[Finfinder]

Posting videos does not support your argument. They are the poorest of sources, at the best of times.

People don't want to watch videos. They want you to quote text that supports what your argument is, and not have to parse through dialogue and opinions to find something that supports your argument. It's lazy posting, @Finfinder

No you don't want to watch the video because it completely annihilated your argument. You guys have excuse for everything. Good Job.

[Godstud]

I am not wasting my time parsing thru your videos, and I wouldn't post a video response to anyone else, for the exact same reason.

Quote what you want from the video, but don't expect others to waste their time.

No. You can't destroy an argument with an opinion post(ie. a video).

What a feeble attempt to avoid debate.

[XogGyux]

Your right to control your body ends when you create another life that now needs yours for 9 months to survive.

If you create another life because you chose certain decisions that created it, you suck it up for 9 months and then give it away for adoption, at the very least. If you'd rather kill a human instead of dealing with that inconvenience, you're a selfish asshole. Your tears and sadness after the abortion don't make up for that killing.

The woman is in no way the victim here, the victim is the unborn human life that didn't choose to be created and has no say in its killing.

No. You are incorrect. If you cannot compel an individual to donate a kidney, blood, bone marrow, etc, what makes you think you can compel some other individual to be a human incubator?
Whether or no the embryo or fetus has personhood and/or rights of any kind what so ever it is irrelevant. If it was a full-fledged adult, they cannot still force anyone to use their body for that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Ask me any question about them, of course you'd have to watch them yourself.

Its seems its a little past your bedtime let us know when you watch the videos and can comment intelligently on them. Until then maybe you should let the adults talk.

@Godstud

How absurd now you and @Pants-of-dog
make the rules on what sources are relevant and how an argument is framed.

Ill just figure both of you have lost this argument and have no rebuttal. No need reply to me until you watch the videos which BTW completely debunks your original reply. I suspect you both know this.

Okay, you did not watch the videos.

The first is not available in Canada, so it is impossible for me to watch.

The second video confirms that post birth abortion would be considered infanticide and would be illegal, and that conservatives who argue that the NY law (or proposed Virginia law) legalises post birth abortion or infanticide are incorrect.

Specifically, anyone who claims that “Post birth abortion ... is the lefts current policy” is wrong.

[Unthinking Majority]

No. You are incorrect. If you cannot compel an individual to donate a kidney, blood, bone marrow, etc, what makes you think you can compel some other individual to be a human incubator?
Whether or no the embryo or fetus has personhood and/or rights of any kind what so ever it is irrelevant. If it was a full-fledged adult, they cannot still force anyone to use their body for that.

An anti-abortion position wouldn't be "forcing" anyone to do anything. It's the exact opposite. Forcing someone to donate a kidney is to knock them out, rip their body open by force and take it out through theft and stitch up the wound. Not allowing abortions is to do nothing at all. There's no force from the state or medical professionals whatsoever.

With the exception of rape, no woman is forced to get pregnant, that happens through THEIR OWN ACTIONS. It's a choice, because they choose to engage in behaviour that they know can lead to pregnancy, and often because the couple did not use proper birth control or use it properly. The unborn child doesn't get to choose anything, they are the innocent victim in this whole debacle, the choices are forced upon them.

Abortion is women and men wanting the right to have sexy fun times without consequences, full-stop.

[Unthinking Majority]

Doctors do not only treat ailments.

The only exception is plastic surgery, which is often almost as dumb.

You keep switching arguments.

When I ask you about your responsibility argument, you reply with the killing argument,

When I ask you about the killing argument, you reply with the responsibility argument.

Are you going to pick one, or would you like me to address them both?

Sure. Do as you wish. I think it has to do with both killing and responsibility. Responsibility means the women are not in any way "victims" of anything. They became pregnant through their own actions. Again, the exception is rape. Birth control needs to happen BEFORE and DURING sex, not after when you've created a freaking human life. Abortions are about "I fucked up, not to kill the mistake". If you fuck up, you should have thought of that before you fucked up.

My main goal isn't even to stop abortions. My main goal is to get people to take sex more seriously and use better protection to avoid abortions and unwanted babies. If getting pregnant lead to the mother and father's death instead of the baby, you can be damn sure abortions and unwanted pregnancies would drop dramatically. This is why abortions are often done by entitled selfish assholes. Fuck them.

[Unthinking Majority]

Again, if we look at my hypothetical situation, this argument of yours would mean that 5he state has a right to compel your father to keep you alive, despite his lack of consent.

Do you agree?

Not performing abortions isn't compelling anyone to do anything. It's a total lack of action.

The fetus has the same rights as the pregnant person: to not let someone else use their body.

And the baby has the same right as the pregnant person: the right to life, as long as said life does not violate someone else’s rights of body autonomy.

Why doesn't the fetus have right to life?

The problem is the balance of these two rights. In Canada, the SCC made the decision that the right to body autonomy trumps the right to life. In other words, you cannot use someone else’s body to keep yourself alive.

As if the baby is "using" anyone. It didn't do shit. The people who cry about "pro choice" and "body autonomy" are full of shit. I'm pro-choice too. The choice came when you agreed to let a dick without a condom spew semen in your vagina. If you didn't, it's rape. It's such an argument of entitlement. Under the SCC decision it's legal to create and kill as many babies as you want. You could do it 100 times if you wanted. Because "body autonomy".

[Pants-of-dog]

The only exception is plastic surgery, which is often almost as dumb.

You forgot pregnancy.

That is not an ailment.

Sure. Do as you wish. I think it has to do with both killing and responsibility. Responsibility means the women are not in any way "victims" of anything. They became pregnant through their own actions. Again, the exception is rape. Birth control needs to happen BEFORE and DURING sex, not after when you've created a freaking human life. Abortions are about "I fucked up, not to kill the mistake". If you fuck up, you should have thought of that before you fucked up.

The argument against using abortion laws to punish those dirty sluts for their irresponsible behaviour is as follows: In no other case do we withhold medical treatment hold in order to hold individuals responsible for (what we consider) moral lapses in their behaviour. So, unless you can make an argument as to why we should make this exception, we are done here.

The argument that abortion is killing is refuted as such: we do not obligate parents to donate their organs, tissue, blood, et cetera in order to save a born child’s life, so we would be giving a fetus extra rights if we obligated parents to donate their organs, tissue, blood, et cetera in order to save an unborn child’s life.

My main goal isn't even to stop abortions. My main goal is to get people to take sex more seriously and use better protection to avoid abortions and unwanted babies. If getting pregnant lead to the mother and father's death instead of the baby, you can be damn sure abortions and unwanted pregnancies would drop dramatically. This is why abortions are often done by entitled selfish assholes. Fuck them.

Yes, we can see that your main priority is to punish people for not having sex the way you think they should.

That is not a good reason to limit abortion.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not performing abortions isn't compelling anyone to do anything. It's a total lack of action.

No. Keeping a child alive in your body is an action.

In the hypothetical situation, the state would be forcing your father to take the actions necessary for your survival without his consent.

Why doesn't the fetus have right to life?

It does.

It has the exact same right to life as anyone else.

As if the baby is "using" anyone. It didn't do shit. The people who cry about "pro choice" and "body autonomy" are full of shit. I'm pro-choice too. The choice came when you agreed to let a dick without a condom spew semen in your vagina. If you didn't, it's rape. It's such an argument of entitlement. Under the SCC decision it's legal to create and kill as many babies as you want. You could do it 100 times if you wanted. Because "body autonomy".

Yes, you could just get pregnant and het abortions on the Canadian taxpayer’s dime.

Does anyone do that in Canada?

If this was a real worry, it would certainly be happening in Canada. Is it?

[XogGyux]

An anti-abortion position wouldn't be "forcing" anyone to do anything. It's the exact opposite. Forcing someone to donate a kidney is to knock them out, rip their body open by force and take it out through theft and stitch up the wound. Not allowing abortions is to do nothing at all. There's no force from the state or medical professionals whatsoever.

A parent can just allow a child to die of hunger by not actively giving the child food yet this parent would be a criminal even if he/she did not do anything to "force" the hunger, they simply let it happen.
A doctor that just stands by a patient gasping for air and does nothing, is also responsible for this (whether criminal or negligence/etc) even though the Doctor is not forcing a pillow and actively suffocating the patient.
Failure to act is not an excuse. Ofcourse we get into the murky of law's "duty" but this is arbitrary and defined by us (society). In the same way that we could make laws to put a "duty" on people to donate kidneys we can put a law that bans abortion.
The thing is if ethically you cannot justify using against their will somebody' else body to save a life... you couldn't possibly justify it for a pregnant woman either.

With the exception of rape, no woman is forced to get pregnant, that happens through THEIR OWN ACTIONS. It's a choice, because they choose to engage in behaviour that they know can lead to pregnancy, and often because the couple did not use proper birth control or use it properly.

We are back to the ridiculous premise of using completing a pregnancy to term as a deterrent/punishment for what you perceive to be unpalatable to your morals.

Do you really care about fetal life? If so here is a bit of information for you.
Over 80% of abortions are spontaneous abortions.
A woman in her mid-40's at the time of conception have a 50/50 chance of having a spontaneous abortion.
In other words, if you don't support legislation to prohibits women over the age of 40 getting pregnant, you are responsible for half of those "babies" (as you tend to call them) dying.
Arguably, the best way to avoid all of those babies dying, is to ban pregnancies altogether, since 80% of "babies" dying is spontaneous either way.
Perhaps you are a bit more pragmatic and are okey with some of them dying... how about a pregnancy ban for anyone under 20 and anyone over 30? are you OK banning pregnancy for those outside the 20-30 of age that way we can avoid spontaneous abortions and "babies" dying needlessly?
Perhaps we should enforce sterliziation after age 40 right? You seem to be OK infringing on the body of women... so you don't seem to give a crap if we sterilize women over 40 to avoid that 50% chance of having "babies" dying.

You get into really messy situations when you really think about this. The more complex you want to make it, the worse the outcome for your position. My position is simple, you cannot force someone to be an incubator.

Sure. Do as you wish. I think it has to do with both killing and responsibility. Responsibility means the women are not in any way "victims" of anything. They became pregnant through their own actions. Again, the exception is rape. Birth control needs to happen BEFORE and DURING sex, not after when you've created a freaking human life. Abortions are about "I fucked up, not to kill the mistake". If you fuck up, you should have thought of that before you fucked up.

Again, trying to use pregnancy as a punishment for what you consider "bad behavior". Of course, you neglect that perhaps the pregnancy may have happened despite precautions, or perhaps there are health conditions, or perhaps the situation of the couple and/or the woman occurred shortly after the pregnancy. Not to mention none of this is ultimately relevant because the reason why abortion should not be banned is that you cannot force someone to be an incubator, or at least you shouldn't.

My main goal isn't even to stop abortions. My main goal is to get people to take sex more seriously and use better protection to avoid abortions and unwanted babies.

This sums it up pretty nicely. Like I said earlier, and now I am glad you admit it (even though probably you didn't mean it). You don't care about the life itself, you just want it to be a punishment. A punishment which by the way seems to be almost exclusively directed to the women. You know... "those disgusting whores that had sex for fun". Finally, you show your true colors.

Fuck them.

No. Fuck you.

[snapdragon]

It's as innocent as a 1 month year old. It doesn't have any ability either.

A one month old does not occupy the body of a person

Nonsense, put it up for adoption.

It isn't possible to put up an embryo or foetus for adoption,

What does "occupy" mean?

Get a dictionary.

It isn't a parasite, as some people here have argued. It was put there by the mother and father, by their own choices. Now they regret their choices and want to kill it. The child is being victimized.

It fits the criteria of a parasite exactly

. What people choose to do is neither here nor there.

People choose to go skiing, a sport which often results in broken limbs.

How is it different? I will use it because it's the closest equivalent of 2 adults.

One does not occupy the body of the other.

You don't want me to use it because it hurts your argument. They're both attached to each other, and one is dependent on the other for life. it's makes little difference if one is beside the other or inside the other.

I don't want you to use it because it doesn't work.

It makes your argument even more pointless than it is already.

[Finfinder]

Post a legitimate source, quoting the argument you wish to make, @Finfinder. Biased videos you find on Youtube are unreliable sources, at best, and tend to be the opinion of the creator. I will not waste my time watching them, simply to gleam some sort of argument, for you, from them.

Please provide a claim for your stupid conspiracy theory.

You people are tedious if not dishonest with your intension. You asked for it and I provided now you are trying tell us what sources are ok and the rules of argument.

Posting videos does not support your argument. They are the poorest of sources, at the best of times.

People don't want to watch videos. They want you to quote text that supports what your argument is, and not have to parse through dialogue and opinions to find something that supports your argument. It's lazy posting, @Finfinder

Okay, you did not watch the videos.

The first is not available in Canada, so it is impossible for me to watch.

The second video confirms that post birth abortion would be considered infanticide and would be illegal, and that conservatives who argue that the NY law (or proposed Virginia law) legalises post birth abortion or infanticide are incorrect.

Specifically, anyone who claims that "Post birth abortion ... is the lefts current policy" is wrong.

I suggest you try again if in fact you actually watched the video. You already were caught discrediting yourself when you posted a response to them 5 seconds after I put them on here.


Therefore I have proven that the left supports late term abortion as @Godstud claimed was a delusion and stupid conspiracy theory. I am done here of course we all know @Pants-of-dog you always hase to get the last word in.

[Godstud]

Posting videos is lazy bullshit and you you know it, @Finfinder. They are usually extremely biased and they only show one side of any argument. You also are not pointing to what part is supposedly supporting your argument, and what your actual argument is.

Here you go. Counter-arguments, @Finfinder style:

So what is my argument, specifically? Tell me @Finfinder.

Therefore I have proven that the left supports late term abortion as @Godstud claimed was a delusion and stupid conspiracy theory.

I claimed that post-birth abortion is a load of bollocks! It is, and you claim is based on one video by some nutter? As pointed out, that's called infanticide.

Even in Canada, where abortion is legal, late term abortions are exceptionally rare, and done only when there is a threat to the mother. It's between the doctor and the woman, and even so most doctors won't do abortions after 24 weeks.

In fact, Canadians who want to get abortions later than 24 weeks, where it's not to do with a medical problem, have to go elsewhere to get them done(USA, actually).
https://www.actioncanadashr.org/resourc ... 20the%20US.

[snapdragon]

In the UK, late term abortions usually involve killing the foetus and then inducing delivery.

They're extremely harrowing and very distressing for everyone concerned.

It's much the safest way for the women concerned, as late stage surgical abortions involve cutting up the foetus and bringing it out in bits.

It's extremely dangerous and delicate work as it's very easy to puncture the uterus, but sometimes necessary due to the age or mental well being of the girl or woman involved.

Because they're so seldom carried out, very few surgeons have the skill to perform them.

That might be why women and girls have to travel to the USA from Canada.

[Godstud]

It has to do with ethics, not medical technology. After a certain point most doctors will not do an abortion, unless the woman's life is at risk, or some other actual medical problem.

As I've said already, I have no problem with this, as it is between the woman and her doctor.

[Unthinking Majority]

The argument against using abortion laws to punish those dirty sluts for their irresponsible behaviour is as follows:

It has nothing to do with "punishment". It has to do with saving innocent human lives from people who want to kill innocent human lives because they made an error in judgement.

In no other case do we withhold medical treatment hold in order to hold individuals responsible for (what we consider) moral lapses in their behaviour. So, unless you can make an argument as to why we should make this exception, we are done here.

Because in no other case besides abortion does the entire purpose of this medical procedure involve the killing of a healthy innocent human being without their consent. That's kind of a massive, massive exception to every other case. You don't get to kill a healthy human life, especially when you consented to the actions which created it. Full stop. When 40 million of these are done worldwide every year it's called a genocide of unwanted unborn babies. It's literally worse than Hitler and US slavery combined.

The argument that abortion is killing is refuted as such: we do not obligate parents to donate their organs, tissue, blood, et cetera in order to save a born child’s life, so we would be giving a fetus extra rights if we obligated parents to donate their organs, tissue, blood, et cetera in order to save an unborn child’s life.

The cause of death if a baby has kidney failure is kidney failure. The cause of death in an abortion is a doctor using a suction device to rip the baby from the uteral wall so it dies. Do you see the difference? Do you see which one is pre-meditated killing and which one isn't?

Yes, we can see that your main priority is to punish people for not having sex the way you think they should.

Your main priority is to punish unborn babies via their death because their parents make regretful decisions. My main priority is to save innocent human lives. That's not in any way your priority, you don't give a fuck. I want to save babies, i'm so evil! Anyone who says my goal is to "control women" or "punish women" is making a really stupid, ignorant argument that is quite frankly disgusting. I don't give 2 shits what anyone does, unless it harms someone else, and that's what most laws are about.

[Patrickov]

Your main priority is to punish unborn babies via their death because their parents make regretful decisions. My main priority is to save innocent human lives. That's not in any way your priority, you don't give a fuck. I want to save babies, i'm so evil! Anyone who says my goal is to "control women" or "punish women" is making a really stupid, ignorant argument that is quite frankly disgusting. I don't give 2 shits what anyone does, unless it harms someone else, and that's what most laws are about.

It is very hard to say whether a child given birth to cases like these is going to have a meaningful life anyways, although for some cases putting the child up for social care might be an option.

And what about children conceived through rape?

Sometimes it's very hard to draw a boundary.

[XogGyux]

It has nothing to do with "punishment". It has to do with saving innocent human lives from people who want to kill innocent human lives because they made an error in judgement.

Too late for that. Your ideology has been pretty clear from prior posts but in your last post you admitted as such when you said:

My main goal isn't even to stop abortions. My main goal is to get people to take sex more seriously and use better protection to avoid abortions and unwanted babies. If getting pregnant lead to the mother and father's death instead of the baby, you can be damn sure abortions and unwanted pregnancies would drop dramatically. This is why abortions are often done by entitled selfish assholes. Fuck them.

It is quite clear from here that you don't really care about the "life" as you say. It is also quite clear that what you want is to punish women who are not taking "sex seriously". Those dirty whores...

You seem to have just gone past all my arguments. Gee, I wonder why...

[Pants-of-dog]

It has nothing to do with "punishment". It has to do with saving innocent human lives from people who want to kill innocent human lives because they made an error in judgement.

If you are holding pregnant people responsible for their actions by withholding som, it is a punishment, as far as I can tell.

Because in no other case besides abortion does the entire purpose of this medical procedure involve the killing of a healthy innocent human being without their consent. That's kind of a massive, massive exception to every other case. You don't get to kill a healthy human life, especially when you consented to the actions which created it. Full stop. When 40 million of these are done worldwide every year it's called a genocide of unwanted unborn babies. It's literally worse than Hitler and US slavery combined.

Yes, we talked about that, and I explained why “killing” someone (or more correctly, no longer keeping them alive) is not relevant to the “responsibility” discussion.

Please stop trying to defend one of your arguments with the other.

The cause of death if a baby has kidney failure is kidney failure. The cause of death in an abortion is a doctor using a suction device to rip the baby from the uteral wall so it dies. Do you see the difference? Do you see which one is pre-meditated killing and which one isn't?

You just completely ignored my argument.

Again, the law does not obligate parents to use their body to keep born children alive.

Banning abortion obligate parents to use their body to keep unborn children alive.

You are arguing that unborn children should have MORE rights than anyone else.

Your main priority is to punish unborn babies via their death because their parents make regretful decisions. My main priority is to save innocent human lives. That's not in any way your priority, you don't give a fuck. I want to save babies, i'm so evil! Anyone who says my goal is to "control women" or "punish women" is making a really stupid, ignorant argument that is quite frankly disgusting. I don't give 2 shits what anyone does, unless it harms someone else, and that's what most laws are about.

This part is not an argument at all.

[Finfinder]

Posting videos is lazy bullshit and you you know it, @Finfinder. They are usually extremely biased and they only show one side of any argument. You also are not pointing to what part is supposedly supporting your argument, and what your actual argument is.

I claimed that post-birth abortion is a load of bollocks! It is, and you claim is based on one video by some nutter? As pointed out, that's called infanticide.

Even in Canada, where abortion is legal, late term abortions are exceptionally rare, and done only when there is a threat to the mother. It's between the doctor and the woman, and even so most doctors won't do abortions after 24 weeks.

In fact, Canadians who want to get abortions later than 24 weeks, where it's not to do with a medical problem, have to go elsewhere to get them done(USA, actually).
https://www.actioncanadashr.org/resourc ... 20the%20US.

LOL you guys are funny you tell me my opinion is a conspiracy theory and you told another "delusional" and disregard us. So then I give you exactly what you want (actual Democrats against late term abortion) and then you tell me I'm lazy because its a video. Seems like you really didn't want discussion or rebuttal. Maybe you should argue with robots or something.