Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "The Texas Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Bill is Terribly Non-Pragmatic but SCOTUS Upheld it Anywyas" video.

There are always certain issues that serve to remind everyone where Tarl really stands. He's a lolberal.
11
Andrew Ryan A moment ago, you implied "personhood" is not dependent upon life and vice versa. That is obviously false and a ridiculous argument to boot. Life is the most basic prerequisite of personhood, actually, and vice versa. You can't have one without the other. And whether born or unborn, a baby is alive, as you admitted. Therefore even an unborn child has the quality of being a person (personhood). By saying it's alive but isn't a person, you're just making a deceptive semantic argument to justify your toleration of these killings. I'm under the correct assumption that a life is a life. The definition of murder is not dependent upon "personhood." It is dependent upon 1.) the one being killed is a human 2.) the killing is intentional and 3.) the killing is premeditated. "Abortion" fits all three of these criteria.
7
 @RallyGal94 The extreme outlier argument is ridiculous. 99% of abortions do not fall into the horror story categories that have persuaded your very soft brain to be completely pro-abortion.
7
At the end of the day, he's a uppity idealistic lolbert who is in denial about a lot of things, but he's still a million times more sane and trustworthy than the MSM and delivers current events on an almost daily basis.
6
@darksideblues135 "Abortion differs from murder in that the action only involves a single person" False. In almost every situation, it involves the child (the murdered), the mother (maliciously negligent accomplice/accessory), and the people who kill the unborn child (the murderers). Also, since the state is sanctioning and even at times funding the intentional premeditated killing (murder), the onus also falls on the entire state for allowing it to occur. A synonym for abortion is feticide, which is basically just a semantically manipulated version of filicide. It is murder.
6
Andrew Ryan The only way you can deny that it's murder (filicide) is if you do the same mental gymnastics those "psycho lefties" are doing. It is the premeditated intentional killing of another human being. The only thing that doesn't make it by definition a first degree homicide is the fact that it's considered lawful. But whatever...you go ahead and paint the concept in whatever way makes you feel comfortable with tolerating it as a whole. Point to extreme outliers that constitute only 1% of abortions. Delve into some inane sematic argument about what defines life or a person or murder. I've heard it all before. All I know is that I think intentionally and premeditatedly killing a helpless infant is immoral, and 99% of these killings are done completely out of convenience.
5
Andrew Ryan >The way you throw "human being" around is the same thing im saying when i use "personhood." Definition of a person: a human being regarded as an individual. "Human being" and "person" are the closet synonyms in our language. You can't have "personhood" without being a person (and vice versa) and you can't be a person without being a living human being (and vice versa). This is why your argument is transparently flawed.
5
@bigbirdmusic8199 These takes always remind me of what he really is.
5
@emmanuelgoldstein3682 That is why those groups should be expelled from our societies and made autonomous and self-determinant. They need to bear the burden of their poor decisions and behavior. This is the only way human groups biologically evolve and the psychic manifestations of their biology create cultures that have immunity to those poor decisions and behavior.
5
@mga59xbd38 Not the same argument at all. Drugs are a victimless crime. Use your brain.
4
Andrew Ryan In many left-wing jurisdictions, the difference between "abortion" and filicide (what 99.999% of people consider a horrendous crime) is literally the mother pushing the child out of her womb. It is a matter of hours, even minutes. This obvious slippery slope leads to legalized filicide, which is evidenced by the laws in NY which allow a child to be born and left to die from neglect. NY legislators erupted into jubilant celebration when the bill passed which allowed this barbarity. Think about it.
4
Andrew Ryan Btw, your whole "alive v. personhood" argument is a false dichotomy. Personhood is the quality or condition of being an individual person. Every human being who is alive is by definition an individual person.
4
@chronos401 Birth is life. The Right is pro-responsibility and expects citizens to accept responsibility for their decisions and actions. Once you start the cycle of passing the metaphorical buck to the state, the only thing that can break that cycle is a hard reset where people are suffering very real consequences for their poor decisions. That said, if women don't have the desire to have children, they have options. Killing babies should not be one of them. It's a hop, skip and a jump from legalized filicide. You act as if they are incapable of not spreading their legs or using contraception.
4
@3rdfitzgerald So they only count as an individual human being if they can survive independently? That is another ridiculous argument. Most young children cannot survive independently. Neither can some elderly people. Are they not individual human beings because they can't survive independently? Obviously not. You're subjectively constructing your notion of what defines a human being (and when that definition becomes valid) based on your need to justify an inhumane and immoral action (terminating a human life). What you're doing is not really that different from how people constructed their understanding of what defines a human being based on their desire to justify enslaving certain humans, another inhumane and immoral act.
3
@3rdfitzgerald Also, about 35% of abortions take place in the second or third trimester, when a child could survive outside their mother's womb if properly cared for. That is according to Planned Parenthood. But since they can't survive on their own, I guess it would be okay to let them die of neglect, eh? That is the position of the NY state legislature, but only if the mother wants to terminate her child, not for mothers who have a natural birth. Your argument basically states by default that any person incapable of surviving without some kind of assistance is not a person and thus, it is not murder if they are deliberately and premeditatedly killed. This would include all prematurely born babies, all people on life support, all people on dialysis, etc. Basically anyone who requires an individual or society to survive independently. Pretty sick argument when you universally apply it outside of the context of unborn babies.
3
@3rdfitzgerald And that argument is ridiculous. Because even a baby that is naturally born cannot survive independently. Young children too. Whether it is the mother's womb keeping it alive or its parents keeping it alive with shelter and sustenance, it's irrelevant.
3
@3rdfitzgerald Irrelevant. The legal and standard definition are practically the same. A gorilla is not a human being. A human being is a member of our species. These semantic arguments are so transparently deceptive, it's almost sickening that people engage in them.
2
@3rdfitzgerald It is you who is failing to grasp the moral bankruptcy of your own argument when applied outside the very narrow context you're applying it. An unborn child cannot survive without its mother. Neither can a born child. And yet you only consider one to be a human being. You dehumanize the unborn child just so you can morally justify killing it.
2
@3rdfitzgerald Ridiculous and desperate apples and oranges analogy. Not even in the same conceptual universe. Obviously limiting your argument to a very narrow context is very convenient for you as you attempt to morally rationalize killing a baby, because when applied to all those who are incapable of surviving without the assistance of another, the true sociopathic nature of your argument comes into plain view. What you're doing is textbook dehumanization. The immoral act of violence you are trying to rationalize requires the dehumanization of unborn children As to your question, it would depend on whether it can be proven that the pregnant mother intentionally and premeditatedly killed her unborn child by ingesting said toxins. If the answer is yes, then I would say she is guilty of murder or at the very least criminally negligent manslaughter.
2
@3rdfitzgerald Very strict. And yes, I think terminating an unborn child should be at least de facto illegal in the vast majority of cases. It shouldn't be culturally acceptable either, let alone celebrated as some kind of act of liberation. It should be considered a tragic necessity if the pregnancy is threatening the mother's life or is the result of incest or rape. And yes, I do have an objection to termination of unborn children at any stage, but I think cardiogenesis is an acceptable compromise. 1st trimester is more than twice that and past the fetal stage. A baby has a brain, heart, organs, hands, feet, and genitalia at the end of the 1st trimester. I know. I remember seeing ultrasound images of my sons and daughter during the first trimester screening.
2
@a.i.contacttracer305 Show me how I contradicted myself and how this at all pertains to Trump.
1
@johngenericlastname9781 Go visit my channel and be prepared to eat those imbecilic words you just wrote.
1
@johngenericlastname9781 You don't even have a point. You're just flinging around baseless insults. You clearly haven't visited my channel. I'm pretty sure that if you did, you'd have already changed course and be trying to accuse me of being a dangerous fascist.
1
@95MAFS Or annexing Israel. Or making Puerto Rico a state...
1
@3rdfitzgerald The legal definition of personhood is tied to the concept of being a "natural person," which is an individual human being . The standard definition of personhood is the quality or condition of being an individual person. A person is an individual human being . So not only are you advancing another nauseatingly deceptive semantic argument and trying to deliberately disassociate two synonyms, your statement is also false.
1
@darksideblues135 That was meant for Fitzgerald the baby killer. My bad.
1
@3rdfitzgerald I am in favor of contraception, and there are times it can be morally rationalized after conception, such as in the less than 1% of instances when the woman's pregnancy is the product of rape or incest. So no, it's not a black and white thing. I think cardiogenesis is a reasonable compromise.
1