BestGarbagePerson

You're not really telling them why, though

I have.

You've just shouted them down and told them they're shitty people.

Not true. Please don't be dishonest.

Nothing you've said so far would be remotely persuasive to a pro-life person

So you're an omnipotent mind reader. Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Do you know what tone policing is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

And also concern trolling:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

Basically that's what you're doing, although I'm not accusing you of pretending to be a pro-choice person if you claim you're actually pro-choice.

Basically you're attacking me for the tone and format of my message in order to silence my opinion because you think it does more harm then good. Well, not only do I disagree since I've been doing this for a long long time, I find it insulting that you feel you have a right to police my speech. You're not going to silence me on this, sorry.

If I were to think that the measure of an atrocity is the scale of deaths involved it AND I believed that a fetus is a person, abortion would be a far greater crime than the Holocaust from my perspective.

Except in order to believe this you have to willingly deny that pregnancy causes physical trauma and blood loss to women every time. Which if you're going to do that, then you're like a flat earther denying physics.

You seem to think that the intentions behind an act, the historical context around it, and the human suffering involved is what determines the magnitude of an atrocity.

Nope. Straw man. The actual acts of Jews being hunted down one by one house to house and rounded up to be exterminated with the goal of wiping them off the face of the planet is absolutely not comparable to abortion ever period end.

No one wants to wipe fetuses off the face of the planet, women who get abortions aren't chasing down Jewsish women and children hiding in hay bales and under rocks, rounding them up, stripping them naked and shooting them in the head or bludgeoning them with shovels over cliffs and into ditches, when they are posing no risk to them whatsoever.

The act itself, and it's motivations are 100% factually not comparable. Not ever. EVER.

I don't give a f*ck how many times I have to say it, or how people will react on the other side who are pro-life to me saying it, nor you concern trolling me about saying it.

My argument is that a human life is not worth the chance that your unprotected sex will result in pregnancy.

This doesn't even make sense. Plenty of people with wanted pregnancies need abortions, and plenty of people who have protected sex end up pregnant anyway, unless you create some absurd definition of the only protected sex being no sex.

Please re-write this sentence to make sense. It's not "unprotected sex" on one side of the scale, then a human baby on the other.

It's a woman's life and well-being on one side, her blood and organs, and a human baby on the other.

No one is saying that your forcing yourself to go into labor, just that you shouldn’t be taking that chance that you will have to kill a human life in the first place.

Right, you're demanding that people who engage in "unprotected" whatever that means sex, be punished worse than even criminals, and be denied medical care of their choosing, in order to make sure every fetus gets born.

it is not moral to gamble on a innocent human being

This is your random interpretation of what sex is when the person doesn't want a baby. This doesn't make sense though because even when a person wants a baby its a 50% chance that the fertilized egg doesn't implant and then die. So it's okay to gamble on life when you want the life? Sex is literally a coin flip on whether a fertilized egg will survive or die. It's basically creating something with a 50% (more if you include miscarriages after implantation - so it's like 70%) chance of dying immediately after it's created.

Secondly, you must take responsibility for the chance you created

Yes it's called abortion if you want. Even parents of born children don't have to let their own kids use their blood and organs.

You do not force the pregnancy, but neither does the baby

This is a false dilemma. It's not either/or. Two people can be innocent, but one has the right exercise self defense as their consent is being violated. The baby does force though, btw, it's just legally innocent.

So what? Flat earthers will accuse everyone who talks to them about physics or whatever of being in on the "conspiracy". Who gives a f***?

They fail anyway. I'm not going to stop telling them they're wrong and why.

rolls eyes.

Are you kidding me? You realize I did construction right? Do you have any idea what kind of bullshit and condescension and aggression you have to endure as a woman in a male dominated field?

There's no conversation to be had with you about this. I can only suggest you talk to more women and read more about what we endure from society from the moment we are born.

I just thing that men and women are different.

The caveat being how different you think they are, and that you can demand people be boxed in by the things they had no choice to be born with.

I do not define myself this way, and most people don't. I don't get up every morning and think "I Bestgarbageperson, a woman with my womanly likes about to start my womanly day as a woman" I am not similar to any woman I know in anything just because they have the same gender as me. Most people I know, even my own blood sisters, have different likes than me. I deal with men and women both, and we either share things in common or don't share things in common.

I don't think you're a secret sexist. In fact I think you for being so open with your views of gender essentialism, because to me it reinforces what I've seen to be true, that pro-lifers tend to think "women should do this, men should do this" based on what type of private parts they have.

No, they really couldn't. They can try, but they fail every time.

It's not just an emotional appeal, it's wrong because it distorts the history of what happened, minimizing it and making it more likely to happen again. Especially when it's non-Jewish people using it to promote their religious based ideologies, when those religions they belong to themselves, were historically for centuries segregating, dehumanizing, exiling, and murdering Jews, and they still do it btw. Shall I tell you of how my SO had pennies thrown at him, was barred from jobs and was beaten up for his last name, even in the 80s?

It's like, fine, you're a Christian, you want a Hebrew tattoo on your arm about God loving you, even though you don't speak a second of the language, much less know the bible in Hebrew? Sure. Do it. It's not disrespectful to copy a culture. But use their suffering as your banner when it's not your culture, in fact when that suffering is still going on today? F*** off.

Why not? I literally cannot force a fetus to exist nor implant in my uterus. It is literally impossible. Sex only creates that chance. And its a legal act too, not a crime. You must be suggesting that I am somehow at fault for it, like I forced that fetus to be a pregnancy, to the point where you can remove my rights not to have a doctor cut up my belly or for me to not bleed a quart of blood out of my vagina.

Then we can expect for there to be a near 50% distribution of genders in all occupations? Really?

Are you honestly asking whether we wouldn't if you could remove all the social pressures of boxing people in based on their genitalia? Look we get it that you and many other people like you think finding out whether a person has a penis or a vagina is the most important thing, but not everyone thinks like you and needs to reduce people to their private parts.

Nurture or nature? Have you ever even taken a college level social studies and (especially) child development (psych) course?

If you had one iota of objective skin in the game, you'd know that career choices are far more based on social pressures than actual desires.

I'm really fed up with this inane and tangential and frankly insulting conversation actually. If you define yourself as a man as being your top 5 most important things about you, you go ahead. That's your choice. 50% of the population has penises though, so I would question why you'd consider a biological appendage a real statement about who you are as a person.

Ah, found the post you're pm'ing me private insults about. I really DGAF if you're pro-choice, what you're doing is using Holocaust victims to do a concern troll/tone police. To even suggest that we respect the way pro-lifers see it as morally equivalent, is to suggest we allow that idiotic equivalence to continue. The fact you said "you'd deserve it" is further evidence to me that you really do feel entitled to use Holocaust survivors pain for your fallacious reasoning.

It's wrong. It's disgusting. Just like your impotent verbal abuse of me in pm is too.

Holocaust victims and their pain are not your little personal diorama figurines to make whatever BS point you want to make.

I hold the view that it's statistically insignificant compared to other much larger factors, like who your parents are and how they raised you. My dad is a runner for example (long distance, marathons) and low and behold, so am I. It's one of the first things I would say defines me. Both parents are musicians (music majors at ivy league) and low and behold, I too am a musician. All of my sisters and I we are all musicians and athletes. Besides that though, none of us are similar, even though we all are female (all sisters). None of us are really super feminine textbook characters of "girls" either. Its just ridiculous. I think the fact we were raised by intelligent parents sort of mitigated the chances of us emulating the dumbest tropes of gender. (The lowest common denominators of tribal behavior.) Again, that goes down to how we were raised, and what we naturally like as children of the parents who gave birth to us.

I think it's patently absurd to suggest that what types of biological genitalia you have is even responsible for 20th place of what makes an individual person an individual. It's like saying if you have brown eyes or two hands and that makes you you.

Your premise is noted, but ignored as it is too broad and lacks any supporting evidence that both proves it and shows it as statistically significant over other factors. At least you shared it though, as the basis for your questions, and the reason why you think you know 'what's good for' women as an entire group of people constituting half of the earths population.

So, metoo as a group of millions of women advocating to be taken seriously and not slut shamed for being raped or ignored for being sexually abused, is equivalent to people who are witnesses of abuse who are enabling that abuse?

No honey, that's doesn't make any sense at all. You're literally advocating for victims to be blamed for not protecting and witnessing for everyone who has ever been victimized.

William Barr, August 20th.

At my work. Someone shit in the bathroom and it stunk so bad, that even after I came back to my desk, and couldn't smell it anymore, my stomach had started the unstoppable revolt and I ended up puking all over myself, my chair, my desk.

Really lucky I had a gym day that day, and I had a pair of used but not puke stained yoga pants that I switched into.

Right, you think gender does though, and you're looking for proof of a correlation (without proof of cause) in order to push your gender essentialist beliefs.

I think you are misunderstanding the appeal to nature fallacy. That pertains to arguing something is better simply because it is natural rather than man made. For example saying natural medicine is superior to manufactured treatments.

No, you're misunderstanding.

It applies to any argument that something is natural and therefore superior to artificial or "non-natural" dreams, desires, choices, actions, technology, medicine whatever.

What I am saying is hard science. Every organism survives and depends on reproduction.

No. Nobody needs to give birth in order to live another day. This is a fact. Nobody. The claim that we all need to reproduce every time there is a pregnancy or else society will crumble is an absurd and non-factual claim.

Wolves are similar to humans btw, and not every member of a pack reproduces, because not only is it not necessary, it is not economical for the pack. So no.

I’m simply saying that the ill effects caused by pregnancy and birth are necessary and we evolved to be able to handle it.

No, it is not necessary. If people can avoid those ill effects that is just fine. Nothing fails or is ruined. You might as well say people taking ibruprofin for period pain is infringing on necessary evolution. Stop. It is literally the definition of an appeal to nature fallacy.

Nothing in nature is "necessary" from an individual human's standpoint. We chose ourselves what is necessary for us. And we do a pretty fucking good job with it, if we are legal adults. Because our big brains can handle it. Women are not idiots denying their necessary survival when they chose to have a single abortion. FFS.

Which we did not evolve to handle.

Sigh. We didn't evolve to handle driving in cars either. But you're not arguing for them to go away. Again, you are making an appeal to nature fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

People who promote social Darwinism make the exact same arguments. That helping the poor is not how we evolved, it goes against our "survival of the fittest." Just stop.

In regards to your comment on the elderly, that is not the same at all. Treating an ill person near the end of their life doesn’t directly kill another human organism.

It is exactly the same and you are moving the goalposts now. If nobody died (if we were all immortal) the planet would not be able to sustain us. We would not survive. To claim therefore that it's an exception because it's not "direct killing" is also absurd, since yes, we evolved to fight and kill too. Yes, war is a part of our evolution, including the technology we made with our big brains that we evolved to use as well.

Read the whole definition of the fallacy please.

In addition women always have the choice (generally speaking) to not have sex to alleviate themselves from this risk of harm.

So what? Again, this is absurd because we evolved to desire sex all year round, in fertile and non-fertile times, unlike most all animals on the planet, because sex just for pleasure is also part of our evolution. Just stop please.

Thinking abortion is immoral and valuing women aren’t mutually exclusive.

Yeh it is. Because you're the one saying a family is made better by removing women's self-determination, forcing them to suffer unwanted pregnancies, to be sick and unable to work, or care properly for her kids in order to create as many babies as are conceived.

Secondary lives Trump bodily autonomy and property still

No, they don't, only property and....only in people authorized in extreme situations...

The only way to get him there in time is to cross over someone else’s property

Unless you are an ambulance driver ,no and no, still no, how often do you see ambulances crashing through peoples fences, really? You don't. So yeah, nope. They still have to travel on the public roads.

Illustrate your scenario for me? I’m not sure I’m getting it.

Conscious person trapped with an unconscious badly burned and barely breathing person underneath their leg. Paramedics come, and say "we can try to save this other person, but we'd need to chop of your leg right away, otherwise we'll free you first and hope they live." No matter how bad they want to chop of your leg, they cannot without your permission. Period. End.

If the hatch is not closed then both sailors will drown

Not comparable to pregnancy at all.

Right but would you be using those small effects to make race essentialist statements about the "true purpose" of being a black or white person?

Tell a holocaust or descendent of holocaust survivors that you freely compare abortion to the genocide of jews and they'll do more than just slap you, they'll call your mom and ask her how they could've fucked up so bad in raising a kid to be so ignorant, rude and clueless. In fact, I dare you to find an actual holocaust survivor or descendant and tell them you invoke them, their suffering and their opinions, without their permission for your pro-life agenda. Did you know most Jews are pro-choice btw?

Btw, my partner of 5 years is Ashkenazi Jew, who's grandparents in Ukraine on both sides were survivors of the Holocaust. His grandfathers entire family (5 kids, wife, all relatives) were murdered by the Nazis. He literally had to start a new family with nothing at the end of the war, which is what my SO is.

You insult him and all his ancestors, and he freely admits he wants to choke the fuck out of people like you.

Once again, this is my greatest pet peeve, as my partner is Jewish and descended from holocaust survivors (grandparents, both sides.)

Hitler in his his dictatorship flaunted all known human rights laws. It's not like the people of Germany or whatever occupied territory didn't know what the definition of murder was. But to be even more specific, the Jews were literally hunted down like animals and exterminated.

To compare abortion to the holocaust especially but to any genocide like that, is extremely dishonest and insulting to the history and survivors, much less the individual women who get abortions.

Women who are choosing not to have their blood and organs compromised by another being, leading them to suffer wounds for which they must take at least a few weeks to stop bleeding from them, are not committing state-sponsored genocide against a group targeted for their race, age or ability. Women aren't getting abortions to "eradicate the world of fetuses forever." Seriously, don't ever make that comparison.

I've been to mass graves and mass kill sites in Europe, btw.

You might think it's murder, fine, but genocide? No. Please do not ever make that comparison again. It's extremely insulting and I get a vomit taste in my mouth every time, thinking of the discrimination my partner has experienced even to this day, for being Jewish.

I totally agree with you too, as it gets to the base of my argument for it's legality, and knocks down the absurd claim that as long as a fetus is alive it has a right to cause internal wounds. It's justified homicide.

1 in 3 chance of a C-section is great bodily harm, yes.

This is the average blood loss in a pregnancy:

https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=postpartum-hemorrhage-90-P02486

The average amount of blood loss after the birth of a single baby in vaginal delivery is about 500 ml (or about a half of a quart). The average amount of blood loss for a cesarean birth is approximately 1,000 ml (or one quart).

What's the most amount of blood you've ever lost in one injury or surgical event?

Unplanned pregnancy in rape is alone considered enough of a threat of great bodily harm that it justifies lethal force in rape.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=108610

A second factor that could justify the use of deadly force is the high rate of physical injury and psychological trauma attending rape. The threat of venereal disease, an unwanted pregnancy, and psychological debilitation can be taken together as a threat of serious harm.

Tell me, how many rapes lead to death? What's the exact mortality rate? I am fairly certain it's less than the mortality rate for pregnancy.

You might as well say black and white people's desires are affected by their race with the ultimate goal in describing them as fundamentally different. And you're asking me, lets say, if I were a black person, to describe to you how the color of my skin affects my identity so you can make this conclusion.

You seem to be trying to find data to fit your already held ideas. Yes?

I know, it's frustrating, but I do think I'm reaching a dialogue with this person.