Literally uttered "gibberish"

Or in the most literal senses:
Methode cannot utter gibberish
Method has uttered "Methode cannot utter gibberish"

Human entails agency
But fetus must be human
And if you take potentiality as your angle, then you also have to respect everything that can potentially become a human, at which point, you explode your own system. As your food becomes a human

So you effectively have to become a Jainist by logical consequence

Fetus != human
If fetus = human, just bite the bullet and say you don't give a shit about humans <:Smug:643129431434461194>

sexual orientation: libertarian

@sydtko humans aren't agents necessarily

At least not if we're talking about the species

Babies aren't, for instance

@Deleted User

@󠀀󠀀 󠀀󠀀󠀀󠀀 󠀀󠀀 󠀀󠀀Tyler🔥 Lol wtf am I Darth Vader

Shut up

Yeah, I think agency could be a presupposition failure...
But if I'm willing to play the game... I don't really care about agency in itself.
It's how you justify lots of things

Shut the fuck up

Nations deny people agency for security purposes:
Surveillance, Japanese internment, can't refuse vaccinations, blah blah
So I accept agency (liberty) if there's no other extenuating circumstance, but in the abortion argument, you're always denying agency to the women (and somewhat the man) when you prioritize the baby/infants potential autonomy

So you basically already have a contradiction in valuing agency:
Valuing the mother or the infant

And I just claim that fetuses are non-identities

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonidentity-problem/

```A third objection focuses more narrowly on the rights-based approach. According to that objection, if the child has the right not to be brought into an existence of a certain sort, it is plausible that the child’s parents have various rights as well. Thus, the couple who opts to produce a child with Huntington’s disease or hereditary deafness in place of a relatively unimpaired child may be simply exercising their right of procreative liberty. They may, that is, be using their gametes and their labor, as a matter of right, in a way that suits them. We quickly see that the offspring’s rights and the couple’s rights cannot both be respected – a fact that raises the concern that the underlying account of rights may be inconsistent (Persson 2009).``` This one is strongly biased in favor of not giving birth...
But I think, in general, no person can consent to their own conception

So you can make a deontological argument for anti-natalism

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167218781000?journalCode=pspc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOyZglLlkWc

https://youtu.be/BdbtBLNc0yk I think destiny might be becoming more dumb

@Deleted User Tankie Destiny > Neoliberal Destiny

https://youtu.be/vE1iPDBc-iM

I hate Philip DeFranco

and yet... you posted 🤔

27% TOMATOMETER

Critics Consensus: Like the sequels that preceded it, Rambo: Last Blood is content to indulge in bloody violence at the expense of its main character's once-poignant story.

Audiance
Ratings and Reviews
4.0 out of 5

hmmm

@Deleted User hey wosiee owo

ideal burger

god i'm so fucking hungry

I am too now

<:LildogeYummy:653762584968691772>