A Rebellious People

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that one was for arewetheryet, wasn't it?* Not that it matters. We've got an unfuckable fatherless kid lurking in his moms basement talking to a -bunch- of parents....about parental responsibility.

*I never really know who these cretins are yelling at in a given moment, they don't make a lot of sense.

[Nay_Sayer]

Reminder;


1: Place Authari on ignore
2: ???
3: Profit!

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be simpler to do so if trolling hadn't turned into the political religion of christofascist lunatics. Ignoring it is how we got the rvw decision.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You're telling me that if I hook up to a 4 year old for 9 months it will save its life? 

If that free choice then that's fine but no one has the right to force someone else to do the same .

Jesus Christ I'd have to be some kind of monster to say 'fuck you I don't want you connected to me go die you fucking little child you're a worthless piece of shit that should never been born' I don't have to be forced to do anything in this scenario because I'd voluntarily say 'hook me up' if it was to save some kid's life.

No you would not be a monster to not want to forced to do that against your will. If that free choice then that's fine but no one has the right to force someone else to do the same 

And no I don't want to give unborn infants any special rights,

Yes you do. You think it has the right to live inside someone against their will something no one else would be granted 

 just the right to life which you and I enjoy,

This supposed right that comes at the expense of someone elses freedom of autonomy and choice to host another life form. 

 and I do not think that the mother's promiscuity should play a deciding factor in determining whether that unborn child ought to live or not,

She has every right to be as horny as she likes and no one has any business telling her what do do with her reproductive organs  

 certainly I don't think that just because a woman spread her legs that that gives her the right to terminate the life of a sentient being capable of feeling love and fear, her own child none the less, 

It's inside her body end of story and none of the factors above change anything.

and I am not even the father of the child in our hypothetical situation why should I a stranger care more for someone else's life than a bunch of self-proclaimed humanitarian atheists. Seems to me like you're not so humanitarian after all calling for innocent blood to be shed.

Your willingness to be hooked up doesn't make you more humanitarian then us and respecting a women choice makes us vastly more humanitarian then you. In fact you desire to stifle this choice makes you the least humanitarian among us. You wish to reduce women to mere incubators. That's not humanitarian is the slightest.

[Simon Moon]

Fetus's have the right to live in a woman's womb, but NOT at the expense of the woman's rights.

No one has the right to order someone to act as a life support system for another person.

You anti-choice people don't want to give fetus's the same rights as a person already born, you want to give them special rights.

Let's say you wake up one day with a 4 year old person connected to your body for you to act as their life support system for 9 months. If you have them disconnected, it will absolutely end their life.

Should you be forced to continue to live with this other person using you for life support?

You're telling me that if I hook up to a 4 year old for 9 months it will save its life? Jesus Christ I'd have to be some kind of monster to say 'fuck you I don't want you connected to me go die you fucking little child you're a worthless piece of shit that should never been born' I don't have to be forced to do anything in this scenario because I'd voluntarily say 'hook me up' if it was to save some kid's life.

And no I don't want to give unborn infants any special rights, just the right to life which you and I enjoy, and I do not think that the mother's promiscuity should play a deciding factor in determining whether that unborn child ought to live or not, certainly I don't think that just because a woman spread her legs that that gives her the right to terminate the life of a sentient being capable of feeling love and fear, her own child none the less, and I am not even the father of the child in our hypothetical situation why should I a stranger care more for someone else's life than a bunch of self-proclaimed humanitarian atheists. Seems to me like you're not so humanitarian after all calling for innocent blood to be shed.

You missed the entire point of the hypothetical I created.

I wasn't saying it would not be morally good to continue to provide life support for the child. I asked if you should be forced to provide life support.

As others have said many times: consenting to having sex is not consent to getting pregnant, getting pregnant is not consent to providing life support for a fetus for 9 months.

[brewer]

It would  make my day if this asshat was Drich also.

[Simon Moon]

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?

Bold portion mine.

This is absolutely not true.

The Amazon river dolphin or boto has been reported to form up in bands of 3–5 individuals engaging in sexual activity. The groups usually comprise young males and sometimes one or two females.

Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American bison.

More than 20 species of bat have been documented to engage in homosexual behavior.

African and Asian male elephants will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Male elephants, who often live apart from the general herd, often form "companionships", consisting of an older individual and one or sometimes two younger males with sexual behavior being an important part of the social dynamic.

Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequencies of homosexual behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax. Such interactions between males have been found to be more frequent than heterosexual coupling. In one study, up to 94% of observed mounting incidents took place between two males.

Ovis aries (sheep) has attracted much attention due to the fact that around 8–10% of rams have an exclusive homosexual orientation. Such rams prefer to court and mount other rams only, even in the presence of estrous ewes. Moreover, around 18–22% of rams are bisexual.

This is just a small list of non reproduction type is sex in the natural world. Lions, giraffes, Orangutans, gorillas, bats, penguins, polecats, are a few more.

And, as someone else mentioned, bonobo chimps (our closest cousins), are quite active in various non reproductive sexual activities.

So, if you are so utterly wrong about this, just think about all the other things you are wrong about.

[The Grand Nudger]

In nature, pregnant females are choice prey and infants are eaten alive asshole first. I'm surprised that it even needs to be said that dicks end up getting stuck in all sorts of places. We go hard on earth.

Obviously, the "naturalness" of a given behavior has nothing to do with how our friend - or anyone else..really... believes the world should be. If you think about it, there wouldn't be any shoulds or oughts, if how things are is the end of the discussion and the proper state of affairs.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yup this is a textbook appeal to nature fallacy.

[Simon Moon]

Yup this is a textbook appeal to nature fallacy.

It's not just that their argument is fallacious, they weren't even correct about their 'facts' about the natural world they were appealing to.

Of course, my response is not an "appeal to nature" fallacy, because I was not making a judgement on right or wrong. I was only stating the facts.