全 115 件のコメント

[–]YosoffNatural Rights Conservative 59ポイント60ポイント  (19子コメント)

I wonder how they would react if we started performing abortions on lions.

[–]DRKMSTR 19ポイント20ポイント  (1子コメント)

We already do that to cats.

If you have a pregnant cat in your neighborhood, you can have that done.

We had to, it's not fun, but the cat was too young and would have died.

Spay or neuter your pets!

[–]bryanlharris 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

Oh, we daren't do that. Jimmy Kimmel might cry.

[–]boyd_a_crowder 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Liberal tears are delicious.

[–]ChiliManiacConservative Jew 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I hate eating liberal tears, taste to much like vegetables and kale...

[–]unibuckeyeNew Federalist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

....and self-hatred.

[–]Jormundura 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

The outrage and mob would move swiftly and quickly to destroy that, but it is ok PP or abortions do not count.

[–]In_Defilade 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

They'd argue that lions are endangered but humans aren't. Idolatry of animals is a defining trait of many liberals.

[–]3133T 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The hard core PETA fans feel animal life is greater than human life. I think that's their underlying goal - not to promote kindness to animals, but to strike down evil mankind.

[–]andy389 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't really think the whole "trees feeling pain" thing is meant to be taken literally (although I've personally known some radical leftists who have legitimately held such opinions) as much as it is meant to be a general example of the hypocrisy and nauseating irony of the liberal/progressive point of view.

These liberals of who I speak are the same ones who fight tooth and nail for chickens rights, who go apoplectic over the conditions that animals face in slaughterhouses, etc. Granted, the animals we eat for food often do endure horrible conditions that should be dealt with in some way to become more humane. The point of it though is that while these people scream bloody murder and are appalled beyond belief at the mistreatment of animals, they have no, or very few, qualms with the destruction of a defenseless unborn human being. In fact, they often ENCOURAGE this destruction.

Hidden camera videos portraying the deplorable conditions that animals face in the meat and poultry industry are greeted by widespread and total disgust, a huge, collective rageboner for the leftists. Yet hidden camera videos surface that reveal the grotesque and amoral black market for dead baby parts, being supported by taxpayer dollars no less, and the left tries everything in their power to discredit these videos and write them off as nothing more than partisan propaganda. It's sickening, it really is.

[–]RedditCommentsHurt 11ポイント12ポイント  (5子コメント)

Who is being referenced? I'm outta the loop on this one.

[–]MetalsDeadAndSoAmI 12ポイント13ポイント  (6子コメント)

Oh, talk about unpopular opinion puffin right here. I mean, I agree with what you're saying, and am on the pro-life side, but man, all it takes is someone from /r/feminism or /r/TrollXChromosome to see this in /r/all and the world will end. Haha

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (4子コメント)

and the world will end.

How?

[–]s0v3r1gn 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Complain about sexism until this subreddit is banned. Also will probably doxx the hell out the OP because it's ok to attack those who we don't agree with*.

*As long as it's the right kind of disagreement. BadThink® ©2012 SJW Inc.

/s

[–]BanachTarskiParadox 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If that were the case places like /r/theredpill and /r/conspiracy would be long gone already.

[–]FireHazard11 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hi guys, what's going on in here?

Edit: My bad, I didn't realize jokes weren't allowed in this sub.

[–]Ashleysdad123 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

The number of downvotes would suggest that you rustled some jimmies.

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've got plenty to burn.

[–]NateY3K 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

Okay, I've lurked this sub for awhile and it made sense but this is bullshit.

No one with a sane brain in the history of ever have said that trees feel pain. Ever. This claim of hypocrisy is flawed.

Second, science does suggest that unborn babies don't feel...anything, until 26 weeks. If you want to say that they feel pain, then go ahead, but know that it's not until *26 weeks.

If someone says that they don't at all, go ahead and correct them. But don't say that an 16 weeks fetus can, because they can't, and by doing that you're just as bad as those you're pointing a finger at.

[–]mdegroat -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

No one with a sane brain in the history of ever have said that trees feel pain. Ever. This claim of hypocrisy is flawed.

I'm not so sure about that...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4

(Although you'll probably claim these people aren't sane)

[–]dawiseguy98Libertarian -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you want to claim that those people are sane, go for it.

[–]blackhornatnight 9ポイント10ポイント  (60子コメント)

Abortion is a tough issue. For me it comes down to who has the right to choose. Do we allow a judge to make the choice, the father, the legislature, or the woman? For me, I'd rather give the choice to the woman, not an appointed judge or legislature, thus, the term pro-choice. It would seem odd to give a legislative or legal body the choice to decide if a woman ought to give birth or not. I'm not comfortable giving that kind of power to our government.

[–]mdegroat 24ポイント25ポイント  (7子コメント)

The issue really comes down to this question. "What is the unborn?" Answering that is what makes it difficult.

If the answer is "just a mass of tissue" then the rest is simple.

However, if the answer is a human life, it is also simple-but not easy.

[–]crucial88 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've always considered it something in between just a mass of tissue and a human life. I mean, that's what it is. People who try to say that a fetus is equivalent to a born human are ignoring the reality that it isn't. It simply isn't. It isn't born yet. It's eyes aren't open. It isn't aware or absorbing the world. The spark that makes it a human hasn't ignited yet.

Don't get me wrong, it's not nothing. It's far more than nothing. But still it seems clear that as abhorrent as the planned parenthood videos are, there is still a considerable difference between a child that has been born and a developing fetus, to the point that equating abortion to murder seems glib to me.

I wouldn't say that fetuses, past a point, don't deserve protection by the law. But it also seems that if God or Nature wanted babies to spring forth fully formed at the moment of conception, that would be well within his power. Yet that isn't the case, and abortion is instead ubiquitous in nature among mammals.

[–]I_amLying 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't think consensus on what to classify the unborn as makes it simple. Assume the baby were an adult. It'd be like if you woke up with a comatose person medically attached to you, requiring you for life support. How much freedom should a person have to remove themselves in that scenario? Looking at it from the perspective of human rights, it seems wrong to require someone to stay in that state any longer than they want to. Emotionally, though, practically anyone would have a hard time actually pulling their plug and ending someone.

The other person is in this scenario is definitely a human life, but you are guaranteed that some percentage of people would still end up on either side of the debate (choice vs. life). My point is that it isn't a simple answer no matter how you classify the unborn.

PS: I'm not actually pushing my personal beliefs here, just making conversation.

[–]robotoverlordzReagan Conservative 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

It'd be like if you woke up with a comatose person medically attached to you

But, for the most part, women don't just "wake up" with a baby in them. That's where your analogy breaks down. Conception is a direct consequence of another action; one most often taken willingly (if, sometimes, also ignorantly.) The taking of another human's life because your own actions have resulted in a consequence that will inconvenience you is a dangerous thing for our society to allow.

[–]I_amLying -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are arguing a different point than the poster I was responding to, I never claimed the analogy worked for EVERY problem someone might have with abortion. My analogy works for the argument of "how much should someone be required to sacrifice for another persons life", because he was saying that if people agree that the unborn are human lives then the answer to abortion would be simple.

And the analogy still holds if I just add that you were originally attached to the comatose person because of an accident you were responsible for. Then the analogy flows fine again; people would still see it as a violation of rights to require you to remain connected against your will, and people would still have moral/emotional problems with disconnecting.

[–]lemonparty 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It'd be like if you woke up with a comatose person medically attached to you

A more apt analogy would be if you ran over a cyclist with your car, and strangely the only way to keep them alive was to attach them to you for 9 months. Do you have an obligation to help the person who you put in that predicament? Maybe not. Are you a killer if you refuse help? Maybe.

[–]I_amLying -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Like I said to another poster farther down, while that would make the analogy work for a wider range of arguments against/for abortion it's not actually required for responding to mdegroats idea.

Also, you aren't a killer for refusing to help someone, just not a savior.

[–]johndeer89Moderate Conservative 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

The thing is people are that are pro choice are pro choice to a certain point. Should abortion be illegal until the first, second, or third trimester? Should we legalize it until right before birth, or until the child can walk and talk. Either way you eventually take away the women's right to choose. At a certain point, we can't leave it up to the mother to decide when a child has the right to live, because life is something that should be protected by the government.

[–]blackhornatnight -4ポイント-3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Our ancestors probably did commit infanticide quite often if they or the tribe did not have the means to support the child. Infanticide is still committed today, and my guess probably completely by mothers who feel they cannot raise the child. This is unnecessary now because a lot of advanced societies have the resources to raise children. I think if conservatives cared as much for the children who are born in this country (as far as education, etc.) as much as they care about unborn, we would be in a much better position. But no one wants to spend the tax money to raise children who are "saved" from abortion.

[–]duckduckbeer 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

We spend more on per pupil k-12 education than every country in the word net Luxembourg and Norway. Save your lies about refusing to invest in kids for r/politics. It's not conservatives faults that liberal unions have destroyed our public schools.

[–]blackhornatnight -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

K-12 is in bad shape. Unions have messed it up making it hard to get rid of bad teachers, which is a disaster. Conservatives never really make education a big part of their platform though. I think they should. Even Reagan gave a nod to the inner cities in speeches wanting to make sure no one is left behind. Today's candidates, like Scott Walker, actively avoid even paying lip service to issues like that.

[–]duckduckbeer -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Conservatives never really make education a big part of their platform though.

I'm going to almost 100% disagree with you.

The two most comprehensive K-12 policies over the last 50 years were signed by Ford (education for the disabled) and GWB (NCLB).

Many conservatives discuss education reform tirelessly.

It's liberals who have effectively no ideas in how to improve education. Despite horrific outcomes while we spend at the highest levels in the world, their only refrain is to spend more (oh wait, they like to say "invest" despite their being no return on this investment as the money is pissed away on admin and union officials). They don't even discuss how this will improve education (they just laugh as they rake in the union political contributions).

Even Reagan gave a nod to the inner cities in speeches wanting to make sure no one is left behind. Today's candidates, like Scott Walker, actively avoid even paying lip service to issues like that.

First off, I'm interested in why you focus on inner city problems but ignore the similar issues faced by rural communities.

Second, GWB's reform was literally called No Child Left Behind, and it's main focus was getting underperforming urban and rural schools up to par.

Third, Scott Walker's education platform focuses on funding parity and ensuring all students have access to a satisfactory education.

http://walker.wi.gov/wisconsin-priority/transforming-education/education-reform

[–]nittyit -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly. Those who are pro-life are pretty much just pro-birth. People against abortion could really sway people to their side if they promised to protect and provide to ALL children until they are 18. That of course will never happen due to their stances on government assistance in other areas.

This "every life is precious" mantra is complete bullshit. Really? How about seeing to it that kids today get proper education, nutrition, care, etc?

[–]paganize 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's pretty simple for me; I'm a guy. none of my business unless I'm intimately involved, or someone actually asks me.

I can understand most of the radical pro-lifers position, though; if you consider a fetus a human being at a certain point, any law that allows that human being to be killed, on the whim of another, after that point in time, would be legalized murder. a death sentence without a crime or trial. If i thought that way, i would get bent out of shape myself, even though I'm male.

Since I don't do that "faith" thing, I just picked my own arbitrary point; if the baby would probably live without artificial assistance after being delivered, it's a human; don't kill it unless it's a choice of it's life or the mothers.

[–]pumpyourstillskin -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

Does that include partial birth abortion?

[–]blackhornatnight -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

Yes, I suppose. An abortion is an abortion.

[–]siliconhog 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Wow. So partially delivering a full term baby and bashing its skull in is just another abortion?

[–]blackhornatnight 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Perhaps. As unpalatable as it is, infanticide was probably practiced often by our ancestors. It's unnecessary now if you live in a wealthy nation, but my guess is that woman choose abortions not out of malice but out of what they feel is a lack of options for themselves and their child to be.

[–]siliconhog 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

If these noble women you describe were concerned about the lack of options available to "themselves and their child to be" they wouldn't have gotten knocked up in the first place. From free condoms at clinics to PlanB, birth control options are plentiful. Further, they would most definitely have arranged to have their baby killed at a much earlier phase of their pregnancy.

Now, I'm interested to hear what other practices of our ancestors you are willing to advocate for.

[–]BanachTarskiParadox 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Birth control is not 100% effective. Condoms aren't, plan B certainly isn't (and is hard on one's body), and even IUDs can fail and fall out (they can sometimes cause damage in the process). Most of the women I've known who got abortions were actually on birth control when they got pregnant, or else it was for medical reasons.

The only person I know who got a late abortion (like, 5 or 6 months along) for non-medical reasons had no idea she was pregnant until she was quite far along, and was a heavy smoker and drinker, and generally lived a lifestyle not conducive to a healthy fetus. She may well have gotten her act together if she'd known about it in time, but she didn't.

[–]siliconhog 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds like you run with a stellar crowd.

[–]SpanningTreeProtocol -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

My opinion is at what point is it viable? That would (for me) define that upper limit. 20-24 weeks? At some point it should be considered viable and a protected organism, but again my position is kind of flaky.

[–]lemonparty 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

viability is a moving target, depending on the technology of the day

I'm fine with that standard, but it's not a moral argument. 24 week preemies weren't viable 40 years ago, now they are. Does that mean they weren't persons with rights 40 years ago, but now they are?

[–]lemonparty -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

How about 60 seconds after birth?

[–]blackhornatnight -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think that would be infanticide. Actually, some women do choose that option. It is illegal though. Culturally, we simply find it unacceptable.

[–]Cloughtower -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yea, I'm pro-life and I'll plead for the life of the child whenever I get the chance, but it is ultimately the women's choice. Same with infanticide as far as I'm concerned

[–]theFinisher4Ever -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thats a pretty stupid hypothetical because it doesn't address the real issue. Which is, why should anyone get to choose to kill someone else?

[–]blackhornatnight 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I suppose in this case the right of the mother to choose overrides whatever rights the unborn child may have. What rights an unborn child has is a difficult question, because, as I understand it, rights are valid claims. Who speaks on behalf of the unborn child? Who gets to make claims on his/her behalf? Should it be the mother, the legislature, or a judge? Again, I think the mother ought to be the ultimate arbiter in this issue. I am not comfortable ceding power to the government on this issue. What if a judge decides that the child has the right to be born at a specific location, and undergo specific procedures, or that the child would be better off being adopted because the mother is disabled in some way? Do we force the mother to comply?

[–]Honky_Cat -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Women have the right to choose... Not to get pregnant in the first place.

[–]blackhornatnight 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's true. I'd love it if people were perfectly rational and responsible, but, c'mon, that's just not reality.

[–]HazMat68W -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

But what about the father? They get no say if they have to pay child support or not? What if they were raped or mislead that birth control was used?

[–]blackhornatnight -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not familiar with family law at all, so I can't really comment. I do think having sex carries with it the risk of conceiving, even if someone tells you they are on birth control, so just because one person doesn't want to have a child, the personn can't absolve themselves of the responsibility of raising/paying for the child once the child is born. As far as rape, I'm guessing if you're a man, you wouldn't have to pay child support for a child that isn't yours. I don't see what justification would be used for a court to order a another man to pay for a rapists child.

[–]lemonparty -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's only if you are debating someone who has conceded the personhood debate.

Why would anyone get to "chose", if we agree that it is a human with rights?

[–]blackhornatnight -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well, the problem is, that human beings sometimes have rights that conflict with one another. A fetus very well may have rights; but so do mothers, who are also human beings. So the question becomes, who gets to decide this case? A judge? A legislature? Or the mother? For me, pro-choice is simply vesting this power with the mother. She as the right to choose. It's supporting individual rights and freedom.

[–]undeadslotharmy37 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The way I see it is that if a person (ie fetus) is aborted it impedes upon the unalienable rights of that individual. We cant simply say "both the mother and the fetus has rights, so it's a question of one person's rights over the other" because that's the same as saying "I don't like my neighbor I should be able to kill him because it is my right to due so. He may have rights but so do I and he is annoying me". It isn't within a person's rights to remove the unalienable rights of a differnt person. Just my two cents.

[–]blackhornatnight -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you're right that you can't just commit crimes because you feel like it is your right. But in the case with your neighbor, if you have a dispute you can sue him, and a judge would decide the case on the established law. If the fetus had a strong set of rights, and they were enforced, the father or whomever could sue on behalf of the fetus to put a stop on the abortion, and the mother would be forced to carry the child and birth the child. I don't think anything is really lost except in a philosophical sense when a mother exercises her rights over the supposed rights of her yet to be born child. There is no damages, per se.

[–]pumpyourstillskin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You in this post: A fetus very well may have rights; but so do mothers, who are also human beings. So the question becomes, who gets to decide this case? A judge? A legislature? Or the mother? For me, pro-choice is simply vesting this power with the mother. She as the right to choose.

You in another post: I think that would be infanticide. Actually, some women do choose that option. It is illegal though. Culturally, we simply find it unacceptable.

These are completely at odds. You're against infanticide because our culture simply finds it unacceptable, but you're in favor of individual mothers choosing whether or not to have late term abortions despite it being overwhelmingly unacceptable in our culture.

[–]PhilliesJawn 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm so divided on this issue. I don't support abortion and I think it should be avoided at all costs, but then again I also don't think the government should have the right to tell a woman that she can't have an abortion (at least early on in the pregnancy).

[–]CptMacaroni 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Biggest thing i get from this is how can liberals hate the dentist for killing the lion, but want to ban guns instead of going after the criminal.

[–]Elided_Ego -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is how I became more pro life in general. I generally think animals have all sorts of rights, and I don't see how a pre born human is much different than an animal.

[–]blackhornatnight -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean, you're kind of right; but the only issue here is that the mother has rights, too. So who gets to ultimately decide this tricky case? I don't want a judge or legislature telling my wife or daughter or friend what they can and cannot do in this instance. I want that power given to them.

[–]TexanMcDaniel -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Whether or not the unborn child feels pain completely depends on what stage it is at in the pregnancy.

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp.[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So it's only wrong to steal something from someone if they will miss it?