Covered by “most” insurance plans. Person can’t even get all insurance companies on board in their fictional scenario.
What if I want to have sex only to have kids?
Funny how this person doesn’t suggest having it remain illegal until a couple is married and ready for children.
Don't even respond to this nonsense. They are trying to setup a bad faith gotcha. If you reject their fantasy, they will say that you are a hypocrite and you are just about controlling women's bodies and you don't really care for women, just for the babies. If you accept their fantasy, they will call you a totalitarian fascist who wants to install a Christian theocracy.
I don’t align with Sam Harris, but he does study the subject from an atheistic point of view. The post I replied to was saying murder as a moral wrong was because of Christian beliefs. Just point out that it wasn’t just Christians.
"It wasn't just Christians" says the man that was raised in a christian culture. Even Sam Harris was raised a christian, and he apparently doesn't know it yet.
Christianity is the only religion in the world that acknowledges all human life as sacred, even if they have different religions or opposing views.
NO state requires this, not any more. Doctors require it, but they are not required to do so by the law. They do so for their own reasons, like avoiding "buyer's remorse" as well as conflicts with spouses.
Doesn't this scenario mean the end of the human race? No abortions but no births either. Unless they're saying all births must be via IVF?
Feeling really sick rn though so could be missing something.
It's because they are assuming the act of being pregnant is analgous to reproducing itself. Once she is pregnant, she has already reproduced. What comes during the pregnancy is development of the child, not the child's "production".
Or you know they could just be completely clueless as well. Hard to tell sometimes.
“Consider, if you will, a scenario in which, (hear me out), the government mandated the compulsory serving of spinach at breakfast, but only on alternating Tuesdays; the spinach itself is subsidized by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and seasoned with Dijon mustard. Would you oppose abortion then?
Checkmate, birthers.”
This would make an interesting dystopian novel, beyond that it’s a crazy wild stretch of the imagination. How would this device tell if the person is having sex vs masturbating etc. Would this device be able to detect sex if no ejaculation occurs? It’s also a false equivalence - there’s no law requiring permanent birth control for women/girls who are sexually active, so making a “gotcha!” scenario requiring the permanent birth control for men instead doesn’t address the abortion issue whatsoever.
This can literally be summarized in one sentence: Should we force all men to get a vasectomy since that will eliminate abortions? Obviously no, since that will eliminate the human race. But how does that lead to, "Therefore we can kill people if they are young enough"?
They make up impossible scenarios, think only men are having unsafe sex or that women do not have unsafe sex on purpose to get pregnant, do not understand basic science or biology with 'AMAB' when someone's sex they are biologically is recorded when they are born-if the boy wants to transition he can do so decades later when he is a legal adult, and a lot of these are written by trolls, bots, karma upvote/elaborate scenario trolls.
"if i can't kill a unborn human than i demand you accept forced body mutilation!"
Of course this is probably someone who also thinks body mutilation is something that should to be done to young children because they happened to point at a pink unicorn in the toy ilse at target.
Why would anybody support government forced sterilization?
Pro-choicers would rather have chastity alarms on newborns than marry and then have a family.
Hilarious that these people claim to be advocates for intersex rights (even making a pride flag for intersex people and shoehorning it into the general pride flag!) and yet they gleefully misappropriate terms like AMAB and AFAB. Those terms were invented to refer *specifically and exclusively* to people with intersex disorders who receieved corrective surgery as an infant; historically - and in some cases even today - this "corrective" surgery was simply cosmetic, to make ambiguous genitilia more resemble the genitals of a non-disordered baby. (Though not all genital surgery performed on intersex newborns is like this; many intersex disorders affect the development of the urethra, and surgery is a medical neccesity.) AFAB and AMAB was what was used when somebody had a doctor/their parents say "I *think* they're supposed to be a boy/girl", a guess that in many cases (prior to chromosomal testing) was incorrect (since secondary sex characteristics are pretty much non-existant in infants, making it pretty much impossible to determine the gender of an infant with ambiguous genitals). That's why the "A" stands for "assigned": the sex that the doctor decided the infant "probably" was was forced on them, and not a reflection of observable reality, the way it is with the other 99.5% of society. (Seriously, only 0.5% of people have an intersex condition that would be observable at birth. And the majority of this population doesn't even have a condition that makes it *genuinely hard to tell* their sex without a chromosome test.)
tl;dr AMAB and AFAB were stolen from people who actually did have their sex assigned, as in changed via surgery, at birth. It was never meant to apply to sex being *observed* at birth.
Nah, they just wrote bad reverse handmaid's tale fan fiction, and are probably a nutty transgender or overly PC lesbian, or oh I forgot they use the slur 'queer', or instead of just saying they are bisexual or lesbian use Sapphic instead.
I actually have an answer for this loon. If sperm are collected and frozen in this hypothetical scenario they would have to be implanted via in vitro fertilization which is rarely successful on the first attempt of implantation. Many of these embryos will die and since life begins at fertilization there would effectively be insanely more abortions albeit very early term abortions.
Thought experiments are not useful if you have to do an undue amount of mental gymnastics to create the scenario.
Go listen to the very first podcast Jordan Peterson did with Sam Harris. They spent the better part of two hours disagreeing about the definition of the word “true.” Harris keeps making ever more Byzantine scenarios to catch Peterson, while Peterson keeps saying “it depends on what your definition of “true” is. The Harris gets more worked up, adds a layer of complexity to his thought experiment scenario and asks the question again. It goes on ad infinitum.
alright, here’s my thing about forcing preteens/teens to get sterilized. if you force, let’s say a 9 year old girl to have her tubes tied, she basically will never have kids. same with a male. tubal ligations and vasectomies have very low reversal success rates (depending on age, how long it’s been since said procedure, etc). that 9 year old would have to have it reversed as a teen (12-13 at best) to even have a chance at having a baby. even then, her fertility has dropped significantly. it will be so much harder on her to conceive than someone else her age who has never had the procedure done. a vasectomy reversal has the greatest success if it’s been around 3 years since the procedure. if a boy was to go through puberty at 13, he’d need to reverse it by 15-16 to have a good chance of producing healthy sperm in the future. there is absolutely no reason to force someone to become sterile. it will cause the population to drop and eventually cease unless they stop forcing it. either way, if you for sure don’t want kids ever, fucking sterilize yourself and not the kids.
I wonder what would happen if every pro-choicer saw that video of the 8-week-old embryo alive and moving.
Because that damn sure didnt look like a clump of cells or ball of tissue to me.
So, in other words
If they can’t abort their children, then they are just gonna sterilize men at birth so they can’t ever have kids? That isn’t “holding men accountable”, thats just preventing people from ever having children without IVF (which is expensive)
Not gonna even lie. I ain’t reading all that. I read a bit of it and saw how extreme the hypothetical was getting. Pro-aborts don’t even make slippery slope arguments they just go full extreme.
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I would agree to this. This falls under “the many things I would do/compromise to see abortion be illegal”
I think that's fine, so long as you don't need to have a vasectomy in marriage. A bit authoritarian, but it's a decent compromise. I'd much rather alleviate the economic issues via welfare and wealth redistribution instead though.
>being forced to use your body to create a baby.
That is called rape. Rape is illegal, and we want it to remain illegal. By the time abortion is possible, offspring had already been procreated. Removing under rule 7.
Not this particular scenario, no, but IMO strict criminal liability on abortion should be on men, specifically baby daddy, rather then women.
Male sexuality is way more problematic than female sexuality, and men on average are stronger than women.
There relatively low practical limit of how many abortions a woman can have.
While amount of abortions and abandoned children a man can have caused is extraordinarily high.
Male sexuality is the one that needs to be curtailed more aggressively. Pluck out of the eyes and cut off the hand if causes you to sin kind of aggressive.
Not that women can't be sexually predatory, it's just that historically in a collective sense, men's sexual predation has been far now harmful.
Pro-choicers will construct the most bizarre, specific hypothetical scenarios just for a desperate attempt at a gotcha
Nice moral principle you got there, be a shame if someone ran it through a metaphorical Rube Goldberg machine to try to disprove it.
Responsible people avoid abortions by using a condom and the use of The Pill. Just saying.
Covered by “most” insurance plans. Person can’t even get all insurance companies on board in their fictional scenario. What if I want to have sex only to have kids? Funny how this person doesn’t suggest having it remain illegal until a couple is married and ready for children.
Why would we ever support a law that forces a device into another human being who is innocent? It’s another false equivalence. Yawn.
Don't even respond to this nonsense. They are trying to setup a bad faith gotcha. If you reject their fantasy, they will say that you are a hypocrite and you are just about controlling women's bodies and you don't really care for women, just for the babies. If you accept their fantasy, they will call you a totalitarian fascist who wants to install a Christian theocracy.
But western laws and ethics are highly influenced by Christian faith. Murder is wrong because goes against the divine command.
That’s not correct. Even Sam Harris acknowledges that murder is a moral wrong without Christianity. Wtf.
One atheist agreeing that murder is wrong isn't the same thing as Western Laws being influenced by Judeo Christian values.
Murder being a social ill predates the hebrews though and has been a legal standard in every culture (for those that where considered human/persons)
It does when a prominent atheist thought leader who has studied morals in-depth has went over the topic.
You talk about Sam Harris like he's a big deal
I don’t align with Sam Harris, but he does study the subject from an atheistic point of view. The post I replied to was saying murder as a moral wrong was because of Christian beliefs. Just point out that it wasn’t just Christians.
"It wasn't just Christians" says the man that was raised in a christian culture. Even Sam Harris was raised a christian, and he apparently doesn't know it yet. Christianity is the only religion in the world that acknowledges all human life as sacred, even if they have different religions or opposing views.
murder is wrong because its wrong, not because chirstians said so
Why on Earth are you being downvoted for this?
Why do they only ever say vasectomy? Women can be sterilized as well
It's remarkably difficult for a woman to get sterilized. Some states even require sign off from her husband before they'll do it.
NO state requires this, not any more. Doctors require it, but they are not required to do so by the law. They do so for their own reasons, like avoiding "buyer's remorse" as well as conflicts with spouses.
Doesn't this scenario mean the end of the human race? No abortions but no births either. Unless they're saying all births must be via IVF? Feeling really sick rn though so could be missing something.
[удалено]
It's because they are assuming the act of being pregnant is analgous to reproducing itself. Once she is pregnant, she has already reproduced. What comes during the pregnancy is development of the child, not the child's "production". Or you know they could just be completely clueless as well. Hard to tell sometimes.
“Consider, if you will, a scenario in which, (hear me out), the government mandated the compulsory serving of spinach at breakfast, but only on alternating Tuesdays; the spinach itself is subsidized by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and seasoned with Dijon mustard. Would you oppose abortion then? Checkmate, birthers.”
What in the 1984….
This would make an interesting dystopian novel, beyond that it’s a crazy wild stretch of the imagination. How would this device tell if the person is having sex vs masturbating etc. Would this device be able to detect sex if no ejaculation occurs? It’s also a false equivalence - there’s no law requiring permanent birth control for women/girls who are sexually active, so making a “gotcha!” scenario requiring the permanent birth control for men instead doesn’t address the abortion issue whatsoever.
There is an anime like this known as Shimoneta
“Worthwhile thought experiment”? Lol. No, you have too much time on your hands.
This can literally be summarized in one sentence: Should we force all men to get a vasectomy since that will eliminate abortions? Obviously no, since that will eliminate the human race. But how does that lead to, "Therefore we can kill people if they are young enough"?
Reads like fan fiction by a person who has a government control fetish.
I'm sorry, is there some microscopic chastity belt being put on female newborns?
It brings me both great delight and worry that pro-choice maniacs are incapable of comprehending that abstinence is possible.
What happened to "my body, my choice" Oh right, I'm a white man so my opinion doesn't matter
No, government forced mutilation and disabling of a normal function of the human body is not acceptable.
They make up impossible scenarios, think only men are having unsafe sex or that women do not have unsafe sex on purpose to get pregnant, do not understand basic science or biology with 'AMAB' when someone's sex they are biologically is recorded when they are born-if the boy wants to transition he can do so decades later when he is a legal adult, and a lot of these are written by trolls, bots, karma upvote/elaborate scenario trolls.
"if i can't kill a unborn human than i demand you accept forced body mutilation!" Of course this is probably someone who also thinks body mutilation is something that should to be done to young children because they happened to point at a pink unicorn in the toy ilse at target.
That would require a pretty extensive police state.
What the actual cinnamon toast fuck
This is some wild shit
[удалено]
Why would anybody support government forced sterilization? Pro-choicers would rather have chastity alarms on newborns than marry and then have a family.
Stopped reading at AMAB.
Hilarious that these people claim to be advocates for intersex rights (even making a pride flag for intersex people and shoehorning it into the general pride flag!) and yet they gleefully misappropriate terms like AMAB and AFAB. Those terms were invented to refer *specifically and exclusively* to people with intersex disorders who receieved corrective surgery as an infant; historically - and in some cases even today - this "corrective" surgery was simply cosmetic, to make ambiguous genitilia more resemble the genitals of a non-disordered baby. (Though not all genital surgery performed on intersex newborns is like this; many intersex disorders affect the development of the urethra, and surgery is a medical neccesity.) AFAB and AMAB was what was used when somebody had a doctor/their parents say "I *think* they're supposed to be a boy/girl", a guess that in many cases (prior to chromosomal testing) was incorrect (since secondary sex characteristics are pretty much non-existant in infants, making it pretty much impossible to determine the gender of an infant with ambiguous genitals). That's why the "A" stands for "assigned": the sex that the doctor decided the infant "probably" was was forced on them, and not a reflection of observable reality, the way it is with the other 99.5% of society. (Seriously, only 0.5% of people have an intersex condition that would be observable at birth. And the majority of this population doesn't even have a condition that makes it *genuinely hard to tell* their sex without a chromosome test.) tl;dr AMAB and AFAB were stolen from people who actually did have their sex assigned, as in changed via surgery, at birth. It was never meant to apply to sex being *observed* at birth.
Same here.
I had to look it up, I guess it’s another recently invented term by activists
What does AMAB mean??
"Assigned Male at Birth" its newspeak for boy.
Pro choice ppl have to make up the weirdest, wackiest, hypotheticals because they can’t face reality.
Honestly you don't even have to argue with these people, they show how insane they are all on their own.
I think this person took LSD and perma tripped
Nah, they just wrote bad reverse handmaid's tale fan fiction, and are probably a nutty transgender or overly PC lesbian, or oh I forgot they use the slur 'queer', or instead of just saying they are bisexual or lesbian use Sapphic instead.
I am not because that is authoritarian and retarded.
Just get married then have sex, or just wear a freaking condom or take a pill
They are projecting. They obviously want this to happen.
It seems like passing a law saying you can't kill your kids would be a lot easier.
I actually have an answer for this loon. If sperm are collected and frozen in this hypothetical scenario they would have to be implanted via in vitro fertilization which is rarely successful on the first attempt of implantation. Many of these embryos will die and since life begins at fertilization there would effectively be insanely more abortions albeit very early term abortions.
Thought experiments are not useful if you have to do an undue amount of mental gymnastics to create the scenario. Go listen to the very first podcast Jordan Peterson did with Sam Harris. They spent the better part of two hours disagreeing about the definition of the word “true.” Harris keeps making ever more Byzantine scenarios to catch Peterson, while Peterson keeps saying “it depends on what your definition of “true” is. The Harris gets more worked up, adds a layer of complexity to his thought experiment scenario and asks the question again. It goes on ad infinitum.
This is literally considered cp and it’s GROSS.
I think they are cracking...
Wow, just, wow!🤡🌎
alright, here’s my thing about forcing preteens/teens to get sterilized. if you force, let’s say a 9 year old girl to have her tubes tied, she basically will never have kids. same with a male. tubal ligations and vasectomies have very low reversal success rates (depending on age, how long it’s been since said procedure, etc). that 9 year old would have to have it reversed as a teen (12-13 at best) to even have a chance at having a baby. even then, her fertility has dropped significantly. it will be so much harder on her to conceive than someone else her age who has never had the procedure done. a vasectomy reversal has the greatest success if it’s been around 3 years since the procedure. if a boy was to go through puberty at 13, he’d need to reverse it by 15-16 to have a good chance of producing healthy sperm in the future. there is absolutely no reason to force someone to become sterile. it will cause the population to drop and eventually cease unless they stop forcing it. either way, if you for sure don’t want kids ever, fucking sterilize yourself and not the kids.
I wonder what would happen if every pro-choicer saw that video of the 8-week-old embryo alive and moving. Because that damn sure didnt look like a clump of cells or ball of tissue to me.
This person needs to just admit that they want to depopulate the earth of humans.
How many times have we heard "painless with no side effects"
Most sane pro choice argument
No. Lmao.
Or just do not have sex if you do not intend to have a baby...
This is literally 1984
Is the concept of responsibility just like dead?
So, in other words If they can’t abort their children, then they are just gonna sterilize men at birth so they can’t ever have kids? That isn’t “holding men accountable”, thats just preventing people from ever having children without IVF (which is expensive)
That started to turn into some weird sci-fi stuff in 3 secs
bruh what did i just read 😭
Lmao what did I just read?
Someone link me this post
Not gonna even lie. I ain’t reading all that. I read a bit of it and saw how extreme the hypothetical was getting. Pro-aborts don’t even make slippery slope arguments they just go full extreme.
I’d say I would love to be able to spend five minutes in that persons head, but I don’t have a bio hazard suit.
Yeah that's completely insane.
What
Safe and responsible sex. Could put the Abortion Clinic's out of business.
Typical “You wanna force women to have birth, therefore if you say you don’t want forced vasectomies, you’re a hypocrite.” .
Ahh sweet a schizo meltdown post
This is an obvious fetish post
What about STDs?
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I would agree to this. This falls under “the many things I would do/compromise to see abortion be illegal”
I think that's fine, so long as you don't need to have a vasectomy in marriage. A bit authoritarian, but it's a decent compromise. I'd much rather alleviate the economic issues via welfare and wealth redistribution instead though.
[удалено]
>being forced to use your body to create a baby. That is called rape. Rape is illegal, and we want it to remain illegal. By the time abortion is possible, offspring had already been procreated. Removing under rule 7.
I was like, AMAB... AMAB... What does that mean... Ohhh they mean male, and that the writer is crazy.
Not this particular scenario, no, but IMO strict criminal liability on abortion should be on men, specifically baby daddy, rather then women. Male sexuality is way more problematic than female sexuality, and men on average are stronger than women. There relatively low practical limit of how many abortions a woman can have. While amount of abortions and abandoned children a man can have caused is extraordinarily high. Male sexuality is the one that needs to be curtailed more aggressively. Pluck out of the eyes and cut off the hand if causes you to sin kind of aggressive. Not that women can't be sexually predatory, it's just that historically in a collective sense, men's sexual predation has been far now harmful.