As you know, censorship around the world has been ramping up at an alarming pace. The UK and OFCOM has singled out this community and have been focusing its censorship efforts here. It takes a good amount of resources to maintain the infrastructure for our community and to resist this censorship. We would appreciate any and all donations.
Bitcoin Address (BTC): 39deg9i6Zp1GdrwyKkqZU6rAbsEspvLBJt
Ethereum (ETH): 0xd799aF8E2e5cEd14cdb344e6D6A9f18011B79BE9
Monero (XMR): 49tuJbzxwVPUhhDjzz6H222Kh8baKe6rDEsXgE617DVS
It means everything. The law is based on proving things "beyond a shadow of a doubt" precisely because no knowledge is 100% knowable. Abortion is a right unless you can offer a shadow of doubt that a zygote can be conscious, biologically. And a shadow of a doubt doesn't just mean "not 100%".
Ah, the smoking gun. You're full of hot air.
No, it's just that it's waste of time to keep going on when I have already made my points. We have a difference of opinion. Saying silly things doesn't mean your point of view is right and mine is wrong. I am sure that you cannot know whether there is some level of consciousness for a zygote- you can believe you know, just like some people are sure their religion is correct and another's is not.
I think you misunderstand the humorous intent of this post- you might want to reread it.
It's just a little silly humor because we both made our points and there was no sense in keeping going around and around, so I just decided to use a little silly humor instead to try to put an end to this- I was just showing that I just wasn't taking this seriously any more because we both said all that we had to say.
Ah, okay. Was afraid you were a
That's not what I said. I agree we can't know anything for certain. I do believe it is clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that zygotes fundamentally cannot be conscious. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean 100% certain. It means certain enough for law. It's the same standard of proof required to show abortion is murder, you know. You can't even prove abortion is murder without proving consciousness was there and then gone. Your argument that consciousness is there is that we don't know it's not there, and your argument that it's gone after abortion is that we don't know it's there. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
You don't have to prove consciousness to prove murder- the zygote grows rapidly and is living- if you kill it and it is living this is murder. Also, beyond a reasonable doubt- that is just speculation, no one knows.
Alos, it's pretty clear that you agree with me on everything and that you're just playing Devil's advocate- you're not fooling me, I know you agree with me one million percent on everything!
You're totally right, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that those 99 are gonna incessantly complain that the one person doesn't wanna go to Disneyland.
That sounds terrifying.
No, the best doctors know that the screaming makes for the tastiest babies.
Playing rain sounds, with the occasional animal walking through the forest… snapping twigs with their hooves work best. Then the mom can't tell the difference between the twigs snapping and bones breaking… or the rain drops versus the gurgling sounds of their crying baby with a slit throat.
I actually just consulted with several zygotes and they told be that they are conscious and that they love life and that they are lookiing forward to being born. but even in the womb they are enjoying their lives very much- they also told me that they really like it when mom eats pizza. Several zygotes have also made it clear that they have dreams and aspirations like everyone else.
I know several zygotes who enjoying swimming and classical music and they love watching Jeopardy (through remote viewing) and they insist they that are very conscious and they are disappointed in your perspective that they are not conscious.
The politicians are the only people I know of that want a civil warI don't understand why you guys just don't have Civil War 2 already. You know you wanna kill each other so bad you can taste it & the rest of us really, really wanna watch it.
Well it did exist and it was alive, it had human DNA. But I'm glad you did your abortion early. I am sorry if I made you feel bad. I really don't know when a fetus becomes conscious or if that should be the measure (as others have suggested) for whether an abortion should be allowed or not. Probably not because it's unprovable. We can prove when a baby has a heartbeat though. So I like the heartbeat bills that are being passed. I really just came on this feed to say that the RVW overturn won't change anything so it's pointless to be fighting about it. And I think the focus should be on preventing unwanted pregnancies. I am not in favor of an outright ban on anything.
Meh. Those bills that you like describe electrical activity in rudimentary cardiac cells. This is very much NOT an actual beating heart (and therefore isn't a heartbeat). The actual technical term is "fetal pole cardiac activity." Those bills are written so they can put a bunch of their ideological verbiage into the law (some of which is patently untrue) and the real intent is to limit people's ability to get abortions.
I'm not sure why you think this. There are 13 states with trigger laws that will go into effect. In some of those states, there are no exceptions for rape or incest. In one, it appears there isn't even an exception for saving the life of the mother.
Someone based. Perhaps Weebster? Based Weebster.
At what month people like you would say abortion is starting to creep into murder? 6 months? Or as long as it's inside another person the protohuman is devoid of rights?
There is lots of demand for white babies. There are lots and lots of black and poc babies that don't get adopted. Or children with disabilities. Then there's the white appropriation of poc children without teaching them their heritage.
Thank you
As someone who has 1) placed a baby for adoption, 2) had her own children and 3) had an abortion, #3 was the less stressful and traumatic. Adoption was a horrible option.
There are aloso a lot of whit ecouiple who adopt black children and who do an excellent job of raising them- this has become much more common. And there are people who adopt children with disabilities. As far as teaching them tehir heritage, I'm not sure exactly what you would want people to do. I am part German, part Polish, part Austrian, and part Bohemian- nobody ever taught me anythinmg about these ethnicities. Black and white and hispanic and asian and many other races have contributed to the american culture, and certainly there are things to be taught from all cultures. YOu can always find fault, but I haqve seen in my circles of friends and family some white couples adopt some black children and these children are treated very well and are very happy- the parneting they are getting is 10,00 times better than I got from my white parents- I sometimes say my parents were monters, but this is an insult to monsters- no exaggeration- they deserve to rot in hell for thousands of years for how they treated me. If parents are caring to their children that's what matters most.
That's because some people have the point of view that this is a living thing that is in the process of growing into a completely developed baby, so it is wrong to stop this. You have a different point of view than this. People almost never change their mind on this issue, so once people have presented their point of view it's better to just realize they have their point of view and you have yours, rather than to get mad that you can't change their mind- it's a one in a million shot to change someone's mind on this issue.
Killing is not the same as murder. Killing is just ending life. Plucking a flower is "killing" but not a criminal offense. Murder is killing a human person. A requirement for personhood is the capacity for consciousness. So you do need to prove capacity for consciousness to prove murder. A zygote is not a person because it has no capacity for consciousness. Abortion might be "killing" a zygote, but only in the same sense that plucking a flower "kills" a flower. "Killing" is just a scientific term, murder is a legal offense we actually care about.
That's the definition. "Killing" isn't necessarily a criminal offense. For instance you can kill your own plants. "Murder" is a criminal offense. You can't kill your own child, that is murder. We are not discussing whether abortion is killing or not; it is. We are discussing whether killing a zygote is murder; it isn't.
This doesn't make any sense. You can't kill something that's not alive. You can't kill a board, but you can kill a plant. The difference between plants and boards is that plants are alive. This is a scientific fact, but I'm happy to entertain your symantic disagreement as long as you also concede that under this definition of "alive", zygotes would not be alive either.
You're invoking a slippery slope that doesn't exist. Murder will not be normalized if we acknowledge that zygotes are not people.
