• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Am I the only person with consistent views? (COVID19/abortion)

Are you consistent with regards to abortion and mask-wearing?

  • Yes, their bodies, their choices!

    Votes: 18 16.2%
  • No, I am pro-choice [abortion], but for enforced mask-wearing in public.

    Votes: 72 64.9%
  • Yes, let us not be careless about human life!

    Votes: 13 11.7%
  • No, I am pro-life [abortion] but against mandatory mask-wearing in public.

    Votes: 8 7.2%

  • Total voters
    111

UltraDolphinRevolution

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,806
Trophies
0
XP
2,436
Country
China
How long until a sperm turns into a reproduced version of yourself? Because it is a matter of months for an unborn child.

But sure, masturbation is mass murder. Than it is worse than COVID19. Ban porn! Mask refusal suddenly appears to be no big deal. The mostly old people would not have reproduced anyway. But man, those millions of sperm cell could potentially all reproduce.
 
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,

Ibcap

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
450
Trophies
0
XP
1,556
Country
United States
How long until a sperm turns into a reproduced version of yourself? Because it is a matter of months for an unborn child.

But sure, masturbation is mass murder. Than it is worse than COVID19. Ban porn! Mask refusal suddenly appears to be no big deal. The mostly old people would not have reproduced anyway. But man, those millions of sperm cell could potentially all reproduce.
Like I said, the only argument is the "potential child" argument which you ended up shifting towards. Heres why that argument doesnt work, you have potential to create dozens of children but choose not to. I could argue that if you arent having a child right now youre depriving a potential kid of life exactly the same as you would aborting a fetus and it would be a logically consistent view.
 

UltraDolphinRevolution

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,806
Trophies
0
XP
2,436
Country
China
Except that in one case the offspring is killed and in the other case the offspring does not exist.

By that logic Adolf killed at least 100mio of my people.

An unborn child is not a potential child. A potential child is a mental construct. An unborn child is a living, growing being with your DNA and the DNA of your spouse or significant other.
 
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,

wiindsurf

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
97
Trophies
0
XP
955
Country
New Zealand
Baby and mother have a symbiotic relationship. The baby depends on the mother for survival. If she is not allowed to kill the baby, is she allowed to kill herself?
The baby will not become an independent unit of life until the mother goes through a lenghty process of nurturing, both biological and psycological, which culminates on the life threatening event that is delivery.
A woman must confront many challenges, and be confident in her physical and psychological abilities, as well as in her environment and support systems, before the process and outcome can be deemed desirable or even likely to be successful.
If there is a call for challenge, who are we to make these decisions on one's behalf? And isn't this call for challenge a form of natural selection?
There are many inherent risks that a woman must willingly accept before taking on such selfless challenge.
If you are willing to force a woman to deliver a baby against her will, and she dies in the process, are you prepared to take your own life as to answer in kind? If you say the odds are low for her to die, then the odds are low for you to die as well. Will you rise to that challenge?
 
Last edited by wiindsurf,
  • Like
Reactions: Sapphire01

Ibcap

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
450
Trophies
0
XP
1,556
Country
United States
Except that in one case the offspring is killed and in the other case the offspring does not exist.

By that logic Adolf killed at least 100mio of my people.

An unborn child is not a potential child. A potential child is a mental construct. An unborn child is a living, growing being with your DNA and the DNA of your spouse or significant other.
In both the case of the potential child you could create but havent and the case of the fetus this potential child is currently non sentient, in one case because theyre a fetus and in the other because they havent been conceived. I would argue that is the single most important factor. A fetus isnt sentient so killing it isnt different from killing living sperm which could also become a child.
 

UltraDolphinRevolution

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,806
Trophies
0
XP
2,436
Country
China
An unborn child is sentient. It depends what week we are talking about. Some pro-choice people advocate for the right to abortion until delivery. A person in a coma is also non-sentient or at least restricted in this aspect. But if we knew this person would wake up, we could not pull the plug. An unborn child usually will wake up, it is called being born.

Killing sperm is not the same as killing an unborn child. The unborn child (even in the earliest stages) has a unique DNA. It is a new life. Your sperm only carries your DNA and your DNA is only out of the race for existence once you do not reproduce and had your last ejaculation. The unborn child´s DNA is out of the race once you decide to abort it.

@wiindsurf: Is a single-mother on child support ready to die if her (or one of her) cash cows dies at work?
If a pregnant woman has an increased risk of dying from the pregnancy, abortion is usually the best choice.
 
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,

wiindsurf

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
97
Trophies
0
XP
955
Country
New Zealand
Best choice? It sounds like you really know what's best for everyone.
Humans have been given two eyes, two ears and one mouth.
That may suggest one should observe more, listen more and perhaps talk less...
I will do so myself...
 

Ibcap

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
450
Trophies
0
XP
1,556
Country
United States
An unborn child is sentient. It depends what week we are talking about. Some pro-choice people advocate for the right to abortion until delivery. A person in a coma is also non-sentient or at least restricted in this aspect. But if we knew this person would wake up, we could not pull the plug. An unborn child usually will wake up, it is called being born.

Killing sperm is not the same as killing an unborn child. The unborn child (even in the earliest stages) has a unique DNA. It is a new life. Your sperm only carries your DNA and your DNA is only out of the race for existence once you do not reproduce and had your last ejaculation. The unborn child´s DNA is out of the race once you decide to abort it.
Your title had no stipulations about the week in which youre getting the abortion. I am pro choice but if you can provide me proof of a fetus being sentient at a specific week I would be against abortions at that point.

For people in a coma its a more complicated issue, if someone was in a coma and needed external help from someone else such as a lung transplant to survive it would absolutely be legal to not give them that lung and let them die in the same way it is legal for a woman to stop supporting a fetus that is relying on her. It would arguably be a dick move but no one is out protesting that it would be illegal to do so.

I fundamentally think your DNA rant is irrelevant. Heres an example, you say killing sperm isnt wrong because it has the same DNA as you but if you kill a fetus it has unique DNA. Lets focus on how you say the childs DNA is lost when its aborted. What if you had twins, is it ok to kill one of them because the other has the same DNA? Since you say sperm isnt special since it doesnt have unique DNA, those twins must not be either.
 

UltraDolphinRevolution

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,806
Trophies
0
XP
2,436
Country
China
I am not saying killing sperm isn´t wrong. You cannot kill nor preserve it. Except freezing but then it is no longer alive (during that time).

I am fundamentally a person with libertarian views. If you want to kill your offspring, go ahead. If you are proud doing it, good for you. But in many current societies there is injustice in terms of rights between the sexes. In this situation I cannot be supportive of abortion as a "right" (just as men do not have the right to evade responsibility, even if they do not want the child). I just perceived an inconsistency when "conservatives" care so much about the unborn but very little about death resulting from not wearing a mask (and the other way around for "progressives"). I found that interesting. That´s all.
 
D

Deleted User

Guest
An unborn child is sentient. It depends what week we are talking about. Some pro-choice people advocate for the right to abortion until delivery. A person in a coma is also non-sentient or at least restricted in this aspect. But if we knew this person would wake up, we could not pull the plug. An unborn child usually will wake up, it is called being born.

Killing sperm is not the same as killing an unborn child. The unborn child (even in the earliest stages) has a unique DNA. It is a new life. Your sperm only carries your DNA and your DNA is only out of the race for existence once you do not reproduce and had your last ejaculation. The unborn child´s DNA is out of the race once you decide to abort it.

@wiindsurf: Is a single-mother on child support ready to die if her (or one of her) cash cows dies at work?
If a pregnant woman has an increased risk of dying from the pregnancy, abortion is usually the best choice.
I am pro choice, along with finding it mandatory for mask. My reason?
It's for sake of humanity, for both the child, and the mother, regardless of the mother's health.
allow me to explain, if a women were to become pregnant, and fully aware that they cannot support the child, or that child would be miserable, that would be inhuman to bring that child into existence. You are guaranteeing it's circumstances to be horrid. Also what if a girl get's knocked up on accident (birth control failing or male protection failing), or raped? I honestly couldn't say with good faith that would be okay for that mother, Or child.
third reason is if they already know they are incapable of being a parent, and lack responsibility. There are people out there who just genuinely can't no matter how hard they try. they know their own limits, and a child could be one outside of it. Those individuals are trying to be responsible. There's a time and place for things, and conveniently the world likes bringing stuff at the wrong time and or place.
 

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
36,798
Trophies
3
XP
28,284
Country
United Kingdom
An unborn child is sentient. It depends what week we are talking about. Some pro-choice people advocate for the right to abortion until delivery. A person in a coma is also non-sentient or at least restricted in this aspect. But if we knew this person would wake up, we could not pull the plug. An unborn child usually will wake up, it is called being born.

Killing sperm is not the same as killing an unborn child. The unborn child (even in the earliest stages) has a unique DNA. It is a new life. Your sperm only carries your DNA and your DNA is only out of the race for existence once you do not reproduce and had your last ejaculation. The unborn child´s DNA is out of the race once you decide to abort it.

So now we have gone from no way, to no way saving rape/incest, to presumably in case of serious risk to the host (ectopic pregnancy and the like), to the magic happens when the sperm meets the egg (unsure what goes for implantation, which is important as various contraceptives act after this point or could act after this point, to say nothing of implantation not happening every time anyway) but before that it is just chemicals, to until it is sentient (whatever that might be or whatever timeframe that is), do we have further modifiers for serious risk at later points?
Interesting.
Some advocates for abortion options do indeed presumably allow for it to be spiked while dilated and crowning, sliced up and vacuumed out, however is that likely to be anything other than a strawman argument or something worth specifying when discussing it? Generally accepted standards and practices in the places we are at is the order of the day.

That said so it is new life... why should I deem that inherently valuable (and presumably worth protecting, or otherwise objecting to the destruction of) and not just subjectively valuable depending upon context?

As far as a coma. One never really knows, however if it does not happen after so many [insert period] (will have to look it up, but hours is good, weeks is not but doable, months is very bad indeed. Percentages and outcomes all being very well documented) it tends not to and those vanishingly rare cases it does happen in they tend to be seriously brain damaged rather than just "needs to get a bit of muscle tone back and can't remember the events of the day".

"there is injustice in terms of rights between the sexes"
Certainly is, hope they get resolved. However to deny someone a right because of a legal inconsistency seems much akin to "someone robbed me so I shot someone else". One does not negate the other, and advocating as such does rather stand at odds with claims of being a libertarian (abridging someone else's rights tending to not go down so well in such circles).
 

UltraDolphinRevolution

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,806
Trophies
0
XP
2,436
Country
China
So now we have gone from no way, to no way saving rape/incest[...]
Are you talking about me? I have not changed my position.
I maintain that I am against abortion rights in a world of forced child support. In an ideal society the government would leave both parents alone - even if the outcome is cruel. It would make for a better society (and for extreme cases religion kicks in, however, religious communities tend to shame unethical behavior more so than the state, which is good)
 

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
36,798
Trophies
3
XP
28,284
Country
United Kingdom
Are you talking about me? I have not changed my position.
I maintain that I am against abortion rights in a world of forced child support. In an ideal society the government would leave both parents alone - even if the outcome is cruel. It would make for a better society (and for extreme cases religion kicks in, however, religious communities tend to shame unethical behavior more so than the state, which is good)
Fair enough, however to in turn claim such a thing is a libertarian position does rather seem at odds with the general notions underpinning that -- abridging someone's rights as a kind of protest does rather seem to go against the value placed on rights in general, and if not advocating for then condoning religious interference (which is presumably acting as a state or something very akin to it in this scenario) is also on the more dubious side, the use of shame is an interesting one as well.
 

dAVID_

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
1,405
Trophies
1
Location
The Game
XP
2,266
Country
Mexico
More and more I question whether I live in a simulation.

When talking to people it seems I am the only person with consistent views: I am pro-life (except in extreme cases) and for mandatory mask-wearing in public.

But most people have contradictory views on this. What about you? (read survey questions carefully)
Stay civilized, please.


Just to be clear: This is NOT about COVID19 pregnancies. This is about the motives behind these seemingly unrelated issues. In fact, they are related: individualistic choices at the potential cost of lives.

EDIT: I know realize the way of expressing this thread can be offensive. I apologize for that. We can just discusss whether there is a contradiction. Disregard the poll.
Consistency means different things for different people.

But oh well, I guess this is another abortion debate thread. :angry:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sapphire01

UltraSUPRA

[title removed by staff]
Member
Joined
May 4, 2018
Messages
1,483
Trophies
0
Age
19
Location
Reality
XP
1,310
Country
United States
FBIMG1597376981662.jpg


This is why I'm glad I don't live in Wisconsin, or use Zoom. This is also proof that the whole mask thing is a bunch of crap.
 

omgcat

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
869
Trophies
2
XP
2,694
Country
United States
There is little to no correlation between abortion and wearing a mask. Odd connection to make.


I'd abandon this thread, the creators are just sealioning.

"Sealioning
(also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of 'incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate' ". waaaaaay too much shift of goal posts and "but muh hypothetical". it's obvious the OP never intended on even thinking about shifting their opinion or worldview. it's just a thinly veiled attempt at pushing wedge issues to try to radicalize the forum.
 
D

Deleted User

Guest
FBIMG1597376981662.jpg


This is why I'm glad I don't live in Wisconsin, or use Zoom. This is also proof that the whole mask thing is a bunch of crap.
are... are you actually making mask political? (I prayed to god those kind of people didn't exist. oh no they do. then again thread op, so I already knew ig) but holy fuck, those kinds of people actually exist.
So doing a little digging, here lies the reason for the move. Since many people are not following wearing a mask, they have to be like adults and tell the children (public) to follow the example as a kneejerk move since a lot of states are going back up in cases for those that either didn't listen, or reopened too soon. Masks save lives, and they do help. It's not bullshit. They do work. But since a some percent of people are morons and not following procedures to prevent spread, we need to be treated like children and see an example. Is it stupid? kinda. can it work? if done correctly, this move can help.
 
Last edited by ,

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty: ssssey ioBtneicnA@