Anonymous #1 2d

Exactly, so we agree. The unborn should not be forced to die for the mother’s body.

-5

Anonymous #2 2d

I’ve watched 25+ hours of it

-5

Anonymous #3 2d

Got it. So your ability to survive in a freezer is the basis of your moral worth?

-3

Anonymous #2 2d

Just on abortion specifically

-3

Anonymous OP 2d

No one should have to give up their womb so someone else can live

9

Anonymous OP 2d

Who would you prioritize if a woman had to have an abortion or die but if she didn’t the 1st trimester unborn would live and why

11

Anonymous #1 2d

LOL, their womb is an organ specifically designed for the purpose of supporting an unborn baby. Why are the human rights of these unborn any less because of their location?

-3

Anonymous OP 2d

So? No one has a right to your body without consent.

6

Anonymous OP 2d

bc the woman is hosting the child as it takes her nutrients and resources, it’s effectively a human parasite

11

Anonymous #5 2d

Obviously the life of the woman should be saved, but this <1% chance occurrence doesn’t justify 99% of abortions with healthy moms and babies

-2

Anonymous OP 2d

Ok and why would it be the woman in that case, you didn’t answer that part

8

Anonymous #1 2d

Great work! No one has the right to end a human life without that life’s consent 👏

-3

Anonymous OP 2d

a fetus cannot give consent lol so this is a stupid take

9

Anonymous OP 2d

Ok give me your kidney I need it to live

13

Anonymous OP 2d

Please OP I don't consent to dying and your kidney is the only thing that can save me

15

Anonymous #5 2d

Here’s a thought experiment to show how pointless your argument is. If we had to save two sickly elderly people or 1 baby from a burning building we should save the baby. Does that mean the elderly people don’t deserve human rights?

-2

Anonymous #1 2d

And they don’t need it to live anyways, why wouldn’t they when you both can live

10

Anonymous #1 2d

The kidney is an organ designed specifically for me and I don’t have an obligation to give it to you. A womb is an organ specifically designed for someone else

-3

Anonymous OP 2d

no, plus I would choose to save the two elderly people, this isn’t an objective moral situation it’s very different because it actively causes harm to women to carry a baby, pregnancy is an incredibly difficult, painful, and potentially dangerous thing to go through

5

Anonymous OP 2d

I want you to answer why you would choose to save a woman’s life instead of a 1st trimester unborn, just give me that. An explanation of that thought process.

6

Anonymous OP 2d

Sounds about stupid

12

Anonymous #1 2d

Too bad bud, you’re a pro-choice baby killer and my body my choice 😛

-3

Anonymous OP 2d

You sound like Nick Fuentes

7

Anonymous OP 2d

It was designed with a spare so you can give me one

11

Anonymous #6 2d

Interesting choice you morally confused idiot. Actively causes women harm? What a joke. Married women with children are the happiest women statistically in the U.S. the rhetoric and fear-mongering behind this statement is laughable

-5

Anonymous OP 2d

If you care so much about lives why wouldn’t you, why do you care less about them living than a 6 week embryo

10

Anonymous OP 2d

It’s literally the opposite

11

Anonymous OP 2d

are you telling me pregnancy isn’t painful or physically uncomfortable? what a sexist joke, it takes a toll on the body objectively, are you suggesting giving birth isn’t physically distressing and difficult?

5

Anonymous OP 2d

Single women report being happier and married men report being happier

5

Anonymous #5 2d

My SUBJECTIVE decision to save the women is because of the harm inflicted. The harm being caused to the unborn is the loss of future life. The harm being caused to the woman would be greater because she would consciously experience the pain AND lose future life.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

yeah I’m a fetus so I wouldn’t care if I got aborted bc I don’t have the conscious awareness to know where I am actually

1

Anonymous #5 2d

Nick Fuentes is a fascist idiot who doesn’t have a healthy understanding of what women contribute to society

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

then why do you sound just like him

6

Anonymous OP 2d

Don’t you think a woman dying would also cause more harm to her loved ones and partner than a literal 6 week embryo. And so the woman’s life and wellbeing is prioritized over the unborn, thank you

9

Anonymous OP 2d

It sounds like you think women contribute as a womb from how your talking rn

11

Anonymous #5 2d

I think Nick would agree with everything you’re saying

12

Anonymous #5 2d

I’d love to see your nonexistent source of informations. Here’s an AI summary just from a quick browser search

-3

Anonymous #5 2d

I think Hitler would agree with you that murder is wrong. Too bad Hitler agrees with me, guess I’ll have to say murder isn’t wrong 🤷‍♂️

0

Anonymous #5 2d

And a woman can actually process the feelings of emotions of them going to die and have lived a whole life that is going to end

5

Anonymous #5 2d

It sounds like you place no value on unborn human life from how you’re talking right now

-3

Anonymous #5 2d

Yes it would cause the family more pain but this still doesn’t explain why the unborn don’t have a right to life

-3

Anonymous #5 2d

You are so stuck in your stupid little hypothetical question that I’ve already shown to be irrelevant

-3

Anonymous #1 2d

Great observation you anatomical mastermind, I do have two kidneys. How is this relevant to the human rights of the unborn or the distinct role of the womb.

-3

Anonymous #6 2d

Is consciousness an indication of human value? Guess we can just go ahead and unplug everyone in a coma, it’ll free up space in the hospital for more valuable patients

-2

Anonymous OP 2d

coma patients already vested their rights before falling into a coma, they existed as a fully fledged human being before the coma, this is not the case for a fetus plus a coma patient is attached to a machine, a fetus is attached to another human body, entirely different situation

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Well my AI summery is basically telling me it’s 50/50 with studies saying different things and it probably being close to equal if you take that into account while it is clear that men benefit a lot from marriage

5

Anonymous #5 2d

I was clicking on stuff and it also said that single, childfree by choice women have high happiness and it was the single,childfree not by choice women that were lower

1

Anonymous #5 2d

And that conflicts in data present because married mothers might have higher fulfillment and lower happiness but single childfree women have more happiness and the two are grouped together when comparing studies

1

Anonymous #6 2d

Good analytics friend, killing a Coma patient is wrong because they have rights. my position seeks to apply human rights to the unborn. Fetus’ are full human beings with the ability to develop if given nutrition, proper environment, and time. Coma patients are fully human beings with the potential to heal if given nutrition, proper environment, and time.

0

Anonymous #5 2d

The 2025 Women’s Well-being Survey (WWS) of 3,000 women in the US aged 25-55. You are just being intellectually dishonest at this point

1

Anonymous #5 2d

What you are seeing is called an AI echo chamber which spits out what you want to hear. My UP TO DATE data just shows you are false

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Me sharing what I read from looking it up as a whole of all data presented instead of one source and literally repeating what I saw is intellectual dishonesty?

6

Anonymous OP 2d

I clicked on like 10 links of research studies

4

Anonymous #5 2d

The one’s looking at studies as a whole all said studies are so inconsistent and can’t agree

1

Anonymous OP 2d

no but it tells you they are probably fundamentally different in some way

3

Anonymous #1 2d

You’re in favor of abortions at 9 months then? Weird

4

Anonymous #8 2d

not in favor but I believe if the mother wants it and the doctor approves that it shouldn’t be illegal nor is it immoral abortions should be decisions strictly made by mothers and doctors

5

Anonymous OP 2d

stupid argument, “potential” doesn’t give rights, a 10 year old child has the potential to be an adult, does that mean he should have the right to vote? LMFAO

6

Anonymous #6 2d

This is a literally insane person level opinion. Not immoral to abort a baby at 9 months? How do you even come to hold a world view so utterly devoid of intelligence or morality

0

Anonymous OP 2d

bc I don’t think a human being has rights until they are born no birth, no rights, is it arbitrary? yeah, do I stand by it? Also, yeah

6

Anonymous #6 2d

When did I ever say potential is what gives rights? All living beings of a rational kind deserve life. Having the potential to develop if given time, environment, and nutrition definitional separates us as living creatures from a skin cell which is alive but doesn’t have moral value.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

but regardless, the idea that a fetus having the potential to become a human being means they deserve rights is silly, name a right given based on potential and then wouldn’t that also extend to sperm? All those sperm cells could potentially be children, would male masturbation be considered mass murder? Those sperm cells could potentially fertilize egg cells

4

Anonymous #7 2d

Fundamentally human and alive?

-1

Anonymous #6 2d

Actually an insane take, what about the birth canal gives them rights?

2

Anonymous OP 2d

okay then why does this argument not include sperm cells?

5

Anonymous #8 2d

bc they actualize themselves into the world, they start to interact with society as a whole without interacting through their mother

3

Anonymous OP 2d

Opinions on IVF

10

Anonymous #6 2d

It doesn’t include sperm cells because they could never develop if given time, nutritions and environment

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

but they have the potential to impregnate and fertilize egg cells? isn’t that part of their potential environment?

3

Anonymous #6 2d

Fetus don’t have the POTENTIAL to be human beings. They ARE human beings. Are you slow?

-1

Anonymous #6 2d

At that point they are no longer sperm cells. Have you ever taken basic biology

0

Anonymous OP 2d

yeah I disagree, I don’t think they societally operate as human beings, they don’t interact with the outside world whatsoever, they require draining their mother’s nutrients to live and make all their interaction through a different living organism rather than through themselves

1

Anonymous OP 2d

it’s still the same DNA, same material, even if it transforms into something different, it’s a continuous process

6

Anonymous OP 2d

also regardless of morality my main take is that the government should allow all abortions and it should be a decision made on a case-by-case basis by a mother and her doctors, we shouldn’t decide for the specific mother’s case and nor should the state, it is a medical decision and should be controlled by the patient and their care team

5

Anonymous #6 2d

Someone being capable of social interaction is not an indication of moral value. You are saying that nonverbal or severally mentally disabled people don’t deserve human rights?

0

Anonymous OP 2d

they still interact with the outside world, their existence isn’t merely based on an incubator providing nutrients

5

Anonymous #6 2d

What even is your definition of a human being because it’s been changing for you while I’ve been consistent

0

Anonymous OP 2d

human being versus who has rights are 2 diff conversations imo are fetuses human beings? yeah they’re human and they’re living beings, but they don’t deserve rights yet imo rights exist when you are born, that’s my stance

2

Anonymous OP 2d

The location doesn’t stop anything. Yk the embryo can get lost and implant itself on vital organs.

9

Anonymous OP 2d

Opinions on IVF

5

Anonymous #6 2d

Babies can exist outside of the womb after 22 weeks. Are those premature babies not worthy of human rights just because they rely entirely on machines?

0

Anonymous OP 2d

but also I believe my opinion nor should your opinion matter and that it should be a decision made by the mother and her doctors in each scenario, I don’t need consistency bc imo my opinion doesn’t and shouldn’t matter

3

Anonymous OP 2d

relying on machines is diff than relying on a living breathing human being

4

Anonymous #6 2d

Rights at birth is at the same level as someone saying someone doesn’t have rights because of skin color. It’s a definition for human rights that you have only because it’s convenient for you

0

Anonymous #5 2d

I don’t have a strong opinion on IVF, I am not very familiar with it. My at-a-glance instinct is a hesitant optimism

0

Anonymous OP 2d

yeah rights are a social construct, we give them because it makes society more stable and clearly defined rights aren’t objective and many are arbitrary and based on moral opinion rather than any sort of objective fact birth is a very easy to manage and clear demarcation which I think is morally justifiable and erases the potential sexist burden on women specifically if the rights were implemented earlier

6

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

What is your point sorry? Theres a lot of different threads in this convo right now

0

Anonymous OP 2d

My point is, the location of the embryo, zygote, fetus, ect doesn’t matter. A baby can and does sometimes develop outside of the womb in the woman’s abdomen. There’s instances where the embryo implants on the person’s liver.

3

Anonymous #6 2d

Ok so how do we decide what are rights then? Is it just the majority opinion that decides what is and isn’t moral? Is it utilitarianism that decides what is and isnt moral? Would you support a clinical operation that makes unborn babies brain dead so that people can use the bodies for sexual gratification? Why or why not? Birth is a totally arbitrary demarcation and your answers so far have made that clear

0

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Yes this is an extremely rare case that results in an operation to abort it so that the mother doesn’t die. How is this relevant to the conversation?

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Because u asked if the location of the fetus matters to if it should be aborted or not

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

It’s too bad I’m not able to send photos of what abortion actually is or else it’ll be censored 😘

0

Anonymous OP 2d

You casually have photos of abortions? Bit strange ngl.

5

Anonymous OP 2d

Lemme guess, is it gonna be them draining the womb, cutting up the fetus, and pulling it out? If so those abortions are extremely rare and only occur when there’s danger to the mother. The vast majority of abortions are a series of two pills the person takes…

5

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Yes in cases when the embryo attaches to an organ outside of the uterus, an abortion is medically necessary to save the mother. The baby would die either way. Is your claim that this extreme situation should inform the general policy on abortion?

0

Anonymous OP 2d

No, my point literally is it doesn’t matter the location of the fetus. Because it can implant anywhere

3

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Great guess Sherlock! Too bad #6 can’t see one of those photos for a 9 months baby. What is your argument for why the unborn don’t deserve human rights again?

0

Anonymous OP 2d

They fertilize like 10-20 eggs because only like half of those will be strong enough develop into an embryo and the one that is evaluated to have the best chance at developing into a healthy pregnancy is transferred (if it doesn’t work, another is selected. Usually there are multiple that could maybe be a healthy pregnancy and they are either frozen for a future pregnancy or destroyed, but most people aren’t planning like 5 figure pregnancies and there can be anywhere from 0 to a lot

6

Anonymous OP 2d

I never argued it should or shouldn’t. I literally just told u that an embryo can implant anywhere inside a woman’s body. Chill out dude, this isn’t a Jubilee video lmao

4

Anonymous OP 2d

So, out of curiosity, when was the last time you cracked open a biology textbook?

6

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

You are saying… it doesn’t matter if the fetus is healthily developing in a safe environment, it still doesn’t deserve protection?

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

And once again, late stage abortions like that are extremely rare and occur when there’s danger to the mother or complications with the pregnancy.

8

Anonymous #5 2d

This is what those embryos look like

4

Anonymous OP 2d

Bro…I told u multiple times what I’m saying. Idk how tf u keep twisting a straight forward answer into something I’m not saying. AN EMBRYO CAN LITERALLY IMPLANT ANYWHERE. That’s all I’m saying. Not all pregnancies happen in the womb “I like pancakes” “oh so u hate waffles” ass argument 😐

3

Anonymous #5 2d

Feels eugenics coded so I’d have to say no, adoption would likely be a more moral way to go

-2

Anonymous OP 2d

Maybe if the U.S. had an adoption system that was… y’know, good. I MIGHT agree with you there. Heavy on the might.

5

Anonymous OP 2d

Do you think fertile people don’t adopt because of eugenics? And that’s your reasoning, you don’t think these women and doctors are mass murders?

5

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

I’m fully aware that we are anonymous strangers on Yik Yak, I’m just not aware of your position or what you’re trying to say but I want to engage with you if you want to engage with me.

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

After taking High School AP Biology

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Not rlly. I believe a woman should have access to an abortion. I rlly don’t care if u disagree, but a person who already has pre established relationships ect shouldn’t have to give up their body to support a life they don’t have to

5

Anonymous OP 2d

My last reply only dealt with the idea that adoptions are preferable to abortions, not on the other stuff.

6

Anonymous OP 2d

Fun story, my mom’s friend was very prolife and eventually tried for a baby for years and years. She ended up going with IVF even after being against it before she knew she had fertility issues. She paid for them to be frozen for years to feel more moral to herself, knowing she didn’t want more kids, and eventually didn’t want to pay anymore and let them be destroyed

2

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

I’m with you on that one. I’d love to see reformation within the adoption process

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Yes, but even then I believe that the choice to abort should still be available to pregnant people.

3

Anonymous #5 2d

I’m an abolitionist which is a more extreme form of pro life. I think all those who are complicit in abortion, mothers included are murderers. That said, taking legal action is not a viable policy unless radical reform happened. If that reform was to occur, people who have participated in abortion in the past would not be prosecuted

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

I saw your earlier comment about casually having abortion photos 😂 don’t worry I don’t but they are a short google search away. Also, what is the reason why you think human right to life doesn’t apply to the unborn?

0

Anonymous OP 2d

What is your opinion on IVF now

6

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Why shouldn’t that life be protected? Does inconvenience justify death?

0

Anonymous OP 2d

I know a lot about biology. Fetuses, by definition, are not considered to be a living being prior to their birth. Therefore, the pregnant person’s choice in what happens to it comes before all else. This is why I asked about your biological background earlier.

1

Anonymous #5 2d

Still very much uninformed but more solidly in opposition to it based on what you’ve shared.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

Well it’s not always because of convenience. I already told u I’m not debating u💀

6

Anonymous OP 2d

Would you agree that getting rid of this is mass murder of 6?

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

This is in direct contradiction to scientific consensus. Where are you getting your information that it isn’t even “alive” before birth? This is a personal rationalization instead of actual fact.

0

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Well convenience IS the vast majority of reasons why abortion is used. Also if you’re not debating why keep responding 😭

0

Anonymous #5 2d

Is getting rid of that tray comparable to destroying them?

2

Anonymous #5 2d

Yes intentionally destroying innocent human life is murder

0

Anonymous #5 2d

It is comparable yes

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Would you say they have the capacity to live as embryos in a tray and are entitled to being placed in a womb any more than a man is entitled to your kidney being in him to survive

6

Anonymous OP 2d

While a fetus (in later stages) can display homeostasis, the fetus can only maintain homeostasis with nutrients given from the parent. A fetus also lacks the ability to reproduce. This throws a huge wrench into the whole “being considered alive” thing.

3

Anonymous OP 2d

If u say so bro

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Bro’s socks are mass graves.

3

Anonymous #5 2d

First off, a kidney is not a human being. Second the initiating cause that makes someone need my kidney is not my fault, whereas in the vast majority of cases it is the woman’s fault. Third, human offspring are entitled to care from their parents. That’s why men are obligated to pay child support. Parents have an obligation to their children, so yes the mother should have an obligation to care for the embryos in her womb.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

“Whereas in the vast majority of cases it is the woman’s fault.” Holy shit, SOURCE?

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Said no scientist ever.

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Already clarified that sperm aren’t live beings of a rational kind twin 🙏

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Alright Mr. “My biology only goes to the high school level”

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

“As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”

0

Anonymous OP 2d

And where did you get that from?

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Rape or involuntary pregnancy is 0.4% of the reasons for seeing abortion. By engaging in sex your consent to the chance of pregnancy

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Your logic for why sperm cells don’t count is as flimsy as your morality.

3

Anonymous OP 2d

They are not in her womb

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Alright Mr. intellectually dishonest person who can’t do basic research

0

Anonymous OP 2d

So do you think women who get pregnant on accident should be forced to carry to term?

5

Anonymous OP 2d

I asked where you got your quote, you didn’t answer.

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

“When Human Life Begins” American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Let’s saw you have a 30 yr old frozen embryo (yes this is actually a real thing that has and can happen) and the woman whose egg it is made from is dead. What should happen to that embryo?

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

My definition of human life has been consistent and grounded definitional.

0

Anonymous OP 2d

“Elective or unspecified reasons” I wonder what “unspecified reasons” could include…

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

They shouldn’t be forced to keep the baby, but even then there’s no reason to kill it.

0

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Bro makes the most ambiguous statements and then expects me not to respond 😮‍💨 what do you think that 95% includes?

-1

Anonymous #5 2d

Yes this absolutely realistic thought experiment should inform the policy and morality of millions of abortion 🤡

0

Anonymous OP 2d

“There is no consensus among biologists as to what embryonic stage represents the time when independent human life begins. Different groups of biologists have championed individual human life begin- ning at fertilization, gastrulation, the emergence of the electroen- cephalogram pattern, and viability/birth.” Gilbert et al, March 2024

7

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Take a second and read this passage critically before posting it as evidence 😂

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Yeah, because every time you get into a car you obviously consent to getting into a car crash.

6

Anonymous OP 2d

Your quote said it was mostly uncontroversial, my more recent quote argues the opposite. You should read more critically.

4

Anonymous OP 2d

We don’t know how many of those abortions are due to rape because rape goes under reported

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Every time you get in a car you consent to the risk of getting in a car crash. Duh

0

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Wow. Just wow. This is a next level interpretation of 95% of all abortion cases. They are basically ALL RAPE genius stuff man

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

So when the person gets out of the crash, doctors shouldn’t stitch them up because they consented to the risk?

3

Anonymous OP 2d

That’s not what I’m getting at at all and it is a real thing. What I’m getting at is if life starts at fertilization, what should be done with a fertilized embryo with no mother? Is it important enough to save a life by force putting it in another woman or is her choice and wellbeing to not want that more important than that life?

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Your quote says people can’t decided if it’s within the first few nanoseconds or the first 6 weeks 😂

0

Anonymous OP 2d

And your quote said that they all agreed. READ CAREFULLY.

5

Anonymous OP 2d

“We don’t know how many of those are rapes because it goes under reported” “Oh so all of them are rapes”

5

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

I’m not sure if this person can read well, at this point.

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Ok so no abortion after 6 weeks? And yes an embryo is considered alive at the moment of conception, to deny that is to deny basic biology.

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Is it made of living cells? Yes. I never denied that.

5

Anonymous OP 2d

I did deny that it’s a complex organism that can reproduce and adapt to its surroundings.

3

Anonymous OP 2d

Atleast, no adapt in a very sophisticated manner.

2

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Seriously? How many of those 95% do you think are rape cases and do you really think that number will change any aspect of this argument which I have been winning up to this point?

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

I can assure you that I have read far more books and far more technical information that you ever have

0

Anonymous OP 2d

If all you care about is “winning” this debate, then you are truly lost.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

You’ve read that much, yet you don’t punctuate your sentences?

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Answer my question please

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Are you even hearing yourself? An embryo isn’t a complex organism? Also someone’s ability to reproduce doesn’t have an impact on their moral value otherwise lots of infertile people could be killed off.

0

Anonymous OP 2d

U haven’t been winning anything. I gave u my answer…ur giving shitty arguments and I’m laughing at u bro 😭 u take a straight forward answer and somehow manage to twist it into something it’s not. Ur literally the Jesus of debates the way u can take a straight forward response and turn it into something different.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Do you know what infertile people have that zygotes don’t? Reproductive organs.

1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

This is why you don’t cast pearls before swine 🙄 you haven’t been able to say a single thing that contradicts why the unborn aren’t worthy of human rights. I’ve taken your ridiculous comments and taken them to their logical conclusions which are always… ridiculous

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Oh so now having reproductive organs is what gives something human rights? It’s always changing each time you open your mouth

1

Anonymous OP 2d

It’s called an example, I never said it was the defining characteristic.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Answer my question please

1

Anonymous OP 2d

No…you’ve taken straightforward answers and attempted to twist them into something they’re not so that you can have a “gotcha” moment. I say “we don’t know how many of those unspecified abortions are rapes because it goes under reported” and you said “oh so you think all 95% are rapes??” Ur not a good debater because ur coming in to win. Not actually read and understand what we’re saying. That’s why I’m not giving u the luxury of being taken seriously. Ur a wanna be debate bro dude 😭

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Well each time you try to define a characteristic of what gives human life value and rights I’ve shown it to be totally arbitrary. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s simpler and more just to say that all living beings of a rational kind deserve the right to life?

1

Anonymous OP 2d

It would be simpler. But real life is complicated.

1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

You were bringing up under-reported rape statistics as if that brought anything of value to the table. As if it had any impact on the point I was trying to make 😂 if you want the luxury of being taken seriously just have a consistent position that brings meaningful arguments to the conversation.

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Oh my god dude you’re skipping all of my questions and answering everything that’s easier for you to answer

1

Anonymous OP 2d

I’m with #5 here, answer their question.

1

Anonymous #5 2d

What have I ignored? I’m talking to two people at once and Yik Yak doesn’t refresh in time for me to see each reply

-3

Anonymous OP 2d

It does have value to the argument. Ur just so stuck in ur “I’ve gotta own these pro-choicers and win this Yikyak debate” mindset ur not stopping to think why it would be brought up in the first place. I’m not holding ur hand thru this dude. Either u understand it or u don’t. At the end of the day idc. Because ur not changing my mind and I truly don’t care how u feel about it. U just look a fool taking straight forward responses and somehow turning it into something else

-2

Anonymous OP 2d

And like I said before there are actually decades old frozen embryos and I’m trying to get at something

1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

You put a meme image and an ambiguous statement and expect that to add value? At least explain why it changes the argument 😂

1

Anonymous OP 2d

“It’s always changing each time you open your mouth” You are not one to talk lmfao. Your argument’s all over the place.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Also answer #5.

1

Anonymous #5 2d

Ok I just found your question sorry lol. I would say that because the original mother is dead, no one else has an obligation to parent the embryo.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

My argument has always been that living beings of a rational kind deserve a right to life. That hasn’t changed once

1

Anonymous OP 2d

What does “a rational kind” entail?

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Ok so how do you feel about pregnancies that come from rape aka an embryo forcefully being implanted in a woman? It’s somehow completely different because of the unwilling “mother” who feels disgust towards its existence to parent it?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

A rational kind is language that extends the right to life to non-human beings of a rational kind if they existed, like aliens. It’s a guard against arguments like “oh so you don’t think a fetus version of baby Yoda deserves life because it’s not human”

1

Anonymous OP 2d

… what?

1

Anonymous #5 2d

And you’re saying a woman’s right to chose to not want to carry a baby is more important than a life

1

Anonymous OP 2d

I meant in the context of the abortion argument.

1

Anonymous #5 2d

Someone else’s disgust towards a human life doesn’t diminish the value of that life. If a mother is traumatized by a rape she can easily put that child into abortion where there are is large waiting list of families who want to love and raise a child.

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Into *adoption

1

Anonymous OP 2d

So can the woman who was forcefully implanted with an embryo

1

Anonymous OP 2d

You’re kinda skipping over the 9 months of suffering.

1

Anonymous #5 2d

Who cares if she’s traumatized by being forcefully implanted, it’s still a life and she can just put it up for adoption

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Human beings are a rational kind. We have the ability to rationalize in a way that animals can’t.

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Fetuses can’t rationalize.

6

Anonymous #5 2d

I’m saying that we can’t obligate someone to take on the embryo of another persons child, however there is an obligation for mothers who have an embryo already in their body to protect that life

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

I’m gonna be real I thought I was pregnant after rape (thankfully I was just late) and I wanted it out of me no matter the cost like I would claw it out, it’s like when you hear about people being violated and they want to take 10 million scalding showers to get their touch off of them but to something potentially being inside me

3

Anonymous OP 2d

There are plenty of animals capable of rationalizing in ways far beyond a fetus.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

I told u I wasnt gonna take u seriously. Just use ur brain and think bro. I’m not gonna format detailed responses just to have u strawman what I said lmao. Ur in that loser ass “I need to win the argument” mindset. Ur horse is in last place and it’s the last 200m and u still think ur gonna “win” when in reality it’s just a practice run…

1

Anonymous #5 2d

That’s horrible! I’m so sorry that happened to you.

6

Anonymous OP 2d

Humans are animals…

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

But they are of a “rational kind”. They belong to the human species which is capable of rationality. There are humans who can’t rationalize due to mental disabilities, but they still get human rights because they are of a rational kind.

1

Anonymous #5 2d

That is horrible and I’m so sorry to hear that.

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Yes animals can be more rational than a fetus but they aren’t of a rational kind, and a fetus is.

0

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

The ad hominem attack is so telling 😂

0

Anonymous OP 2d

I asked you to explain what a rational kind is, and your definition less than worthless, I was more confused after your definition than before.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Genuinely what the fuck are you talking about?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

what about the “rational kind” definition is confusing? I’d like to clarify if I’ve been too hasty with my explanation

0

Anonymous OP 2d

You’re arguing that rationality is the defining factor in the “right to life”, yet animals far more rational than a fetus are not privy to the rights you think fetuses should have. Your logic falls apart with the smallest amount of scrutiny.

2

Anonymous #5 2d

Anyways on that awful note (also im ok because thankfully I wasn’t pregnant but I can now understand the emotions of people who sadly were) I’m going to go to bed, I have already been on this stupid thread wayy too much that I feel the need to tell you all goodnight 😭

9

Anonymous #5 2d

Goodnight! I’ll head out soon as well.

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

A “rational kind” includes all those who are members of a species capable of rationality. This extends the right to life to humans who aren’t rational themselves but still belong to a “rational kind”. Animals are not included as a rational kind because animals do not have a right to life.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Dude you’ve been strawmanning this whole discussion 😭😭 and I never insulted u, I’m telling u ur trying to win something that’s not a competition like holy fuck

1

Anonymous OP 2d

This is starting to sound like some sort of cult manifesto.

1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

This dude just pops in every once in a while to get pissed off at me without adding anything. I’ve been very clear about my position and I’ve shown why other definitions of who deserve the right to life are insufficient

0

Anonymous OP 2d

Wait until u learn about the studies they’ve done proving non-human animals are able to display forms of rationality

4

Anonymous OP 2d

I’m gonna head out, now. I’ll just leave you with this. Humanity isn’t inherently special in a natural sense. People shouldn’t be forced to be pregnant.

1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Forms of rationality yes, but still not fully rational. Gorillas are able to communicate with sign language for years, but have never once asked a question.

0

Anonymous OP 2d

No u haven’t dude…I’ll say “galaxy has some cool features” and you’ll say “oh so you think apple is shit?” That’s not debating

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Humanity is special but this is a religious argument and I’ve kept my position secular up to this point. People should remain pregnant in order to fulfill basic human rights.

-1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Yet again offering nothing to the conversation but a wounded ego. Please either engage with the argument or remain an observer.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

Yes they have?😭 KoKo the gorilla would ask for basic necessities. But trying to compare the complex human mind to other animals we can’t fully understand and are still learning about isn’t rlly a good argument. Chimps for example have been recorded formatting hunting strategies before engaging in a hunt 😐

5

Anonymous OP 2d

Plenty of animals have both had the capability to communicate and have asked questions. It’s actually pretty common. I’m Catholic btw. You can argue that people should stay pregnant, but no one should be FORCED to carry to term.

3

Anonymous OP 2d

Sounds like ur ego is hurt I don’t wanna take seriously lmao.

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Also thank you for the conversation ireallylikepancakes it was fun and I appreciate the vulnerability, it’s always important to remember the stories behind the statistics.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

What?

3

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 2d

Take u*

4

Anonymous OP 2d

Im gonna turn off notifications btw. I may have gotten a couple of things wrong, but it didn’t diminish my argument. People shouldn’t be forced to give birth. That is all. Good night.

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

I’m surprised you’re Catholic. The majority of Catholics are pro-life. How strong in your faith are you? How closely do you align with Catholic teaching? Also, government is suppose to protect human rights so if the unborn do har human rights, then governmental protection would extend to them.

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2d

Same here. I just got off from work. I’m about to shower and cuddle w/ my gf. Cya pancakes

3

Anonymous OP 1d

I’m pretty strong in my faith. I’ve been abroad, but I’ve volunteered many many hours to the church over the years. You speak of the rights we should ascribe to fetuses, yet you seem to discount a grown person’s right to bodily autonomy with reckless abandon.

9

Anonymous OP 1d

it’s actually hilarious how arrogantly uneducated you are on this topic. You’ve been posting picture of propaganda posted by political think tanks, then attacking the people who provide actual scholarly articles to contest you. maybe acknowledge that your *high-school level* understanding of biology is exactly that, merely the high school level. There are vast amounts of people far more educated on this topic than you, and they’ve been trying to educate you.

11

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1d

This is the problem with modern Catholicism, you have no theological understanding of your own religion. Bodily autonomy stops where another human life starts. I can swing my arms around as much as I like until someone else’s face is in the way. You are the reckless one who has to resort to the dehumanization of human life to account for your beliefs. Submit to Rome.

-2

Anonymous #13 1d

Welcome to the conversation 😂 What biological fact do I have wrong exactly? If you can’t acknowledge the scientific consensus behind when life starts, just admit you’re an idiot and get on with your day. No one here has given me the impression of a particularly high level of education, and you’ve been full of hot air so far so at least bring something contradictory to the table before bringing this arrogant drivel to me

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

I’m not here to satisfy your debate kink; nor to appease to your ignorance. you can’t rely on ad homs towards *everyone* else’s intellect when you’re sitting here insisting that your prejudice is objective. put your phone down, stop projecting those insecurities, and go touch some grass.

8

Anonymous #13 1d

lol classic, absolutely nothing of substance. There’s been a few people like you during this convo and it’s always the same. You talk as though your words have genuine value to me.

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

and yet you stay responding to them

5

Anonymous #12 1d

If people want to blow hot air around im happy to spend some free time shutting them up. That doesn’t mean I place any weight on what they have to say

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

yet you’re the one who insists on spreading your hateful views, as if any of us wanted to see them. maybe just take the hint and accept that you ascribe to some disgusting beliefs, regardless of how much you try to propagandize in favor of them.

5

Anonymous OP 1d

go jerk off and “murder” some more “babies”

3

Anonymous #13 1d

Hateful views? Which ones exactly. I’m not the one advocating for the mass murder of our youth. Your view is abhorrent to me.

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

Lmao why would I give a flying fuck what a misogynistic little incel thinks about my views? like I said, go jerk off and “murder” some more “babies”

7

Anonymous #13 1d

Already acknowledged this argument earlier in the convo (part of the messages you weren’t here for) All living beings of a rational kind have a right to life. Sperm doesn’t meet those qualifications and so it doesn’t have a right to life

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

how many “babies” did you kill jerking off last night?

1

Anonymous #13 1d

Misogynistic 😆 I have a higher view of the dignity, beauty, and ability of women than you ever can have

-2

Anonymous #13 1d

0, I’m not a degen 😇

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

“Misogynistic incel”, don’t forget the last bit of your title

3

Anonymous #13 1d

I’m voluntarily celibate, waiting until marriage and proud of it. I have respect for the sanctity of marriage and I want to save my purity out of respect to my future wife, and God.

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

LMAOOO oh at the bare minimum, you absolutely are degenerate.

3

Anonymous #13 1d

Someone’s projecting 😛

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

let me guess, you’re also against same-sex marriage, right?

4

Anonymous OP 1d

mate you’re not able to use that term after this thread.

2

Anonymous #13 1d

This is a different conversation. I believe we should allow same-sex couples to get legally partnered, but to call it marriage is different. Marriage is a sacramental union before God and same-sex couples don’t meet the criteria for that label.

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

Neither does an embryo

3

Anonymous OP 1d

oh my fucking god. I hope you know, if you’re right about the existence of an afterlife, and even further the existence of an abrahamic god, you’ll be part of the “eternally damned” crowd.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Explain what you want to say with this statement and why it’s true. Don’t just vomit it out and expect a response

-2

Anonymous #13 1d

Religion is not necessarily for my defense on my position of abortion which is why I said it’s a different conversation. You clearly aren’t familiar with theology so I won’t waste my time

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

like it’s actually hilarious that you attempt to take this high road while engaging in sheer anti-intellectualism and bigotry. how tf did you become so deluded that you somehow see yourself in a good light while saying this shit?

0

Anonymous #13 1d

An embryo isn't anymore sentient than a sperm

12

Anonymous OP 1d

I was raised catholic my entire life, you imbecilic theocrat.

4

Anonymous #13 1d

(granted, I’ve long since renounced that faith; but don’t act as if I’m unaware of theology for solely calling you out on your hateful beliefs that are antithetical to what Jesus allegedly proclaimed)

5

Anonymous #13 1d

It’s clear I’m not the anti-intellectual bigoted one here LOL. I’ve provided a clear and just definition for you deserves the right to life which you’ve been unable to touch

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

is the only defense you have this middle school “I know you are but what am I” nonsense?

5

Anonymous #1 1d

Sentience isn’t part of the definition of what qualifies for the right to life

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

eternal. damnation. to. hell.

3

Anonymous OP 1d

According to you

8

Anonymous #13 1d

Being raised Catholic is a totally meaningless statement. I’ve studied more about Catholicism than I have about abortion and I know exactly what its positions are and why. Catholics are among the most fervent supporters of the pro-life movement for a reason

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

eternal. damnation. you better start praying for forgiveness, because you aren’t finding it here on earth, and god isn’t looking down upon you kindly.

6

Anonymous #1 1d

Well if you want to say that anything without sentience doesn’t have a right to life then you must support the killing of brain dead patients and you can’t support abortion after 24 weeks.

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

you’re really striving for that disco inferno of the afterlife huh? “Burn baby burn”

1

Anonymous #13 1d

Look at who’s bringing religion into this conversation 😂 hint: it’s not me. I’m fully comfortable with my beliefs and if anything, if you want to come over to my territory my position only becomes stronger

-1

Anonymous #13 1d

Cute but yet more meaningless drivel

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

because you’re a hateful catholic nationalist lmao, I don’t give a fuck whether you’re arrogant in your hate. The fact that Catholicism (and Christianity itself) is inherently against what you claim to support, is an issue on your end. (it makes sense given how it’s been weaponized over the course of the last two millennia, but I wouldn’t expect you to acknowledge that) “Burn baby burn”

1

Anonymous #13 1d

I’m not Catholic 😂 and I don’t hate anyone. Christianity is not inherent to my position, which is why I haven’t brought it up once. I’m not the one dooming people to hell, so you might want to do a quick little soul search to see who the hateful one really is 👀

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

Why don’t you consider sperm alive when you believe fetuses are alive? Sperm cells have DNA, capable of traversing their environment, and react to stimuli. As it’s also a human cell, shouldn’t it be of a “rational kind” like a fetus, by your logic?

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1d

A sperm isn’t a complete member of a rational kind. It’s similar to a skin cell, it could never grow and develop into a human being no matter what environment you put it in or what you feed it. Once it combines with an egg it is no longer a sperm cell and it meets the qualifications as a whole member of a rational kind.

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

ooh no, IM not dooming you, you’re doing that yourself; but ill admit I assumed you were based on your early comments about Catholicism. that’s my fault for trying to utilize religion to appeal to one’s humanity (especially when you’ve tried so hard to suppress said humanity yourself)

1

Anonymous #13 1d

Thank you for the apology! That’s very kind of you.

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

🤦🤦 your narcissism is astounding.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I still don’t understand what you mean by a rational kind. I mean, crows can hold grudges against specific people for generations through literal word of mouth (or beak, I suppose), yet you believe that humans are the only “rational kind” on the planet.

6

Anonymous #13 1d

Are we lowkey narcissism twinning right now 🥰

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1d

we love anthropocentrism (ironically also rooted in religion)

1

Anonymous #13 1d

(also /s)

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1d

Yall are literally wasting yalls time with this dude. Just ignore him.

5

Anonymous #13 1d

Anthropocentrism just doesn’t compute with my brain lmfao.

4

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1d

True, I’ve got better things to do.

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1d

that’s so real though, the amount of harm it’s caused to this planet (and all life upon it) is utterly devastating

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1d

The minuet he claimed he was “winning” the debate I should’ve known he was a lost cause. He’s not here to debate, just argue. It’s that loser debate bro shit.

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1d

Humans are the only rational kind other than angels that we currently know of. It’s an Aristotelian philosophical concept. There’s an article called The Problem of Personhood by Trent Horn on Catholic.com which could be helpful.

0

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1d

I made a comment like that last night lol. I’m just have an unhealthy addiction to talking to people like that.

9

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1d

The real ruckus my favorite non-entity in this whole discussion barely beating #13 😍

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

“I’m not catholic” “on catholic.com” Fuck this lmao. everyone except OP have a great day.

8

Anonymous #13 1d

I’m addressing a Catholic, so I’m going to use Catholic sources to appeal to them. Trent Horn is a Catholic, but his arguments for abortion can be made from a purely secular perspective

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

Also I’m about to meet with my university research team so I won’t be able to respond for a bit

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

Dude I don’t fw u lmfao. Anyway like I said, don’t waste yall time don’t take this dude seriously. He ain’t worth it💀💀

1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1d

Maybe a waste of time for a non-intellectual cause I’m not willing to come down to that level and wallow in the mud, but I’m very open to having a polite conversation with anyone

-1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1d

i feel bad for those uni researchers, since they have to deal with OP’s delusional anti-intellectualism after us

5

Anonymous OP 1d

Dude u weren’t being polite at all and ur an anti-intellectual. U took a straightforward response “we don’t know how many unspecified abortions are rape related because rape is an under reported crime” as “you believe all 95% of unspecified abortions are rape.” That’s strawman and anti-intellectual…

7

Anonymous #13 1d

He’s gonna strawman anything they say lmao

12

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1d

You posted a meme and a vague statement you clown, there was nothing to strawman because you didn’t even have a point you were making

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

just give it up already, you insufferable clown.

6

Anonymous #13 1d

Never tell anyone to stop advocating for human rights you fascist pig

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

the irony and projection displayed in this conversation has been a true treat, I must say. Never forget that statement of yours as you attempt to police women on the basis of their gender and underlying biological sex, as well as attempt to police us in the LGTBQIA+ community, on top of the other forms of prejudice I’m sure you contain.

5

Anonymous OP 1d

saying you’re advocating for human rights while advocating for taking away the rights of pregnant women is crazy dissonance

8

Anonymous #13 1d

(the only reason I stated “on the basis of their gender and underlying biological sex”, is due to OP’s misogyny and advocacy for such, but ultimately this statement applies to anyone capable of giving birth (meaning not limited to women) - I wanted to clarify before any transphobes confuse my statement as affirmations of their hate (which I’m sure OP ascribes to tbh))

10

Anonymous #13 1d

Where you see irony and projection I see truth and social justice. I’ve would never police women beyond upholding the human rights of the unborn. A discussion on the LGBTQIA2S+ community is totally irrelevant to this conversation, and my view still gives people in those communities the same rights as everyone else.

-3

Anonymous #6 1d

Saying you advocate for human rights rights while advocating for taking away all humans rights of the unborn is crazy dissonance

-3

Anonymous #13 1d

I have never once displayed misogyny, this is all just labels you are trying to apply to me to invalidate my iron clad position that you haven’t otherwise proven to be false

-3