Post: #126

(07-30-2015 09:00 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Again, I think that's a great question. If a fetus isn't a human, then what is it?

Non-human I guess. I know we like to take opposing viewpoints to the SJW narrative on this forum, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I don't get all worked up and teary eyed when I see these pro-lifers with their eviscerated fetus posters. There's nothing magical about making babies and it doesn't take much effort, so this "every life is precious" schtick is nonsense.

Actually, George Carlin answers your question directly in this video, starting at 3:12 (albeit facetiously as you might imagine)

Post: #127

TigerMandingo, you're still not providing any justification other than "its nice that we're legally able to kill them". Are things moral just because you say so?

Post: #128

(07-30-2015 09:46 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 09:00 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Again, I think that's a great question. If a fetus isn't a human, then what is it?

Non-human I guess. I know we like to take opposing viewpoints to the SJW narrative on this forum, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I don't get all worked up and teary eyed when I see these pro-lifers with their eviscerated fetus posters. There's nothing magical about making babies and it doesn't take much effort, so this "every life is precious" schtick is nonsense.

Actually, George Carlin answers your question directly in this video, starting at 3:12 (albeit facetiously as you might imagine)

I'm not trying to argue, just curious about opposing viewpoints. When I was ok with abortion I could argue the point until I was blue in the face as well.

I guess my follow up question is, if a fetus is a non-human, what kind of non human is it? Is it a scraping of cells like a toenail clipping? Or a non-animal network of cells like celery or an animal like a goldfish or a higher animal like a dog?

I guess you can see where I'm leading, people are having a meltdown over this Cecil the lion bullshit yet opine that a fetus is nothing more than the equivalent of a chicken wing.

So, if a fetus is non-human is it more advanced than anything else? or just a chicken wing aka non-animal?

Additionally. If a fetus is only human when it is outside the womb is that the only thing stopping abortions from being performed "outside the uterus"? Alternatively, if crushing a premature baby with a pair of forceps in its crib is killing a human infant, is it not killing a human if we were able to put that baby back up in its mothers uterus and crush it there?

I liked Killer Joe's distinction of killing vs. murder as well, murder is a very specific crime and I think muddles the argument. Killing or causing death is different.

Last, I wouldn't say that Tiger Mandingo is who these questions are directed at, they are more of a Socratic argument and open to any answer.

Post: #129

These fucking cowards are now running to the big daddy and trying to gag the video producers from releasing any more incriminating materials:

Quote:Late Wednesday, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) banning the Center for Medical Progress from releasing video of a meeting with three StemExpress employees at a restaurant last May, potentially violating fundamental First Amendment precedents that bar prior restraints on speech.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/30/a-cali...hffacebook

Post: #130

(07-31-2015 07:02 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  So, if a fetus is non-human is it more advanced than anything else? or just a chicken wing aka non-animal?

Additionally. If a fetus is only human when it is outside the womb is that the only thing stopping abortions from being performed "outside the uterus"? Alternatively, if crushing a premature baby with a pair of forceps in its crib is killing a human infant, is it not killing a human if we were able to put that baby back up in its mothers uterus and crush it there?

I liked Killer Joe's distinction of killing vs. murder as well, murder is a very specific crime and I think muddles the argument. Killing or causing death is different.

Last, I wouldn't say that Tiger Mandingo is who these questions are directed at, they are more of a Socratic argument and open to any answer.

All good questions, Doctor. I definitely don't get as philosophical as you do about this.

I think Carlin summed it up best when he said that "Life is a continuous process that has been going on for billions of years". There's no need to get worked up over dead lions, and there's also no need to get worked up over unborn fetuses.

Women are gonna have abortions regardless of what the law says. And we're on a players' forum here so let's not start with the moral posturing (not directed at you, DH).

Let me pose another question. On the lion thread, people are saying "Who gives a fuck about some dead animal?" Ok, cool. I agree. But then why should I give a fuck about some unborn fetus? For all we know, the mother did us a huge favor by aborting it (abortions have lowered crime rates). I like consistency.

Post: #131

Quote:But then why should I give a fuck about some unborn fetus?

1. Lions are not members of your own species.
2. Lions are predators and quite capable of defending themselves. Unborn fetuses are quite a different story.

(07-29-2015 03:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually there's nothing emotional about this, currently if a man murders a pregnant woman the man is charged with double murder. But if a woman murders her own fetus, it's an abortion.

It's a person when the woman needs it to be and it's a clump of cells when suckers need to be fooled.

Hit the nail on the head. You can't have it both ways, no matter what people try to argue. If you want to continue the current abortion policy there's no reason to charge people murdering pregnant women with double murder.

On broader ethics, what makes this such a difficult question is because there's two fundamental rights (as we would conceive them, anyway) in contradiction - the right to control your own body and the right of life. I still really don't know a good answer to it, and I'm not sure one can be found.

The current way I see things is that early term abortions are fine but once the fetus starts to resemble a human being I'm against it. This is the best answer I have right now. Once past the first trimester I don't think it should be legal. That's more than enough time for women to know.

Post: #132

(07-31-2015 06:26 PM)Libertas Wrote:  The current way I see things is that early term abortions are fine but once the fetus starts to resemble a human being I'm against it. This is the best answer I have right now. Once past the first trimester I don't think it should be legal. That's more than enough time for women to know.

It resembles a human being way earlier than that:

Post: #133

(07-29-2015 03:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  f a man murders a pregnant woman the man is charged with double murder. But if a woman murders her own fetus, it's an abortion.

It's a person when the woman needs it to be and it's a clump of cells when suckers need to be fooled.

Agree 100%.

I'm careful where I point this out though.

It goes down like a lead balloon if said in the company of a couple who've had an abortion.

You don't need to try hard to figure out who has abortion experience in a group as they will defend their position till they're blue in the face as if their words are vindicatory.

Post: #134

There's a lot of emotions surfacing in this thread man.

Post: #135

I saw articles in Canada today about the approval of this pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone apparently it already exists in the US. Named "the abortion pill" it allows a woman to self terminate a pregnancy if taken before 7 weeks gestation.

The first thing I thought of was chicks blackmailing dudes with this. Can you imagine some hormonal psycho threatening to take the abortion pill if her man doesn't allow her to stop working and supply her with tubs of chocolate ice cream? All the while screaming something like "this dead baby is on you if you don't do what I say!"...

Post: #136

(07-31-2015 08:09 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I saw articles in Canada today about the approval of this pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone apparently it already exists in the US. Named "the abortion pill" it allows a woman to self terminate a pregnancy if taken before 7 weeks gestation.

The first thing I thought of was chicks blackmailing dudes with this. Can you imagine some hormonal psycho threatening to take the abortion pill if her man doesn't allow her to stop working and supply her with tubs of chocolate ice cream? All the while screaming something like "this dead baby is on you if you don't do what I say!"...

My buddy had an ex who literally said she'd take it if he didn't marry her. He didn't, she murdered the baby and actually said, "Fine, this death is on YOU!"

That's a bitch who is fully aware that it's a child and too self-involved to care.

Post: #137

(07-31-2015 08:16 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 08:09 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I saw articles in Canada today about the approval of this pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone apparently it already exists in the US. Named "the abortion pill" it allows a woman to self terminate a pregnancy if taken before 7 weeks gestation.

The first thing I thought of was chicks blackmailing dudes with this. Can you imagine some hormonal psycho threatening to take the abortion pill if her man doesn't allow her to stop working and supply her with tubs of chocolate ice cream? All the while screaming something like "this dead baby is on you if you don't do what I say!"...

My buddy had an ex who literally said she'd take it if he didn't marry her. He didn't, she murdered the baby and actually said, "Fine, this death is on YOU!"

That's a bitch who is fully aware that it's a child and too self-involved to care.

wow, the mother of all shit tests.

Post: #138

(07-31-2015 08:16 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 08:09 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I saw articles in Canada today about the approval of this pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone apparently it already exists in the US. Named "the abortion pill" it allows a woman to self terminate a pregnancy if taken before 7 weeks gestation.

The first thing I thought of was chicks blackmailing dudes with this. Can you imagine some hormonal psycho threatening to take the abortion pill if her man doesn't allow her to stop working and supply her with tubs of chocolate ice cream? All the while screaming something like "this dead baby is on you if you don't do what I say!"...

My buddy had an ex who literally said she'd take it if he didn't marry her. He didn't, she murdered the baby and actually said, "Fine, this death is on YOU!"

That's a bitch who is fully aware that it's a child and too self-involved to care.

If some bitch tried to extort me with this tactic, I'd go to the kitchen, pour her a glass of water and give her the pill. You know what I'd do next? I'd check under her tongue to make sure she swallowed it, and then I'd make her sit next to me on the sofa for an hour two to make certain she didn't try to puke it up.

If some bitch is trying to shake you down when she's a few weeks pregnant, WTF do you think the next 2 decades will be like if she has that kid? What kind of parenting role model do you think a woman who would behave like this would actually be? And I've got news, you ain't gonna get full custody unless she fucks up big time. The odds of that happening are pretty slim despite her being crazy.

Do you all mean to tell me that you've never drained your balls in some bitch and five minutes after the fact as she's prattling on about some stupid shit, and you're thinking "dear God, why did I just dump a load in this crazy bitch and leave the door wide open to all the potential problems this brings?

Post: #139

(07-31-2015 06:26 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

Quote:But then why should I give a fuck about some unborn fetus?

1. Lions are not members of your own species.
2. Lions are predators and quite capable of defending themselves. Unborn fetuses are quite a different story.

1. Lions are an endangered species. The world is steadily getting overpopulated by humans.



2. Lions are helpless against a heavily armed human. Keep in mind lions are strong and intelligent, but not so much as to be able to craft long ranged weapons to defend themselves.

I do not care so much about lions per se, but their population is in steady decline and poaching will only cause it to reduce faster.

Post: #140

I watched those videos and almost puked.

Post: #141

this is the harsh reality of a country lead by feminazis: murdering babies and chopping them off is a great business for them

Post: #142

(07-31-2015 10:49 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  I do not care so much about lions per se, but their population is in steady decline and poaching will only cause it to reduce faster.

Interestingly if they were treated the same as these PP people treated the unborn (i.e. as 'property' of someone), they'd stop dying out. If guys are poaching them, it must be for some commercial purpose that governments are banning (most illegal behaviour is people deciding not to comply with the state, rather than malice). In which case, just let people farm them. Otherwise the lion, tiger, and elephant are all going to eventually die out.

Market solution for a market problem. If you own a lion, you don't kill it. If no-one can own it, the safest way to profit from it is to kill it and smuggle it.

Post: #143

Found this on Here

Post: #144

All animals other than humans that a by far much more stronger and faster and naturally well armed by the implements of nature. Does not have the adaptability that powerful brains and unique hands the ability to make complex tools to overcome any challenge thrown at them as well as dream up and implement advanced strategies.

Therefore if the lethality of the lion as a result of physical prowess and natural weapons is: 80

Humans may be 0 but the clincher is he is able to upgrade indefinitely.

Lions may be dangerous and be able to catch humans unarmed and kill them. But the ability to create makes men infinitely more potentially dangerous

Post: #145

Post: #146

Post: #147

(07-31-2015 12:15 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  TigerMandingo, you're still not providing any justification other than "its nice that we're legally able to kill them". Are things moral just because you say so?

Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a wonderful thing. And like I said, I'm extremely grateful for the medicinal advances that exist which basically allow me or anyone else to do it without a major hassle. I could care less about the morality of it. The pros of abortion (reduced crime rate, lower population etc. ) far outweigh the cons.

Is it "moral" to bring a baby into a world where he might be raised by deadbeat parents or become a drain on society?

Governments and corporations make these sorts of calculated decisions all the time. I ain't a saint in a sinner's world.

Post: #148

(08-02-2015 02:59 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Is it "moral" to bring a baby into a world where he might be raised by deadbeat parents or become a drain on society?

Ironically, the complete absence of consequences (either emotional, financial or physical) caused by legal, free and unstigmatized abortion results in many more babies being raised by deadbeat parents and becoming a drain on society, than the number of such babies that is actually destroyed by abortion.

This irony is caused precisely by your stubborn refusal to even consider moral factors.

Post: #149

(08-02-2015 03:20 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Ironically, the complete absence of consequences (either emotional, financial or physical) caused by legal, free and unstigmatized abortion results in many more babies being raised by deadbeat parents and becoming a drain on society, than the number of such babies that is actually destroyed by abortion.

This irony is caused precisely by your stubborn refusal to even consider moral factors.

What kind of consequences would you recommend be implemented to discourage abortions?

Post: #150

(08-02-2015 03:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 03:20 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Ironically, the complete absence of consequences (either emotional, financial or physical) caused by legal, free and unstigmatized abortion results in many more babies being raised by deadbeat parents and becoming a drain on society, than the number of such babies that is actually destroyed by abortion.

This irony is caused precisely by your stubborn refusal to even consider moral factors.

What kind of consequences would you recommend be implemented to discourage abortions?

No, I mean that women who are completely shielded from consequences of their decisions end up making terrible decisions, such as fucking thugs and other guys who give them tingles and will never stick around, divorcing and breaking up functional families, and so on.

The total number of fucked up childhoods produced by those is much bigger than the number that is avoided by abortions.