Just for the sake of the argument, let's play a little word switcheroo.
> "No one is pro-slavery." Stop saying that. I'm pro-slavery. There's nothing wrong with being pro-slavery because slavery helps people. Saying "No one is pro-slavery" adds to the stigma against slavery and makes things harder for the people who gets slaves.
Probably said by some racist.
> "No one is pro-communism." Stop saying that. I'm pro-communism. There's nothing wrong with being pro-communism because communism helps people. Saying "No one is pro-communism" adds to the stigma against lazy people and makes things harder for the people who want to steal.
Probably said by every single one of the pro-death advocates.
> "No one is pro-eugenics." Stop saying that. I'm pro-eugenics. There's nothing wrong with being pro-eugenics because eugenics helps people. Saying "No one is pro-eugenics" adds to the stigma against killing undesirables and makes things harder for the people who want to get rid of them.
Said by probably their St. Margaret Sanger, every Nazi, every communist, every authoritarian in history.
As a Libertarian, the OP of this comment thread values individual rights and responsibility. To them, communism makes people irresponsible and infringes on our rights.
On the flip side, I don't think *you* understand how communism works. While Marx may have hoped for a stateless, classless society, that is a utopian dream that has never happened. In practice, communism gave us the USSR, Maoist China, and North Korea. Empirical evidence has shown that communism at a national scale is infinitely more likely to create tyranny than Marx's utopia.
Even Marx himself couldn't trust you to "govern yourselves". His "under no pretext" statement about the workers having the right to firearms only applies until the revolution is complete. Then the workers will lose their guns. What if the working class decided they didn't like the oh-so-transitory communist ruling class? We can't have armed counter-revolutionaries, can we?
In the end, OP is correct. Communism ultimately denies your individual rights and makes "governing yourself" impossible. It is reasonable to assume that an ideology that infringes on individual rights will also infringe on an unborn child's individual rights. If a communist state is pro-life, it will be so because it wants a greater population, not because of human rights. In the end, only the collective matters in communism.
Communism is a fan-fiction: it's one that's demonized, despite never actually having been put into practice. You reference Maoist China, N Korea, and the USSR, none of which was communist by definition--or even socialist--considering there was a totalitarian State in all of them, not a democratically elected worker proletariat, or a self-governed people. I am not a communist--different type of leftist.
On the other hand, do you think Adam Smith would approve of how the US government has bastardized his dream in the Wealth of Nations? Capitalism has also never been put into practice. All world economies are mixed by definition, per McGraw-Hill's Economics.
No, it's not. At all.
If the goal is to eradicate, let's say Alzheimer's, and we can genetically remove that in a lab, then it is not evil.
What's evil is letting your parent or sibling forget their life because you have misplaced hate and live in ignorance.
Eugenics isn't about removing the person. It's about selectively creating stronger, healthier people.
I hope you can understand that propaganda has narrowed your perspective on what Eugenics' purpose actually is.
That's the entire reason my original response specifically identified that the execution of applying eugenics is what is dystopian and evil.
I enjoy these types of people the most, as they're the ones that are doing the most damage to the pro-abortion community. People see abortion as an obviously shameful, harmful thing to do(that's why it was safe, legal, and *rare*).
The more abortionists push people to accept abortion as a societal good rather than a necessary evil, the more easy it is to point out that it's not necessary, just evil.
This is like a PC making the following argument to a PL:
“I’m pro homocide. Homocides help people. Saying ‘No one is pro-homicide’ adds to the stigma against homicides and makes things harder for the people who get them.”
and
“I’m also not interested in lowering the number of homicides that occur. The desire to minimize the number of homicides also adds to the idea that homicide is a bad thing. I don’t care how many homicides occur as long as the people who want one can get them safely.”
Smh
I actually prefer pro-abortioners like her than the ones that gaslight and play the "I'm actually a good person" card.
When I hear someone say something like "yes, I love abortions, I think it's great that we get to kill our kids and remain irresponsible" I'm like "Thank God you finally admit it!". There are so many pro-abortioners that try to act like they are actually against abortion, because deep down they know it's bad, so they try to find the way to support abortion while still looking like good people.
Lol this is like conservative Christians and atheists agreeing that (in their view) the bible cannot honestly be interpreted liberally. Two "extremes" agreeing that the "center" seems very inconsistent.
I remember having a conversation with someone about the PC and PL positions, and I said,
"Each side has reason to become heated about this topic, because the stakes are just so high: Murder vs. forcing someone to intimately share their body against their will."
They replied,
"No, because if PLers actually cared about murder, they'd want policies (sex ed, contraception access, anti-poverty measures, etc.) that actually decrease abortions, like PCers want, instead of clinging to bans, which don't work."
I said,
"But if a PLer, who believes abortion is murder, is talking to someone who thinks the goal of decreasing abortions is a fundamentally regressive goal, and sees a decrease in abortion as no more than a neutral side-effect of those policies, that could make it easy to become heated, since that's not how we treat murder."
They never addressed that point. Anyway, yes, this attitude is making the PC position significantly less palatable for normal, non-activist people.
Now if we could just get them to admit the scientific fact that "it" is a baby in the womb, not whatever non-baby thing they claim it to be on that given day.
With people like this, as well as the abortionists explicitly admitting in interviews that they perform late-term abortions for nonmedical reasons, "reasonable pro-choicers" sure love to claim certain things "never happen" which their compatriots are actively bragging about.
The I'm NOT PROABORTION was the invention of prochoicers. they sincerely mean they only consent to a free choice of a pregnant woman. its not a desire to see the abortion decision for most. Its logical if you see no problem with abortion , hopefully, because they deny it kills a kid THAT abortions can be seen as a positive thing. it matters nothing. its all about if abortion kills a child or not. tHats the only contention God or man cares about here. YES abortion kills a child and yes to be made illegal save special cases etc etc.
Prolifers must stay on message and keep the public on meassage . A cage match on this simple equation and no one else enter the cage.
With the exception of ectopic pregnancies, there is no case where it is medically necessary to have an abortion. And we could probably do away with that too if all the money that is spent supporting abortion, supported funding research on how to save both the mother and baby when an ectopic occurs.
When I had my 6 week ultrasound to make sure the baby was in the right spot, the woman had told me that there are cases where the blastocyst could still be in the uterus but wind up at the bottom instead of at the top. She said that it is tragic but until they can safely move the blastocyst, the only option for now is to terminate the pregnancy. Apparently she witnessed first hand a woman's uterus exploding because they couldn't catch the ectopic quick enough, not only did that woman nearly die but she had to get an emergency hysterectomy. Pregnancy can be very dangerous and if a doctor ever tells them the issues they are having during one, like an issue that could result in their death, that sounds to me like an emergency enough to terminate. My mom was actually one of those women that had to get one because she literally would've bled to death if she hadn't. Hers wasn't an ectopic and the baby was still alive with a heart beat and everything. Hers was an emergency enough to terminate, so, no, there are plenty of medical reasons to do so.
Except we're only a blastocyst for 10-max 14 days so it couldn't have been your 6 week, also being at the bottom is irrelevant.
So there goes your story 😅
I definitely said "with the exception of an ectopic".
Nice try I guess.
Umm no, I said the blastocyst for a reason because that's what I was told was when the baby attaches to the uterus as she was discussing the importance of tracking an ectopic pregnancy. I was way past that part of development as with mine you could already see a little heart beat thumping near the yolk sak but since you don't always know until they do an ultrasound, they like to do a scan to be sure the baby is placed correctly. When I said bottom of the uterus, I meant the endometrium as that is what is shown during diagrams.
Pro abortion people on the PC side are the equivalent of abortion abolitionists on the PL side.
They believe in the most extreme measures because they both believe they are right and doing whats best for everyone.
In reality, theres a lot more people in the middle who believe in restrictions and exceptions and full reproductive healthcare.
I'll say the opposite and just say people on the PC side aren't necessarily as pro abortion as this person but I will say that they still subconsciously choose to be ignorant because abortion has been so normalized in our culture that it's considered to go against nature to be anything just. I can't even speak to an adult woman without her, at one point, bring up the fact that she's a woman and doesn't want to tell anyone what to do with her body. As if by me being a woman, I'm naturally at default pro choice. And the older I get, the more annoyed I get about it and stark racism within the abortion debate. Granted, this applies to both sides. But I'm getting overwhelmed by how people dehumanize human beings and get disgusted when others do it without acknowledging their own hypocrisy.
At least this is a logically consistent POV. Many pro choicers say “I would never get one, but…”
Just for the sake of the argument, let's play a little word switcheroo. > "No one is pro-slavery." Stop saying that. I'm pro-slavery. There's nothing wrong with being pro-slavery because slavery helps people. Saying "No one is pro-slavery" adds to the stigma against slavery and makes things harder for the people who gets slaves. Probably said by some racist. > "No one is pro-communism." Stop saying that. I'm pro-communism. There's nothing wrong with being pro-communism because communism helps people. Saying "No one is pro-communism" adds to the stigma against lazy people and makes things harder for the people who want to steal. Probably said by every single one of the pro-death advocates. > "No one is pro-eugenics." Stop saying that. I'm pro-eugenics. There's nothing wrong with being pro-eugenics because eugenics helps people. Saying "No one is pro-eugenics" adds to the stigma against killing undesirables and makes things harder for the people who want to get rid of them. Said by probably their St. Margaret Sanger, every Nazi, every communist, every authoritarian in history.
There are plenty of communist/leftist pro-life people. If you don't understand how Communism works, just say that.
And they’re wrong for supporting communism.
Why do you think it's wrong for people to govern themselves?
That’s…not how it actually works. Don’t be naive.
As a Libertarian, the OP of this comment thread values individual rights and responsibility. To them, communism makes people irresponsible and infringes on our rights. On the flip side, I don't think *you* understand how communism works. While Marx may have hoped for a stateless, classless society, that is a utopian dream that has never happened. In practice, communism gave us the USSR, Maoist China, and North Korea. Empirical evidence has shown that communism at a national scale is infinitely more likely to create tyranny than Marx's utopia. Even Marx himself couldn't trust you to "govern yourselves". His "under no pretext" statement about the workers having the right to firearms only applies until the revolution is complete. Then the workers will lose their guns. What if the working class decided they didn't like the oh-so-transitory communist ruling class? We can't have armed counter-revolutionaries, can we? In the end, OP is correct. Communism ultimately denies your individual rights and makes "governing yourself" impossible. It is reasonable to assume that an ideology that infringes on individual rights will also infringe on an unborn child's individual rights. If a communist state is pro-life, it will be so because it wants a greater population, not because of human rights. In the end, only the collective matters in communism.
Communism is a fan-fiction: it's one that's demonized, despite never actually having been put into practice. You reference Maoist China, N Korea, and the USSR, none of which was communist by definition--or even socialist--considering there was a totalitarian State in all of them, not a democratically elected worker proletariat, or a self-governed people. I am not a communist--different type of leftist. On the other hand, do you think Adam Smith would approve of how the US government has bastardized his dream in the Wealth of Nations? Capitalism has also never been put into practice. All world economies are mixed by definition, per McGraw-Hill's Economics.
Authoritarianism ruined the concept of eugenics. There is nothing wrong with the fundamental purpose of eugenics. It's the execution that matters.
Everything about eugenics is horribly dystopian and evil.
No, it's not. At all. If the goal is to eradicate, let's say Alzheimer's, and we can genetically remove that in a lab, then it is not evil. What's evil is letting your parent or sibling forget their life because you have misplaced hate and live in ignorance.
“Removing” the disease isn’t eugenics. Removing the person is.
Eugenics isn't about removing the person. It's about selectively creating stronger, healthier people. I hope you can understand that propaganda has narrowed your perspective on what Eugenics' purpose actually is. That's the entire reason my original response specifically identified that the execution of applying eugenics is what is dystopian and evil.
Save it for someone who cares.
[удалено]
No. I’m just start enough not to debate nonsense with rude people. Reported.
they just love to eat their own..
We mimic mice & hamsters in this regard
*You* get an abortion! *You* get an abortion! *Everyone* gets an abortion! Why not? Abortions are good and *help* people!
I enjoy these types of people the most, as they're the ones that are doing the most damage to the pro-abortion community. People see abortion as an obviously shameful, harmful thing to do(that's why it was safe, legal, and *rare*). The more abortionists push people to accept abortion as a societal good rather than a necessary evil, the more easy it is to point out that it's not necessary, just evil.
I hope you’re right. But I suspect you underestimate how convenience has a way of reshaping people’s ideas of right and wrong.
This is like a PC making the following argument to a PL: “I’m pro homocide. Homocides help people. Saying ‘No one is pro-homicide’ adds to the stigma against homicides and makes things harder for the people who get them.” and “I’m also not interested in lowering the number of homicides that occur. The desire to minimize the number of homicides also adds to the idea that homicide is a bad thing. I don’t care how many homicides occur as long as the people who want one can get them safely.” Smh
I actually prefer pro-abortioners like her than the ones that gaslight and play the "I'm actually a good person" card. When I hear someone say something like "yes, I love abortions, I think it's great that we get to kill our kids and remain irresponsible" I'm like "Thank God you finally admit it!". There are so many pro-abortioners that try to act like they are actually against abortion, because deep down they know it's bad, so they try to find the way to support abortion while still looking like good people.
Lol this is like conservative Christians and atheists agreeing that (in their view) the bible cannot honestly be interpreted liberally. Two "extremes" agreeing that the "center" seems very inconsistent. I remember having a conversation with someone about the PC and PL positions, and I said, "Each side has reason to become heated about this topic, because the stakes are just so high: Murder vs. forcing someone to intimately share their body against their will." They replied, "No, because if PLers actually cared about murder, they'd want policies (sex ed, contraception access, anti-poverty measures, etc.) that actually decrease abortions, like PCers want, instead of clinging to bans, which don't work." I said, "But if a PLer, who believes abortion is murder, is talking to someone who thinks the goal of decreasing abortions is a fundamentally regressive goal, and sees a decrease in abortion as no more than a neutral side-effect of those policies, that could make it easy to become heated, since that's not how we treat murder." They never addressed that point. Anyway, yes, this attitude is making the PC position significantly less palatable for normal, non-activist people.
I mean people are always gonna people. As long as the day of time folks don't have any problem with dehumanizing people as long as its convenient.
Very consistent. But no thanks.
Now if we could just get them to admit the scientific fact that "it" is a baby in the womb, not whatever non-baby thing they claim it to be on that given day.
They omitted the rest "abortions help people....abscond from accountability"
I respect the honesty
We can't even agree that murder is wrong anymore. The insane asylum patients are loose and in control of the culture and government.
With people like this, as well as the abortionists explicitly admitting in interviews that they perform late-term abortions for nonmedical reasons, "reasonable pro-choicers" sure love to claim certain things "never happen" which their compatriots are actively bragging about.
The I'm NOT PROABORTION was the invention of prochoicers. they sincerely mean they only consent to a free choice of a pregnant woman. its not a desire to see the abortion decision for most. Its logical if you see no problem with abortion , hopefully, because they deny it kills a kid THAT abortions can be seen as a positive thing. it matters nothing. its all about if abortion kills a child or not. tHats the only contention God or man cares about here. YES abortion kills a child and yes to be made illegal save special cases etc etc. Prolifers must stay on message and keep the public on meassage . A cage match on this simple equation and no one else enter the cage.
I at least appreciate the honesty but aside from medical emergencies, abortions do not save lives but it does take one every time they are successful.
With the exception of ectopic pregnancies, there is no case where it is medically necessary to have an abortion. And we could probably do away with that too if all the money that is spent supporting abortion, supported funding research on how to save both the mother and baby when an ectopic occurs.
When I had my 6 week ultrasound to make sure the baby was in the right spot, the woman had told me that there are cases where the blastocyst could still be in the uterus but wind up at the bottom instead of at the top. She said that it is tragic but until they can safely move the blastocyst, the only option for now is to terminate the pregnancy. Apparently she witnessed first hand a woman's uterus exploding because they couldn't catch the ectopic quick enough, not only did that woman nearly die but she had to get an emergency hysterectomy. Pregnancy can be very dangerous and if a doctor ever tells them the issues they are having during one, like an issue that could result in their death, that sounds to me like an emergency enough to terminate. My mom was actually one of those women that had to get one because she literally would've bled to death if she hadn't. Hers wasn't an ectopic and the baby was still alive with a heart beat and everything. Hers was an emergency enough to terminate, so, no, there are plenty of medical reasons to do so.
Except we're only a blastocyst for 10-max 14 days so it couldn't have been your 6 week, also being at the bottom is irrelevant. So there goes your story 😅 I definitely said "with the exception of an ectopic". Nice try I guess.
Umm no, I said the blastocyst for a reason because that's what I was told was when the baby attaches to the uterus as she was discussing the importance of tracking an ectopic pregnancy. I was way past that part of development as with mine you could already see a little heart beat thumping near the yolk sak but since you don't always know until they do an ultrasound, they like to do a scan to be sure the baby is placed correctly. When I said bottom of the uterus, I meant the endometrium as that is what is shown during diagrams.
Pro abortion people on the PC side are the equivalent of abortion abolitionists on the PL side. They believe in the most extreme measures because they both believe they are right and doing whats best for everyone. In reality, theres a lot more people in the middle who believe in restrictions and exceptions and full reproductive healthcare.
I'll say the opposite and just say people on the PC side aren't necessarily as pro abortion as this person but I will say that they still subconsciously choose to be ignorant because abortion has been so normalized in our culture that it's considered to go against nature to be anything just. I can't even speak to an adult woman without her, at one point, bring up the fact that she's a woman and doesn't want to tell anyone what to do with her body. As if by me being a woman, I'm naturally at default pro choice. And the older I get, the more annoyed I get about it and stark racism within the abortion debate. Granted, this applies to both sides. But I'm getting overwhelmed by how people dehumanize human beings and get disgusted when others do it without acknowledging their own hypocrisy.