Death penalty for killing his own kid, meanwhile women get praised for aborting their babies
Toilets in that situation will get sent to jail and then get sent hundreds of donations to bail her out afterwards she acts like it never happened
: He got the death penalty because he killed his kid.: He got the death penalty because he didn't work on himself.: He got the death penalty because he's ugly.: He got the death penalty because that is what awaits us all.
Ü
Not that abortions are an especially good thing but they have probably stopped a fuckton of FAS/Drugbaby incels from being born
He murdered a baby that was born. The reason people don't oppose abortion so much is because some people believe that what you're aborting isn't a baby yet.
Foid's don't have any responsbilities for their actions.
''Did you create a child? Never mind, you don't need meet it's needs, you can kill it. We will do mental gymnastics to try to justify it for you.''
''You are not paying child support? You are a fucking deadbeat asshole, hope you get jailed.''
Man created a child? Pay child support. You didn't consent to it because you were raped? Doesn't matter.
Foid created a child? She can kill the child to not meet it's needs and avoid the whole situation
''Did you create a child? Never mind, you don't need meet it's needs, you can kill it. We will do mental gymnastics to try to justify it for you.''
''You are not paying child support? You are a fucking deadbeat asshole, hope you get jailed.''
Man created a child? Pay child support. You didn't consent to it because you were raped? Doesn't matter.
Foid created a child? She can kill the child to not meet it's needs and avoid the whole situation
Last edited:
Those people are retarded
His looks had nothing to do with it, his gender did. No Chad is walking from strangling a daughter. If it was a foid mother she would get 3 years
It doesn't matter if it's a baby, it's an alive human and should have the same dignity we have
They call it a parasite, its beyond over for this world tbh.
By "baby" I mean "human being." A "person." As opposed to "a clump of cells."
Yes, it is a human being, it's part of the human species. Female humans can't create hybrids.
Every organism is a clump of cells, you can't be alive without cells
Last edited:
A handful of jizz isn't a human though. An unfertilized egg isn't a human though. So when is it a human?
The moment the Sperm and the Egg meet.
Egg is not human, zygote is.
It's a human after conception, even though it's a life way before that, since life is continuous.
Honestly, I don't know why you think that the embryo, zygote, fetus is from a different species from it's mother. What species you think it is? Honest question. Do you see it being classified as anything other than a human?
That's the debate. Where the line that separate "clump of cells" and "person" begins.
Do you believe in souls?
No, that's not the debate (though it's a small part of it), the debate is mainly of the women's body autonomy trumps the child's right to life
How did this giga trucel guy have a kid? either they weren't his or dark triad is far more powerful then I originally thought.
No one's talking about different "species." Human eggs and sperm are from our species, but we kill those. So that's not the factor here. "Personhood" is the factor.
That's not why we draw up personhood bills. We don't base the pro-life stance on "This thing could grow up into something someday." We base it on "Right now, it would be cruel to kill this organism. Plenty of things are alive, sperm cells are alive, but you can't kill this thing for other reasons than it being alive and the progeny of two humans." That's why we base these bills on things like "When does its heart beat? When can it feel pain?" And other issues that decide when something stops being "a clump of cells."
Uh? Yes you are, you said that the fetus is not a human, human is merely a species. If the fetus is not a human, it should belong to another species, there is no such thing as a being belonging to no species.
Implying the fetus isn't a human is the same is implying it's part of other species.
Personhood is too arbitrary for we to draw the line, everyone can be considered a person or not based on a certain criteria, while being human is on your genetics.
Do you see women getting arrested for killing their child after the proposed time? I don't.
Then you are entering the potentiality debate, I already reject this premise.
So you are not talking anymore about being a human, now you are talking about criteria such as feeling pain, having a heartbeat and etc.
You are using the american law to try to justify your instance, other countries consider it a human since birth, so we should base our instance on something so subjective and that varies so much? I don't think so, being a human is already a well defined criteria (not ontologically though, but biologically).
Also, the US Spreme court didn't use heartbeat or feeling pain as the line when they to legalized it, so it's not restricted to it
Last edited:
By "human" I mean "not a clump of cells." A "person." What species its a part of is irrelevant, no one's saying it's "outside of the human species" because that's not the question of the debate. The question of the debate is, is it cruel to this thing to kill it? Right now? Thinking nothing of what it might be later?
Really? How tall is he then?Heightpil
He seems around average height in most photos. Unless the guys around him are also giga moggers.
A human is a clump of cells, those terms are not mutually exclusive. You can only be alive if you are made of cells.
Personhood is too arbitrary to draw the line, thus benefits everyone who is drawing the line.
No, it's not relevant, it's species is why we shouldn't kill it, since it's a human like us, not a bacteria or something without any value.
Ok, so you are implying it's a human. You can't be more or less human, you are either human or not, its binary.
Many pro-murder people do recognize that the fetus is a human and alive, but still think it's fine to kill it, because it, supposedly, infringes the mother body autonomy. You are trying to sum up all the debate into just one position.
Well, it's an innocent human who was put in a situation of need, so I don't see why it would not be cruel to kill it
Last edited:
But "personhood" is the debate. And not just here in America, this is what they talk about where ever legislation is drawn up. It being "genetically human" pales in comparison to the possibility that we're hurting the organism. That's more important.
As I said before, the debate doesn't boils down just to personhood.
Here are some positions that don't have anything to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
Departurism - Wikipedia
Therefore your argument is right to life X body autonomy, not personhood
Last edited:
As I said before, the debate doesn't boils down just on personhood.
Here are some positions that don't have anything to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
Departurism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Therefore your argument is right to life X body autonomy, not personhood
Why would my argument be about right to life or anyone's autonomy? You know what else is alive and carries human genes? Sperm cells. But we don't mourn the deaths of sperm cells and rightly so. Therefore there must be something more to a gestating baby than "It's alive and it's genetically human." Something that makes it cruel to do.
And lots of people have their own feelings and ideas about abortion. The question is, what's fueling the legislation? What ideas are actually mattering? The reason you don't see evictionism and departurism come into actual play when it comes to the debate is because the idea that mothers are houses and fetuses are tenants is one that doesn't really stand.
Well, I suppose that becasue there is no thing as less human (as I implied before).
Sperm cells do not contain enough chromossomes and can't be classified as human beings, therefore doesn't address to my point when I talk about being genetically human.
Yes, because you are comparing a single-cell organism that is not a human to a multicelular one that is a human. Also, ignoring the relationship between the mother and her child.
Many ideas come into play, hence why legislations differ so much from each other. Also, I don't know why to gatekeep it based on legislation, since one unknown idea can one day be the base of one legislation.
They are just implying your body is your property, I don't know why this is something unstandable
Because legislation is the result of many ideas being tested and the best one standing.
And why should chromosome or cell count itself matter? It's still genetically human. "Counts" are arbitrary benchmarks. One cell is too few? How about 2 cells? Is that enough? Why? If this is based on when a "self" exists to assign rights to, technically there are many many sperm cells living in me right now. They're alive and they hold human genes. Why don't they have property rights? How many cells until you can have property rights and why?
No, it's not, it's a result of what's popular.
Because that's one of the reason's that characterize is as part of the human species.
46 chromossomes for humans without genetic disorders.
Because those cells are not part of the human species, they just carry your genetic material.
Honestly, I don't know why (in bad faith, I suppose) you want to compare a sperm to an embryo in that way
Last edited:
But why 46? Why should that matter? When you're assigning benchmarks for when something stops being one thing and starts being another, you have to explain why.
For instance, with the "Don't kill that, it's a person and it's cruel to kill people" debate, we ask questions like "When can it think and feel and have a heartbeat" because that represents the line between a baby being hurt, and some insignificant cells dying that likely couldn't not have suffered.
But this "Don't evict that species, it has the right to live there" debate, your benchmarks are arbitrary. For the first debate, why might we be able to kill an unsophisticated organism? Why do we sort organisms of that level of development into the "Go ahead and kill it" category? Because as far as we understand it, it's too unsophisticated to feel. Too unsophisticated for the concepts we understand as "cruelty" to come into play. For this evictionism stuff, why should it matter how many chromosomes the organism has?
Because that's how we are classified as a species, one sperm has 23 and an egg has 23.
Feeling is only relevant to utilitarians, not to deontologists. It's still wrong to kill someone, even if that it can't feel or think.
Being hurt is less worse than being killed.
They are what biologists defined, they don't rely on my will though.
I don't see how development is relevant to the debate, humans who are less developed (mentally or physically) aren't treated as non humans by biologists or even by normal people.
Because as I said, that's where the start of being human is drawn, after conception. After that, it belongs to human species and nothing else
D
How the fuck did he impregnate someone, looking like that whitecels are really fakecels
I bet these clowns don't even ask women out
Edit: forget it he's a tallfag makes sense now
brutal heightpill tallcels don't exist
Last edited:
Even deontology has basis for its rules. They don't go "We do this because they're the rules, we don't have a reason for why they're the rules, they just are." What's so sacred about 46 chromosomes? You mentioned the disabled, who don't always have exactly 46 chromosomes. why does this "46, no more no less" rule not apply to them? You need to bring more to the table than "Well, because."
And development is relevant to the debate because, again, this is about whether we're committing a cruel act vs. expelling an unfeeling and insignificant clump of cells.
Well, you said that we should care about pain, I was answering that sentence, though only utilitarians base their moral judgement mainly (also on suffering) on it.
I already told about the exception for genetic disorders and having a different number than 46 doesn't imply being disabled.
What's so sacred? That they are humans and humans are a rational species, thus only they deserve right's and protection (even if they are not rational themselves).
It's still a cruel act, you are killing an innocent human being therefore this dichotomy (it's either this or that) is false.
So significance is based on development? Why ones only becomes significant after a heartbeat? What's so sacred about it? Why only after being able to feel pain? What is so sacred about it?
Also, before you start, a cruel act shouldn't be based on pain, otherwise killing or raping someone who is in an unconsciousness state wouldn't be considered wrong
Last edited:
I said that we have reasons for caring about pain. If you're saying "You don't have to, deontologists don't," my point is the deontologists derive their logic from something. Not just "Well these are the rules."
And yes, you mentioned the genetic disorders. That's why I brought them up. By making exceptions for the disabled, the chromosome count itself doesn't matter. As long as we have a definition for "human." But again, why? What's so sacred about being human? Because some humans are rational? Some humans are a lot of things, that's not a statement on humankind itself, or what's right or wrong with abortion.
As for what's so significant about things like heartbeats and sentience and sensitivity to pain? We don't like causing pain to things because we understand pain to be a bad thing. We understand it to be unfair to subject the innocent to pain.
Right and I already explained why I derive my rules from being humans.
Being a product of human conception should be the criteria (you were asking what characterizes humans genetically, chromossomes are one of those). Because rationality is the norm among humans, therefore the species shall receive rights as a whole.
Killing someone without pain is bad, so pain shouldn't be the crtieria for your morals. Can someone rape or kill an unconscious person? They don't feel pain. Pain is a very weird standard to set your morals and ''we understand it as bad'' is circular reasoning.
Why is pain bad/undesirable? ''Because people understand it as such''. Why people understand it as such? ''Because pain is bad/undesirable''.
This would make it subjective (since it just relies on what most people feel) though and there are people who enjoy pain. We understand it's also unfair to kill an innocent human, especially when he is not to blame for the situation he is in.
Even insects can feel pain, should we arrest/punish everyone who kills an innocent insect?
Also, what about people who can't feel pain? Is it moral beat them? I don't think so.
Congenital insensitivity to pain - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Can't crack a cold one if it's still warm
Right and I already explained why I derive my rules from being humans.
Being a product of human conception should be the criteria (you were asking what characterizes humans genetically, chromossomes are one of those). Because rationality is the norm among humans, therefore the species shall receive rights as a whole.
Killing someone without pain is bad, so pain shouldn't be the crtieria for your morals. Can someone rape or kill an unconscious person? They don't feel pain. Pain is a very weird standard to set your morals and ''we understand it as bad'' is circular reasoning.
Why is pain bad/undesirable? ''Because people understand it as such''. Why people understand it as such? ''Because pain is bad/undesirable''.
This would make it subjective (since it just relies on what most people feel) though and there are people who enjoy pain. We understand it's also unfair to kill an innocent human, especially when he is not to blame for the situation he is in.
Even insects can feel pain, should we arrest/punish everyone who kills an innocent insect?
Also, what about people who can't feel pain? Is it moral beat them? I don't think so.
Congenital insensitivity to pain - Wikipedia
First, no one is entirely entirely insensitive to touch. If you attack someone with a nerve disorder that dulls pain, they'll still feel it. And so they would still suffer your attack.
And the reasoning is not circular, it comes from the basis of right and wrong: Empathy. Something is "wrong" when it is "bad." And mankind understands when something is bad by first understanding what it is. I can't go beat someone in the head because long ago, in time out of thought, humanity realized "That hurts, and if I care about what other people in my 'society' experience, things like that should be forbidden."
And we do punish cruelty to innocent animals, where it's practical. It's not "illegal" to murder a dog. But it is illegal to be cruel to it. Because we found a way to practically punish cruelty to dogs.
They are entirely insensitive to touch, read the article. They would suffer certain consequences of the attack, such as losing some faculties, but they wouldn't feel pain (which is your moral criteria).
You didn't asnwer to my unconsciouss question. One unconscious person doesn't feel pain or suffering, so is it moral to kill that person?
It was circular, I already showed it. No, our bases com from moral agency and it CAN be based on empathy, but empathy alone doesn't imply moral judgement.
Ok, so the reason is empathy and not ''because most people think it is bad''. So if people don't feel empathy for you, is it moral for them to kill you?
I don't see how feeling pain has a relation with your rights. Being rational gives you moral agency and thus you can follow a moral code, therefore humans, as a species where rationality is the norm, should have rights.
Why is pain ALWAYS undesirable (which I disagree)? Please, answer. Or why is suffering bad?
We are not talking about animals, we are talking about beings that can feel pain and you didn't answer my question.
Also, no, we don't punish it according to your pain/suffering, otherwise killing insects and animal farming would be punished.
You are being more descriptive about how society acts insteads of saying what is the best moral criteria.
People feel empathy for the fetus, therefore it's immoral to kill him (jk)
Last edited:
The article says...
That means "Not entirely insensitive to touch."
And the empathy isn't based on how one individual person feels about another individual person. It's based on how people in general feel. Getting robbed isn't always undesirable. Maybe I don't want the things I own. But we punish theft of what people own because we understand that losing what you own is a "bad" thing. There is no right and wrong without first having a concept of what is "bad." So to ask "Why is pain ALWAYS undesirable?" Nothing is ALWAYS anything, there will be exceptions on the individual basis. But somehow we still have a concept of what is "bad."
And even in farming we punish cruelty. Again, you can kill a dog. But you cannot let the dog "suffer." So we ask ourselves "Are the animals suffering? If I swat a fly, how much does it suffer?" The usual answer is "Probably not. Flies are crude and simple things with short lifespans. Probably didn't feel it when I swatted it, fly society probably doesn't care that I swatted that fly." And we certainly tell ourselves that we farm animals ethically. That's why we complain when it's revealed that animals aren't farmed ethically. Whether or not our farmers are perfect and no animal suffers, still the idea is that they SHOULD farm animals ethically. That they shouldn't suffer if they don't have to.
Everything in this world is too damn random and chaotic it's actually annoying at this point.How the fuck did he impregnate someone, looking like that whitecels are really fakecels
I bet these clowns don't even ask women out
Edit: forget it he's a tallfag makes sense now
brutal heightpill tallcels don't exist
Similar threads
femcelbreedingnig
Cnidoblastos
Users who are viewing this thread
