Side Blog For Horrid Internet Debates

@saint-ambroses-bees

I will still do this kind of stuff on my primary blog but if I smell a very long chain coming I will move it here

51 posts

Anyways if you’re seeing this account it’s cause the other thing was clogging up my main

Hiya

i wish everything was good and nothing was bad

silktheblogger-deactivated20230

Very aware that I’m weird & a little strange

yeah

xenomorp good friend for baby

@sunb1eeder

saint-augustines-pears

The pro-choice worldview is inherently opposed to human rights. If you have to be something in addition to human (ie, conscious, of a certain age, able-bodied, wanted) to have rights, you do not have human rights. You have rights in accordance with certain accidents about yourself, which are all completely arbitrary.

Either all humans are people or humans do not inherently deserve rights.

All humans have a right to autonomy over their own physical bodies, which includes removing another human from it - even if that results in the other human's death.

This is universal.

By preventing a person who is pregnant from terminating a pregnancy, you are arguing for unique rights for some humans (fetuses) that would infringe upon the rights of other humans (pregnant people)

Adding to this: even corpses are granted bodily autonomy. If a corpse contains an organ that, if transplanted into a living person, could save that person's life? Well, if the dead person or their family members don't consent for that organ to be harvested, too bad.

And for anyone who's going to start arguing, "But the pregnant person is usually at least partly responsible..." let me stop you right there. First of all, we don't demand that whoever fathered a child (or potential child) have their bodily autonomy violated. Not even if that child requires, say, a bone marrow transplant.

Second, say you caused an accident that requires someone to need an organ transplant, or a blood transfusion, to live, and you happen to be medically compatible. You will still NEVER be required to give up your bodily autonomy for your victim. (Nor should you be -- just imagine how that kind of law would inevitably be abused.)

saint-ambroses-bees

The pregnant person is responsible not just because they might have consent to sex but because a life is reliant on them. We have a duty to preserve human life if we can.

Transplants are different because you aren't actively ending a life, the person who needs the transplant will die of whatever affliction they are suffering from. There is a difference between not treating someone and murdering them, this is why hospice is not wrong but shooting up a nursing home is.

It is never moral to kill someone outside of self defense.

Going to have to split this up, because I've got so many links Tumblr chokes.

"Preserving life": you do know that Judaism has a general commitment to preserving life, yes? Hmm, let's see what Jewish law, and most Jewish people, have to say about abortion:

The national debate about abortion is back, and it’s pretty clear where the Jewish community falls.

Fundamentalists hijacked the religious conversation on abortion, but Judaism permits, and in some cases even requires it. This makes abortio

Let's not forget how anti-abortion Nazi Germany was:

As a rabbi, I feel that I have a moral obligation to speak out against the recent letters in your newspaper that attempted to analogize abor

Now for the real thunder: if your true goal is to "preserve life" rather than to control and punish women, then your best path is to join the pro-choice side and end all abortion restrictions.

Why? First of all, look at how many more pregnant people die (along with their embryos or fetuses) when abortions are outlawed.

Romania under Ceausescu created a dystopian horror of overcrowded, filthy orphanages, and thousands died from back-alley abortions.

"But that was Romania!" Well, we don't have good statistics on the U.S., because Republicans are intentionally hiding the data.

The same political leaders who enacted abortion bans oversee the state committees that review maternal deaths. These committees haven’t trac

"But everyone agrees that a threat to the life of the mother is an exception...!" Some more reading for you:

The absence of these exemptions is a sign of the anti-abortion-rights movement’s distrust of women and the medical establishment.

New abortion bans make exceptions for cases in which the mother’s life is at stake. Doctors wonder which threats are serious enough to absol

Doctors say abortion ban exceptions to save the mother's life make it unclear how imminent death must be before a provider can act.

Does a woman need to be on her death bed for her to be given the right to abort her pregnancy?

When abortion is heavily restricted, actual rates of abortion do not decrease. In fact, they may INCREASE.

Remarks at the U.N. this week reinforced the Trump administration's anti-abortion stand. But a study this summer found that cutting aid to g

In Canada, where I live, there are no legal restrictions whatsoever on abortion. And yet, our rate is lower than America's.

Canada decriminalized abortion, uniquely in the world, 30 years ago. We present the timeline of relevant Canadian legal, political, and poli

This fact is what made Libby-Anne begin to change her mind. Maybe it will change the minds of others, as well.

The spring of my sophomore year of college I was president of my university's Students for Life chapter. The fall of my junior year of colle

saint-ambroses-bees

I'm a pretty vain person so I'd love if you could explain my misuse of terms

the-truth-within-the-lie

I’d be happy to if I thought it would go anywhere - largely your understanding of human rights - but you admit in your very next reblog that you don’t care about the “popular definition” of a word, then proceed to Godwin the shit out of your argument while ignoring every point they actually made.

I get screamed at by enough of you, I recognize someone who can’t listen when I see them.

May you work on that vanity.

saint-ambroses-bees

Not about the popular definition but a popular definition. Judaism preaches this definition. Ok, but I'm not Jewish. It's an appeal to an authority which I am not bound by.

I didn't bring up Hitler, they did. I responded to their Godwinning me. this is what wikipedia has to say which i communicated clearly in my response

Nazi Germany's eugenics laws severely punished abortion for women belonging to the "Aryan race", but permitted abortion on wider and more explicit grounds than before if the fetus was believed to be deformed or disabled or if termination otherwise was deemed desirable on eugenic grounds, such as the child or either parent suspected of being carrier of a genetic disease. Sterilization of the parents also took place in some such cases. In cases where the parents were Jewish, abortion was also not punished.

i admitted that they made good arguments, that these are all valid issues that should be brought up and carefully codified, but none of those points address my original point, which is that abortion is a human rights violation.

saint-augustines-pears

The pro-choice worldview is inherently opposed to human rights. If you have to be something in addition to human (ie, conscious, of a certain age, able-bodied, wanted) to have rights, you do not have human rights. You have rights in accordance with certain accidents about yourself, which are all completely arbitrary.

Either all humans are people or humans do not inherently deserve rights.

All humans have a right to autonomy over their own physical bodies, which includes removing another human from it - even if that results in the other human's death.

This is universal.

By preventing a person who is pregnant from terminating a pregnancy, you are arguing for unique rights for some humans (fetuses) that would infringe upon the rights of other humans (pregnant people)

Adding to this: even corpses are granted bodily autonomy. If a corpse contains an organ that, if transplanted into a living person, could save that person's life? Well, if the dead person or their family members don't consent for that organ to be harvested, too bad.

And for anyone who's going to start arguing, "But the pregnant person is usually at least partly responsible..." let me stop you right there. First of all, we don't demand that whoever fathered a child (or potential child) have their bodily autonomy violated. Not even if that child requires, say, a bone marrow transplant.

Second, say you caused an accident that requires someone to need an organ transplant, or a blood transfusion, to live, and you happen to be medically compatible. You will still NEVER be required to give up your bodily autonomy for your victim. (Nor should you be -- just imagine how that kind of law would inevitably be abused.)

saint-ambroses-bees

The pregnant person is responsible not just because they might have consent to sex but because a life is reliant on them. We have a duty to preserve human life if we can.

Transplants are different because you aren't actively ending a life, the person who needs the transplant will die of whatever affliction they are suffering from. There is a difference between not treating someone and murdering them, this is why hospice is not wrong but shooting up a nursing home is.

It is never moral to kill someone outside of self defense.

Going to have to split this up, because I've got so many links Tumblr chokes.

"Preserving life": you do know that Judaism has a general commitment to preserving life, yes? Hmm, let's see what Jewish law, and most Jewish people, have to say about abortion:

The national debate about abortion is back, and it’s pretty clear where the Jewish community falls.

Fundamentalists hijacked the religious conversation on abortion, but Judaism permits, and in some cases even requires it. This makes abortio

Let's not forget how anti-abortion Nazi Germany was:

As a rabbi, I feel that I have a moral obligation to speak out against the recent letters in your newspaper that attempted to analogize abor

Now for the real thunder: if your true goal is to "preserve life" rather than to control and punish women, then your best path is to join the pro-choice side and end all abortion restrictions.

Why? First of all, look at how many more pregnant people die (along with their embryos or fetuses) when abortions are outlawed.

Romania under Ceausescu created a dystopian horror of overcrowded, filthy orphanages, and thousands died from back-alley abortions.

"But that was Romania!" Well, we don't have good statistics on the U.S., because Republicans are intentionally hiding the data.

The same political leaders who enacted abortion bans oversee the state committees that review maternal deaths. These committees haven’t trac

"But everyone agrees that a threat to the life of the mother is an exception...!" Some more reading for you:

The absence of these exemptions is a sign of the anti-abortion-rights movement’s distrust of women and the medical establishment.

New abortion bans make exceptions for cases in which the mother’s life is at stake. Doctors wonder which threats are serious enough to absol

Doctors say abortion ban exceptions to save the mother's life make it unclear how imminent death must be before a provider can act.

Does a woman need to be on her death bed for her to be given the right to abort her pregnancy?

saint-ambroses-bees

I don't really care about a popular definition of preservation of life.

it would seem to me that nazi germany cared if aryan babies were aborted, but not non-aryan. also, i never compared the holocaust and abortion.

i can't read that article about romania, but killing people because they will suffer later is never morally good. and i'm not a republican so i'm willing to admit that those fuckers are evil.

see i'm willing to admit you have a point on the last thing. still doesn't make abortion lawful.

saint-augustines-pears

The pro-choice worldview is inherently opposed to human rights. If you have to be something in addition to human (ie, conscious, of a certain age, able-bodied, wanted) to have rights, you do not have human rights. You have rights in accordance with certain accidents about yourself, which are all completely arbitrary.

Either all humans are people or humans do not inherently deserve rights.

All humans have a right to autonomy over their own physical bodies, which includes removing another human from it - even if that results in the other human's death.

This is universal.

By preventing a person who is pregnant from terminating a pregnancy, you are arguing for unique rights for some humans (fetuses) that would infringe upon the rights of other humans (pregnant people)

Adding to this: even corpses are granted bodily autonomy. If a corpse contains an organ that, if transplanted into a living person, could save that person's life? Well, if the dead person or their family members don't consent for that organ to be harvested, too bad.

And for anyone who's going to start arguing, "But the pregnant person is usually at least partly responsible..." let me stop you right there. First of all, we don't demand that whoever fathered a child (or potential child) have their bodily autonomy violated. Not even if that child requires, say, a bone marrow transplant.

Second, say you caused an accident that requires someone to need an organ transplant, or a blood transfusion, to live, and you happen to be medically compatible. You will still NEVER be required to give up your bodily autonomy for your victim. (Nor should you be -- just imagine how that kind of law would inevitably be abused.)

saint-ambroses-bees

The pregnant person is responsible not just because they might have consent to sex but because a life is reliant on them. We have a duty to preserve human life if we can.

Transplants are different because you aren't actively ending a life, the person who needs the transplant will die of whatever affliction they are suffering from. There is a difference between not treating someone and murdering them, this is why hospice is not wrong but shooting up a nursing home is.

It is never moral to kill someone outside of self defense.

Going to have to split this up, because I've got so many links Tumblr chokes.

"Preserving life": you do know that Judaism has a general commitment to preserving life, yes? Hmm, let's see what Jewish law, and most Jewish people, have to say about abortion:

The national debate about abortion is back, and it’s pretty clear where the Jewish community falls.

Fundamentalists hijacked the religious conversation on abortion, but Judaism permits, and in some cases even requires it. This makes abortio

Let's not forget how anti-abortion Nazi Germany was:

As a rabbi, I feel that I have a moral obligation to speak out against the recent letters in your newspaper that attempted to analogize abor

Now for the real thunder: if your true goal is to "preserve life" rather than to control and punish women, then your best path is to join the pro-choice side and end all abortion restrictions.

Why? First of all, look at how many more pregnant people die (along with their embryos or fetuses) when abortions are outlawed.

Romania under Ceausescu created a dystopian horror of overcrowded, filthy orphanages, and thousands died from back-alley abortions.

"But that was Romania!" Well, we don't have good statistics on the U.S., because Republicans are intentionally hiding the data.

The same political leaders who enacted abortion bans oversee the state committees that review maternal deaths. These committees haven’t trac

"But everyone agrees that a threat to the life of the mother is an exception...!" Some more reading for you:

The absence of these exemptions is a sign of the anti-abortion-rights movement’s distrust of women and the medical establishment.

New abortion bans make exceptions for cases in which the mother’s life is at stake. Doctors wonder which threats are serious enough to absol

Doctors say abortion ban exceptions to save the mother's life make it unclear how imminent death must be before a provider can act.

Does a woman need to be on her death bed for her to be given the right to abort her pregnancy?

When abortion is heavily restricted, actual rates of abortion do not decrease. In fact, they may INCREASE.

Remarks at the U.N. this week reinforced the Trump administration's anti-abortion stand. But a study this summer found that cutting aid to g

In Canada, where I live, there are no legal restrictions whatsoever on abortion. And yet, our rate is lower than America's.

Canada decriminalized abortion, uniquely in the world, 30 years ago. We present the timeline of relevant Canadian legal, political, and poli

This fact is what made Libby-Anne begin to change her mind. Maybe it will change the minds of others, as well.

The spring of my sophomore year of college I was president of my university's Students for Life chapter. The fall of my junior year of colle

saint-ambroses-bees

I'm a pretty vain person so I'd love if you could explain my misuse of terms

saint-augustines-pears

The pro-choice worldview is inherently opposed to human rights. If you have to be something in addition to human (ie, conscious, of a certain age, able-bodied, wanted) to have rights, you do not have human rights. You have rights in accordance with certain accidents about yourself, which are all completely arbitrary.

Either all humans are people or humans do not inherently deserve rights.

All humans have a right to autonomy over their own physical bodies, which includes removing another human from it - even if that results in the other human's death.

This is universal.

By preventing a person who is pregnant from terminating a pregnancy, you are arguing for unique rights for some humans (fetuses) that would infringe upon the rights of other humans (pregnant people)

Adding to this: even corpses are granted bodily autonomy. If a corpse contains an organ that, if transplanted into a living person, could save that person's life? Well, if the dead person or their family members don't consent for that organ to be harvested, too bad.

And for anyone who's going to start arguing, "But the pregnant person is usually at least partly responsible..." let me stop you right there. First of all, we don't demand that whoever fathered a child (or potential child) have their bodily autonomy violated. Not even if that child requires, say, a bone marrow transplant.

Second, say you caused an accident that requires someone to need an organ transplant, or a blood transfusion, to live, and you happen to be medically compatible. You will still NEVER be required to give up your bodily autonomy for your victim. (Nor should you be -- just imagine how that kind of law would inevitably be abused.)

saint-ambroses-bees

The pregnant person is responsible not just because they might have consent to sex but because a life is reliant on them. We have a duty to preserve human life if we can.

Transplants are different because you aren't actively ending a life, the person who needs the transplant will die of whatever affliction they are suffering from. There is a difference between not treating someone and murdering them, this is why hospice is not wrong but shooting up a nursing home is.

It is never moral to kill someone outside of self defense.

saint-augustines-pears

The pro-choice worldview is inherently opposed to human rights. If you have to be something in addition to human (ie, conscious, of a certain age, able-bodied, wanted) to have rights, you do not have human rights. You have rights in accordance with certain accidents about yourself, which are all completely arbitrary.

Either all humans are people or humans do not inherently deserve rights.

merchant-of-wind-up

they can't be considered human because they're functionally an organ until they're born

saint-ambroses-bees

that’s stupid but ok

daughterofmaryam

Can artists STOP dressing up like religious figures just to be provocative? They are disrespecting all christians and yes, I am referring to Chappell Roan singing dressed up as a nun or Joan of Arc.

Stop it. Nuns and Joan d'Arc aren't your LGBT+ icons. They are religious women the first and a beloved saint the second.

catholic-academia-aesthetic

'Joan of Arc was such an icon now let me shit on everything she believed in and died for'

saint-augustines-pears

If you’re going to do this at least admit that you fucking hate Joan of Arc

autisticexpression2

Why do you think she hates Joan of Arc? Why would you think anyone hates Joan of Arc?? Who hates Joan of Arc anyway??? The medieval British????

saint-ambroses-bees

i feel like using someone's image in the exact opposite way they would have wished to represented is at least a little disrespectful.

saint-augustines-pears

The pro-choice worldview is inherently opposed to human rights. If you have to be something in addition to human (ie, conscious, of a certain age, able-bodied, wanted) to have rights, you do not have human rights. You have rights in accordance with certain accidents about yourself, which are all completely arbitrary.

Either all humans are people or humans do not inherently deserve rights.

fallen-fairy-house

You hate women. End of story.

saint-augustines-pears

I am a woman 💃💃💃 you hate human rights end of story

fallen-fairy-house

You can be a woman and still hate women sis.

saint-augustines-pears

Very fair. I like human rights for everyone though, that’s not exactly hating women.

fallen-fairy-house

It's not a fucking person. It's cells you god damn idiot. Women's rights matter more than fucking parasitic cells.

saint-augustines-pears

If a human is not a person then we no longer have human rights.

fallen-fairy-house

It's not a fucking human it's cells you stupid idiot

saint-ambroses-bees

Human cells

saint-augustines-pears

They’re kicking me off the app bc of my phone :(

What?

saint-ambroses-bees

My phone is old and will not be the correct iOS in a while

You're not a kind person unless you can be kind to mean people btw

saint-augustines-pears

The pro-choice worldview is inherently opposed to human rights. If you have to be something in addition to human (ie, conscious, of a certain age, able-bodied, wanted) to have rights, you do not have human rights. You have rights in accordance with certain accidents about yourself, which are all completely arbitrary.

Either all humans are people or humans do not inherently deserve rights.

clytemnestradidnothingwrong

Women aren’t men’s broodmares. Cry about it, incel.

theonceandfutureharpy

Okay but isn't forcing a woman to create a human being with her body also a violation of her rights? What about the human rights of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, you dumb fucking asshole?

The human rights say that everyone has the right to have children, or to not have them (taken from WHO.)

Also, the right to nondiscrimination and to be free from torture is straight from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's discriminatory to force women to give birth and have children, because a man does not have to do that. Also, pregnancy and birth are torturous for many women, especially for those who don't want the baby.

saint-augustines-pears

Arguing from authority is a fallacy. I don’t care if it’s from the WHO, present your premises and argue from that.

You do not have a right to avoid suffering at any cost. I cannot kill a person because they accidentally cause me suffering. Additionally I have a duty to not kill people.

Except you do have the right to live a suffering-free life. You're so triggered you're replying to every single gyn calling you out under your shitty post. Also, who is talking about killing, you moron?

saint-ambroses-bees

I’m bored and engaging online for funsies. Not a crime. Some of you are bringing up points I want to address

Everyone suffers. You will get sick, you will lose people, you will die. You’re not exempt from that. What we don’t have is the right to inflict suffering one others, which is what abortion is.

“Who is talking about killing”

I believe we’re talking about abortion if I’m not mistaken

Abortion isn't murder, hope this helps.

atwoodsfemalefantasy

fetuses and zygotes don't have human rights yet because they aren't humans yet. a seed is not a tree. also, until you carry a parasite in your body that causes you physical and mental pain, threatens your life, and permanently alters your body, i don't care if you think abortions wrong or not.

also, if a baby has the right not to be killed, so does a woman. pregnancy in inherently life threatening. what about if the babies going to kill the woman? what then? does the woman have the right to live?

saint-ambroses-bees

A seed is the same species as a tree. A child is not an adult, but both are human. That’s not how being human works.

Pregnancy is risky, but so is walking out on the street. You have the right to defend yourself by killing someone if they are an active threat, not a potential one. Abortion is only permissible in case of active threat, same as any other act of violence in self defense.

saint-augustines-pears

The pro-choice worldview is inherently opposed to human rights. If you have to be something in addition to human (ie, conscious, of a certain age, able-bodied, wanted) to have rights, you do not have human rights. You have rights in accordance with certain accidents about yourself, which are all completely arbitrary.

Either all humans are people or humans do not inherently deserve rights.

clytemnestradidnothingwrong

Women aren’t men’s broodmares. Cry about it, incel.

theonceandfutureharpy

Okay but isn't forcing a woman to create a human being with her body also a violation of her rights? What about the human rights of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, you dumb fucking asshole?

saint-augustines-pears

there’s no human you can morally kill outside of self defense, yes this does mean we have to suffer for other people sometimes, no that doesn’t mean you can kill them

bathypelagica-deactivated202509

Why do you believe that there is a certain class of person that deserves the right to a woman's body in a way that no one else is allowed?

No human 'inherently deserves' the right to someone else's body. You are not proposing that fetuses should have the same human rights as everyone else, you are saying that they deserve additional rights at the expense of women's human rights.

saint-augustines-pears

No human has a right to kill another person outside of self defense. That would be extra rights for the woman not the baby.

Baby has a right not to be killed. Woman has a duty not to kill. The conclusion is somewhat simple.

bathypelagica-deactivated202509

Abortion is self-defense. Baby, although unintentionally, is putting the woman's health and well-being at risk and infringing on her right to autonomy of her own body. Women have the right to defend themselves from people who are putting their lives in jeopardy. Even, and I would argue especially, if those people are within a woman's own body.

saint-ambroses-bees

Every single interaction you have is risky to some extent. Any person you speak to on the street could kill you. You’re not morally allowed to kill them unless they’re actively trying to kill you or it seems that way.

bathypelagica-deactivated202509

I'm not advocating that women should be allowed to kill any random person who looks at them funny. We're very specifically talking about the entirely unique interaction that is pregnancy, wherein the person in question is someone literally inside of your body.

saint-ambroses-bees

I’m saying that not every pregnancy is worthy of self-defense related termination. There is a very clear difference between normal pregnancy and pregnancy that is actively killing you

bathypelagica-deactivated202509

Even the most normal, healthy pregnancy increases a woman's risk of death. And regardless of fatality risk, all pregnancies cause irreversible harm to the body. A woman has the right to defend herself from someone causing her harm. That shouldn't change just because the person causing the harm relies the woman's body for survival.

saint-ambroses-bees

But a fetus is an innocent bystander of this, not directly and maliciously causing something. Suppose there’s someone with Covid in your home, you know they have Covid and they don’t. You cannot kill them because they potentially will cause injury to you because they aren’t attacking you. Their presence is a direct cause of injury but they are not intentionally harming you.

Additionally, if kicking them out would kill them (let’s say there’s a volcanic eruption outside and they would instantly die if you threw them out) then you cannot morally do that. Even if in a way they may be unintentionally infringing on your well-being.

You have a right to prevent suffering, but you still have a duty to do no unnecessary harm, especially to the innocent.

saint-augustines-pears

The pro-choice worldview is inherently opposed to human rights. If you have to be something in addition to human (ie, conscious, of a certain age, able-bodied, wanted) to have rights, you do not have human rights. You have rights in accordance with certain accidents about yourself, which are all completely arbitrary.

Either all humans are people or humans do not inherently deserve rights.

clytemnestradidnothingwrong

Women aren’t men’s broodmares. Cry about it, incel.

theonceandfutureharpy

Okay but isn't forcing a woman to create a human being with her body also a violation of her rights? What about the human rights of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, you dumb fucking asshole?

The human rights say that everyone has the right to have children, or to not have them (taken from WHO.)

Also, the right to nondiscrimination and to be free from torture is straight from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's discriminatory to force women to give birth and have children, because a man does not have to do that. Also, pregnancy and birth are torturous for many women, especially for those who don't want the baby.

saint-augustines-pears

Arguing from authority is a fallacy. I don’t care if it’s from the WHO, present your premises and argue from that.

You do not have a right to avoid suffering at any cost. I cannot kill a person because they accidentally cause me suffering. Additionally I have a duty to not kill people.

Except you do have the right to live a suffering-free life. You're so triggered you're replying to every single gyn calling you out under your shitty post. Also, who is talking about killing, you moron?

saint-ambroses-bees

I’m bored and engaging online for funsies. Not a crime. Some of you are bringing up points I want to address

Everyone suffers. You will get sick, you will lose people, you will die. You’re not exempt from that. What we don’t have is the right to inflict suffering one others, which is what abortion is.

“Who is talking about killing”

I believe we’re talking about abortion if I’m not mistaken

Abortion isn't murder, hope this helps.

saint-ambroses-bees

Why isn’t a fetus a person? Genuine question bc that’s the hidden premise of your argument

Because it's a fetus. Hope this helps.

saint-ambroses-bees

Girl ok is human should be deserving of “human” rights

I hope you apologize to the grass for stepping on it. It's technically alive. That is if you even go outside and see any.

saint-ambroses-bees

I did not say alive I said human

Oh my God. It's a clump of cells, you absolute idiot. Should males stop jerking off into socks because sperm cells are potential babies? Do you cry every time you scrape your knee because the cells of your skin get destroyed? You care more of a worthless, unborn parasite that is smaller than a grape.

The first 8 weeks of pregnancy, this "human" is just an embryo. A fetus starts around week 10 which is usually around the time abortion is no longer legal. And before it's even an embryo, the thing is just a zygote. By your logic, you're a murderer because every time you have your period, your body murders the potential Human Baby.

saint-ambroses-bees

You don’t understand my logic because clearly there’s a difference between unfertilized genetic material and fertilized, new DNA-containing living creature. Stop strawmanning.

My premises are this. If a creature is human, it deserves human rights. Where do you disagree with this

You don't know what a strawman is. Anyway, a fertilized egg is not a fucking human. It's not living. There's a difference between living and actually being alive, which is where my "strawmanning" is coming from. The embryo will not make it on its own, it needs a host, in this case the mother. It's not living it's life, it just exists in there as a potential human. I don't put a useless lump of cells above the well-being of an already living, breathing, fully developed human.

saint-ambroses-bees

you can’t equivocate out of a straw man 😭😭😭

You’re just agreeing with my original point, in your opinion being human does not inherently grant you rights, you need to have something else to be human. If we’re going with you need to be breathing, fully developed and living (I am assuming your term here) a life of a quality you have deemed fit to deserve rights, then children deserve less rights. People on breathing machines deserve less rights. People with chronic illnesses deserve less rights.

Is this the argument you want to be making? That humans need certain qualities to deserve rights? Because that’s how every form of oppression occurs. You need to be white to have rights, you need to be male to have rights, you need to be healthy to have rights. How about we just say you need to be human to have rights?

You're strawmanning me on your own right now. How ironic.

I'm not even gonna respond to this because this is a matter of faith, since you don't accept basic biological facts and logic. You speak out of your own ass, and stating such a common source as WHO is a "fallacy" to you. All I'm gonna say is: I hope you never get raped. I hope you never have to deal with the pain of carrying a child you don't want. Hope you unlearn your sexism at some point.

saint-ambroses-bees

I used the same words you used. Living (not in the sense of being alive for some reason), breathing and being fully developed. You say straw man, I’m applying your reasoning to other situations to show you how it could be used unjustly. You’re free to explain your position further.

I have outlined my argument very clearly.

1. All humans are persons.

2. A fetus is a human.

3. Therefore, a fetus is a person.

What premise is false?

Side Blog For Horrid Internet Debates @saint-ambroses-bees - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag