Ah, well, there’s something I can agree with you on! That is an abhorrent thing to do to a woman. Simply put, it reduces her to a sexual object in the same way that porn does. I’d say it’s on the same level as porn because it trains men and women to think that’s the only real purpose of marriage. There’s no dignity in it, no actual love. It really is just glorified rape and slavery. Besides all that, they make Christianity look worse to everyone else and drives people away from Christ. It’s a lose/lose. I can explain further if you want (and if you don’t go back to insulting me after this comment).

I don’t know what a “bang maid” is, but I don’t want women to be raped. If that’s what you think, I’m not sure what makes you think so. Women at all stages of development are people worthy of dignity, just like men are.

But hey, if you’re just gonna prove my point every time you comment, you’ll only have yourself to thank if Trump wins. If I couldn’t explain why I believe what I believe (you’ve clearly read my comment history, so you know I do that frequently), that would indicate I should change what I believe. This seems to be your problem; if you were capable of articulating your beliefs, you’d have done it by now. Maybe you’d even change my mind.

It’s probably best if you stop whipping yourself up into a fury over someone disagreeing with you on the Internet. Maybe try journaling, talking calmly to a trusted friend, or therapy; I’ve found all of these pretty helpful. Like I said, have a good week.

I’m not sure what you mean, but I hope realizing you’ve proven my point for the sixth time will be some food for thought. In the meantime, have a good week.

First, how is killing innocent people for no reason was a right anyone has, much less a healthcare decision? It’s not misogynist to suggest that’s not true - a man pressuring a woman into an abortion or kicking her in the stomach is wrong, too. Second, when had repaying hatred for hatred ever worked? If you want to prove me wrong, then you could provide evidence that insulting people with labels like “reactionary dickhead” is an effective political strategy. It doesn’t sound like JD Vance’s “childless cat ladies” comment has convinced you to become Republican, so why would the inverse be true?

The fact that you’ve simply proven my point four times rather than attempt to disprove it is pretty weird.

I dunno how you expect to make them not “reactionary dickheads” when you’ve proven my point at least three times over the course of this conversation. If you’d like to keep doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results, I strongly suspect you’ll fail. It certainly hasn’t worked for the last nine years.

Not being a misogynistic asshole will kill some men?

That’s a leap of logic. Accusing you of inciting violence against them isn’t. “Reactionaries” is a label that has historically been used to justify persecuting and killing people. Right-wing people who hear that either don’t know what it means or they know what the implications are.

If you want to change young men’s minds, why don’t you try convincing them with the logic they claim to love? Insulting them has obviously not worked. If your arguments are sound and you behave respectfully (like you aren’t doing now), you’ll probably have better luck in changing their minds. One of the most common things people cite when they say why they’ve joined the Republicans is attitudes like yours.

But, if you want to keep projecting your insecurities on other people, I guess I can’t stop you.

You’re proving my point to a T by attacking a strawman and implying these men should die. Nobody is owed romance, but you shouldn’t be surprised that young men are becoming more right-wing when you say stuff like this.

No doubt everyone in this comments section is furious that this election is so close.

Well, attitudes like yours are why.

I linked it because the abortion that happened in your article happened because of it:

Cox’s fetus was diagnosed on Nov. 27 with trisomy 18, a genetic abnormality that usually results in miscarriage, stillbirth or death soon after birth.

Based on what? Religion?

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that they’re human beings. This is the only definition that isn’t completely arbitrary and ensures the rights and liberties of every human being without justifying killing anyone who shouldn’t be killed.

So, to be clear, once a person has already been deprived of their freedom and liberty by one person, they should continue to be deprived of their liberty?

Being forced to carry a pregnancy is a lesser violation of someone’s rights than killing someone who could not possibly be held responsible for what happened. Or do you think that murder is a human right?

where would you stand on forced organ donation? That is, you’re a tissue match to me, and I need a kidney. Would you be okay with being legally obligated to undergo surgery and give a kidney to me so I can live?

So let’s seriously consider the implications of this Looney Tunes Medical Malpractice Extravaganza world you’ve just invented without any actual basis in reality. First of all, dialysis and consensual organ donation exist. These facts alone make this whole question nonsense, but you haven’t insinuated you want to kill me, so I’ll answer your question despite the fact it’s absurd from the get-go.

Second, the vast majority of these “forced” transplants would happen because of consensual activity that somehow is designed to lead to this outcome. On top of that, this activity would also require you to spontaneously develop kidney failure without being involved. Again, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that isn’t just outright impossible. That hilarious fact aside, if you cannot handle the possibly of having children, you should not be doing things that are designed to produce children. Similarly, if you cannot handle needing to donate a kidney, you should not do things designed to lead to a kidney donation. If this were the case, then this would be happening for all of human history, and the human body would have an actual mechanism for doing this and the question would actually have a meaningful answer.

And before you go off about how car drivers don’t consent to accidents, just know that moving around the world, going to your job, seeing your friends and family, that kind of thing, is an actual requirement to live unless you’re completely homebound. You aren’t going to drop dead or starve to death because you didn’t get enough quickies in with someone else.

Third, there is no way for a fetus to survive a pregnancy other than to carry on through that pregnancy. The fact that other options exist to help you survive your predicament exist means you don’t have the right to steal people’s organs.

Fourth, you have agency in this situation; the baby doesn’t. You may need a kidney transplant because of a completely preventable illness; the baby doesn’t have that luxury. Babies will only ever be born once, but if you had the legal right to steal a kidney every time you got sick, you could just keep doing whatever it is screwed your last kidney up.

Fifth, if this was actually permissible, medical ethics as a whole would be completely up-ended. It would mean that people who chose to get themselves into bad situations had the right to rob people of vital functions to get themselves out of them. Again, this does not apply to babies.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Using the logic of the real world where abortions kill hundreds of thousands of people every year, no, neither that nor the blood stealing example would be permissible. But because neither of these things is actually analogous to pregnancy, they’re moot points.

Now you riddle me this: how long after conception is it acceptable to kill the fetus without any justification? Why does it end there, and not before or after? Also, why is it okay to kill someone for being the victim of a crime? After all, the conceived child is as much a victim here as the woman is. If it’s not okay to kill someone for being the victim of a crime, then it’s not okay to get an abortion because of rape.

If a man had one of his arms cut off but kept the other one, you’d still call him an amputee. Similarly, if your guns are taken away from you by force, you have been disarmed. There are different degrees to this - I would argue that people who live in blue states are generally more disarmed than people living in red states - but that doesn’t change the fact that a disarmament has taken place.

Your analogy would be more like asking if a man who put his arm inside his shirt could be called an amputee.

Don’t take non-OTC drugs without consulting a physician first. You could really screw yourself up with some of them, the hard stuff especially. The potential ups of doing them aren’t worth the likely losses.

People who take aspirin or ibuprofen take it for a specific purpose, and when they no longer need it, they stop. With things like steroids, heroin, cocaine, and Adderall (if they don’t have specific conditions like ADHD), people frequently end up chasing a horizon that only gets further away the harder they run to catch it. It’s a miserable existence and it causes them, and often their friends and loved ones, endless pain.

You deserve the best from yourself. That includes self-care. You’re more than your flaws and disorders, whatever they may be. Don’t make those an excuse to wreck yourself in pursuit of a goal that probably isn’t real.

Nope! You don’t have to pay a cent to the Catholic Church to receive communion.

Wow, you’re completely incapable of basic reasoning.

Why is it relevant? All you’re saying there is literally just “This argument is absurd, it’s vaguely similar to your argument, therefore your argument is absurd.”

You can’t define antidisestablishmentarianism and you’re accusing me of genocide?!

I didn’t know antiwhatever was relevant to the debate. However, the definition of personhood is. And you don’t seem to know what a person is.

I used it colloquially, not professionally, so I’m grabbing the colloquial definition

What did you think of the other colloquial definition I provided for you? Like I said, it seems to line up more with your ideology, it’s even simpler than the one you gave, and it can justify killing anyone you want to!

a person who lives at the expense of another

I don’t know if it bothers you that it uses a word you don’t understand, but hey, up to you.

by your own logic if a fetus is a person then a caterpillar is a butterfly.

Again, you’re arguing from an illogical comparison. You haven’t explained why a fetus isn’t a person, and I have explained why it is. I mean, you’ve called me and my idea stupid, but that doesn’t make your actual judgement of it any clearer. Would you like to tell me so we can discuss it? Or do you just want to keep trying to chisel away at my definition like the world’s worst sculptor? The fact you’re this intent on not directly answering a very relevant question, along with this implication that I’m a bad person for wanting to protect life, are kind of weird, don’t you think?

forcing births through regulation does that.

Pro-life births are higher in Democrat counties, too.

It also tends to produce people who vehemently disagree with and hate you.

It tends to produce people who vehemently agree with me, too, And people who are ambivalent. It really just tends to produce people in general.

Rightly so

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

you monster

And to think, you’re the one who called me bitter. Projection, thy name is gamermanh.

If the law is being interpreted in court in such a way that the text of the law is being ignored for the sake of scoring more convictions, the state of Texas is begging to be smacked down for doing so. And that smackdown would be perfectly justified. The longer this obviously incorrect interpretation of the law goes unchallenged, the longer it will cause a chilling effect on the medical community that is truly trying to save lives. No, it is not easy to be the tip of the spear, but the state of Texas would owe them a great debt.

Gonna start pinging my friends with this

That’s irrelevant

If this is irrelevant, so is your caterpillar argument.

mental gymnastics

You can’t even define what a person is and you’re accusing me of mental gymnastics?

Looks more like you hunted a specific definition that specifies cross-species requirements so you could try to well ackshully someone. Failed miserably because it’s easy to google what words mean.

Right, it’s very easy to Google what words mean. That’s why I found three different definitions. Sticking with one you found from a dictionary in the face of three more authoritative sources is odd - especially since the same page cites the Britannica article I linked in the last post. From the same page, this definition sounds like it lines up better with your ideology:

a person who lives at the expense of another

Anyway…

I won’t, because your definition of “people” is faulty

But you can’t explain why…

and I don’t want to say anything you’ll take wrongly.

…or what you think a person is. Would you like to share that, or are you going to continue hiding behind ambiguity because it’s easier to attack something you can actually understand?

It pleases me to know bitter idiots like you are

I suppose that’s one benefit of refusing to explain your arguments. Can’t be stupid if you never say anything at all!

in fact, a dying breed who will be remembered as the stains on history you are 🙂

Ironic, since pro-life people give birth more than pro-choice people.

In one respect, they are similar: a caterpillar is the same species as the butterfly which it becomes, just like fetuses are to humans. In another sense, they are significantly different: no human society regards a butterfly’s life as highly as a born human’s. What moral ramifications are there for stepping on a butterfly that wouldn’t be relevant if it was still a caterpillar, and vice versa? If there are none, then it makes no sense to compare the two on that basis.

1. Here are the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Wikipedia (citing a scientific textbook on archive.org that isn’t currently available, but apparently it was at some point) stating that a parasite is a member of a different species. Since the link won’t work, here is the definition given:

An animal or plant that gets nutrients by living on or in an organism of another species. A complete parasite gets all of its nutrients from the host organism, but a semi-parasite gets only some of its nutrients from the host.

I suspected you wouldn’t settle for a non-medical source for something with a precise technical definition, which is why I used that page.

2. If we’re just throwing whatever labels we want onto words like “parasite,” then what’s stopping us from using the same label for disabled people? Or born babies? Or children who still depend on their parents? Or people who depend on the structure of society in general? Since we’ve already slipped down the genocide slope of deciding that fetuses are parasites, why shouldn’t we go a little further for the good of the human race? They’re a burden anyway, right?

I won’t be mean to you, either, if you admit that killing innocent people is wrong and so is erasing personhood from human beings. If nobody here can admit that, then their disrespect means nothing to me.

I did. Here’s how I replied:

That threat was because she could have sought a C-section. If I’m understanding this page correctly, one’s fertility is reduced by about 13% after a C-section. If I’m not, feel free to show me how I got it wrong. Did that guy ever end up prosecuting anyone involved, though? Why would a judge side with the prosecution after a court literally gave her an order permitting her to do that?

Elaborating further, though the odds of the baby surviving past the first year are only 5-10%, its life should still be preserved if possible. People can and do elect to have surgery despite a low chance of survival.

First off, I’m sorry I mistook you for the other person. I’ll take back those claims.

Second, we are all “clumps of cells.” A fetus just so happens to be a really, really small one at a particular stage of development.
Third, a parasite is, by definition, a member of a different species than its host. Therefore, a fetus is not a parasite.
Fourth, almost everyone on earth depends on other people to continue existing. The ones who don’t are hardcore survivalists. Are they the only ones who get a right to life?