Reasoning With Res

Come in and enjoy the show!

[resolutionblaze-blog]

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Accurate

[charlesoberonn]

When your parents find you still on the computer 5 hours after you said you’d go to sleep.

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Yes

[softcore-revolutionary]

[resolutionblaze-blog]

The default IS straight.

Nudity IS inherently sexual. The whole idea of nudity is that your sexual organs or areas of interest are exposed. Typically doesn't happen unless you want to bang.

Judgement for personal decisions is a parents JOB! Without judgement how the hell can you teach or discipline?

[ilovebean]

Today, we voted with our hearts, souls and a whole lot of common sense. And while we didn’t vote for a candidate simply based on the fact that she is a female, the significance of that is not lost on us. It was important for me to have my daughters there to share this moment. Not just because Hillary is a woman, but because I need my daughters to understand they are lucky to live in a country where they have the abilities and the power to fight against men who will forever try to hold them back and make them believe that they are not worthy of basic human rights. A lot of women in this world will never have that luxury. I guess America is pretty great after all. 🇺🇸 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

And they call men sexist. This literally said that all men are sexist.

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Wow

Been avoiding Tumblr like the flu with the election coming up on us. Except for now to post this of course.

[resolutionblaze-blog]

The Politically Correct Game

1) Identify an area of human endeavor

2) Note that there is a distribution of success (some people are doing comparitavely better and some comparitavely worse)

3) Identify the worse off as “victims” and the better off as “perpetrators”

4) Claim that those worse off are oppressed by those better off.

5) Feel good about your position

6) Revel in moral superiority despite it taken no effort on your part

7) Attack newfound enemies

8) Rinse and repeat.

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Slowing Down

Tumblr is beyond hope so I don't post frequently. I have a life and I won't develop any cancer from this site.

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Official Uncle

I am now officially an uncle as of this Sunday, October 23rd at 3:25 AM.

[millennial-review-deactivated20]

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

You know they’d be like “the baby is innocent tho!!1111″

[resolutionblaze-blog]

But aren’t they? I’m not sure the point trying to be made here is.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

Well first off, it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus. They emotionally manipulate by using ‘baby’. Secondly, it’s innocence is comparable to the innocence of a tapeworm. It hasn’t murdered or committed theft or called anybody any names but an unwanted fetus and a tapeworm are inside of a person, where they’re not wanted, taking from the person and taking a toll on their health. The tapeworm would feel more pain than a fetus. 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Not sure if you actually understand the development process of a fetus. Fetus can feel pain… how do you think they even develop? Sure maybe not at a certain point of early development but your generalization is plain silly. Of course they can feel pain. It’d be a failure of development if they didn’t.

And everything you said is literally Oppression 101 - dehumanizing the target you want to marginalize and/or eliminate. It’s nice to see your value for human life is at an all time low. Criticise war and death penalties, but abortion is okay… right. Makes perfect sense… (not really). The fact that you won’t or refuse to give a human inherent value already shows your bias.

Sure, it’s not a “baby” but what does that justify? It’s a human nonetheless. And humans have inherent rights that shall not be infringed. If you do not believe that then you are on the same pedistal as many dictators that came before.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

Yeah, they feel pain after the legal cut off date for abortions so uuuuh Yeah I understand fetal development. Abortions performed while they can feel pain are emergency abortions. Your generalization is more ‘silly’ than mine is since you don’t seem to understand laws around abortion.  Those first two sentences in paragraph 2 is literally just the most long winded way of reiterating the “abortion is murder” cry. Which as you can tell I, and many others, don’t buy. I value human life, oh yes, but I don’t value something without personhood whose existence is not above the person who’s carrying it or their wellbeing.  I give humans more inherent value than people crying your war cry do as I actually value a grown human with personhood more than an unfeeling fetus who’s not truly alive as it couldn’t even survive outside of the person carrying it, much like a parasite, and it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor a functioning brain. I value their well being and their health over that nonperson fetus. I value the life of an already functional person and I value their individual needs, and so I’m pro choice.  Ahah that’s the first time I’ve been compared to a dictator because I value and support the rights of those with a uterus over something that’s not even a person. Yeah, it’s human, what does that even justify? What the hell else would it be? A ficus?? 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Uh, tell me what gives you the right to determine that one human has more value over another simply for its existence? Trick question: nobody does.

YOU don’t give something more value than something else… especially if they are under the same standards. Everything you stated thus far has been a contradiction:

- You claim that you value human life

- You said that a fetus is human

- You proceed to say that the fetus, despite being a human and you admitting that fact, has less value than another human simply because it is less developed.

That logic makes about as much sense as a man born with two arms having more value than a man with one. Or a man with a mental disorder has less value than a man without. Or better yet, an unborn child with two eyeballs has more inherent value than an unborn child with one. That’s not how human value works. Humans have equal inherent value, which means YOU CAN’T choose to value a born human over an unborn human. That makes no logical sense. If they are both human, they have equal value simply for being human, and are under the same rights, among them is the right to live.

Human rights taken away by a government is an unjust government. Which means abortion goes against human rights and is therefore unjust. No other man made rights infringe on that right to live except for another’s right to live.

So excuse me if I compare to dictators because you’re selective on what humans you value and called one form of humanity comparable to a tapeworm, which is in itself unjust. You value “personhood” above “nonpersonhood” even though they are both humans. It doesn’t work like that. They are both human so they are under the same rights and both have inherent value. Except in special cases do you have to choose between a thinking adults life and an unborn life. So your point is practically nullified bias.

I do stand up for bodily rights, except if that rights infringes on a fundamental human right… the right to live.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

What gives you the right to determine the existence of a nonperson is more important than the well being of a person?  Literally none of that is a contradiction. It’s all true but none of it inherently means it’s potential to become a functioning person is more important than the wellbeing of an already functioning person.  Nowhere did I say it has less value because it’s less developed. A baby is less developed than an adult but it has just as much value. A fetus who cannot feel nor has a functioning brain or heart is a human but it’s not a person and should not be held above in priority than an already functioning person. You can try to put words in my mouth but you’ll have to back it up.  That analogy doesn’t make any sense. Both are functioning people. A person with a mental disorder is still a functioning person. A fetus, at a certain point and prior, are not. You’re not understanding what I’m getting at. The government nor the Church has any place inside of another human. Are you not familiar with bodily Autonomy? Nobody has the right to control another person’s body and if that person wishes to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, that’s their decision to make. Yes, they should definitely discuss with their partner if possible and before entering a sexual relationship, both should know where they stand on children and take the proper precautions based on what they discuss. Ultimately, if the person carrying does not want to carry, it’s their body to make that decision with. Terminating a process involving a nonfunctioning blastocyst,zygote, embryo, fetus, is not murder as you cannot kill something that’s not alive. It has not brain function, it cannot feel, the blood flowing to and through it is from the heart of the person carrying it.  Well, I’m sure you feel wonderful that you value every single human life exactly the same in value, except for those who need or want an abortion as they’re then nothing more than an unwilling incubator to you since their needs and wants are trumped by a nonfunctioning nonperson. It does work like that, however. More and more states are rightfully legalizing abortions as more realize that a person who is functioning and has already been existing for at least a decade, is entitled to more rights to their own body, to bodily Autonomy, than something that doesn’t even have any brain function or pulse.  Forcing people to carry to term when they don’t want to or when it’s detrimental to their well being is far closer to something a Dictator would do than valuing a functioning human with personhood. Forcing a person to do something with their own body that they don’t want to, is truly dehumanizing.  You can try and brush away my points with a black and white mindset and call them null and whatever all you please, but you’ve yet to truly bring forward a meaningful rebuttal. Everything you’ve written has just been a long winded “abortion is murder” which is quickly becoming a less and less heard warcry as true human rights become better defined. 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

The hell you mean true human rights? Abortion is far from a new issue. Not to mention that you can’t just change human rights… that’s stupid. They are stated as facts not to be added to or dismissed unlike societal law. If you treat human rights like societal law you literally negate the purpose of human rights.

Use. Your. Head.

Also like to add that you stated a fetus was human. You can’t scoot by that and say “well it’s not a person yet” because that literally makes no sense. There is no such thing as person rights. They’re called HUMAN RIGHTS. H u m a n. Meaning it doesn’t matter if they have no feelings, have missing functions, have disorders, or aren’t capable of living on their own such as mental retardation. They are under the same rights. I mean, the definition of a person is: “a human being regarded as an individual.” So literally you’re saying the fetus is human but it isn’t under the same rights because it’s not human yet………

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

No. What I actually said is that it doesn’t have more rights than a person because it’s not a person.  The woman’s bodily autonomy rights override the ‘rights’ of the fetus.  It makes perfect sense. It’s a human but it’s not a person. Just the same as a sapling is a plant but it’s not a tree. Dough is food but it’s not bread. 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

You’re senseless assertion that somehow one right overrides another for no particular reason is not an argument. It completely conflicts with the right to live, thus it is pointless to even bring up bodily rights.

If a gun owner uses a gun to bring harm to another, they are punished despite their right to bear arms. Bringing harm to another has always been a grounds in which to override rights because that right is being used in a way that suppresses another’s right. Thus which is more important: the right to live or the right to a body?

You obviously think it’s the latter but you have no real reason to choose someone’s body over another’s life.

Also lemme define what a person means:

A PERSON means A HUMAN. You can’t make up words or definitions for an argument.

[millennial-review-deactivated20]

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

You know they’d be like “the baby is innocent tho!!1111″

[resolutionblaze-blog]

But aren’t they? I’m not sure the point trying to be made here is.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

Well first off, it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus. They emotionally manipulate by using ‘baby’. Secondly, it’s innocence is comparable to the innocence of a tapeworm. It hasn’t murdered or committed theft or called anybody any names but an unwanted fetus and a tapeworm are inside of a person, where they’re not wanted, taking from the person and taking a toll on their health. The tapeworm would feel more pain than a fetus. 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Not sure if you actually understand the development process of a fetus. Fetus can feel pain… how do you think they even develop? Sure maybe not at a certain point of early development but your generalization is plain silly. Of course they can feel pain. It’d be a failure of development if they didn’t.

And everything you said is literally Oppression 101 - dehumanizing the target you want to marginalize and/or eliminate. It’s nice to see your value for human life is at an all time low. Criticise war and death penalties, but abortion is okay… right. Makes perfect sense… (not really). The fact that you won’t or refuse to give a human inherent value already shows your bias.

Sure, it’s not a “baby” but what does that justify? It’s a human nonetheless. And humans have inherent rights that shall not be infringed. If you do not believe that then you are on the same pedistal as many dictators that came before.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

Yeah, they feel pain after the legal cut off date for abortions so uuuuh Yeah I understand fetal development. Abortions performed while they can feel pain are emergency abortions. Your generalization is more ‘silly’ than mine is since you don’t seem to understand laws around abortion.  Those first two sentences in paragraph 2 is literally just the most long winded way of reiterating the “abortion is murder” cry. Which as you can tell I, and many others, don’t buy. I value human life, oh yes, but I don’t value something without personhood whose existence is not above the person who’s carrying it or their wellbeing.  I give humans more inherent value than people crying your war cry do as I actually value a grown human with personhood more than an unfeeling fetus who’s not truly alive as it couldn’t even survive outside of the person carrying it, much like a parasite, and it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor a functioning brain. I value their well being and their health over that nonperson fetus. I value the life of an already functional person and I value their individual needs, and so I’m pro choice.  Ahah that’s the first time I’ve been compared to a dictator because I value and support the rights of those with a uterus over something that’s not even a person. Yeah, it’s human, what does that even justify? What the hell else would it be? A ficus?? 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Uh, tell me what gives you the right to determine that one human has more value over another simply for its existence? Trick question: nobody does.

YOU don’t give something more value than something else… especially if they are under the same standards. Everything you stated thus far has been a contradiction:

- You claim that you value human life

- You said that a fetus is human

- You proceed to say that the fetus, despite being a human and you admitting that fact, has less value than another human simply because it is less developed.

That logic makes about as much sense as a man born with two arms having more value than a man with one. Or a man with a mental disorder has less value than a man without. Or better yet, an unborn child with two eyeballs has more inherent value than an unborn child with one. That’s not how human value works. Humans have equal inherent value, which means YOU CAN’T choose to value a born human over an unborn human. That makes no logical sense. If they are both human, they have equal value simply for being human, and are under the same rights, among them is the right to live.

Human rights taken away by a government is an unjust government. Which means abortion goes against human rights and is therefore unjust. No other man made rights infringe on that right to live except for another’s right to live.

So excuse me if I compare to dictators because you’re selective on what humans you value and called one form of humanity comparable to a tapeworm, which is in itself unjust. You value “personhood” above “nonpersonhood” even though they are both humans. It doesn’t work like that. They are both human so they are under the same rights and both have inherent value. Except in special cases do you have to choose between a thinking adults life and an unborn life. So your point is practically nullified bias.

I do stand up for bodily rights, except if that rights infringes on a fundamental human right… the right to live.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

What gives you the right to determine the existence of a nonperson is more important than the well being of a person?  Literally none of that is a contradiction. It’s all true but none of it inherently means it’s potential to become a functioning person is more important than the wellbeing of an already functioning person.  Nowhere did I say it has less value because it’s less developed. A baby is less developed than an adult but it has just as much value. A fetus who cannot feel nor has a functioning brain or heart is a human but it’s not a person and should not be held above in priority than an already functioning person. You can try to put words in my mouth but you’ll have to back it up.  That analogy doesn’t make any sense. Both are functioning people. A person with a mental disorder is still a functioning person. A fetus, at a certain point and prior, are not. You’re not understanding what I’m getting at. The government nor the Church has any place inside of another human. Are you not familiar with bodily Autonomy? Nobody has the right to control another person’s body and if that person wishes to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, that’s their decision to make. Yes, they should definitely discuss with their partner if possible and before entering a sexual relationship, both should know where they stand on children and take the proper precautions based on what they discuss. Ultimately, if the person carrying does not want to carry, it’s their body to make that decision with. Terminating a process involving a nonfunctioning blastocyst,zygote, embryo, fetus, is not murder as you cannot kill something that’s not alive. It has not brain function, it cannot feel, the blood flowing to and through it is from the heart of the person carrying it.  Well, I’m sure you feel wonderful that you value every single human life exactly the same in value, except for those who need or want an abortion as they’re then nothing more than an unwilling incubator to you since their needs and wants are trumped by a nonfunctioning nonperson. It does work like that, however. More and more states are rightfully legalizing abortions as more realize that a person who is functioning and has already been existing for at least a decade, is entitled to more rights to their own body, to bodily Autonomy, than something that doesn’t even have any brain function or pulse.  Forcing people to carry to term when they don’t want to or when it’s detrimental to their well being is far closer to something a Dictator would do than valuing a functioning human with personhood. Forcing a person to do something with their own body that they don’t want to, is truly dehumanizing.  You can try and brush away my points with a black and white mindset and call them null and whatever all you please, but you’ve yet to truly bring forward a meaningful rebuttal. Everything you’ve written has just been a long winded “abortion is murder” which is quickly becoming a less and less heard warcry as true human rights become better defined. 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

The hell you mean true human rights? Abortion is far from a new issue. Not to mention that you can’t just change human rights… that’s stupid. They are stated as facts not to be added to or dismissed unlike societal law. If you treat human rights like societal law you literally negate the purpose of human rights.

Use. Your. Head.

Also like to add that you stated a fetus was human. You can’t scoot by that and say “well it’s not a person yet” because that literally makes no sense. There is no such thing as person rights. They’re called HUMAN RIGHTS. H u m a n. Meaning it doesn’t matter if they have no feelings, have missing functions, have disorders, or aren’t capable of living on their own such as mental retardation. They are under the same rights. I mean, the definition of a person is: "a human being regarded as an individual." So literally you're saying the fetus is human but it isn't under the same rights because it's not human yet.........

[millennial-review-deactivated20]

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

You know they’d be like “the baby is innocent tho!!1111″

[resolutionblaze-blog]

But aren’t they? I’m not sure the point trying to be made here is.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

Well first off, it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus. They emotionally manipulate by using ‘baby’. Secondly, it’s innocence is comparable to the innocence of a tapeworm. It hasn’t murdered or committed theft or called anybody any names but an unwanted fetus and a tapeworm are inside of a person, where they’re not wanted, taking from the person and taking a toll on their health. The tapeworm would feel more pain than a fetus. 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Not sure if you actually understand the development process of a fetus. Fetus can feel pain… how do you think they even develop? Sure maybe not at a certain point of early development but your generalization is plain silly. Of course they can feel pain. It’d be a failure of development if they didn’t.

And everything you said is literally Oppression 101 - dehumanizing the target you want to marginalize and/or eliminate. It’s nice to see your value for human life is at an all time low. Criticise war and death penalties, but abortion is okay… right. Makes perfect sense… (not really). The fact that you won’t or refuse to give a human inherent value already shows your bias.

Sure, it’s not a “baby” but what does that justify? It’s a human nonetheless. And humans have inherent rights that shall not be infringed. If you do not believe that then you are on the same pedistal as many dictators that came before.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

Yeah, they feel pain after the legal cut off date for abortions so uuuuh Yeah I understand fetal development. Abortions performed while they can feel pain are emergency abortions. Your generalization is more ‘silly’ than mine is since you don’t seem to understand laws around abortion.  Those first two sentences in paragraph 2 is literally just the most long winded way of reiterating the “abortion is murder” cry. Which as you can tell I, and many others, don’t buy. I value human life, oh yes, but I don’t value something without personhood whose existence is not above the person who’s carrying it or their wellbeing.  I give humans more inherent value than people crying your war cry do as I actually value a grown human with personhood more than an unfeeling fetus who’s not truly alive as it couldn’t even survive outside of the person carrying it, much like a parasite, and it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor a functioning brain. I value their well being and their health over that nonperson fetus. I value the life of an already functional person and I value their individual needs, and so I’m pro choice.  Ahah that’s the first time I’ve been compared to a dictator because I value and support the rights of those with a uterus over something that’s not even a person. Yeah, it’s human, what does that even justify? What the hell else would it be? A ficus?? 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Uh, tell me what gives you the right to determine that one human has more value over another simply for its existence? Trick question: nobody does.

YOU don’t give something more value than something else… especially if they are under the same standards. Everything you stated thus far has been a contradiction:

- You claim that you value human life

- You said that a fetus is human

- You proceed to say that the fetus, despite being a human and you admitting that fact, has less value than another human simply because it is less developed.

That logic makes about as much sense as a man born with two arms having more value than a man with one. Or a man with a mental disorder has less value than a man without. Or better yet, an unborn child with two eyeballs has more inherent value than an unborn child with one. That’s not how human value works. Humans have equal inherent value, which means YOU CAN’T choose to value a born human over an unborn human. That makes no logical sense. If they are both human, they have equal value simply for being human, and are under the same rights, among them is the right to live.

Human rights taken away by a government is an unjust government. Which means abortion goes against human rights and is therefore unjust. No other man made rights infringe on that right to live except for another’s right to live.

So excuse me if I compare to dictators because you’re selective on what humans you value and called one form of humanity comparable to a tapeworm, which is in itself unjust. You value “personhood” above “nonpersonhood” even though they are both humans. It doesn’t work like that. They are both human so they are under the same rights and both have inherent value. Except in special cases do you have to choose between a thinking adults life and an unborn life. So your point is practically nullified bias.

I do stand up for bodily rights, except if that rights infringes on a fundamental human right… the right to live.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

What gives you the right to determine the existence of a nonperson is more important than the well being of a person?  Literally none of that is a contradiction. It’s all true but none of it inherently means it’s potential to become a functioning person is more important than the wellbeing of an already functioning person.  Nowhere did I say it has less value because it’s less developed. A baby is less developed than an adult but it has just as much value. A fetus who cannot feel nor has a functioning brain or heart is a human but it’s not a person and should not be held above in priority than an already functioning person. You can try to put words in my mouth but you’ll have to back it up.  That analogy doesn’t make any sense. Both are functioning people. A person with a mental disorder is still a functioning person. A fetus, at a certain point and prior, are not. You’re not understanding what I’m getting at. The government nor the Church has any place inside of another human. Are you not familiar with bodily Autonomy? Nobody has the right to control another person’s body and if that person wishes to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, that’s their decision to make. Yes, they should definitely discuss with their partner if possible and before entering a sexual relationship, both should know where they stand on children and take the proper precautions based on what they discuss. Ultimately, if the person carrying does not want to carry, it’s their body to make that decision with. Terminating a process involving a nonfunctioning blastocyst,zygote, embryo, fetus, is not murder as you cannot kill something that’s not alive. It has not brain function, it cannot feel, the blood flowing to and through it is from the heart of the person carrying it.  Well, I’m sure you feel wonderful that you value every single human life exactly the same in value, except for those who need or want an abortion as they’re then nothing more than an unwilling incubator to you since their needs and wants are trumped by a nonfunctioning nonperson. It does work like that, however. More and more states are rightfully legalizing abortions as more realize that a person who is functioning and has already been existing for at least a decade, is entitled to more rights to their own body, to bodily Autonomy, than something that doesn’t even have any brain function or pulse.  Forcing people to carry to term when they don’t want to or when it’s detrimental to their well being is far closer to something a Dictator would do than valuing a functioning human with personhood. Forcing a person to do something with their own body that they don’t want to, is truly dehumanizing.  You can try and brush away my points with a black and white mindset and call them null and whatever all you please, but you’ve yet to truly bring forward a meaningful rebuttal. Everything you’ve written has just been a long winded “abortion is murder” which is quickly becoming a less and less heard warcry as true human rights become better defined. 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

I can't reason with you any longer, and I won't even respond to half of what you said simply because they are assertions with no basis in reality (such as me thinking people who get abortions are less valuable as humans): I apparently need to spell this out for you:

Humans are under inherent rights. It is the basis of modern civilization.

A fetus is a human. Thus they are under the same inherent rights.

Among these rights is the right to live.

Should a government or individual take away these rights or allow them to be taken, it is unjust.

Since a fetus is a human and has the same human rights, it makes no logical sense to deny them the right to live, as the right to live is among our most important.

So the fetus is under rights. Among them is the right to live and to take away that right is unjust. It's real simple.

[millennial-review-deactivated20]

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

You know they’d be like “the baby is innocent tho!!1111″

[resolutionblaze-blog]

But aren’t they? I’m not sure the point trying to be made here is.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

Well first off, it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus. They emotionally manipulate by using ‘baby’. Secondly, it’s innocence is comparable to the innocence of a tapeworm. It hasn’t murdered or committed theft or called anybody any names but an unwanted fetus and a tapeworm are inside of a person, where they’re not wanted, taking from the person and taking a toll on their health. The tapeworm would feel more pain than a fetus. 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Not sure if you actually understand the development process of a fetus. Fetus can feel pain… how do you think they even develop? Sure maybe not at a certain point of early development but your generalization is plain silly. Of course they can feel pain. It’d be a failure of development if they didn’t.

And everything you said is literally Oppression 101 - dehumanizing the target you want to marginalize and/or eliminate. It’s nice to see your value for human life is at an all time low. Criticise war and death penalties, but abortion is okay… right. Makes perfect sense… (not really). The fact that you won’t or refuse to give a human inherent value already shows your bias.

Sure, it’s not a “baby” but what does that justify? It’s a human nonetheless. And humans have inherent rights that shall not be infringed. If you do not believe that then you are on the same pedistal as many dictators that came before.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

Yeah, they feel pain after the legal cut off date for abortions so uuuuh Yeah I understand fetal development. Abortions performed while they can feel pain are emergency abortions. Your generalization is more ‘silly’ than mine is since you don’t seem to understand laws around abortion.  Those first two sentences in paragraph 2 is literally just the most long winded way of reiterating the “abortion is murder” cry. Which as you can tell I, and many others, don’t buy. I value human life, oh yes, but I don’t value something without personhood whose existence is not above the person who’s carrying it or their wellbeing.  I give humans more inherent value than people crying your war cry do as I actually value a grown human with personhood more than an unfeeling fetus who’s not truly alive as it couldn’t even survive outside of the person carrying it, much like a parasite, and it doesn’t have a heartbeat nor a functioning brain. I value their well being and their health over that nonperson fetus. I value the life of an already functional person and I value their individual needs, and so I’m pro choice.  Ahah that’s the first time I’ve been compared to a dictator because I value and support the rights of those with a uterus over something that’s not even a person. Yeah, it’s human, what does that even justify? What the hell else would it be? A ficus?? 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Uh, tell me what gives you the right to determine that one human has more value over another simply for its existence? Trick question: nobody does.

YOU don’t give something more value than something else… especially if they are under the same standards. Everything you stated thus far has been a contradiction:

- You claim that you value human life

- You said that a fetus is human

- You proceed to say that the fetus, despite being a human and you admitting that fact, has less value than another human simply because it is less developed.

That logic makes about as much sense as a man born with two arms having more value than a man with one. Or a man with a mental disorder has less value than a man without. Or better yet, an unborn child with two eyeballs has more inherent value than an unborn child with one. That’s not how human value works. Humans have equal inherent value, which means YOU CAN’T choose to value a born human over an unborn human. That makes no logical sense. If they are both human, they have equal value simply for being human, and are under the same rights, among them is the right to live.

Human rights taken away by a government is an unjust government. Which means abortion goes against human rights and is therefore unjust. No other man made rights infringe on that right to live except for another’s right to live.

So excuse me if I compare to dictators because you’re selective on what humans you value and called one form of humanity comparable to a tapeworm, which is in itself unjust. You value “personhood” above “nonpersonhood” even though they are both humans. It doesn’t work like that. They are both human so they are under the same rights and both have inherent value. Except in special cases do you have to choose between a thinking adults life and an unborn life. So your point is practically nullified bias.

I do stand up for bodily rights, except if that rights infringes on a fundamental human right… the right to live.

[millennial-review-deactivated20]

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

You know they’d be like “the baby is innocent tho!!1111″

[resolutionblaze-blog]

But aren’t they? I’m not sure the point trying to be made here is.

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

Well first off, it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus. They emotionally manipulate by using ‘baby’. Secondly, it’s innocence is comparable to the innocence of a tapeworm. It hasn’t murdered or committed theft or called anybody any names but an unwanted fetus and a tapeworm are inside of a person, where they’re not wanted, taking from the person and taking a toll on their health. The tapeworm would feel more pain than a fetus. 

[resolutionblaze-blog]

Not sure if you actually understand the development process of a fetus. Fetus can feel pain... how do you think they even develop? Sure maybe not at a certain point of early development but your generalization is plain silly. Of course they can feel pain. It'd be a failure of development if they didn't.

And everything you said is literally Oppression 101 - dehumanizing the target you want to marginalize and/or eliminate. It's nice to see your value for human life is at an all time low. Criticise war and death penalties, but abortion is okay... right. Makes perfect sense... (not really). The fact that you won't or refuse to give a human inherent value already shows your bias.

Sure, it's not a "baby" but what does that justify? It's a human nonetheless. And humans have inherent rights that shall not be infringed. If you do not believe that then you are on the same pedistal as many dictators that came before.

[millennial-review-deactivated20]

[officechairastronaut-deactivate]

You know they’d be like “the baby is innocent tho!!1111″

[resolutionblaze-blog]

But aren't they? I'm not sure the point trying to be made here is.

[did-you-know]

After a man ate a ghost pepper in a contest, not even a burger and six glasses of water could stop the burning. He ended up in the hospital with a 2.5 cm hole in his esophagus–not from the pepper, but from the extreme vomiting it caused. 23 days later, he was discharged with a gastric tube that delivers food directly to his stomach. Source

[resolutionblaze-blog]

#banghostpeppers

[cartoonpolitics]

[resolutionblaze-blog]

While this is pretty generalizing, as most political cartoons are (they aren't meant for actual argument it's just for cheap laughs and bucks anyway) this has sadly much validity to it. And it demonizes women who have actually be sexually assaulted and because many do it to claim attention many won't feel able to come out because they won't be believed. The system is always innocent until proven guilty but the more these women prey on rape accusations the more desensitized we will be when actual rape occurs.