Reddit Making Fun Of A Man Because Of His Appearance. His Worst Crime? Being Pro Life. Tell Me Once Again About How This Site Is Misogynistic And Not The Other Way Around?

[–]TryingToLearn_17382 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BronzW1 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]based_ender 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Torvold55 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoAvailableImage 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoAvailableImage -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoAvailableImage -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Also yes objectively social programs would be better you're just wrong I'm afraid.

Better than nothing? Maybe. Objectively? Not quite.

Whatever dollars are spent on social programs by definition are fewer dollars available for something else; that must be the comparison, and spending someone else's money is an inherently skewed examination.

Of course comparing something to nothing isn't much of a comparison of what options are available.

>Also my definition was correct you just rephrased my words

Your definition is not correct, because you infer that someone being against your preferred solution must not care about the problem. It's ironically a lack of empathy on your part to refuse to consider other points of views.

For example many pro-lifers feel personal accountability is an important moral dimension to society, and we shouldn't be incentivizing people to have children they can't afford; they are also more likely to adopt and donate to charities.

[–]NoAvailableImage 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rob__T 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link

The term pro birth has always struck me as odd, because isn't birth just the natural process after someone is conceived?

The overwhelming majority of "pro lifers" are all about making sure the mother gives birth and gives them support for maybe the first 6 months of having a baby.

Then it's "Oh we're not here for handouts go find a job and raise this kid that's going to incur lifelong expenses and responsibilities you may never have been ready or able to handle. Oh and don't have an abortion if you get pregnant again!"

That is not "pro life". Being pro life would mean being an activist for all things that make life better, like making health care accessible, making sure parents of children they can't afford get the assistance they need for every step, and so on. The "pro life" people are just anti choice.

I know this because I grew up in that stupid culture, I believed it until I got some real world experience. It's off balance and fuck everything about it.

So if a guy is out there being "pro life", he is advocating for an overwhelming burden on women and couples. Being called some mean names in response is nothing in comparison.

[–]MrPernicious -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rob__T 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Being pro-life is about being pro responsibility.

Patently false.

developing human life

So you agree it lacks many attributes of a fully formed human.

supercedes all other rights.

Bodily autonomy does in fact supercede rights. You have the right not to use your body to sustain another person's life in any capacity in any other situation, including if something you did caused the dependency.

Until you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and subsidize a child for people who can't afford them, your position is not pro life, merely pro birth, and incurring burdens like that on others because you don't like bodily autonomy is not "pro responsibility". It's foisting your backwards beliefs on others.

Also you're proving all my points in the post you responded to. Nothing about your response shows you care for anything but making sure the fetus is brought to term. So, pro birth, not pro life.

[–]MrPernicious -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Patently false.

You know what I believe?

So you agree it lacks many attributes of a fully formed human.

As does a new born baby. What would you call people who killed those?

Bodily autonomy does in fact supercede rights.

My ability to legally drive under the influence of alcohol disagrees with you

You be consistent in your arguments first. Make it so that I can drink and drive at whatever speed I want past through the local nursery. Then I'll believe your argument that bodily autonomy supercedes all. Also, you should campaign for the ability to kill babies because they are not fully formed human beings. Then we can discuss any logical flaws in my arguments because I am 2-0 up right now.

Just to be crystal clear: Scientifically speaking, abortion is the deliberate killing of human life. That will never be acceptable to me and a lot of others. You can misrepresent our arguments however you want. Makes no difference.

[–]Rob__T 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

As does a new born baby. What would you call people who killed those?

I'll answer this. A murderer. I know you think this is some sort of gotcha, but this is classical false equivalency. Not valid argumentation.

My ability to legally drive under the influence of alcohol disagrees with you

You be consistent in your arguments first. Make it so that I can drink and drive at whatever speed I want past through the local nursery.

Again, false equivalency. You don't have a right to operate motor vehicles.

Then I'll believe your argument that bodily injury supercedes all.

Let's bring your argument into something properly resembling reality, and not your stupid attempts at a gotcha. Let's say you did this, all of it. The thing is, if you cause damage to someone's body from these actions, and the injured person needs, say, a new heart or lung, or a full blood transfusion or some other thing where they are dependent on some external body giving them something, and you are a 100% match, you can never be compelled by law or government to provide this. That's an invasion of your rights. Even if that person would die, you can not be obligated to provide for that person. Even if there is no mitigating the fact that you are 100% responsible for the injury. That person's right to life is put second to your right to bodily autonomy. That is a function of bodily autonomy rights, not your stupid "lol I should be able to drink and drive then" argument. And this isn't a hypothetical, incidentally. That's how it actually does work in law. So there isn't really room for you to argue out of that one.

Also, you should campaign for the ability to kill babies because they are not fully formed human beings.

Again, your false equivalency is not actually a gotcha, your supposition does not follow.

Then we can discuss any logical flaws in my arguments because I am 2-0 up right now.

You clearly don't understand the very thing you're talking about in the first place, so you're 2-0 only in your head. Not reality. Your position is bunk, ridiculous, and affirms everything I have said in my original response. You are not about responsibility. You are not about actually sustaining life. You are about incurring burdens on people and then acting high and mighty for it.

[–]MrPernicious -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rob__T 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrPernicious -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HELP_MY_CAR_PLEASE 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MrPernicious 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Being pro-life is about being pro responsibility.

This is not true in the slightest when you consider the most "pro life" states have the worst Sex Ed programs in the country.

If you truly wanted to curb abortion you need to educate the population in regards to having sex and the precautions they should take in addition to handing out said precautions (condoms, birth control, plan B, etc) as effectively as possible.

Doing neither which is the case for the majority of pro lifers proves you people care more about misguided morals that don't effect you than actually solving the issue.

Getting knocked up when you don't want the child shouldn't give you the right to end the developing human life because the right to life supercedes all other rights.

Where is this attitude in regards to our food industry? Where is this in regards to climate change which is displacing/destroying life on a global scale?

You talk about "the right to life" but I find that to be lip service when you are only considering it per this conversation and nothing else.

So "pro life" of you.

Being pro choice is just being pro killing human life when it is convenient.

It really isn't human life just as a cancerous tumor isn't "human life" despite it being comprised of human cells.

At the time of most abortions the "human life" doesn't have a conscience, is not sentient and feels no pain.

Being "pro life" is just being pro "muh morals" when it is convenient and playing stupid regarding everything else involved in living. Health care, poverty, homelessness, workers rights, and the list goes on and on.

How exactly can you claim to be "pro life" when you only care about life in this subsect of a problem whilst you ignore literally everything else about living?

[–]MrPernicious -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

This is not true in the slightest when you consider the most "pro life" states have the worst Sex Ed programs in the country.

If you truly wanted to curb abortion you need to educate the population in regards to having sex and the precautions they should take in addition to handing out said precautions (condoms, birth control, plan B, etc) as effectively as possible.

Doing neither which is the case for the majority of pro lifers proves you people care more about misguided morals that don't effect you than actually solving the issue.

You have incorrectly assumed

My country
My opinion on Sex Ed programs
My opinion on access to contraception
That I don't speak up on any of the previous 3 points.

If you genuinely wanted to know my opinion though, you would have just asked me.

Instead you have attempted to attack me by incorrectly making assumptions about me and then attacking those assumed positions.

Like I said, if you wanted to know my positions on those points, you could have easily asked. Or checked my post history. You don't though because you'd rather argue against some made up caricature.

Where is this attitude in regards to our food industry? Where is this in regards to climate change which is displacing/destroying life on a global scale?

Abortion is directly killing a human life. Do you ask the gun control activist those same questions? Is his drive to implement gun control any less valid because he is choosing to focus on gun control and not get involved in the food industry or climate change?

It really isn't human life just as a cancerous tumor isn't "human life" despite it being comprised of human cells. At the time of most abortions the "human life" doesn't have a conscience, is not sentient and feels no pain.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Biology has a set criteria for what life is. Having a conscience, being sentient, being able to feel pain are not prerequisites for life.

A human life begins at conception, biologically speaking. Don't believe me? Believe the 95% of biologists who agree with me. And when you factor in the fact that you had pro-choice people responding to that as well, you come to understand that pretty much 100% agreed it starts at conception but some were willing to lie about their answers because they knew what answering honestly meant. They lied about science in an attempt to push politics.

Being "pro life" is just being pro "muh morals" when it is convenient and playing stupid regarding everything else involved in living.

As previously mentioned, human life begins at conception. That is a cold, hard scientific fact. Denying that is on a par with denying climate change. Worse actually because it has been settled science for a lot longer so you have no excuse to be denying it now. Actually, I know why you do it. Admitting the truth is admitting you support the deliberate killing of human life when it is at its most vulnerable. Which is Hitler levels of evil.

[–]themolestedsliver -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

You have incorrectly assumed My country My opinion on Sex Ed programs My opinion on access to contraception That I don't speak up on any of the previous 3 points.

Ok then care to show me examples in which I did such?

Until then these baseless claims of your don't mean shit to me so I'd advise you keep it to yourself, unless you can prove it naturally.

If you genuinely wanted to know my opinion though, you would have just asked me.

I was speaking about the pro life nomenclature in general so your specific opinions are meaningless.

If the majority of them or at the very least the vocal majority act a certain way, your thoughts are merely out weighed.

Instead you have attempted to attack me by incorrectly making assumptions about me and then attacking those assumed positions.

Me disagreeing with you and pointing out areas in which you are wrong is not the same as an attack and the fact you are suggesting such is a victim narrative I won't tolerate.

I've made numerous points you have yet to address and you not technically being in the same country doesn't magically mean my argument is totally different.

How does your location change how this pro life states run?

You don't though because you'd rather argue against some made up caricature.

Mate you do realize you haven't mentioned abortion once here right?

Because you have clearly no idea what you are talking about excuse me while I skip past further bullshit and get to where you actually put forward an argument, or at least a half assed one.

Abortion is directly killing a human life.

So would removing a tumor or amputating someone's leg. Do we call them murderers? Do we worry about the human cells that will die from the detached leg?

No because we understand the leg doesn't have a sentience/conscience as is the same for tumors.

The same thing is the case for most abortions preformed.

Do you ask the gun control activist those same questions? Is his drive to implement gun control any less valid because he is choosing to focus on gun control and not get involved in the food industry or climate change?

......They don't claim to be pro life....which is what this debate was about or have you forgotten that already?

I'm not asking them those same questions because they don't claim to be something they are not.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Keep the petty insults coming, it's all you have and is just making me look a lot better.

Biology has a set criteria for what life is. Having a conscience, being sentient, being able to feel pain are not prerequisites for life.

Then you are using a immaturely broad definition that begs the questions I provided before.

If you care about life in general like this why are you more focused on abortions instead of climate change? Oh and before you go on about "assumptions!", you are here arguing about abortion instead of somewhere else arguing about climate change despite that killing far more than abortions do (if you even call that killing which I don't however I am trying to put it in terms you understand).

and again such an obtuse definition STILL doesn't answer my question about amputations and tumors. They are alive aren't they? They are comprised of human cells after all so why aren't you talking about those murders?

Why does your opinion not count those even though it logically should by what you are telling me now?

As previously mentioned, human life begins at conception. That is a cold, hard scientific fact.

It's a fact in the same way as a sperm cell and egg cell are alive, as the bacteria that is on your hands are alive.

You're citing very basic premise and acting as if it is some smoking gun when in reality you are just displaying a juvenile take on this issue.

Human life is in the extent that they fell pain, that they have emotions, that they have conscience are what truly matters in regards to abortion.

By your logic removing a cancerous tumor is just as much murder as aborting a bundle of cells which I fundamentally cannot agree with.

There is no logical component to such, just misguided morals.

Abortion is a basic medical procedure that is thankfully perfectly legal in most educated countries.

It is Hitler levels of evil.

The only thing Hitler level evil is the constant lying that comes from you Anti choice people who rather a women give birth to her rapists child than face the fact they aren't always right.

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]themolestedsliver 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So would removing a tumor or amputating someone's leg. Do we call them murderers? Do we worry about the human cells that will die from the detached leg?

No because we understand the leg doesn't have a sentience/conscience as is the same for tumors.

A tumor is non-living clump of cells. A leg is an appendage.

With the same broad definition they are using a tumor is alive just as much as the bundle of cells you call a person.

A fetus is an entire person (brain, heart, legs, arms, all organs) that is unconscious but still exists. So killing a fetus is erasing a person out of existence.

No because they aren't a person yet. Animals we slaughter by the millions have similar organs and yet where is your sympathy?

Not only that but at the time of most abortions they their brain and general senses are not what we would consider human nor could they live with out a host.

So no this is incorrect.

It not being able to feel pain or not know what's happening is not a valid excuse to kill it. Because you could do the same to someone in a coma and say " Hey he doesn't know what's happening! "

..no because a person in a coma had a life and doesn't need to be inside a womb. They have felt pain, they are fully formed humans.

These aren't "excuses" as opposed to scientific facts. Your personal beliefs shouldn't be more valid then the facts in regards with proper abortion and female health care.

[–]DynamicCrab[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No because they aren't a person yet. Animals we slaughter by the millions have similar organs and yet where is your sympathy?

I have sympathy for animals. I think killing animals for any reason apart from self sustenance is wrong. And even then, it should be done in a humane way.

no because a person in a coma had a life and doesn't need to be inside a womb. They have felt pain, they are fully formed humans.

So an unconscious person's life only has value if they have experienced consciousness in the past. But no value if that consciousness is right ahead of them? I don't see the logic in this. If its capable of consciousness, what's the difference?

This is like saying a switched off hard drive only has value if it was switched on some time in the past. But if it has never been switched on, it has no value.

[–]MrPernicious -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Ok then care to show me examples in which I did such?

Your earlier reply said:

This is not true in the slightest when you consider the most "pro life" states have the worst Sex Ed programs in the country.

If you truly wanted to curb abortion you need to educate the population in regards to having sex and the precautions they should take in addition to handing out said precautions (condoms, birth control, plan B, etc) as effectively as possible. Doing neither which is the case for the majority of pro lifers proves you people care more about misguided morals that don't effect you than actually solving the issue.

The "states" in your quote is a reference to states in the US. All your subsequent points follow from this. Pro-life states having bad sex education, pro-lifers not handing out contraception, this apparently proving that "you (i.e. pro-life) people", which includes me, care more about "misguided morals". Yeah, so misguided to not want to kill human life.

So would removing a tumor or amputating someone's leg. Do we call them murderers? Do we worry about the human cells that will die from the detached leg? No because we understand the leg doesn't have a sentience/conscience as is the same for tumors. The same thing is the case for most abortions preformed.

Christ almighty. You do not know much biology at all, do you? Doing something that kills cells that are only part of an organism is not the same as killing the entire organism. That is the difference between your tumor / amputation examples and an abortion.

Then you are using a immaturely broad definition

You missed/dodged the link I included about 95% of biologists agreeing when life begins. Care to comment?

I am using the definition that the experts (i.e. biologists) have agreed on and given for the world to use. It is the only definition that has a sequence of clear, yes/no criteria that can be objectively measured. Them being given by biologists, the experts, makes it peculiar for you to say that it is me choosing to use it and it is immaturely broad. It is the only one we have.

Let me guess, the mature definition is the one that states that abortion is ok? Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

It's a fact in the same way as a sperm cell and egg cell are alive, as the bacteria that is on your hands are alive.

More evidence that you do not know pretty basic biology. A sperm cell and unfertilised egg are not alive. They do not meet the criteria for life given to us by biologists. Bacteria is alive though. I think you got lucky with that one and could just as easily said virus (which isn't alive).

Human life is in the extent that they fell pain, that they have emotions, that they have conscience are what truly matters in regards to abortion.

You are describing something more like personhood or consciousness. Biology has already claimed the word "life". However, when does a human being have conscience, can feel pain and experience emotions? Can this be scientifically proven?

By your logic removing a cancerous tumor is just as much murder as aborting a bundle of cells which I fundamentally cannot agree with.

I've covered this. Whole organism is not the same as subset of organism.

And finally, just to make sure, you missed/dodged the link I included about 95% of biologists agreeing when life begins. Care to comment?

ETA:

I missed this part:

The only thing Hitler level evil is the constant lying that comes from you Anti choice people who rather a women give birth to her rapists child than face the fact they aren't always right

I have told you no lies in my replies. But of course you don't know that, you clearly aren't very well educated in biology. Then you also support the killing of human life for convenience reasons. So you have to tell yourself that I am an evil liar because the alternative is admitting to yourself that I am telling the truth, which means that you are the baby killer I have been calling you.

[–]themolestedsliver 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

...The "states" in your quote is a reference to states in the US. All your subsequent points follow from this.

..Ok? Can you explain how you not living there, changes what I said at all?

Does your residency in the US alter the fact that "pro life" states have said problems I talked about before?

This conversation was in regards to the nomenclature of "Pro life" and i don't think you not living in the US matters that much per what I said.

Pro-life states having bad sex education, pro-lifers not handing out contraception, this apparently proving that "you (i.e. pro-life) people", which includes me, care more about "misguided morals". Yeah, so misguided to not want to kill human life

Uh you should re write this because I have no idea what you are talking about here.

You need to format so people understand what you are talking about.

Christ almighty. You do not know much biology at all, do you?

Coming from you this is a meaningless insult and the fact you had to add it really show how confident you are in your stance.

You'd rather say I'm ignorant because I disagree than actually explain why I am ignorant exactly.

Doing something that kills cells that are only part of an organism is not the same as killing the entire organism. That is the difference between your tumor / amputation examples and an abortion.

Except when you go by your broad definition in terms of life you are still killing something so you can't really pick and choose when that's relevant and when that isn't.

You talk about "human life starting at conception" when in reality that is merely because a sperm cell and egg cell are already alive beforehand.

That fact doesn't say one way or the other in regards to abortion yet you are pretending you have some sort of smoking gun.

You can mindlessly balk at this however per your logic amputating someone's leg is killing human life just as much as an abortion is.

Then you are using a immaturely broad definition

You missed/dodged the link I included about 95% of biologists agreeing when life begins. Care to comment?

Coming from someone blatantly cherry picking me, this comes across very hypocritical I must say.

I ignored your link because it is completely irrelevant to the conversation however since you think you "got me" let me explain in detail why you are so wrong in this interpretation.

You're again talking about a very basic premise of Biology and acting as if that basic premise means something in regards to abortion when it just doesn't.

A sperm cell and an egg cell are alive yes? So wouldn't you think that their combined form a zygote would also be alive?

And on that note, why does life in this one specific instance mean everything and yet the living cells in your leg/ in your tumor conveniently don't?

They are just as much alive as the zygote and yet you are pretending like this is some magical difference.

Maybe it is you who doesn't know much about Biology after all since you keep conflating the fact something is alive versus it being a fully fledged human with thoughts, emotions, and everything else one would expect.

Let me guess, the mature definition is the one that states that abortion is ok? Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

No the mature definition understands "life" is a very broad term considering how many things on the planet are alive and that "Human life" requires a few key characteristics (having emotions, being able to live outside a womb, feeling pain, having a conscience, etc etc).

a sea snail doesn't have the same rights as a human right? The same goes for the bundle of cells you call a human.

More evidence that you do not know pretty basic biology.

Mate if you have to go on and on and on about what I don't know whilst ignoring swaths of my arguments, it's fair to say you are discussing this in bath faith.

A sperm cell and unfertilised egg are not alive.

God, it amazes me how you want you to get on a milkcrate in regards to me not knowing basic biology, whilst you play fast and loose with different interpretations of life depending on what's most convenient in the moment.

By your same standard of life, the bundle of cells that is aborted is just as alive as a sperm cell and yet a sperm cell doesn't count but the bundle of cells does.

How does that make any sense?

Maybe if you focused on your argument instead of consistently trying to dismiss mine with snide retorts you would come to a conclusion with actual basis.

Human life is in the extent that they fell pain, that they have emotions, that they have conscience are what truly matters in regards to abortion.

Biology has already claimed the word "life".

That's why I said "Human life" in the quoted material.

Why should I bother with some of these "arguments" when you can't be bothered to read my full comment?

By your logic removing a cancerous tumor is just as much murder as aborting a bundle of cells which I fundamentally cannot agree with.

I've covered this. Whole organism is not the same as subset of organism.

No you didn't cover this because just saying so isn't addressing my argument.

You want to make bold claims about life being starting at conception fine, you technically you have a point there just as I technically have a point in regards to a leg/tumor being human life in the same way.

Not only that but you take this argument and apply it to the bundle of cells in the same way.

At the time of most abortions they are more so a subset of the organism than their own form of human life.

they can't live outside the womb
they can't feel pain.
they don't have a consciousness
they don't have emotions.

So no, you didn't cover this as opposed to dodge the argument over and over again and it's evident by how much you are cherry picking my comment.

And finally, just to make sure, you missed/dodged the link I included about 95% of biologists agreeing when life begins. Care to comment?

Mate this is the second time you brought this up in the same fucking comment and what's worse is I already addressed this, numerous times in fact in my previous comment.

This "definition" you are citing is basic biology in the extent that yes sperm entering a vagina can lead to a pregnancy which then can result in a child.

That isn't the smoking gun you think that it is because when biologist talk about that, they are talking about life IN GENERAL just as your arm and the bear in the woods outside your house are both alive IN GENERAL.

You are taking a very general understanding of biology and think it means something more than it does in regards to abortion which is why I called this interpretation juvenile because it is.

[–]MrPernicious -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

You kept saying "my definition". It isn't my opinion, it is what is taught in Biology. I studied it up to university level. Did you?

That is only universally accepted definition for life. According to that, human life begins at conception. Sperm cells and unfertilised eggs are not classified as life because they are incapable of reproduction (that is cellular reproduction before you start thinking that I am talking about having sex).

Biology has defined "life". Biology has also defined "human". So "human life" is also defined by biology. You can test for "human" using DNA. Therefore, human life begins at conception. Again, don't be mad at me. It is just biology.

Your definitions are just your opinion. You can't even prove when life actually begins because you can't scientifically measure some of the things you mention to prove it has happened.

I am done with this now. It is clear that you don't know much biology and trying to educate you is pointless.

[–]Rob__T 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Praeger -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Praeger 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]slightlyabrasive -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]slightlyabrasive -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpolaInteNerTorky -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BronzW1 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpolaInteNerTorky -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpolaInteNerTorky -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]friendlyopresser 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emperor-Dman -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoeSmith1907 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emperor-Dman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Firstly, let me pose a question: If you were in a fertility clinic that was burning down, and you saw both a cart with 5000 viable embryos, and a car with one child incapable of walking, which do you save? Choosing both will result in you and the child dying as well as the embryo's being destroyed.

Secondly, at least in America, I believe everyone except violent felons, have a constitutional right to own a firearm for responsible use. I also believe it is a very different issue to be born with an organ that other people have a right to regulate, vs owning an inanimate though possibly dangerous object that other people have a right to regulate.

Thirdly, taxation is a government function carried out to generate revenue for government operations. The only people who should be able to decide the capital gains tax are unbiased representatives of the majority who decide based on what is best for the majority. Thats hour our Republic is supposed to work anyways.

I am also curious. What would you think about a government mandated vasectomy upon conpletion of puberty? Until you're married and financially capable of producing and raising children, you don't really need that ability right? In theory that should be fine since vasectomy is a reversable procedure.

If you don't think that's an acceptable regulation of your body, why do you think it's acceptable to regulate women's bodies in the same way?

[–]kingmordred63 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emperor-Dman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kingmordred63 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoeSmith1907 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HELP_MY_CAR_PLEASE 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StorKukStian -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LittleDragonMaiden -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LittleDragonMaiden 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ApplezMan2 -11 points-10 points-9 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lewbomb 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ApplezMan2 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lewbomb 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ApplezMan2 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -22 points-21 points-20 points 2 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]based_ender 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]based_ender 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DynamicCrab[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Stormiceretti -17 points-16 points-15 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What I don't get is why white angry incels feel the need to speak up so much about abortion. Isn't that a women's health issue? Why do so many men have such a strong stance on abortion? Women don't seem to care much about men's health issues like circumcision. Why are men getting involved with this at all?

Pro-life is an issue the religious Christian right have made their foundation to have a perception of having "family values" while in reality makes family life less possible and even harder to manage. It's a smokescreen and a very effective one especially for simple minded people like OP. It's not a men's rights issue and doesn't fit in this sub.

Get this garbage out of my sub.

Bad actors like this make the whole men's rights movements look awful, just like how crazy feminists give some of us the impression that they're all like that, or how the black lives matter movement was de-railed because some idiots in the movement decided it was time to vandalize and steal.

[–]pico_000 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuinnKang 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]profanitycounter 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

UH OH! Someone has been using stinky language and u/QuinnKang decided to check u/DynamicCrab's bad word usage.

I have gone back 204 comments and reviewed their potty language usage.

Bad Word	Quantity
ass	1
bitch	1
bullshit	2
fuck	2
lmao	2
motherfucker	1
penis	1
porn	4
sexy	1
shitty	1
shit	1
slut	1

^{Request time: 4.2. I am a bot that performs automatic profanity reports.}^{This is profanitycounter version 3. Please consider}^{[buying my creator a coffee.](https://www.buymeacoffee.com/Aidgigi})^{We also have a new}^{[Discord server](https://discord.gg/7rHFBn4zmX})^{, come hang out!}

[–]Mindlessshelf 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link