Comments by "Smaakjeks K" (@smaakjeks) on "Texas Doesn't Care If Your Fetus Is Brain Dead. You're Having It." video.

  1. +Amedeo "The body (with a beating heart and possibly Y chromosome) that is growing inside a female's body is NOT her body; it's another human being's body." Tell me, do you think if I get in an accident and require blood transfusion, that I am entitled to force you to donate against your will? If no, then why would a collection of cells be entitled to use the body of a person against their will? Why should an embryo be granted more rights than a sentient person?
    19
  2. ***** "You make it sound like it was an embryo that invaded your body. Where you once an entitled embryo?" I guess this is the day of explaining basic stuff to people. Here we go: People imbue rights onto embryos. They have to, because an embryo has no sentience or power of their own. My point is that we shouldn't give more rights to embryos than we do humans. A human has no right to use someone else's body against their will, even if to survive. So, an embryo should not be given such a right.
    10
  3. ***** Because it's her body being used for it. She's also bearing all the risks.
    7
  4. ***** Nobody is claiming that the embryo is her body. Her body surrounds the embryo. I mean, I didn't think such things needed to be explained, but here we are.
    6
  5. Pasta Sveinsson Have you thought about the consequences of not being able to pay for an abortion?
    4
  6. John Smith Sounds like you've never actually talked to real people, but just regurgitate stuff you read on the website "Return Of Kings".
    3
  7. Singularity You mean like the right to bodily autonomy?
    3
  8. Bladezeromus I don't know it. Please point out the relevant difference.
    2
  9. Bladezeromus Let's put it this way: People would be committing immoral acts, no matter what a book says. All the Abrahamic doctrines are full of scripture that can justify anything. Therefore, it's not terribly relevant what's in the books. Or at least, not more relevant in one Abrahamic faith than the other. Ya get me? So, mentioning that the Quran condones this or that is as relevant to explain the existence of extremism as it is for the Bible. That is, not very.
    2
  10. Burger stein I haven't assumed anything in this entire thread. You write like you didn't bother reading the thread. No problem. That just means my refutation stands unchallenged.
    2
  11. Bladezeromus That's like getting involved in a car wreck and walking away because you don't want to own a car anymore. Too little too late, buddy.
    2
  12. Dama Ray Right you are. Nobody reads a passage in a book (Bible, Quran, whatever) and thinks "hey, it says here I should do it, so I shall do it!". If that were the case, Christians everywhere would stone unruly children, or people who ate lobster.
    2
  13. Dama Ray This has been dealt with in the thread. Read it.
    1
  14. Bladezeromus Did you in your heart of hearts think that I believe books are able to coerce people? I think we're done here. You keep responding obtusely.
    1
  15. Bladezeromus Different discussion.
    1
  16. ***** "Im surprised to read such a terrible analogy." It's pretty apt, if you want to be consistent about human rights. You never tell me by what right this or that should happen. You merely assert what should or should not be. "you can't make light of the fact that an embryo has  all the necessary genes to be come an independent person, all it requires is gestation period." I'm not. "You aren't given away your organs buddy." Pregnancy is giving away the use of one's organs. But hey, if that's where you feel the relevant difference is, then blood donation is also not donation of something permanent. Since you replenish it. Likewise a pregnant woman donates blood to the embryo for its use. Then one can talk about reduced life expectancy due to being pregnant. The crux of the matter is that one cannot use another person's body without their concent. It's irrelevant if the actual "user" is the one doing the coercing or not. "you cant just say an embryo snuck up on you." I didn't. Where did you see me writing anything like that? Nowhere. Because it doesn't contradict or refute my argument about what rights a person has to stay alive, and where that limit goes. How or why a person ends up needing the use of another person's body is not relevant in that regard. "Your choice to have or not an abortion is yours" No, cos I'm a dude. Wrong plumbing. "but to say an ebryo is entitled because people are giving it "rights", is ridiculous." You're misunderstanding. To be entitled can be used to describe someone as unjustifiably feeling owed something one is not owed. But, the word also actually means to be rightfully granted something by law or morality. In this context we are talking about whether or not a person has the right (i.e. is entitled) to use the body of another person against their will, even if only to stay alive. Currently no person has that right. Why should a zygote have more rights than a person? "Actions that lead to pregnancy is where the REAL decision making needs to be. NOT after the fact." So, forced donation of blood for the parents, if their child should need it? Otherwise, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place, right? "if you must but I'm saying to devalue life by claiming "scientific" definitions is the wrong message your sending to young people about what they once were." MY argument remains even if you give all the rights of a person to an embryo, from day 1.
    1
  17. Singularity "You don't get to decide that, plain and simple. You live in a Republic. You elect politicians. They make the laws." Confusing is with ought. "The argument "ONLY WOMEN SHOULD DECIDE!" is absolutely retarded." Um no. In a nutshell the argument derives from this: 1) the owner of the body decides what to do with their body 2) only women get pregnant 3) only women decide what happens when/if they want an abortion That's what reasonable people mean when talking about this. "Why would being a woman exclude you from being affected by laws?" It doesn't, and shouldn't. I don't think a relevant portion of pro-choicers think they should. "If 100% of them were prochoice, prolife politicians would never get in office again." Good. Since being pro-life is immoral. "But there is actually a sizable portion of women who vote for prolifers, usually traditional/religious types. So? Stop with this gender political nonsense." Uh yeah, it's not like a relevant portion of pro-choicers think women have higher authority to dictate what happens to other women, than do men.
    1
  18. XxTheRagingGamerxX By what right?
    1
  19. dontworry boutit Different discussion.
    1
  20. leon scott Read the thread.
    1
  21. Brisk Zeus omg. Read the thread.
    1
  22. Paleo bro In what context is it right to ban abortion?
    1
  23. dakotagau Society is stronger than you, and rules you. So, you can't beat the shit out of anyone, sport. Not without consequence. Live with it.
    1
  24. Dama Ray Which is worthless to everyone. Bye then.
    1
  25. Dama Ray You're rude for just shoveling your opinion into a thread without bothering to read it first. I'm just calling you out on it. I used to do the same, and figured out that maybe the point I made had already been discussed and even refuted. Then I stopped responding to threads without reading them first.
    1
  26. Dama Ray "It's not rude of me to form an opinion" I didn't say it was. If you won't read the thread, then at least read my responses if you're going to reply to them... "it's not exactly the same as the one above" Yes, it is. And, I refuted it myself. If you can show my response to be wrong, please do so. "I'm shoveling my opinion just as much as you're doing in your replies." Difference is, I bothered reading the thread. If you burst into a debate half way into it, and make a point that was dealt with earlier, that's you being rude. "I'm not exempt from doing so." You're not exempt from being rude. Now you've spent more time talking around the topic rather than talking about it. Either respond to my already existing refutation of your initial point, or waste your time further.
    1
  27. Kcuf Str Except Sweden has no higher actual rape incidence rate than comparable countries. Check your sources.
    1
  28. Kcuf Str My source? Just the place that counts incidences of rape in Sweden: BRÅ (Brottsförebyggande rådet). I can tell you exactly why the statistics are higher in Sweden, if you are interested in reality. If mere evidence will not convince you, now's the time to get out.
    1
  29. Bladezeromus Have you ever read the Bible? Cos, it sounds like you have no idea how much terrible stuff is in there. We're talking foreskin bounties, mauling of children, incest, condoning slavery, etc etc.
    1
  30. Daniel Smith Blocked for trolling. Bye forever.
    1
  31. Bladezeromus 1 and 2) Abortion is not the purposeful act of denying existence. It is the termination of pregnancy. The distinction may seem subtle, but people are not within their right to kill an embryo; just remove it from their body. That's the only right we're talking about. If you want to make it equal, then how about this: I advocate that both parties are financially responsible for the child, even if both of them relinquish parental rights. That is, to the degree that they are able to pay, of course.
    1
  32. Bladezeromus So, you know the Bible condones slavery, and yet Christians everywhere aren't enslaving people. How could that be??
    1
  33. Dama Ray As I've explained above, Sweden's rape statistics are not actually high. The reason they seem high are: 1) Higher likelihood of reporting by the victim, due to a more friendly environment to those who report it. 2) A difference in how the country counts. For example, in many countries the many incidences of rape committed by one offender is counted once. In Sweden each incident is counted. As for Germany, I haven't looked at that.
    1
  34. Dan W This has already been discussed and refuted in the thread. Read it.
    1
  35. Bladezeromus Your point seemed to be that people do bad stuff because of what they read in books. If that were the case, every Christian would keep slaves.
    1
  36. Burger stein Dealt with and refuted. Read the thread.
    1
  37. Burger stein Respond to the arguments I made against your point, then.
    1
  38. ***** What alternative would you give him? The option for the man to force her to abort against her will?
    1
  39. Bladezeromus Not according to any evidence I've seen in cognitive science studies. Doctrines are interpreted differently, based on other factors. People don't change beliefs according to doctrine, but what doctrines to adhere to based on already held beliefs.
    1
  40. Bladezeromus That's a completely different thing than doing awful things because it's in a book. Using deities to justify or excuse actions is a trick as old as humanity itself. What particular doctrine is used as the justification is irrelevant. So, it's not religious people that are the problem. It's the fuckheads who use doctrine to recruit religious people, and of course the various issues cause religious people to seek extremism.
    1
  41. Bladezeromus "Who said it was the books fault?" You did. Dama Ray writes this: "Muslims aren't the issue, It's the people themselves.. You don't rape someone because a book tells you to." You respond with: "Dama Ray Really? You don't rape because a book tells you to? What about kill, subjugate, belittle, or dehumanize? Let's not kid ourselves, the Quran is not a nice book and a large population of Muslims are in favor of extremist views." Then, in the same post as you ask when you blamed the books, you write this: "So yes, they do these things because the book tells them to, but it is not the book's fault directly."
    1
  42. Bladezeromus People don't do things because books tell them to. That's what we've been talking about. That's what blaming a book is.
    1
  43. ***** Cute, but you're either grasping at straws, or being dishonest on purpose. I used "embryo" as an example of the developing human inside pregnant women. I wasn't describing the entirety of embryological development from zygote to infant. You were talking about a specific part of development. My response did not reference that specific part. But okay, would my point have been accepted had I used "fetus" instead? (Even though people do say "embryo" up to and including the 11th week)
    1
  44. Bladezeromus First you say this: "You are actually reinforcing what I said. People do terrible things and justify it with what ever they can." Which is in agreement with what I'm saying. Then you add this: "It just so happens that many religious texts, especially the quran, happen to tell it's readers exactly what to do to non believers, blasphemers, sinners, and enemies." Which contradicts the first bit. First you say it doesn't matter what the books say, since any action can be justified by them. Then you say it matters since the book says bad stuff. "Not to mention, you've also made the logical fallacy of claiming that no one truly believes what the books say to the point of extremist acts, which is demonstrably false." That is not a logical fallacy I know of. I also didn't make that claim. I'm saying a book will not make someone do anything they wouldn't do anyway. People interpret the book according to their beliefs. People don't readjust their beliefs according to the book. Because, the books justify almost any belief. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
    1
  45. ***** So, what if you have a child and the child gets injured, and requires an organ transplant? Are you as a parent obliged to provide that organ? Should police bust down the door and drag unwilling parents to hospital for forced surgery and harvesting of organs? After all, if they had unprotected sex, they knew there was a risk that they would get pregnant, and have a child. They therefore knew that there was a risk that their child might need an organ one day. Yet they did it anyway. It's THEIR child.
    1