Comments by "" (@TentaclePentacle) on "On Jemele Hill and His Political Beliefs (Pt. 2) | Clay Travis | MEDIA | Rubin Report" video.

  1. +spracketskooch Calling a fetus is too callous? That's an emotional response. The technical interaction between a fetus and the mother is a parasitic relationship. That's just the way it is. I do realize I'm divorcing the concept of procreation from sex. But sex doesn't necessarily have to lead to procreation. Procreation is the act of the uterus hosting an embryo. If you were to say "but the women had sex by choice so she should face the consequences". The argument is sex doesn't always lead to pregnancy. There is only a chance of pregnancy when you have sex. It's like if you know a street is dangerous, chances are if you walk down that street at night you would get robbed and murdered or raped. But if someone did choose to walk down that street knowing the dangers, and if someone did come up to that person to attack them, would that person lose the right to self defense? It's the fetus that attacks the host, just like its the criminal that attacks the person walking down that street. As for the degree of threat posed by the fetus. A pregnancy doesn't have to be life threatening that is true. But a pregnancy have the chance of becoming life threatening. A pregnancy is also 100% of the time damaging to the health of the mother. So some are damaging your health constantly, would you not have the right to remove that threat to your health? That is the basis of self defense, it is to remove a threat to your person by the least amount of force possible. By least amount of force means if it's possible to have an abortion and still keep the fetus alive, we should do that. But if it's not possible, then the rights of the host to self defense takes precedence over the fetus.
    3
  2. +Reverend Reko having an organism growing inside of you, leeching nutrients from you while providing no benefit to you. that is a parasitic relationship. The simple fact that the fetus is present within the host is an act of aggression towards the host. Just because this is the way humans procreate, doesn't change the nature of that relationship or that a fetus (a human) is leeching off the host.
    3
  3. what did you expect, he is in radio.
    3
  4. well for the self defense argument, a fetus is considered a life. It's a life that's attacking the host, so the host can defend against it via abortion. For late term abortions, every effort has to be made to keep that fetus alive. But you can even make an argument that for late term abortions the self defense argument doesn't apply more because you have waited for so long, you essentially already consented to have this parasite living inside of you. For the self defense argument, when you found out you are pregnant, you have the choice to abort or consent right there and then. You don't get to make that choice later, unless it's in the event of health complications.
    2
  5. +Samuel Underwood That is why you are biased. Your goal is to stop abortions, it's not to answer the simple question of who takes precedence. The host or the fetus? An objective person has to make a choice between the host or the fetus. But have already come down on the side of the fetus. To me a fetus is the aggressor, it's a parasite, while the mother is a host that has an organism invading her. Even if that organism is a human life, its a human life that's being aggressive towards the host.
    2
  6. are you for self defense? abortion is self defense against a parasitic life form growing inside of you.
    1
  7. you have no argument against why a fetus isn't a parasite. It acts like a parasite in every way. Refusing to listen to an argument is the sign of an ideologue.
    1
  8. +Reverend Reko something that grows inside of you, takes nutrients from you, gives nothing back to you, that's called a parasite. It doesn't matter if it's part of procreation, it's still parasitical.
    1
  9. +Stephen Darrenkamp a fetus is not innocent when it's aggressively trying to harm the mother in the womb. If you want to say a fetus is a human that have all the rights of a human, then it must accept all the responsibility of a human. That human is committing an act of aggression against the mother, without the mother's permission. The mother has the right to self defense against such a human.
    1
  10. think of abortion as self defense against a parasitic life from growing inside of you. Self defense means you should use the least amount of force to stop a threat to you. So in the future if it's possible to have an abortion and still keep the fetus alive. We should do that instead.
    1
  11. As for the father, it's impossible to give the father a say in the process because the father isn't attached to the fetus. As for child support and all that, if the father gives up the right to the fetus, he shouldn't pay child support.
    1
  12. ofcouse that decision to give up all rights to the child is subject to the same conditions as abortion. You have to make a decision at the point that you found out you have a kid. The father doesn't get to change his mind later.
    1
  13. there might be chemical changes in women if she were to give birth, and an abortion skips that change. That might cause some mental problems, but that's a choice the woman makes.
    1
  14. +PcSpud There might be a hormonal substitutive that could be developed for such a case, but that's for the field of psychiatry to discover.
    1
  15. baby not so innocent when it is acting like a parasite harming the health of the host.
    1
  16. +nonam namrson an organism living inside a host, causing harm to the host and offering no benefit. That's what a fetus is.
    1
  17. abortion is self defense against a parasitic life form. a woman should have the right to choose self defense. If a parasitic life form ever lived inside a man I would say that man should have the right to self defense against that parasite.
    1
  18. it's not sophistry, the relationship between a fetus and the mother is parasitical.
    1
  19. +Jae Eph a mother is a host to the fetus.
    1
  20. +Jae Eph I drank some well water and got a tapeworm, does that mean I don't have the right to remove it?
    1
  21. +Jae Eph the fetus is not innnocent when it's actively trying to harm the host.
    1
  22. if you believe in self defense then you should agree anyone should have the choice to take out a parasitic life form growing inside of you.
    1
  23. +Akon Fenty in other words, you are an ideologue, who don't care about reason.
    1
  24. +Akon Fenty at least you can admit you are an ideologue.
    1
  25. definition of an ideologue.
    1
  26. but the viable unborn is acting like a parasitic life form harming the health of the host body. So the host body should have the choice of self defense against this parasite.
    1
  27. +Stalewind Farto1078 The planet is not alive the women is. If an alien implanted itself into the woman, does she not have a right to take that alien out?
    1
  28. if the technology exists to abort a pregnancy and keep the fetus in a gestation tank, i would say we should do that. But since such technology is not possible right now. The choice of the women should take president over a parasitic life form, whether that parasite is human or alien.
    1
  29. +Reverend Reko Parasite something that lives in a host that prevents no benefit only harm. Sounds like a fetus to me. Maybe you should go and relearn biology again.
    1
  30. +Platypus Paws Yes abortion is killing a human being. But its killing a human being in an act of self defense. If you kill a child after birth, that's not self defense anymore. A child after birth can not harm the mother, while a child inside the mother is actively harming the mother.
    1
  31. +Platypus Paws That sentence makes no sense. Self defense is a right, one can choose to exercise that right or not. In the case of my mother she didn't choose to exercise her right of self defense. The point is my mother should have the right to use her right of self defense or not. It's completely her choice.
    1
  32. +Platypus Paws Yes, a woman should not be prevented from exercising her right to self defense against her own offsprings. Are you saying a woman shouldn't have the right of self defense against her own child? You don't choose to get pregnant, you choose to have sex, and getting pregnant happens by chance. By chance, a child starts to live inside the mother and is harming the mother by its mere existence. With this harm, the mother have the right to self defense against that harm and against that child. And I didn't understand your last question, could you please rephrase?
    1
  33. +Reverend Reko You are arguing semantics. You want to place this artificial restriction on parasites not being the same species and not being part of reproduction. Why should that artificial restriction exist? A fetus acts exactly the same way as any parasite, why shouldn't it have that label just because it's the same species as the host? But if you don't like the word parasite, fine we don't have to use it. My argument doesn't even rest on that word. My argument is that pregnancy is harmful to the mother, the fetus is actively being aggressive in its fetal stage towards the mother. Cause the mother harm, and possibly loss of life. So the mother should have the right to self defense against this fetus, just as a woman have the right to self defense against any human who is actively harming her.
    1
  34. +Platypus Paws Self responsibility doesn't negate human rights. Just because you were irresponsible and you wander into a gang infested area. A gang member jumps out and tries to rob you. You were irresponsible you wandered into his territory, does that mean you don't have the right to self defense against that gang member? The whole moral basis for self defense is to use minimum force required to remove the threat. The threat is the pregnancy, the fetus inside the mother. The only way, the minimum force required to remove that threat is to kill the fetus and remove it from the mother. If there is a way to remove the fetus without killing it. Then all efforts should be made to do that. Unforturenantly there isn't a way to do that with our current medical technology.
    1
  35. +Platypus Paws your adoption solution doesn't remove the threat. As I have said before the threat is pregnancy, while the fetus is inside the mother, it's causing harm to the mother. That's what gives the mother a moral basis for self defense against the fetus. Adoption means the mother still have to carry the fetus for 8months, and then give birth. For 8 months the mother is constantly being assaulted by the fetus.
    1
  36. +Platypus Paws A fetus leeches nutrients from the mother, A fetus actively harms the health of the mother. A fetus hinders the mother. The mother has a chance of death from any childbirth. Many mothers have died giving birth. Those are undeniable facts. I'm not a woman, I have not aborted anyone. I'm a logical thinker who can reason rather than use emotions or religion.
    1
  37. +Platypus Paws It doesn't matter if the chance of death is rare, the fact there is a chance of death means, pregnancy is not healthy for the mother. And I do agree this is pointless if you can't read or understand simple statements. I have continually said a fetus is a human who acts like a parasite during its fetal stage. but that fetus should have all the human rights, with human rights, comes human responsibility. The fetus is acting aggressively towards the mother in its fetal stage. That's what gives the mother the right to self defense against this human, just like a woman can have the right to self defense against any other human.
    1
  38. +dcpack yeah i do admit it's a life, i'm bypassing all of that when does life begin argument and go right to the crux of it all. Does a woman have the right to choose not to procreate, does a woman have the right to self defense against a fetus?
    1