#politics (Discord ID: 392485988024320001) in Orwell & Goode's Frens, page 2
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
But I thought you loved rights.
Which he inserted into her body
With her (in this case) consent
To fulfill his biological imperative
So, you do that, and you have the right to determine what happens to their body?
She then destroyed the cells and genetic information he produced and deposited inside her with her consent what right does she have once it is in there?
You do understand the importance of sperm right?
It's now not just her ovum or his sperm
But their zygote
You leave genes everywhere, do people have the right to wipe off your cum stains from their skin?
That's different. Come on.
MY GENES MY CHOICE
You made the argument
Organs are just the result of genes
abortion should be illegal except for eugenics and mothers health
No I didn't. Shit you left somewhere is not your organs.
It's not shit
Neaksy nails how I feel
It is reproductive code
You are not abiding by your own argument.
Incest is that thing I want to say is included but the amount of fuckwits today that are into it would abuse that
it should be a medically backed reasoning behind the abortion (kid has the downs, autism etc)
Just like cum stains on someone's face.
It's the same stuff.
It really isn't.
Damnit you lost me
You seriously think it's the same?
THEY DESTROY YOUR GENETIC MATERIAL AGAINST YOUR WILL
Why kill someone because they have a mental condition
You don't have a right to other people's organs.
because we want healthy people
do you not just realize
Like I said
Are in fact
Even if you squirt in them.
Both father and mother dna
You seem to not understand this biology
Neuroscience student here.
As bad as it is, do we really want the kind of people who'd get abortion raising children
Why not incentivise not having kids in the first place
I don't care if it's all the father's DNA by some kind of magic. My answer would be the same, you have the right to determine who uses your organs.
Or put a limit on kids
Something reasonable though not china's fucking bad shit
So you agree?
constantine fair point however even traditionalists are mixed on abortion
The average family is 1-3 kids
4th is pushing
It's reasonable but could curb it slightly
Call them babies instead of foetuses, the answer is the same. No matter how innocent someone is, they do not have the right to the use of someone else's organs.
But it should be as many as someone can afford.
That is such a ridiculous argument.
So neither the mother has that right then.
Which does not square with other things you have said.
Anyway good luck with your mong invasion
It squares just fine, having cum left in you is not continual use of someone else's organs.
Abortion is a bloody natural selection
The reason the organs happened was from the stimulus from the father
i do agree with the notion that the father should have a say because the baby has half of his dna however the cells multiply and the baby develops with the use of the mothers body so thats why it would ultimately be logical for her to have a say
The best natural selection would be if another bubonic happened.
But I will say no more on this. It's too controversial
Abortion is artificial not natural selection fwiw
define natural and artificial
It's removing your genes from the gene pool
But I'm done commenting on this. This is one of the few issues I dislike talking about.
The technical distinction between babies and foetuses is used by abortion advocates to pretend the right they are in favour of doesn't kill. I make no such pretension, the right results in the killing of the foetus, and there is no hard moral distinction whatever between a foetus and a baby.
The right for your organs to not be used by others against your will trumps that in my opinion.
I am perfectly willing for all that death to occur in order for that right to be preserved.
It was nice talking to people with different views though. I like it.
@Whiskey-Vargas I do not hear many other advocates of reproductive rights holding this position though. Instead they merely scream "misogynist" when people disagree with them. I disagree with the curtailing of freedom to save young lives, but being against that freedom does not mean you hate women.
And these same people foolishly want to curtail the 1st and 2nd ammendments, which are magnitudes more important.
They want the right for a woman who makes the choice to terminate her pregnancy to not be judged for it, which is utter nonsense.
They also do not seem to realise that if you go after liberties that other people care about, that they don't much care about, those other people will go after theirs in turn, sometimes purely out of spite.
The abortion debate is a good example of this.
I'm sorry, I don't want to waste your time. I see you still typing. I moved to another channel. It was great talking to you. I'm very tired and these topics are tiring so I'm just shitposting now.
Luckily, cooler heads prevailed in the long term. Only once has a constitutional ammendment curtailed freedom, and it was repealed. It seems that enough people are aware of how foolish the game of going after other people's liberties is.
So let me ask you something then
You are essentially advocating for the right for women to be in control of their property, right?
In control of their body.
I do not believe that children are property.
Your organs are part of your body.
Sperm, on the other hand, are a component of a fluid produced by a few different organs.
But sperm is by itself not life
They are not themselves organs, like how bile isn't actually the pancreas or gall bladder.
So what’s your limits on abortion then?
Until the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb?
Or right up until birth?
Once it can survive, what is the point of aborting?
You just get it out early and surrender it.
Though I don't know if anywhere in the world grants the right of surrender to men.
What if early delivery does more damage to the woman’s body?
(Despite it being granted to women.)
Then the choice falls to them.
So what point do you support abortion until is what I’m trying to figure out
What point should it be allowed until
After the baby is out.
Because then that's just killing for no reason at all.
so 9 months abortion is fine
Is it fine legally in the US?
But it differs from state to state
Also just because it’s a law doesn’t make it morally right or wrong
What I think should be legal and what I think is wrong are different.
Getting an abortion at 9 month is just... why?
third semester abortions are possible
Also over 99% of abortion s are ‘convenience’ abortions meaning that, following your logic, there would be a point to just kill the baby after birth if the woman doesn’t want it
I know someone who's hippie sister loves coke and sex, but an implanon is just TOOOO CHEMICUL.
After all there’s a reason to kill it
So rather than having CHEMICULS IN MUH BODY, she has regular abortions.
dont see how mothers should be able to kill their unborn baby because they just dont feel like having a kid
But do you see abortion as a killing/murder?
It is killing.
Then that makes it wrong
I have no idea at what point it becomes killing.
That’s the issue up in the air
But at some point it must be.
Is it made of human matter that is still in the process of being alive?
if so then yes it is killing
Killing is not always wrong.
Correct. We must look at individual cases
But we can also make generalizations
I must not walk down the street and stab the first person I see
its wrong to kill innocents
baby is innocent
If it's a matter of convenience just because they didn't take sex seriously then Abortion is abhorrent
I know of at least one person who was actually like that.
Most people are like that
If you look at the statistics
Honestly I had no position on abortion until I saw some of the insane statistics
No, most people do not have regular abortions because they want sex but think "chemiculs in muh body" is bad, but abortions are just fine.
That is not at all most people.
Culturally in America we are not taught that the fetus is a life
This said, bad reasons do not erase your rights.
This is the inevitable problem with giving people rights.
Correct, but we must also recognize where our rights come from
People are not given rights
Rights given are easily taken away. You must be willing to defend your rights by pen or by sword.
(Figure of speech. You should use rifles.)
No, everyone has rights granted to them solely by existing. The purpose of government is to take away rights that infringe on others
The constitution sees the rights as codiefied in it, not granted by it.
That’s why the second amendment is there
You have the right to protect your own rights, and not rely on the government
But the constitution is a piece of paper. The paper needs some steel, propellant and plastic to back it up.
The constitution is a set of beliefs and ideas
Well, aluminium too I suppose.
And those are impossible to kill
Anyways back to my original point
The constitution is the foundation of law and order
You acknowledge that the government is in place to protect the rights of the innocent, correct?
The government is in place to enforce laws, and defend the country from invasion.
Should the government protect those who cannot protect themselves?
We acknowledge that abortion is killing, after all
I don't know. Who are they protecting? What are they protecting them from?
The fetus from early termination, without being threatening to the mothers life
If it's protecting it from the right to control your own body, sorry.
So the rights of property supercedes the rights to life?
It's the right to control your body, who uses your organs.
tfw it's not just ones own body anymore
I don't believe that people's organs should be used against their will.
Yes it is, it is separated by a placenta.
It is a body supporting another, growing body.
So you think it’s fine if a woman knowingly gets pregnant and plans an abortion from day 1?
I don't think that people should have unprotected sex if they aren't willing to bear the responsibility to have the child
And I don't believe the government should be in our bedrooms or inside people.
I would agree
Unless it’s to protect an innocent life
Any right can be abrogated for that.
Absolutely because life should be held as the highest priority
Let me ask you this then
What rights is the fetus taking away from the mother
No, freedom is highest for me.
I'm not calling for regulations or the subversion of anyone's rights. People should take responisbility or some fucking birth control
You can have as many mass shootings as you want and the 2nd ammendment still stands.
All recent mass shootings have happened in gun free zones
North Korea and China have few mass shootings.
Have you been to China?
You CAN stop them.
It doesn’t matter
But I like the freedom more.
Yeah too few people to shoot due to the natural communist starvation.
China isn’t built on the foundational citizen rights hat we have
The UK has a ban on guns and every year shootings have increased
Earlier question: what freedoms is a fetus taking from their mother?
China is state capitalist, it has been a long time since they have dared implement their ideology @Anemic Crusader.
There is also a lot of crime in China
A lot of stabbings and kidnappings
But at least guns weren't used!
please also note that a fetus's mere existance implies consent on behalf of the mother and the father for all the changes neccessary to accomodate its existance
I am being sarcastic.
To present a more fair argument
No it doesn't.
I would suggest presenting the number of bullets fired vs the number of bullets resulting in injury for each country
People don't consent to HIV.
they fucked, unprotected, and didn't use any form of birth control afterwards
Rape is the only exception
That is not consenting to disease, that is undertaking a risky activity.
Again, 99% of abortions are convienence abortions
Rape isn’t a good metric to use for the majority
Should we hold the fetus responsible for the sins of the parent?
And I don't care what the reason is.
The reason for you using your right does not magically erase it.
You should absolutely care what the reason is
I believe that a person should only have an abortion if it was conceived in rape or they don’t have the sufficient funds to care for a child
Using your right = killing a fetus
Abortion is not a right
The state does not take away rights because people had a bad reason. Nazis and Communists are allowed to speak.
Only if they agreed with the state
Lmao censorship under communism is crazy
Who has the US gaoled for free speech?
You can’t say anything without fearing the secret police and government
The state can take away rights. For instance, in australia we have the right to freedom of movement, that is restricted upon an arrest made by the police
So, someone squirting in you is the same as being arrested?
Everyone has natural rights, and the government restricts them when you harm ‘society’
You guys are like feminist strawmen.
If someone is squirting in you, you are most likely letting them
Feminists believe abortion for all reasons
Pregnancy is something so easily avoided
If you're not letting them then it's rape
Do you want a baby? No? Then here, wear this 99cent balloon
extra worried, wear 3
A 99cent balloon vs taking a human life and scarring the mother
They want the government to not only pay for their birth control but fund their abortions when not needed