A Rebellious People

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Anyone else smell incel?

Ooooh now we're going to go to calling me an incel now that the misogynist route didn't pan out for you? How do you think calling me an incel is going to win this pro-life debate? Oh no I'm sorry that's just your immaturity showing, you never grew up thinking about accepting responsibility did you? No you wanted to stay in your consequence free childhood and that followed you into adulthood, you abandoned God to be free of any consequence of Sin (afterall if there is no God there can't be such a thing as sin meaning you could do whatever you want) and following that you chose 'sexual liberation' following after the carnal desire of the flesh, which the New Testament warns against if you ever bothered reading it, you are cloaked with spiritual leprosy and you would advocate the deepest of abominations that a mother should take the life of her own child.

'Spiritual Leprosy' would be a great name for a band.

Boru

[Deesse23]

After all these pages you still didnt understand a thing.
In YOUR world, its not up to you to decide whats gonna happen. You will not have come to the point where you decide to stay hooked. Your opinion on this will be IRRELEVANT.
Its not about what you choose and why, but about the fact that you can NOT choose.



Yes you do. Otherwise please tell us in which case person #1 has the right to use the body of person #2, and person #2 has no say in this.
GO!


Bolding mine
And again, i call you out for misogynism, you misogynist peice of shit. Women get pregnant all the time, mosty without being promiscuous.
Your disdain for women really shows. So, fuck you.

not necessary to proivde yet more evidece of your misogyny.

How did you come to hate all women so much. Was that prevalent before your religion poisoned your mind, or were you a misogynist piece of shit beforehand?

---

Disdain for women? I'm not the one advocating that a mother should rip the life of her child from her womb in one of the most grotesque ways possible known to man. Also your only response was to call me a misogynist. As for what gives them the right? I've stated it multiple times, because they are a sentient being capable of feeling fear and love, and sentient beings are given the right to life, the mother had she not wanted children could have easily chosen not to welcome that seed into her womb, in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb. Again you reprobate you should not advocate for the shedding of innocent blood over a childish desire to be free from responsibility, you should mature and grow up and accept responsibility for your actions, as should all women who find themselves mothers to be. Saying that innocent children should be murdered by the hand of their own mother just because society said its acceptable does not make it right, rather it shows the degradation of our society and the lack of respect that is given to human life. How can you call yourself a humanitarian when you advocate to shed innocent blood? When you advocate that a mother should murder their own children. Who really is the misogynist here? Because if you really cared about women you would hold them to a higher standard than the one you currently do. It is the standards we set for ourselves that determines how we live our lives.

You clearly have very low standards if you advocate for a mother to take the life of her own child.

---

You failed to provide a scenario where person #1 is allowed to use the body of person #2 without person #2 consent. You conveniently ignore to adress that you DEMONSTRABLY are giving fetuses special rights.
You also did not apologize for usage of the term "promiscuity" as a broad brush to talk about the situation(s) at hand (i am not even adressing your incredibly discusting "spread her legs" statement, but it tells us a LOT about you).
You keep using emotional, loaded language. Stop that. Its not useful for a fruitful discussion. It only shows your silent admission to having no good arguments for your cause.
You also never listen, never learn. NONE denies a fetuses right to live. So please stop rambling straw man. We all know by now how intellectually lazy you are, but its getting annoying.

Until you change any of this, ill keep calling your out for what you are: A misogynist piece of shit.

in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb.

Consent to intercourse does not equal consent to pregnancy. How often has that been told to you?

You clearly have very low standards if you advocate for a mother to take the life of her own child

Being a dishonest (see: loadad language) misogynist (see: promiscuity) piece of shit, you clearly are not equipped (or willing, it seems) to have any meaningful discussion about my standards.

We can have a civil discussion, if you desire. But you need to improve some things in your wording and demeanor:

• stop using loaded language (child =!= fetus, abortion =!= murder, etc, pp)
  
• stop being misogynist, aka stop using deroatory terms for women and their actions (unless you want me to use derogatory words for you and your actions)
  
• Stop strawmanning: We are talking about bodily autonomy, not the right to live. Stop insinuating that people here deny fetuses any right to live
  

If you cant bring yourself to the point of having an informed discussion, to be willing to even understand the opponents perspective before you evaluae it, this "discussion" was over long before it began. Unlike you, most people here DO understand your position, have commented on it, adressed issues (dishonesty, inconsistency aka special rights to fetuses, misogyny), have provided their own standards.

How can you call yourself a humanitarian when you advocate to shed innocent blood?

You dont seem to understand humanitarism. You dont seem to understand the ethical conflict humanitarians would like to adress.
I will leave you at that and hopefully will find some time later today, to briefly outline this to you. We will also see if you are prepared and willing to engage, or if all you have is being polemic.

[Authari]

---

Disdain for women? I'm not the one advocating that a mother should rip the life of her child from her womb in one of the most grotesque ways possible known to man. Also your only response was to call me a misogynist. As for what gives them the right? I've stated it multiple times, because they are a sentient being capable of feeling fear and love, and sentient beings are given the right to life, the mother had she not wanted children could have easily chosen not to welcome that seed into her womb, in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb. Again you reprobate you should not advocate for the shedding of innocent blood over a childish desire to be free from responsibility, you should mature and grow up and accept responsibility for your actions, as should all women who find themselves mothers to be. Saying that innocent children should be murdered by the hand of their own mother just because society said its acceptable does not make it right, rather it shows the degradation of our society and the lack of respect that is given to human life. How can you call yourself a humanitarian when you advocate to shed innocent blood? When you advocate that a mother should murder their own children. Who really is the misogynist here? Because if you really cared about women you would hold them to a higher standard than the one you currently do. It is the standards we set for ourselves that determines how we live our lives.

You clearly have very low standards if you advocate for a mother to take the life of her own child.

---

You failed to provide a scenario where person #1 is allowed to use the body of person #2 without person #2 consent. You conveniently ignore to adress that you DEMONSTRABLY are giving fetuses special rights.
You also did not apologize for usage of the term "promiscuity" as a broad brush to talk about the situation(s) at hand (i am not even adressing your incredibly discusting "spread her legs" statement, but it tells us a LOT about you).
You keep using emotional, loaded language. Stop that. Its not useful for a fruitful discussion. It only shows your silent admission to having no good arguments for your cause.
You also never listen, never learn. NONE denies a fetuses right to live. So please stop rambling straw man. We all know by now how intellectually lazy you are, but its getting annoying.

Until you change any of this, ill keep calling your out for what you are: A misogynist piece of shit.

in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb.

Consent to intercourse does not equal consent to pregnancy. How often has that been told to you?

You clearly have very low standards if you advocate for a mother to take the life of her own child

Being a dishonest (see: loadad language) misogynist (see: promiscuity) piece of shit, you clearly are not equipped (or willing, it seems) to have any meaningful discussion about my standards.

We can have a civil discussion, if you desire. But you need to improve some things in your wording and demeanor:

• stop using loaded language (child =!= fetus, abortion =!= murder, etc, pp)
  
• stop being misogynist, aka stop using deroatory terms for women and their actions (unless you want me to use derogatory words for you and your actions)
  
• Stop strawmanning: We are talking about bodily autonomy, not the right to live. Stop insinuating that people here deny fetuses any right to live
  

If you cant bring yourself to the point of having an informed discussion, to be willing to even understand the opponents perspective before you evaluae it, this "discussion" was over long before it began. Unlike you, most people here DO understand your position, have commented on it, adressed issues (dishonesty, inconsistency aka special rights to fetuses, misogyny), have provided their own standards.

How can you call yourself a humanitarian when you advocate to shed innocent blood?

You dont seem to understand humanitarism. You dont seem to understand the ethical conflict humanitarians would like to adress.
I will leave you at that and hopefully will find some time later today, to briefly outline this to you. We will also see if you are prepared and willing to engage, or if all you have is being polemic.

In nature animals mainly only have sex to procreate (sure you get the odd walrus trying to have sex with a penguin but we're not talking about extraordinary cases here), the act of coitus is itself the act of procreation, ergo having sex is indeed a willing invitation to get pregnant because it is the act of procreation for which all intents and purposes animals solely engage in to produce offspring. As far as loaded language goes really you're going to nark on me for my polite word choices in the face of such hostility from the community here who took the opportunity not to have a fruitful conversation but instead rail against me personally, of course I take it with stride, there's nothing I love more than ruffling the feathers of atheists.

A mother and a father have an obligation to care for their children, a mother especially has the obligation to care for the life inside of her, through the act of procreation she already gave her consent for life to dwell within her she knew the consequences that would arise from a union with a man she was not married to, and no surprise men who aren't married to you often don't want to take responsibility for the child they helped produce therefore it is the Male Patriarchal Society that tries to convince women who are the only ones who can create life, that this gift that has been given to her, the gift of life, should be instead ripped from her stomach using crude surgical tools that tears the infant apart in the womb leaving a bloody mess and scenes that would make horror movies cringe. But that's humane... and loving... isn't it? right? To rip asunder that child limb from limb while it kicks in its mother's womb.

A mother has an obligation to care for her children, its not that 'another person has no right to live inside another person without their consent' its a mother has an obligation to her children. These are the values we set for ourselves as a society, we expect women to mature into loving mothers. Tell me how a woman is going to feel attached to her children after having three of them aborted because she didn't want them? Seems to me that she would have less attachment to her children than the mother that did not have an abortion done to her. By advocating for abortion you are advocating for the mother to take the life of her own children, how does that build a warm fuzzy feeling for her children after seeing the remains of her dead son or daughter in a glass tube dismembered and disemboweled? The Parent has a DUTY to their children, and that duty begins the moment they were conceived, for our society was structured in such a way that if done properly children are only conceived in the marital bed of a husband and wife. Just because someone wanted to 'express' themselves for a moment of passion, does not mean they get to rid themselves of the consequences of an act that should remain between a husband and a wife. They practiced their 'bodily autonomy' and that's fine, but as you have said, somebody is living inside of her, which means that body belongs to someone that is not the mother, and so draws to the sad conclusion for you that her 'autonomy' does not extend to the life of her unborn child, who as we have shown multiple times has its own cognizance and is capable of feeling fear and love.

Would you disagree and say that a mother and father do not have an obligation to their children?

[arewethereyet]

Did your mommy not love you enough?

[h4ym4n]

Did you mommy not love you enough?

He’s a slave to his mothers health with an absent father. 

He worships a baby killing daddy in the sky.

[Deesse23]

In nature animals mainly only have sex to procreate

Bonobos are having (lots of!) sex in order to ease tensions within the group. For them sex is a means to an end (harmony within the group, continued existence and prospering of the group).
Bonobos also happen to be our closest ancestors, DNA wise.
Humans, like Bonnobos, are part of "nature".

Do you accept that your position is funamentally flawed (in many, many ways...want me to elaborate on other silly claims of yours)? Are you willing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, you are completely wrong?
Are you willing (and able) to learn and understand a different point of view than your faulty position?

[brewer]

Disdain for women? I'm not the one advocating that a mother should rip the life of her child from her womb in one of the most grotesque ways possible known to man. Also your only response was to call me a misogynist. As for what gives them the right? I've stated it multiple times, because they are a sentient being capable of feeling fear and love, and sentient beings are given the right to life, the mother had she not wanted children could have easily chosen not to welcome that seed into her womb, in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb. Again you reprobate you should not advocate for the shedding of innocent blood over a childish desire to be free from responsibility, you should mature and grow up and accept responsibility for your actions, as should all women who find themselves mothers to be. Saying that innocent children should be murdered by the hand of their own mother just because society said its acceptable does not make it right, rather it shows the degradation of our society and the lack of respect that is given to human life. How can you call yourself a humanitarian when you advocate to shed innocent blood? When you advocate that a mother should murder their own children. Who really is the misogynist here? Because if you really cared about women you would hold them to a higher standard than the one you currently do. It is the standards we set for ourselves that determines how we live our lives.

You clearly have very low standards if you advocate for a mother to take the life of her own child.

[Angrboda]

The moment you have to fall back on the 'prove to me it does' and saying that nothing I have 'appealed' to would give them the Right I have appealed using reason and logic and all my points still stand, you rejected all of them saying flagrantly 'they have no right! they have no right!' yet when I asked you to prove that they have no right after illustriously proving to you that they do have a right you fall back on the 'prove to me it does' after I already have done so.

You 'illustriously' proved they have that right? No, you asserted they have that right, and then tried to back it up with a bunch of stuff that was mostly biologically and logically wrong. Well I'm offering you the chance to actually demonstrate your point. At one end of the spectrum, we have an unfertilized egg which has no rights. At the other end of the spectrum we have a fully birthed baby which has the full panoply of human rights with some exceptions. Please state when in the process of developing from the one into the other it attained the rights you claim and why at that specific point?

[no one]

You're still avoiding the question you gutless, spineless, yellow-bellied, intolerant, moronic scumbag!

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS god.

[Angrboda]

I've stated it multiple times, because they are a sentient being capable of feeling fear and love, and sentient beings are given the right to life, the mother had she not wanted children could have easily chosen not to welcome that seed into her womb, in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb.

Anyways I posit to you that Energy is the Essence of Sentience. That Energy is actually ALIVE, I have a pamphlet for this entire thing but its going to be published in the book I'm writing which I am calling ******. Of course if Energy is actually itself Sentience then the entire cosmos which is made of Energy would be essentially a Sentient Entity that we might call... God.

Here we have you, in another thread, claiming that all energy is sentient. So chicken and cows have sentience, but then, so do all plants, as they all have energy. So, according to you, it is immoral to eat both plants and animals because doing so is depriving them of the right to life. I'm just curious. What do you eat?