Culture This State Could Become the First Without an Abortion Clinic - The State of Missouri vs. Planned Parenthood

Liber Pater

kiwifarms.net
Quite a shame, as there are few places more in need of additional abortions than St. Louis...

 
Last edited:

Zero Day Defense

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"
kiwifarms.net
I don't think we should be rewarding rape as a reproductive strategy by allowing a rapists genes to spread and the resultant offspring raised on government money.
Those children aren't genes.

It depends, but probably.
Reconsider arguing a position involving life when you'll allow yourself to speak with "probably" as you directly grapple with the question of what constitutes life-- especially when you can't even describe the circumstances you're apparently qualifying with your "probably".

You shouldn't be. It's really more like property damage than murder given there's not a person involved.
The argument about the proper moral and ethical permissibility of abortion hinges on, among other things-- but most importantly-- whether or not the subject is human, whether or not that constitutes personhood, and whether or not the latter question even matters. Yet, you haven't attempted to rebut any of my reasoning as to why even a zygote is human and the implication of my total argument that this constitutes personhood.

Dandruff is 100% human too. It even may have the vaunted potential to be human if we were unethical enough to experiment with human cloning.
That is an insanely asinine comparison. Dandruff is dead skin flakes. Dead skin flakes. You would have actually been better off using the "unborn babies are no different from tumors" argument because at least tumors are not dead, even if they're not dead in the most grotesque way and it would be a godsend if we were able to get rid of tumors the same way an abortion practitioner euthanizes an unborn child before dismembering/suctioning it.

Yes, it is.
Freaking why? How this comment got any "Thunk-Provoking" ratings when it doesn't even produce any argumentation to chew on is beyond me.

Good. Voluntary, scientifically justified eugenics is good.
Until you realize 1) that it's only an active philosophy when enacted on a community level, 2) someone has to call the shots, and 3) that it won't be too long until you're in the crosshairs for being neutered or worse because you bear undesirable genes.

If you believe all this is true how can you endure the horror that is every day existence? Innocent little ensouled embryos constantly being shed, sometimes before the mother even has a chance to know she's pregnant.
Miscarriage is as tragic as any unexpected death. Especially because its victims are ensouled.

...or are you speaking of unfertilized ova, which have no potential for life outside of union with a sperm cell? Because if you are, you actually shouldn't be having this conversation and should be writing to your school district to make your sex ed programs at least functional.

Actually, within the first couple of weeks, the human embryo is phenotypically
Why are we talking about what an embryo looks like as opposed to what it is?
 

Unog

You're a nog.
kiwifarms.net
That is an insanely asinine comparison. Dandruff is dead skin flakes. Dead skin flakes. You would have actually been better off using the "unborn babies are no different from tumors" argument because at least tumors are not dead, even if they're not dead in the most grotesque way and it would be a godsend if we were able to get rid of tumors the same way an abortion practitioner euthanizes an unborn child before dismembering/suctioning it.
I noticed here that you said it was an asinine comparison but didn't actually explain why.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Your Weird Fetish

Zero Day Defense

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"
kiwifarms.net
I noticed here that you said it was an asinine comparison but didn't actually explain why.

You would have actually been better off using the "unborn babies are no different from tumors" argument because at least tumors are not dead, even if they're not dead in the most grotesque way....
Bolding added.

Because it apparently warrants something resembling thorough explanation: it doesn't make sense to discuss inert component cells shed from a human that need to be processed in a complex manner to even potentially yield life (and even then, it would only actually yield the blueprints for the development of a living organism), in the vicinity of and presumably as a counterargument of any sort to the argument for the humanity and personhood of a complex organism that's at minimum ontologically human. There's no valuable direction one could go in with the introduction of this argument, and the rebuttal is a non sequitur at and after "but muh genes", because I didn't say anything about genes in either what was responded to specifically or even anything prior to that. The closest I get to it is asserting that the unborn conceived by humans are ontologically human.
 

Just Some Other Guy

kiwifarms.net
I'd probably say dead skin flakes are recognized by the body as waste to be disposed. Human embyros? Only when something goes wrong. I'm sure there's something wrong with this reasoning, feel free to correct me.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
Because it apparently warrants something resembling thorough explanation: it doesn't make sense to discuss inert component cells shed from a human that need to be processed in a complex manner
So we're agreed, tard babies should just be allowed to die instead of kept alive with complex and expensive medical science. Or even better, aborted so the woman doesn't have to undergo the dangers of childbirth.

Honestly we don't really have any common ground on which to argue because you believe in souls and I don't.

I'd probably say dead skin flakes are recognized by the body as waste to be disposed. Human embyros? Only when something goes wrong. I'm sure there's something wrong with this reasoning, feel free to correct me.
Yeah it relies on the naturalist fallacy.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Unog

Zero Day Defense

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"
kiwifarms.net
Because it apparently warrants something resembling thorough explanation: it doesn't make sense to discuss inert component cells shed from a human that need to be processed in a complex manner
So we're agreed, tard babies should just be allowed to die instead of kept alive with complex and expensive medical science.
What are you going on about? Even if I assume that you made an arbitrary snip and intended to respond to the entire comment I made, nothing you say here connects with anything I said. Is your argument that the mentally deficient are no different from "inert component cells"?

Honestly we don't really have any common ground on which to argue because you believe in souls and I don't.
Don't give me that. My argument doesn't rely on the idea that souls exist, but the fact that human offspring is ontologically human from conception because it's impossible for human offspring to not be human. Mind you, I only ever bring up ensoulement because you do, and I only ever address it at the point that you do.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
Don't give me that. My argument doesn't rely on the idea that souls exist, but the fact that human offspring is ontologically human from conception because it's impossible for human offspring to not be human. Mind you, I only ever bring up ensoulement because you do, and I only ever address it at the point that you do.
This is a distinction without a difference. You care about the supernatural innate humanity of something that cannot think or feel.
 

Android raptor

50% android, 50% raptor, 100% autistic
kiwifarms.net
A lot of people don't realize that Planned Parenthood does tons of other shit besides abortions. Low cost birth control, sex ed (I'm sure Missouri schools don't provide comprehensive sex ed), mammograms, PAP smears, all kinds of shit.

Personally if I was a woman in Missouri i'd just GTFO.
 

Zero Day Defense

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"
kiwifarms.net
This is a distinction without a difference. You care about the supernatural innate humanity of something that cannot think or feel.
You've chosen to latch on to my belief in the soul because you aren't capable of addressing my arguments for what they are, even when they're clearly independent of said belief and I enumerated how (if I need to simplify any further: human offspring, from conception onwards, is not capable of being a cow, or a dog, or a pig-- it is only capable of being human). You've managed to make arguments and comparisons somehow more inane than those of the rank-and-file pro-choice proponents. You've offered me statements that do not follow from anything that I've said, much less anything that you've quoted me saying. And now you produce a line of argumentation I disputed from my initial argument: in a world where humans are able to be born without the ability to sense or even think, are they somehow rendered less human than their unimpaired counterparts? If they're put in such a position, do they become less human?

It should be said that you couldn't answer those questions with certainty, and suggested that it was something to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis without even explaining what that meant.

That by itself should render your opinion on the entire matter void.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
I disputed from my initial argument: in a world where humans are able to be born without the ability to sense or even think, are they somehow rendered less human than their unimpaired counterparts? If they're put in such a position, do they become less human?
I already said flat out yes to this one and explained in detail why I think that in an earlier post. What more do you want? For me to say the word
"ontologically"?

The only thing you seem to care about in humanity is its genome and potential path of development. I think those are insufficient. Genome is clearly not enough as everyone is bigoted against poor dandruff and (except Catholics) the poor gametes because they're all haploid. And a potential person is ontologically not YET a person.

Although you say you think a single celled zygote is a person so you're presumably a devout Catholic and so again, we have nothing to talk about because our world views are simply incompatible.

A person is not a mindless lump on a respirator or a topless skull constantly seizing. Those are failed attempts at a person. A person thinks, feels, dreams, has forethought, plans, desires, imagination.

It should be said that you couldn't answer those questions with certainty, and suggested that it was something to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis without even explaining what that meant.
Imagine having to face a murky reality with nuance instead of just birthing potatoes to own the libs.
 
Last edited:

Zero Day Defense

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"
kiwifarms.net
I already said flat out yes to this one
I wasn't aware that

It depends, but probably.
was "flat out yes", though I suppose that you did say as much for those without brains... but still said

Well maybe not the microcephalics
Emphasis mine.

and explained in detail why I think that in an earlier post.
Which one? The one where you say, unprompted and incorrectly, that we're in agreement that the developmentally impaired shouldn't be medically supported or aborted so that the woman wouldn't have to undergo the dangers of childbirth? The one where you insist that my viewpoint as expressed relies on my belief in a soul?

Before any of those is your original response to me, and you hardly explained any assertion you made-- in the rare instance you did, you rattled off nonsense, and even that instance was anemic.

Imagine having to face a murky reality with nuance instead of just birthing potatoes to own the libs.
Didn't you just say that you "flat out said yes" to the question at hand?

That aside, imagine thinking that being unable or unwilling to commit to an answer is being "nuanced", while you fail to even discuss said nuance in any meaningful capacity beyond a shrug and a "maybe".
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
I wasn't aware that



was "flat out yes", though I suppose that you did say as much for those without brains... but still said



Emphasis mine.



Which one? The one where you say, unprompted and incorrectly, that we're in agreement that the developmentally impaired shouldn't be medically supported or aborted so that the woman wouldn't have to undergo the dangers of childbirth? The one where you insist that my viewpoint as expressed relies on my belief in a soul?

Before any of those is your original response to me, and you hardly explained any assertion you made-- in the rare instance you did, you rattled off nonsense, and even that instance was anemic.



Didn't you just say that you "flat out said yes" to the question at hand?

That aside, imagine thinking that being unable or unwilling to commit to an answer is being "nuanced", while you fail to even discuss said nuance in any meaningful capacity beyond a shrug and a "maybe".
You didn't actually read the thread before gracing us all with your opinion, did you? Believe it or not, I have posts that are not in reply to yours nor quoted by you.
 

Unog

You're a nog.
kiwifarms.net
What are you going on about? Even if I assume that you made an arbitrary snip and intended to respond to the entire comment I made, nothing you say here connects with anything I said. Is your argument that the mentally deficient are no different from "inert component cells"?

Don't give me that. My argument doesn't rely on the idea that souls exist, but the fact that human offspring is ontologically human from conception because it's impossible for human offspring to not be human. Mind you, I only ever bring up ensoulement because you do, and I only ever address it at the point that you do.
And now you produce a line of argumentation I disputed from my initial argument: in a world where humans are able to be born without the ability to sense or even think, are they somehow rendered less human than their unimpaired counterparts? If they're put in such a position, do they become less human?
With this line of thinking, a vial of freshly-drawn blood from a person shouldn't be damaged in any way because it's inherently human.

I suggest you research human gestation and what it actually entails, from a specimen that is accurately described as a "clump of cells" going through pretty much every evolutionary step that led to humanity. From having gills and a tail to eventually developing into a form similar enough to be recognizable.

To act as if though due to it's nature as being genetically human that it should never at any point be aborted for any reason due to it's "ontological humanity" is absurd.
 

Zero Day Defense

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"
kiwifarms.net
You didn't actually read the thread before gracing us all with your opinion, did you? Believe it or not, I have posts that are not in reply to yours nor quoted by you.
Why should I care if you can't even bother to specify from the start, after making multiple responses to me, that the "earlier post" you were referring to was earlier in the thread overall and to someone else-- to speak nothing of just outright linking the post or quoting yourself?

Anyways, you tacked on some more stuff to your last comment and I didn't realize it until after you posted this one, so here:

I think those are insufficient. Genome is clearly not enough as everyone is bigoted against poor dandruff and (except Catholics) the poor gametes because they're all haploid.
I'm unsure if you have a sufficient grasp on the words you're using.

And a potential person is ontologically not YET a person.
I could address your failure to pick up me distinguishing a "person" and a "human" and explaining that distinction as far as the discourse is concerned, but you just brought in the term "potential person" when I never employed such a term, being that my position is that 1) the conceived are human from conception, and 2) I find the discussion about "personhood" immaterial in the face of an undeniable humanity that would render the termination of such a subject's life a necessary evil at best.

Are you using the same distinction, or are you trying to conflate terms I already distinguished?

Although you say you think a single celled zygote is a person so you're presumably a devout Catholic
I said that a zygote was a human. It would appear that you are conflating terms that I distinguished for a reason, which is extremely poor form when paired with you attempting baseless ad hominem: no, I'm not Catholic. Non-Catholic Christians are capable of holding the same position. Heck, non-Christians are capable of holding the same position-- my AI professor, an agnostic, expressed that he recognized abortion as killing babies before doing an atlantean shrug.

On top of saying specifically that it was human, I didn't just say that I thought that a zygote was human, but I justified what I thought by pointing out that the alternative was that somehow the offspring of two humans wasn't human.

A person is not a mindless lump on a respirator or a topless skull constantly seizing. Those are failed attempts at a person. A person thinks, feels, dreams, has forethought, plans, desires, imagination.
Ignoring... what I've actually said, I must ask: where did you come up with any of this?

With this line of thinking, a vial of freshly-drawn blood from a person shouldn't be damaged in any way because it's inherently human.
Oh my goodness, what you going on about?

Are differentiated component cells without the capacity to generate offspring or even directly contribute to said generation able to be considered human in any capacity? According to me, no. According to @Your Weird Fetish, probably also no, but the two of you would have much more in common than I given that I call the argument template asinine.

I suggest you research human gestation and what it actually entails, from a specimen that is accurately described as a "clump of cells"
That's extremely reductionist.

going through pretty much every evolutionary step that led to humanity. From having gills and a tail to eventually developing into a form similar enough to be recognizable.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that they're the product of union between two humans? Do they have gills and a tail after being born?

To act as if though due to it's nature as being genetically human that it should never at any point be aborted for any reason due to it's "ontological humanity" is absurd.
You read nothing that I wrote, and it shows.

As for the issue at hand? I think abortion should be legal, because it is very unfortunately a reality that it's necessary in a contingent of cases wherein the mother's life is actively threatened, the situation is unsalvageable, and loss of one life versus the definite loss of two has to be weighed intently. We should be working to make our support structures better for all the children abandoned or otherwise unable to be properly cared for. ADD: Whether or not it's legal isn't the important part-- the important part is how we handle the matters of life and sex, which would ultimately govern how we as a society would view and treat the prospect of abortion.
 

Unog

You're a nog.
kiwifarms.net
Oh my goodness, what you going on about?

Are differentiated component cells without the capacity to generate offspring or even directly contribute to said generation able to be considered human in any capacity? According to me, no. According to @Your Weird Fetish, probably also no, but the two of you would have much more in common than I given that I call the argument template asinine.
It's "component cells" that create a zygote. Even in your own argument, the cells that derive from a sperm and egg cell are nothing more than "component cells". You seem to hold the belief that somehow they're different and special when they're not yet a living, breathing, out-of-the-womb human.

That's extremely reductionist.
It's a literal description of what a blastocyst is, whether or not you find the terminology agreeable is a different matter entirely.

What does any of that have to do with the fact that they're the product of union between two humans? Do they have gills and a tail after being born?
What the fuck does it matter what the circumstances are after birth if we're discussing what happens before?

You read nothing that I wrote, and it shows.
Ok, here:

As for the issue at hand? I think abortion should be legal, because it is very unfortunately a reality that it's necessary in a contingent of cases wherein the mother's life is actively threatened, the situation is unsalvageable, and loss of one life versus the definite loss of two has to be weighed intently. We should be working to make our support structures better for all the children abandoned or otherwise unable to be properly cared for.
Sure, I'll cop to it that I was being a bit hyperbolic but from what I've read of this discussion your position seems to be that the only legitimate reason for an abortion is in the specific case outlined above, which to be quite frank might as well be equivalent to my hyperbole that you quoted, given the slim number of such cases in the modern age in relation to the number of abortions performed.
 

Vlinny Chan

no child is safe from drugs and molestation
kiwifarms.net
LOL at the women in this thread bitching that they can't snuff the inoccent life out of a man's growing seed inside them with the help of an globohomo funded orginization that sells the mangled corpses of dead children on the black market which will then be processed into making their lipgloss and eyeshadow, which in turn they wear to seduce unsuspecting men into rawdoging them so they can waste more money on crushing more child skulls and complete the cycle over again.

I'll take my unironic negates now.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
LOL at the women in this thread bitching that they can't snuff the inoccent life out of a man's growing seed inside them with the help of an globohomo funded orginization that sells the mangled corpses of dead children on the black market which will then be processed into making their lipgloss and eyeshadow, which in turn they wear to seduce unsuspecting men into rawdoging them so they can waste more money on crushing more child skulls and complete the cycle over again.

I'll take my unironic negates now.
If you're wasting your life force on a woman instead of recycling it with fanta you're a cuck anyway.
 

TaimuRadiu

Kaiserin
kiwifarms.net
A lot of people don't realize that Planned Parenthood does tons of other shit besides abortions. Low cost birth control, sex ed (I'm sure Missouri schools don't provide comprehensive sex ed), mammograms, PAP smears, all kinds of shit.

Personally if I was a woman in Missouri i'd just GTFO.
How much of that do they actually do compared to abortions?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Your Weird Fetish
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino