Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
rbgs gonna live forever unclesam? i havent seen too many non white women make that take, and it's been a while even for them
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-declares-israel-boycott-campaign-antisemitic
"The far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) brought forward a separate motion calling for a complete ban of the BDS movement. Jürgen Braun, an AfD MP, claimed his party was the true friend of Israel in the German parliament, adding that “antisemitism comes from the left and Islam”. The AfD abstained on the government’s motion."
the anti-semites and the zionists working together again to undermine free speech, it's almost like they want european jews to go to israel or something.
Oh for sure not. But she will make it to 2020. In terms of the scope of the 2020 election this Alabama law will never be declared constitutional. It is fair to raise SCOTUS as a huge issue in 2020 though - RBG and Breyer will probably both have to leave the court before 2024.
this is the second time you've said this. do it for the real then.
maybe you should make your point clearer? this is my reading.
1. you don't want ex-vivo womb supply chain because the state will be able to use the technology.
2. you posted a picture of a quote saying that prolivers are ignoring the nitty gritty of the harsh reality that people go through.
3. you posted a link to an article discussing white nationalist proliver who want white babies.
i'm going to conclude: you're worried about the technology because the state will use it to increase the number of white babies to continue the white supremacy. maybe, i'm wrong. clarify my understanding then.
my counterpoint is that: ex-vivo womb supply chain will the decrease the influence of white people as that more minorities will be born rather than being aborted (minorities are disproportionally aborted). bonus: women don't have to carry baby and will be functionally equal to male in terms of the contribution to reproduction.
Everybody: I think abortion should/should not be legal
Orch:
ex-vivo womb supply chain will the decrease the influence of white people as that more minorities will be born rather than being aborted (minorities are disproportionally aborted). bonus: women don't have to carry baby and will be functionally equal to male in terms of the contribution to reproduction.
also, let's not mix our concepts up here: a fetus is not a baby. an embryo is most certainly not a baby. furthermore, innocence or lack thereof has very little to do with one's right to live. finally, nobody is "bashing" anything on the end of those who advocate for abortion. you would do well to deal with pro-abortion arguments in a more sensible manner.
also, let's not mix our concepts up here: a fetus is not a baby. an embryo is most certainly not a baby. furthermore, innocence or lack thereof has very little to do with one's right to live. finally, nobody is "bashing" anything on the end of those who advocate for abortion. you would do well to deal with pro-abortion arguments in a more sensible manner.
There is no real distinction between an embryo and baby. The development is a spectrum and you can't point at an arbitrary point and truly claim that the person inside the womb is an embryo or a baby. I think that it's useless to for prochoice to ever claim the high moral ground beyond for the propaganda purposes. You have to spin really hard to justify killing other person for convenience in the vast majority of abortion cases.
At least we can get data out of this for an ex vivo womb supply chain.
yeah birth is such an arbitrary point to draw the line, there is no fundamental difference between having the capacity to independently maintain homeostasis and needing to live inside another's body as long as you just keep saying the magic phrase to end all arguments: 'ex vivo womb supply chain'. why i long for the day when society doesn't have to depend on uppity women to verify that my child actually belongs to me
"
I’m only trying to “normalise comedy”, explained Ukip’s Carl Benjamin after he told Labour’s Jess Phillips, “I wouldn’t even rape you” and added: “I suppose with enough pressure I might cave, but let’s be honest nobody’s got that much beer.” The famous British sense of humour, which intrigues so many foreigners, will doubtless have left tears of mirth streaming down your cheeks.
While you mop them away, consider that the jokers don’t confine their pranks to our borders. A YouTube channel, run by an anonymous German rightwinger, discussed the “dumbness” of the Bavarian Green politician Katharina Schulze. “OK guys, hand on your hearts and be honest: Katharina Schulze, would bang? Yes or no?” reads the first comment. “Noooooooo. Rather burn her,” comes the first reply, followed by others I can’t print but that YouTube was happy to publish. In Catalonia, the liberal leader Inés Arrimadas is treated as if she is an impurity whose stain must be removed. Separatists cleaned a pavement she had stepped on yelling, “let’s disinfect” after she visited a Catalan town. The courts jailed a (female) opponent after she called for Arrimadas to be gang raped for opposing Catalan nationalism.
Many still laugh along. Even after a far-right terrorist murdered Jo Cox, the “alt-right” mouthpiece Breitbart kept the joke running and the show on the road by insisting he wasn’t an ideologically motivated terrorist, as a Muslim killer would have been, but just “a deranged loner”.
"
"Male anxiety and male stupidity drive it. Stupidity, because this is a movement that calls its enemies “cucks”, as if its members were Casanovas climbing through bedroom windows to sleep with their opponents’ wives, and then admits to being filled with “incels” no woman will go near. One response to involuntary celibacy (the frustrated state of incelhood) is for a man to brush his hair, lose weight and try talking to women – or, and I accept this is a radical proposal, listening to them. The second is to complain that they are the victims of feminism and to hate women, particularly smart and popular women who dedicate their time in public life to protecting their sisters from those who would abuse them."
also, let's not mix our concepts up here: a fetus is not a baby. an embryo is most certainly not a baby. furthermore, innocence or lack thereof has very little to do with one's right to live. finally, nobody is "bashing" anything on the end of those who advocate for abortion. you would do well to deal with pro-abortion arguments in a more sensible manner.
Dude, are you shitting me. A fetus is a baby, there's no concept mix-up, I think you're in denial more than anything else in order to defend your narrative. I don't think we need to go back to sex ed to know how a fetus is produced, and what it grows into. Is a seed a flower? Left to its own natural devices, it's sure as hell gonna bloom into one. I honest to God do not get why that's a difficult concept to grasp.
Also, innocent and a lack thereof has little to do with a right to live? By that screwed-up logic, inconvenience doesn't mean a right to kill either mate.
Additionally, why on earth is white nationalism shoved into the mix of that post? That has little to shit to do with the topic at hand, I'm talking about all babies. All in all it was a buttload of hypocrisy is my point. You can defend all of those hardships listed and defend babies, it's not a game of one or the other, that's silly.
orch an embryo exists inside the womb, a baby does not (leaving aside the differences in terms of conscience which are also readily apparent - remember that an embryo comes even before a fetus so it is still in quite an early stage of development). it is a simple matter of fact that this is how we use these words: a baby is a newborn child, an embryo is in this context a human in roughly the first 2 months of its development inside the womb. when a word has a pretty unambiguous meaning, i prefer to use the word according to its meaning. to call an embryo a baby serves no purpose but to make abortion seem more outrageous than it is - speaking of "propaganda."
anyway, killing for convenience is our bread and butter, all you need to do is take a look at the amount of animals we kill not out of necessity, but because we like the taste of meat - it is worth noting that the pig on your plate was vastly more sentient than an embryo. (if you do not buy this argument i can also point at the amount of killing the US army does for example, which in most cases it absolutely does not do out of necessity.) it is not that i am unquestionably for abortion and i can totally see how in a better society we might be able to have a nuanced debate surrounding the question up to which point it is morally permissible to have an abortion. however, we do not live in that society, we live in one where the systematic murder of lives far more advanced than that of an embryo is reality and where those who most fervently oppose abortion are in reality more interested in the policing of women's bodies and the enforcement of a reactionary sexual morality than any true concern over the lives of others.
Dece1t restating my point here but i'll gladly consider the merits and disadvantaged of abortion under circumstances where i can trust that those arguing against abortion are doing so in good faith. c'est ne pas the case tho. the rest of your post is just very silly, we can agree that a human embryo is a human but to argue that it is a baby because it will become one if "left to its own devices" (factually incorrect! it is left to its carrier's devices to become an infant child but that's just nitpicking really) is completely ridiculous, in terms of sentience and capabilities they are vastly different and their differences are morally relevant.
I also don't see how abortion is "killing for convenience" either. Convenience would be like having an undo function or a copy paste function or air conditioning (in first world cases; air condition actually saves lives if you're thinking about Texas prisons). The reasons people have for abortion isn't convenience-related, it's literally life-changing and can involve a lot of thought and hard-decision making.
BTW I'm all for abortion. It should always remain an option and IMO better safe than sorry. There's always going to be sudden dire circumstances that happen, since we aren't in a perfect world, where abortion is the most appropriate and moral choice, like life-threatening or dire financial circumstances that happen suddenly. To take that choice away would be a recipe for disaster and keeps poor people worse off, make women suffer, make children suffer from having parents that didn't want them, strain relationships for having unsustainable child, and so on.
i'm not sure exactly what you mean by "independently maintain homeostasis". is the baby assisted or unassisted with technology? if you mean by with the assistance of technology, then the age of baby that can survive outside of the mother's womb is dependent on the current state of *drumroll* ex-vivo womb supply chain. the neonatal intensive care and ex-vivo womb supply chain are identical. i genuinely think that the ability for woman to utilize an ex vivo womb will lead to massive improvements to women's quality of life. of course, this does not mean that we should just ignore their needs until then. this is why i am pro-choice even though i believe that abortion is morally wrong.
Robert Alfons
yes, embryo is a baby's first 8 weeks of life. an embryo is a baby. a baby is not always an embryo. to say that "oh it's just an embryo" is linguistic turn for diversion of the attention from the brutal reality of killing with medical instruments. sure, i am propagandist, and you are too.
i take an absolutist position regarding killing innocent people without their consent. whether if people are immigrants, women, of color, disabled, or/and happens to be in embryonal stage of life. there is no need to increase the amount of killings because there is other killings going on. war is legal, and i think that it's immoral. the same thing for abortion.
it is true that some pro-lifers are more interested in policing women's bodies via prolife policies. i still don't see how the fact that some people are morally inconsistent affect my position that abortion is morally wrong.
would you terminate a pregnancy if it threatens the life of the mother
do you think it's worth to maim women for the sake of your moral values and force children to be born in households where their parents don't want them or can't support them or cause women and children to suffer psychologically giving up babies to adoption agencies
do you think it's worth to maim women after they are raped for the sake of children and your moral values
I think abortion is morally correct and it is not killing innocent "people". It terminates potential life, but it's clear that life isn't always valued in nature, so imo if it's benefical to kill life to promote life, then it is fine
if, in a situation where you were the only match available for me, should I be legally entitled to your blood, skin, organs, etc, to keep myself alive?
Am I entitled to take it against your will, where if you resist you are charged with my murder/assault? am I entitled to your kidney if it's a match?
Why does bodily autonomy apply to you, but not to pregnant women?
Remember you can't even legally demand donations from corpses the way that you demand the bodies of pregnant people.
and now for the part of the bible where it says you must abort all fetuses conceived out of wedlock:
numbers 5: 11-31:
Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offeringto draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lordand is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
if, in a situation where you were the only match available for me, should I be legally entitled to your blood, skin, organs, etc, to keep myself alive?
Am I entitled to take it against your will, where if you resist you are charged with my murder/assault? am I entitled to your kidney if it's a match?
Why does bodily autonomy apply to you, but not to pregnant women?
Remember you can't even legally demand donations from corpses the way that you demand the bodies of pregnant people.
and now for the part of the bible where it says you must abort all children born out of wedlock:
numbers 5: 11-31:
Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offeringto draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lordand is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
maybe because pregnancy is usually not lethal? please note that alabama's bill does allow abortions in the case of a medical emergency. so, yes, the woman in the hypothetical that you described would have autonomy against the baby in lethal situations.
No one said pregnancy is "usually" lethal but I do couch it up in calling it "maiming" because if you get to play the loaded language game of calling abortion "killing innocent people" I get to call pregnancies maiming women.
And honestly, allowing exceptions of any kind *do* mean you value a woman's health over a fetus. Why do you not have a problem with allowing exceptions?
if, in a situation where you were the only match available for me, should I be legally entitled to your blood, skin, organs, etc, to keep myself alive?
Am I entitled to take it against your will, where if you resist you are charged with my murder/assault? am I entitled to your kidney if it's a match?
Why does bodily autonomy apply to you, but not to pregnant women?
Remember you can't even legally demand donations from corpses the way that you demand the bodies of pregnant people.
would you terminate a pregnancy if it threatens the life of the mother
do you think it's worth to maim women for the sake of your moral values and force children to be born in households where their parents don't want them or can't support them or cause women and children to suffer psychologically giving up babies to adoption agencies
do you think it's worth to maim women after they are raped for the sake of children and your moral values
I think abortion is morally correct and it is not killing innocent "people". It terminates potential life, but it's clear that life isn't always valued in nature, so imo if it's benefical to kill life to promote life, then it is fine
Would I terminate a pregnancy if it threatens the life of the mother? See here's where you fall into a common trap, and I even mentioned in a previous post I am much more sympathetic towards that. If it threatens the life of the mother, yea, the mother is completely developed, and on top of that if the mother does not live there's a decent chance the baby may not either.
The same is true with rape, which again, I mentioned in a previous post yet again. Because it's largely out of the woman's control as opposed to consensual sex, even though it does not demur the fact that it's still a life, I can give some ground on that basis. On a personal level, God forbid if my future wife was ever raped and my wife believed the same as I did without forcing her, I would want to step up as a father and give that kid a much better life than their bloodline father would. I wouldn't be lying if I said that I'd be absolutely beside myself, and that would change the extreme toughness of the circumstances, but that's called stepping up and thinking outside of yourself. I'd envy anyone that would do that, easily.
Mind you, all of these only make up 1% of all abortions performed, and it's absolutely dumb to conflate them with the vast vast majority of all other abortions and use those marginal cases as an excuse. Nice try.
Now, do I think it's worth it to main woman and, quote, "force children to be born in households where their parents don't want them or can't support them or cause women and children to suffer psychologically giving up babies to adoption agencies," yea I do support giving babies an opportunity in life as opposed to being selfish. If you don't want a child, don't have freaking sex, or at the very least use protection and acknowledge the possible consequences. That baby did not force anything, that's your own damn fault given it's consensual. It's not rocket science. I know plenty of families that would adopt and give the baby a loving home as well, they don't just all get dumped into orphanages. You can also have an open adoption where there are terms to still see the kid.
if, in a situation where you were the only match available for me, should I be legally entitled to your blood, skin, organs, etc, to keep myself alive?
Am I entitled to take it against your will, where if you resist you are charged with my murder/assault? am I entitled to your kidney if it's a match?
Why does bodily autonomy apply to you, but not to pregnant women?
Remember you can't even legally demand donations from corpses the way that you demand the bodies of pregnant people.
and now for the part of the bible where it says you must abort all children born out of wedlock:
numbers 5: 11-31:
Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offeringto draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lordand is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
I can answer that in only a few words. I never consented to giving you my blood, organs, what have you, but I can always freely offer them if I feel the yearning to. You do consent to sex however, and before you mention marginal-ass cases, you can look straight above this reply, I am not repeating myself again.
Also, I'm not bringing religion into my argument for life, why are you exactly? I'm not speaking for all conservatives nor religious folks, I'm speaking for myself. Must I make that any clearer?
orch an embryo exists inside the womb, a baby does not (leaving aside the differences in terms of conscience which are also readily apparent - remember that an embryo comes even before a fetus so it is still in quite an early stage of development). it is a simple matter of fact that this is how we use these words: a baby is a newborn child, an embryo is in this context a human in roughly the first 2 months of its development inside the womb. when a word has a pretty unambiguous meaning, i prefer to use the word according to its meaning. to call an embryo a baby serves no purpose but to make abortion seem more outrageous than it is - speaking of "propaganda."
anyway, killing for convenience is our bread and butter, all you need to do is take a look at the amount of animals we kill not out of necessity, but because we like the taste of meat - it is worth noting that the pig on your plate was vastly more sentient than an embryo. (if you do not buy this argument i can also point at the amount of killing the US army does for example, which in most cases it absolutely does not do out of necessity.) it is not that i am unquestionably for abortion and i can totally see how in a better society we might be able to have a nuanced debate surrounding the question up to which point it is morally permissible to have an abortion. however, we do not live in that society, we live in one where the systematic murder of lives far more advanced than that of an embryo is reality and where those who most fervently oppose abortion are in reality more interested in the policing of women's bodies and the enforcement of a reactionary sexual morality than any true concern over the lives of others.
Dece1t restating my point here but i'll gladly consider the merits and disadvantaged of abortion under circumstances where i can trust that those arguing against abortion are doing so in good faith. c'est ne pas the case tho. the rest of your post is just very silly, we can agree that a human embryo is a human but to argue that it is a baby because it will become one if "left to its own devices" (factually incorrect! it is left to its carrier's devices to become an infant child but that's just nitpicking really) is completely ridiculous, in terms of sentience and capabilities they are vastly different and their differences are morally relevant.
I'm gonna focus on the part I bolded, because the rest of your post is complete bologna with little substance as is. Point out what's silly first, because otherwise you're proving little to shit. Your little "factoid" is contradicting itself, you're agreeing that I'm right, putting such a minute nitpick in, and saying human=embryo is silly. Last I heard a human embryo is human. I didn't know sentience meant the difference between life or not either. Need I go back to my coma example? No sentience there, but they can wake up, are they still alive? That's where we get inconsistent, and that is a poor defining point for a life.
...
Also, pro-choicers humor me this. Why is it considered double murder when a pregnant woman is murdered if your belief is that the embryo is not a life? If it's simply because of intention to keep and that defines livelihood, that's pretty faulty, but hey, clear that up for me if you can.
so... your position is that in consenting to have sex a woman is agreeing to incubate any children following from it. odd, since that only makes sense if you think there is some abstract rule mandating that sex be about creating babies which seems identical to a religious orientation towards sex, as there is no reason it can't be about two adults enjoying themselves or even some other basis no one has yet considered. i hope you tell any women you try to jump in bed with about your view before you wrangle their 'consent', since I can assure you that isn't typically what women intend
in giving consent to sex. i would say it's weird to structure a politics around willfully misinterpreting an intimate gesture women do erryday, but this america in 2019 so /
i mean sure, but how come u aren't going to confession each time u masturbate, guess you decided it wasnt life because you didnt intend to use it to fertilize an egg, but i mean it's still living cells with your dna that could develop into 'life' given the appropriate circumstances.
I can answer that in only a few words. I never consented to giving you my blood, organs, what have you, but I can always freely offer them if I feel the yearning to. You do consent to sex however, and before you mention marginal-ass cases, you can look straight above this reply, I am not repeating myself again.
oh yah? but what if you consented to sex with some 3rd party, not I, and as part of it you consented to give me your organs when I needed them. in this situation can I harvest ur organs up or ask the state to criminalize you if you wont comply with my demonstrated need for medical assistance? remember, you consented to give up your organs to me when you had sex with that 3rd party, because that is totally a thing ppl do
