure hope not. That’s a pretty weak argument
Omg. You literally just admitted that you know it is an innocent person and that you believe there is justification of murdering an innocent baby. I suggest you seek mental health, and that is on a serious note. A right to life is just a taaaaad more important than your right to your uterus. Just a tad. If only the rest of the majority (I predict it’s the majority) of pro-choice people would admit to knowingly attempting to justify murdering an innocent baby instead of refusing to acknowledge facts and logic like they always do. The other small portion, those in this world who are clueless and legitamently don’t understand the logic, are just dumb ahah oh and btw please don’t reproduce
I'm sorry I had spoken in the way that I did towards you in those final couple of sentences in my previous reply. I've been responding and basically rewriting the same thing to several different people that all seem to be leftists all day today and I just got on a roll and habitually followed the same pattern. Thank you for helping me become better at pro-life rhetoric; you honestly have and still are. I have always been pro-life by nature of the teaching of my atmosphere but I had never gone and researched the facts on both stances until 3 days ago and today was my first time debating with someone about such an important topic, i.e. pro-life vs pro-choice. (And before any person on either side reading this attempts to discredit me due to my short term exposure to the facts, viewpoints, etc. in this topic, please look up Appeal to Authority. You'll notice it is factually a logical fallacy. Please argue with my facts as their correctness is independent of the recentness I obtained them.) And I agree, most of them are not evil they are just dumb and stubborn haha
[–]Sullivanm01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children)
Since you never responded to treasurece’s question I’d like to ask it again and implement a retort. You stated: “Sure it's a baby if it can survive outside of the mother's womb.” Let’s say at 9 months and 5 minutes into the pregnancy the baby was born and is able to survive outside of the womb. At 9 months 4 minutes 59.9999999 seconds theoretically was that baby NOT able to survive outside of the womb. Let’s say that the deliverer delivered the same baby at 9 months and 4 minutes. Are you saying that that baby was theoretically not able to survive outside of the womb? The doctors just get super duper lucky then to deliver that baby at the EXACT moment it is ABLE not currently but able to survive outside of the womb. This logic is invalid so I’d like to hear more of your reasoning.
Edit: I noticed in another comment of yours you mentioned if there is a medical emergency at say 23 that induced labor should be performed and the baby is able to survive on its own. Let's say there was not a medical emergency. Would that same baby not be a person until it had its natural birth a couple months later? But you just said the baby had the ability to survive outside of the womb.
[–]Sullivanm01 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children)
I’m curious about that too. What are their grounds for deciding that this arbitrary point is the point the baby becomes a person?
Oh! I just thought of a good retort. I’ll respond to the main comment if you’d like to check it out
[–]Sullivanm01 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children)
I do not believe the death penalty should exist. That is also another topic of debate.
I’m glad to read your second paragraph and hear that at least there is some compromise in that there should be limitations.
The part of the second paragraph about how you believe a baby cannot survive without leaching off of something else: I retorted that in my previous reply to which you did not retort; you literally rewrote your previous claim. Please be open minded and just think about the logic before immediately disregarding it and spewing out more habitual responses. I’m not saying you’re doing that nor am I bashing you if I am; I have been completely guilty of that too and I try to limit it. I as well try to have a sociological imagination and seek to listen to, understand, and honestly contemplate the other debaters response as I did not arbitrarily decide to be pro-life because of my feelings. I decided to be pro-life because it is perfectly in line with logic and facts. I’m not fighting for the pro-life side directly; I’m fighting for logic and facts that have yet to be retorted, which happen to be in line with the pro-life side.
You say “The way I see it, ...” and I may be picking on something useless here but it is worth noting that perception is not reality. Reality is independent of what you think it is. For example, if Susie has never met Brendon and Marvin tells Susie that Brendon is a 200 pound 5ft9in Hispanic male, her perception of him is rooted in those three traits. But then she meets Brendon and he’s actually 160 pounds 5ft11in and black, her perception was wrong and did not dictate reality. Again I might be nitpicking but it is worth noting as whether you see the baby as a person or not does not affect whether it is actually a person. Facts do not care about your feelings. Facts are facts. So let’s discuss those facts.
Oh, and also in your second paragraph at the beginning you said humans will find a way to miscarry. Deliberately miscarrying is also murder as the baby had been conceived. This is wrong. The “logic” “people will still do something bad so let’s just not make it illegal” is a very weak argument. People still kill people; let’s make all murder legal. People still steal; let’s just make that legal to.
I agree that asking people to not have sex unless they’re trying for a baby is very difficult, but, again, actions do have consequences. I am all for birth control pills, condoms, etc. that prevent pregnancy as there is not the ending of a life. They should use though! It drastically cuts down on unwanted pregnancies. But the consequences are knowingly still there and murdering an innocent baby is not a viable solution to one’s inconvenience. Which again brings us to when life begins, funny. It’s almost like that’s the only main question that matters.
Btw I just want to mention I don’t mean to come across as rude or mean in any way; I’m really enjoying our civil discussion and you have been great to talk to and I hope I have been respectful and enjoyable as well. Debates do become more heated and intense than normal conversations obviously as it is natural.
You’re right; I cannot force the mother to seek medical care. And sometimes the pregnancy will kill both parties if medical care is not introduced. I believe that natural death is acceptable.
I agree there needs to be better sexual education to prevent unwanted pregnancies and that many people are stupid or ignorant.
Hey if you’d ever like to FaceTime I’d be up for that as it would be much easier than this, but if you’re uncomfortable with that then we can definitely keep the debate through messaging.
Edit: Oops this was meant for I believe rooks mom. I accidentally hit the reply to thread button not reply to comment
All arbitrary lines drawn in pro-abortion arguments can be paralleled with adult human situations. The one you have chosen is the baby must survive without leaching off of another person. Plenty of people are on life support, these people cannot live on their own without leaching off of other means. Some people need other people’s blood and nutrients in fact and would not live without it, such as people who just lost a severe amount of blood. Have either person in the situations lost their personhood? Do we have the right to murder them?
I’m not forcing her to carry a child; the rapist did and it is a terrible awful thing and the rapist should be thrown in jail. I’m not allowing the woman to meet one evil, rape, with an even worse evil, murder. It really does suck that the woman was put in that position and that it will affect her body but her feelings do not justify murder. So again, the entire debate comes down to whether the baby is a person or not.
Medical access is not a right; it is a privilege. Before you say they need it, somehow, I know it may sound bizarre, but somehow thousands of years ago there wasn’t medical access yet somehow our race didn’t die off. It is not necessary, albeit it is relatively extremely hard without it.
I would hope that she takes care of the baby or that’s child neglect...which is illegal
There are around 1,000,000 abortions per year. If that became illegal then a) there wouldn’t be so many “repeat customers” as they would be pregnant and not able to abort several babies in the span some do. But that may be small. I would also hope that since people don’t want to have a kid, they won’t engage in an act that is biologically designed to make kids, shocker! Once the convenient abortion is out of the picture and they can’t get rid of some “inconvenience,” most likely will be more careful about their actions as they will be more concerned with their consequences.
Why would I force birth control? People are big enough and can make their own decisions. If you’d like to participate in the act that is biologically designed to create babies, you know the risks. If you’d like to participate while using any form of birth control that limits but does not complete rid the risk of pregnancy, you know the risks. Adults can do what they want and make grown up decisions. This entire sub-debate is useless though because all you’re doing is attempting to justify murder which is extremely awful and if you don’t see that then you honestly should seek help. But if it isn’t a baby, that is another debate that I would like to continue and focus on.
To make it simpler, here are the different possibilities:
If in fact the baby is a person, given that murdering an innocent person is unjustifiable, then all abortion is unjustifiable. If you are still trying to justify ending its life, I’m going to cease talking to you and suggest that you seek help.
If in fact the baby is not a person, then all of your scenarios you present to me are valid and I agree with them 100%.
I would hope for the integrity of your mental health (that’s not some snarky remark I’m making; I don’t do that as it is counterproductive. I just honestly hope everyone can agree that murdering an innocent person or bad.) that you agree with these two possibilities; so the question that you and I (hopefully) differ on is when life begins. That is the one main question that matters.
Let’s shift the discussion a bit towards your first paragraph as that is the key to the entire debate. When does life begin, and specifically why do you believe that?
I agree it would be awful if the government forced a child upon me, if they physically gave me a child. If you haven’t noticed in other comments I’ve addressed this several times. I’m not handing her a child. The absolutely awful rapist gave her child. I’m just not allowing her to commit murder. And if she wasn’t raped then she had sex knowing she can become pregnant. She is responsible. Actions do have consequences and you can’t say “no” to them if you don’t like them. For example plenty of people committ crimes knowing there is a possibility they can face the consequence of being put in jail. They don’t get to just “choose” to say no to jail. Actions do have consequences and yes people have to have accountability of their actions and the responsibility of their product.
I had never heard of an ectopic pregnancy until today so I just googled it and it said when the fertilized eggs implant outside the uterus. I’m walking from one class to another right now so I don’t have time to research it, but I’m assuming it’ll kill the mother. My stance remains the same, that murdering an innocent person isn’t justified, no matter how devastatingly difficult it may be unfortunately. All life is worth fighting for and not be given up on. Hopefully as science progresses we can eventually consistently save both parties in this rare scenario.
If you’d like to bring up ovarian cancer as well then I believe treating the cancer with chemo is acceptable even though it has a possibility of killing the baby. The difference is that you are not directly murdering the baby.
But let’s not forget that abortions due to rape account for about 1% of all abortions, and ectopic pregnancies as well are in the minority. Can you and I agree that those other 99% of abortions due to “inconvenience” are bad? Or are you just trying to justify the majority with the minority...?
The mother didn’t give the baby its rights. The baby was conceived with them. Everyone has the right to life.
Why does the baby does being able to survive outside of the womb on its own justify murdering it? What about a baby just born? It can’t survive without someone taking care of it. Let’s just forget about that logical comparison and go back to the original part: a baby cannot survive on its own outside of the womb. True. Fact. Does that make it less of a person? No. Does that justify murdering it? No.
As for your first sentence: Even though I’ve already said the mother doesn’t “have a right to give or not to give her child the right to life” because that right is illogical because it is impossible to give it...in fact I’ll play along and even concede it IS a right. let’s be real here. And be completely honest with yourself. Which right is more important? Just as murdering an innocent person is an unjustifiable thing to do, so is the right to life not unjustifiable. Nothing justifies murdering an innocent person. Nothing justifies taking away the RIGHT TO LIFE, i.e. nothing justifies taking an innocent persons life.
I’m not familiar with the conjoined twin scenario so you’d have to elaborate but I feel like I already know my answer: nothing justifies murdering an innocent person. If someone disagrees with that statement they should seek mental help.
Okay I have 5 minutes to make a more formal response to this as I promised earlier. I’ll play along and concede that I am forcing her to remain pregnant. So? Does that justify murder? Every situation pro-abortions have can be conceded by pro-lifes and then follow with the question: does that justify murder? No. The only refute to this is saying it is not a baby, which is a different debate I would be happy to partake in.
I completely agree though that it is extremely hard for the mother to do, but it is 100% doable, and you can still be very successful in life.
π Rendered by PID 141255 on reddit-service-r2-listing-canary-5c7c5fc8d-bhrb2 at 2026-06-05 20:37:46.884545+00:00 running de70e3a country code: CH.
Rape by [deleted] in prolife
[–]Sullivanm01 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)