How women feel aborting their 9th baby this week

[OYASUMIAZI]

Notice how you didn’t even respond to anything I said now
Just wrap it up

I did.. The rest of what you said was fruitless and had nothing to do with the argument. If you think baby's and fetuses are the same thing than you are just objectively wrong by definition.

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

disprove it right now
you are such an iqlet

An incel is being immoral by being celibate as they are not using their semen to create life. Leading to a loss of potential life.

Disproven, keep using ad homs to insult me rather than come up with a real argument u misogynistic ugly fuck xD

 

[ToryToad]

Me after I have my hecking basic spinning apple for breakfast so now I can abort my babies in peace

preach sister

 

[Splankу]

I did.. The rest of what you said was fruitless and had nothing to do with the argument. If you think baby's and fetuses are the same thing than you are just objectively wrong by definition.

I never said they were? It’s just a stage of the humans development you’re avoiding everything I say

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

I never said they were? It’s just a stage of the humans development you’re avoiding everything I say

No?

It’s not the potential it’s the fact that it’s already a separate body that’s developing on its own

and n***a u already got proven wrong here, a fetus isnt a seperate body developing on its own. You're on some major retarded shit with this. Havent heard any good reason abortion should be banned from you.

 

[Splankу]

No?

and n***a u already got proven wrong here, a fetus isnt a seperate body developing on its own. You're on some major retarded shit with this. Havent heard any good reason abortion should be banned from you.

It literally is? Can you learn some biology before acting smart

 

[plasty]

An incel is being immoral by being celibate as they are not using their semen to create life. Leading to a loss of potential life.

Disproven, keep using ad homs to insult me rather than come up with a real argument u misogynistic ugly fuck xD

wait so you are telling me if I jerk off and cum in a tissue that in 9 months a baby will come out?

That is a dumb argument. The entire point is fertilization and conception. By that same analogy (if you can even call it that jfl) that you provided, I could say that a women wastes a baby every time she has a period.

I inferred that you lack intelligence because of your previous comments to other users; it was not a baseless claim.

You employ two ad hominems by calling me an "ugly fuck" and "misogynist" yet with no knowledge of how I look like or my other beliefs.

 

[plasty]

It literally is? Can you learn some biology before acting smart

@splanky just dnr him i have him on ignore

It is said that you should surround yourself with people you aspire to be like.

I aspire to grow my cognitive capabilities, and thus i will be interacting with this thread and user @OYASUMIAZI much less so I can use my energy in ways that pertain to my bailiwick of knowledge (surgery, skincare, etc.)

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

It literally is? Can you learn some biology before acting smart

Google is free. please just use google.

wait so you are telling me if I jerk off and cum in a tissue that in 9 months a baby will come out?

That is a dumb argument. The entire point is fertilization and conception. By that same analogy (if you can even call it that jfl) that you provided, I could say that a women wastes a baby every time she has a period.

I inferred that you lack intelligence because of your previous comments to other users; it was not a baseless claim.

You employ two ad hominems by calling me an "ugly fuck" and "misogynist" yet with no knowledge of how I look like or my other beliefs.

don't cry lol, i was just using an ad hom just like you!!!
You don't understand the concept of "potential". Ignore me because you got proven wrong is so sad lmfao.

Can't wait to go donate to keeping abortions legal and affordable while going to protests to make sure this happens.

 

[plasty]

don't cry lol, i was just using an ad hom just like you!!!
You don't understand the concept of "potential". Ignore me because you got proven wrong is so sad lmfao.

Can't wait to go donate to keeping abortions legal and affordable while going to protests to make sure this happens.

what? how do I not understand it?
using it just like me is just setting yourself up to be labeled a hypocrite...
Can you please tell me what I ignored? I believe I addressed the majority of points please tell me any I may have missed.

It is fine to go to protests I am happy you support your cause i just disagree. Also you are kind of an asshole when debating people maybe that is why you are negatively received.

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

Also you are kind of an asshole when debating people maybe that is why you are negatively received.

You do realize im only being an asshole because you began by calling me an iqlet and saying i was dumb xD

Can you please tell me what I ignored? I believe I addressed the majority of points please tell me any I may have missed.

"just dnr him i have him on ignore" You genuinely just exposed yourself for being an iqlet. I'm sobbing.

what? how do I not understand it?

"potential" for life does not just mean once a sperm has hit an egg? you have no concept of the word potential if thats how you define it. You clearly believe in abortion like me, Simply you believe that an abortion can only happen earlier than I believe it can happen.
Sperm, Eggs, Celibates, Infertile's, These all have potential for life. Why do you draw the line at fertilized egg?

 

[plasty]

You do realize im only being an asshole because you began by calling me an iqlet and saying i was dumb xD

"just dnr him i have him on ignore" You genuinely just exposed yourself for being an iqlet. I'm sobbing.

"potential" for life does not just mean once a sperm has hit an egg? you have no concept of the word potential if thats how you define it. You clearly believe in abortion like me, Simply you believe that an abortion can only happen earlier than I believe it can happen.
Sperm, Eggs, Celibates, Infertile's, These all have potential for life. Why do you draw the line at fertilized egg?

I draw the line because of basic logic.
As i had explained, an unfertilized embryo has no potential for life.
The same goes for the eggs you may eat for breakfast. They are unfertilized. If you left them out in a nest in perfect conditions, they would not just hatch eventually without a male to fertilize them.
Once they are fertilized, they have direct potential for life, like a countdown has started.
Once conception occurs in a woman's womb, the countdown (around 9 months), begins.
At that point, it is no longer a guessing game of if the child will be birthed, but a given specific time frame that is nearly guaranteed to happen
The fact that you choose to be ignorant of the obvious difference between the two shows your stubbornness to accept logical information and strong cognitive bias, and I would suggest more thought and self reflection in your daily life.

 

[Br4va]

Bump

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

I draw the line because of basic logic.
As i had explained, an unfertilized embryo has no potential for life.
The same goes for the eggs you may eat for breakfast. They are unfertilized. If you left them out in a nest in perfect conditions, they would not just hatch eventually without a male to fertilize them.
Once they are fertilized, they have direct potential for life, like a countdown has started.
Once conception occurs in a woman's womb, the countdown (around 9 months), begins.
At that point, it is no longer a guessing game of if the child will be birthed, but a given specific time frame that is nearly guaranteed to happen
The fact that you choose to be ignorant of the obvious difference between the two shows your stubbornness to accept logical information and strong cognitive bias, and I would suggest more thought and self reflection in your daily life.

if your argument is “abortion should be banned because a fertilized embryo has the potential to become a baby,” you still need to explain why that potential gives it a right to use another person's body and why that right overrides the pregnant person's bodily autonomy. That's the part your “countdown” analogy doesn't establish.

And do not tell me i have cognative bias and need self relfection? you're just being a weirdo. Sperm has potential a swell as an embryo, stop ignoring my argument. You cant even comprehend what im saying, you're running in circles just saying "potential potential potential" without any understanding of what that means. You're just brainwashed and misogynistic get a grip xD jfl

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

I draw the line because of basic logic.
As i had explained, an unfertilized embryo has no potential for life.
The same goes for the eggs you may eat for breakfast. They are unfertilized. If you left them out in a nest in perfect conditions, they would not just hatch eventually without a male to fertilize them.
Once they are fertilized, they have direct potential for life, like a countdown has started.
Once conception occurs in a woman's womb, the countdown (around 9 months), begins.
At that point, it is no longer a guessing game of if the child will be birthed, but a given specific time frame that is nearly guaranteed to happen
The fact that you choose to be ignorant of the obvious difference between the two shows your stubbornness to accept logical information and strong cognitive bias, and I would suggest more thought and self reflection in your daily life.

Give me a real argument. Saying "my proof and argument comes down to basic logic" shows some insane bias btw.

 

[plasty]

if your argument is “abortion should be banned because a fertilized embryo has the potential to become a baby,” you still need to explain why that potential gives it a right to use another person's body and why that right overrides the pregnant person's bodily autonomy. That's the part your “countdown” analogy doesn't establish.

And do not tell me i have cognative bias and need self relfection? you're just being a weirdo. Sperm has potential a swell as an embryo, stop ignoring my argument. You cant even comprehend what im saying, you're running in circles just saying "potential potential potential" without any understanding of what that means. You're just brainwashed and misogynistic get a grip xD jfl

???
Are you seriously arguing against a biological principle? A developing fetus is not like a tumor growing. It something that is developing into a separate entity, and the child of the mother. I said that it has the right to use the mother's body because that is how reproduction works. It would be an amazing world where children could just teleport from another place carried by storks like in Boss Baby. however we live in reality, where the only way a baby can be born is from a woman's vagina or through a c-section (yes I know there is artificial womb tech and cloning developing but that is not yet mainstream).

I am talking about direct potential, not theoretical. Sperm alone or an embryo alone has no potential on its own. There is a multi-step conditional and non-inevitable process to get those to a point where they will inevitably become a biological entity. Meanwhile, a fertilized egg in a healthy womb need no other assistance other than the conditions it is already provided with in that moment. Thus, a fertilized egg has inevitable potential, meanwhile sperm and egg alone only have to have other conditions met just to get to the point where the birth is inevitably happening.

Can you please explain how I am brainwashed and/or misogynistic? These are just phrases you are repeating over and over. I asked you to employ the practice of self reflection because that will hopefully help you critically think and form thoughts for yourself rather than just repeating talking points from opinion pieces. I have done my best to refrain from saying anything overtly misogynistic like "muh tfd... muh all women are retarded," unlike some people in this thread, Instead, I have actually put a good amount of effort and my time into having what I intended to be a proper debate. I apologize for saying for the the other user to dnr you and for calling you an iqlet, but other than that I have tried my best to hold my tongue and be respectful. Do you mind showing a little maturity doing the same?

There is not a single one of my points you have reputably and firmly debunked or proved false. Please don't provide me with another filibustering response until you are capable of doing so.

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

a fertilized egg has inevitable potential

This is wrong. Embryos can fail to implant, miscarry, etc.
More importantly, “inevitable potential” doesn't establish a right.


Even if we granted that every embryo in a particular situation would eventually become a newborn absent interruption, you'd still need an argument for why future developmental trajectory impose an obligation on the pregnant person? saying “I said that it has the right to use the mother's body because that is how reproduction works.” that an is/ought jump.
“X is biologically necessary for reproduction” does not by itself entail “therefore X has a moral right to demand someone's continued bodily participation.”

You claim
1. An embryo is a developing human organism.
2. A developing human organism has a moral right to life.
3. Therefore, it has a right to continued use of the pregnant person's body.
The first 2 could be argued for. But claim 3 does not follow them. You need to explain why the fetus's right to life entails a right to another person's internal organs, blood supply, nutrients, and continued bodily support, and why that right overrides the pregnant person's refusal.

 

[plasty]

This is wrong. Embryos can fail to implant, miscarry, etc.
More importantly, “inevitable potential” doesn't establish a right.


Even if we granted that every embryo in a particular situation would eventually become a newborn absent interruption, you'd still need an argument for why future developmental trajectory impose an obligation on the pregnant person? saying “I said that it has the right to use the mother's body because that is how reproduction works.” that an is/ought jump.
“X is biologically necessary for reproduction” does not by itself entail “therefore X has a moral right to demand someone's continued bodily participation.”

You claim
1. An embryo is a developing human organism.
2. A developing human organism has a moral right to life.
3. Therefore, it has a right to continued use of the pregnant person's body.
The first 2 could be argued for. But claim 3 does not follow them. You need to explain why the fetus's right to life entails a right to another person's internal organs, blood supply, nutrients, and continued bodily support, and why that right overrides the pregnant person's refusal.

Point one: *fertilized embryo I said
Point two: yes correct I claimed that
Point 3: Yes I also claimed that and can argue it. Sorry for my lack of a satisfactory explanation I am on vacation so hard to re-read my posts lol. Here:
I believe that since a fetus, or developing human organism, or baby in the womb... whatever term you wish to use... will inevitably become a human organism in a determinable amount of time under normal conditions, It is only normal and ethical to let that process happening because taking that right away would take away the organism's right to be born and thus live a life. There is nearly no imminent risk to the mother's life. Right now, cases in which abortion happens because birth may kill the other is less than 1%. I judge that while the organism may feed off the mother's resources and compromise some of her autonomy and ease of daily function, that that is a smaller moral wrong than the loss of a life of a human, or a future human that is guaranteed to live.

Over 90% of abortions are completely elective by the mother's choice. The mom chose to put herself in a position where she got pregnant, unless of course there was a contraception failure or case of r**e, which together make up less than 1-2% of all abortions. That is a grey area in which I believe exceptions for abortion could be made on a case-by-case bases, as well as if the child is confirmed to be a stillbirth. Failure to implant is not something that is induced and is yet another natural feature of biology, just as pregnancy is also.

I said that the child in the womb has a right to live because it is the natural reproductive process, and also because the loss of that life would be a far worse consequence than a temporary deficit in function and resources the mother experiences. This is another one of my arguments that I did not elaborate on well enough, so I apologize. From a consequentialist perspective, the death of the developing child is far worse than the temporary non-lethal strain the mother faces. Please note: I am not trying to downplay the suffering and pain and difficulty of life a mother experiences, I am just saying loss of life is worse. This is not from a misogynistic perspective or anything either. Yes, I may be a man, but biology dictates than women get pregnant and males spread the sperm to fertilize but do not carry the baby. Because of the consequence of loss of life, it is, and has been for thousands of years, the mother's duty to carry the baby if it will come out an alive organism.

Also @ToryToad @TonyDr @#sensitiveyoungwoman @splanky @genio. Check this out.

I trusted user @OYASUMIAZI and did not think to check for ai, yet I started picking up on phrasing the more I read. I have sincerely tried to refute your points with my own words, putting effort and research and genuine opinion into what I type, and all you can do in response is give me AI slop back. I mean... are you serious right now? I tried to be respectful to you. Now you have made that impossible. I tried to have an honest debate with you, one which I beleived I was winning. You chose to cheat and still were losing. I have lost my respect for you as an opponent please never post another thread again and delete your account immediately.
Thanks
-Plasty

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

Point one: *fertilized embryo I said
Point two: yes correct I claimed that
Point 3: Yes I also claimed that and can argue it. Sorry for my lack of a satisfactory explanation I am on vacation so hard to re-read my posts lol. Here:
I believe that since a fetus, or developing human organism, or baby in the womb... whatever term you wish to use... will inevitably become a human organism in a determinable amount of time under normal conditions, It is only normal and ethical to let that process happening because taking that right away would take away the organism's right to be born and thus live a life. There is nearly no imminent risk to the mother's life. Right now, cases in which abortion happens because birth may kill the other is less than 1%. I judge that while the organism may feed off the mother's resources and compromise some of her autonomy and ease of daily function, that that is a smaller moral wrong than the loss of a life of a human, or a future human that is guaranteed to live.

Over 90% of abortions are completely elective by the mother's choice. The mom chose to put herself in a position where she got pregnant, unless of course there was a contraception failure or case of r**e, which together make up less than 1-2% of all abortions. That is a grey area in which I believe exceptions for abortion could be made on a case-by-case bases, as well as if the child is confirmed to be a stillbirth. Failure to implant is not something that is induced and is yet another natural feature of biology, just as pregnancy is also.

I said that the child in the womb has a right to live because it is the natural reproductive process, and also because the loss of that life would be a far worse consequence than a temporary deficit in function and resources the mother experiences. This is another one of my arguments that I did not elaborate on well enough, so I apologize. From a consequentialist perspective, the death of the developing child is far worse than the temporary non-lethal strain the mother faces. Please note: I am not trying to downplay the suffering and pain and difficulty of life a mother experiences, I am just saying loss of life is worse. This is not from a misogynistic perspective or anything either. Yes, I may be a man, but biology dictates than women get pregnant and males spread the sperm to fertilize but do not carry the baby. Because of the consequence of loss of life, it is, and has been for thousands of years, the mother's duty to carry the baby if it will come out an alive organism.

Well I sat here and wrote it. It is not AI so I'm confused on why your checker says this but its whatever.
Those things are known for their wrongness.

But anyways I'll continue. Describe pregnancy as “a temporary deficit in function and resources” Is a massive understatement that you're using to try to undermine my argument. Pregnancy can involve substantial physical impairment, severe pain, permanent bodily changes, disability, complications, loss of employment/income, and in some cases serious injury or death. As described in NICHD Pregnancy Complications Database and the EEOC Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination. And holding onto a baby for ~9 months with these major risks is not just a temporary deficit.
Also you never answered why should the deprivation of a possible future life necessarily outweigh the actual, present costs imposed on the pregnant person? You keep acting like a developing fetus is both guaranteed to live. And you give it the same moral weight of a existing life and a merely possible future life without defending that assumption.

And this is just hilarious. You say abortion is permissible after r**e because its a "grey" area but otherwise a women needs to face her consequences??
If the fetus has an intrinsic right to life because it is a developing human organism, why should the circumstances of conception change that right???? xD.
You've accused me of using AI while using an AI run checker. Not answered my biggest questions... An threw in some insults because you're mad you're losing the debate


Also, Don't you think its weird how every checker I used it came out to say not AI?? You went out of your way to find one that would flag it as AI because you lost the debate. @ToryToad @TonyDr @#sensitiveyoungwoman @splanky @genio. Check this out.
I trusted user @plasty and did not think to check for ai, yet I started picking up on phrasing the more I read. I have sincerely tried to refute your points with my own words, putting effort and research and genuine opinion into what I type, and all you can do in response is give me AI slop back. I mean... are you serious right now? I tried to be respectful to you. Now you have made that impossible. I tried to have an honest debate with you, one which I beleived I was winning. You chose to cheat and still were losing. I have lost my respect for you as an opponent please never post another thread again and delete your account immediately. It breaks my heart that people have to come to fruitlessly accusing when they lose </3

 

[plasty]

Well I sat here and wrote it. It is not AI so I'm confused on why your checker says this but its whatever.
Those things are known for their wrongness.

But anyways I'll continue. Describe pregnancy as “a temporary deficit in function and resources” Is a massive understatement that you're using to try to undermine my argument. Pregnancy can involve substantial physical impairment, severe pain, permanent bodily changes, disability, complications, loss of employment/income, and in some cases serious injury or death. As described in NICHD Pregnancy Complications Database and the EEOC Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination. And holding onto a baby for ~9 months with these major risks is not just a temporary deficit.
Also you never answered why should the deprivation of a possible future life necessarily outweigh the actual, present costs imposed on the pregnant person? You keep acting like a developing fetus is both guaranteed to live. And you give it the same moral weight of a existing life and a merely possible future life without defending that assumption.

And this is just hilarious. You say abortion is permissible after r**e because its a "grey" area but otherwise a women needs to face her consequences??
If the fetus has an intrinsic right to life because it is a developing human organism, why should the circumstances of conception change that right???? xD.
You've accused me of using AI while using an AI run checker. Not answered my biggest questions... An threw in some insults because you're mad you're losing the debate


Also, Don't you think its weird how every checker I used it came out to say not AI?? You went out of your way to find one that would flag it as AI because you lost the debate. @ToryToad @TonyDr @#sensitiveyoungwoman @splanky @genio. Check this out.
I trusted user @plasty and did not think to check for ai, yet I started picking up on phrasing the more I read. I have sincerely tried to refute your points with my own words, putting effort and research and genuine opinion into what I type, and all you can do in response is give me AI slop back. I mean... are you serious right now? I tried to be respectful to you. Now you have made that impossible. I tried to have an honest debate with you, one which I beleived I was winning. You chose to cheat and still were losing. I have lost my respect for you as an opponent please never post another thread again and delete your account immediately. It breaks my heart that people have to come to fruitlessly accusing when they lose </3

I used Pangram AI checker, something that the teachers at my school have a partnership with, so I consider it pretty reputable.
I will not counter any more of your points tonight as I have a dinner and do not consider zerogpt satisfactory you can evade it by simply slightly tweaking the formatting. I also did not lose the debate in the slightest jfll. You have consistently cherrypicked one or two of my arguments to quote, the ones you can best refute, and spent all your resources arguing against them. I have tried to respond to every point you made fairly. Please give me some quick evidence As to how I lost, this time without putting a prompt into an LLM. Come on... I believe in you! You can do it!

I threw in insults because it is infuriating to see I have spent so much effort actually attempting to refute your points only to find you most likely used AI.

I may attempt to respond to this argument in the morning, once I have thought this through and considered it is worth my time. Goodnight.

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

I used Pangram AI checker, something that the teachers at my school have a partnership with, so I consider it pretty reputable.
I will not counter any more of your points tonight as I have a dinner and do not consider zerogpt satisfactory you can evade it by simply slightly tweaking the formatting. I also did not lose the debate in the slightest jfll. You have consistently cherrypicked one or two of my arguments to quote, the ones you can best refute, and spent all your resources arguing against them. I have tried to respond to every point you made fairly. Please give me some quick evidence As to how I lost, this time without putting a prompt into an LLM. Come on... I believe in you! You can do it!

I threw in insults because it is infuriating to see I have spent so much effort actually attempting to refute your points only to find you most likely used AI.

I may attempt to respond to this argument in the morning, once I have thought this through and considered it is worth my time. Goodnight.

Ok so this seems less about the argument and more about you dodging the debate because you think its AI.
You're making me cry LMAO. I just gave you two other proofs to reject your claim of AI. And you reject them and run away because it's not partnered with your teachers.

Prove that I used AI. My argument doesn't even read like AI remotely so I see this as more of a scapegoat. I did not cherry pick your arguments. You've ignored every single one of my major points and ran away.

Insults, accusations, and refusing to engage in a debate. Seems like I won. Have a good day honeybun! Next time argue in good faith.

Here's me showing you nothing has been "tweaked to trick the checker"
Please refrain from ever coming back to this forum as debates clearly aren't your strong suit.

 

[genio]

Point one: *fertilized embryo I said
Point two: yes correct I claimed that
Point 3: Yes I also claimed that and can argue it. Sorry for my lack of a satisfactory explanation I am on vacation so hard to re-read my posts lol. Here:
I believe that since a fetus, or developing human organism, or baby in the womb... whatever term you wish to use... will inevitably become a human organism in a determinable amount of time under normal conditions, It is only normal and ethical to let that process happening because taking that right away would take away the organism's right to be born and thus live a life. There is nearly no imminent risk to the mother's life. Right now, cases in which abortion happens because birth may kill the other is less than 1%. I judge that while the organism may feed off the mother's resources and compromise some of her autonomy and ease of daily function, that that is a smaller moral wrong than the loss of a life of a human, or a future human that is guaranteed to live.

Over 90% of abortions are completely elective by the mother's choice. The mom chose to put herself in a position where she got pregnant, unless of course there was a contraception failure or case of r**e, which together make up less than 1-2% of all abortions. That is a grey area in which I believe exceptions for abortion could be made on a case-by-case bases, as well as if the child is confirmed to be a stillbirth. Failure to implant is not something that is induced and is yet another natural feature of biology, just as pregnancy is also.

I said that the child in the womb has a right to live because it is the natural reproductive process, and also because the loss of that life would be a far worse consequence than a temporary deficit in function and resources the mother experiences. This is another one of my arguments that I did not elaborate on well enough, so I apologize. From a consequentialist perspective, the death of the developing child is far worse than the temporary non-lethal strain the mother faces. Please note: I am not trying to downplay the suffering and pain and difficulty of life a mother experiences, I am just saying loss of life is worse. This is not from a misogynistic perspective or anything either. Yes, I may be a man, but biology dictates than women get pregnant and males spread the sperm to fertilize but do not carry the baby. Because of the consequence of loss of life, it is, and has been for thousands of years, the mother's duty to carry the baby if it will come out an alive organism.

Also @ToryToad @TonyDr @#sensitiveyoungwoman @splanky @genio. Check this out.

I trusted user @OYASUMIAZI and did not think to check for ai, yet I started picking up on phrasing the more I read. I have sincerely tried to refute your points with my own words, putting effort and research and genuine opinion into what I type, and all you can do in response is give me AI slop back. I mean... are you serious right now? I tried to be respectful to you. Now you have made that impossible. I tried to have an honest debate with you, one which I beleived I was winning. You chose to cheat and still were losing. I have lost my respect for you as an opponent please never post another thread again and delete your account immediately.
Thanks
-Plasty
View attachment 418594

I don’t know why you tagged me I really couldn’t give less of a fuck

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

I don’t know why you tagged me I really couldn’t give less of a fuck

I don't even fucking know you, I just copy pasted his lame ass call for his bitches to come glaze him and you're one he chose

 

[genio]

I don't even fucking know you, I just copy pasted his lame ass call for his bitches to come glaze him and you're one he chose

n***a I was never addressing you lmao

 

[OYASUMIAZI]

n***a I was never addressing you lmao

well n***a ts pinged me too for some reason so i dont give two fucks

 

[ToryToad]

Point one: *fertilized embryo I said
Point two: yes correct I claimed that
Point 3: Yes I also claimed that and can argue it. Sorry for my lack of a satisfactory explanation I am on vacation so hard to re-read my posts lol. Here:
I believe that since a fetus, or developing human organism, or baby in the womb... whatever term you wish to use... will inevitably become a human organism in a determinable amount of time under normal conditions, It is only normal and ethical to let that process happening because taking that right away would take away the organism's right to be born and thus live a life. There is nearly no imminent risk to the mother's life. Right now, cases in which abortion happens because birth may kill the other is less than 1%. I judge that while the organism may feed off the mother's resources and compromise some of her autonomy and ease of daily function, that that is a smaller moral wrong than the loss of a life of a human, or a future human that is guaranteed to live.

Over 90% of abortions are completely elective by the mother's choice. The mom chose to put herself in a position where she got pregnant, unless of course there was a contraception failure or case of r**e, which together make up less than 1-2% of all abortions. That is a grey area in which I believe exceptions for abortion could be made on a case-by-case bases, as well as if the child is confirmed to be a stillbirth. Failure to implant is not something that is induced and is yet another natural feature of biology, just as pregnancy is also.

I said that the child in the womb has a right to live because it is the natural reproductive process, and also because the loss of that life would be a far worse consequence than a temporary deficit in function and resources the mother experiences. This is another one of my arguments that I did not elaborate on well enough, so I apologize. From a consequentialist perspective, the death of the developing child is far worse than the temporary non-lethal strain the mother faces. Please note: I am not trying to downplay the suffering and pain and difficulty of life a mother experiences, I am just saying loss of life is worse. This is not from a misogynistic perspective or anything either. Yes, I may be a man, but biology dictates than women get pregnant and males spread the sperm to fertilize but do not carry the baby. Because of the consequence of loss of life, it is, and has been for thousands of years, the mother's duty to carry the baby if it will come out an alive organism.

Also @ToryToad @TonyDr @#sensitiveyoungwoman @splanky @genio. Check this out.

I trusted user @OYASUMIAZI and did not think to check for ai, yet I started picking up on phrasing the more I read. I have sincerely tried to refute your points with my own words, putting effort and research and genuine opinion into what I type, and all you can do in response is give me AI slop back. I mean... are you serious right now? I tried to be respectful to you. Now you have made that impossible. I tried to have an honest debate with you, one which I beleived I was winning. You chose to cheat and still were losing. I have lost my respect for you as an opponent please never post another thread again and delete your account immediately.
Thanks
-Plasty
View attachment 418594

dnr but it seems reasonable

 

[Splankу]

dnr but it seems reasonable

I’m crine what’s your purpose

 

[ToryToad]

I’m crine what’s your purpose