blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 10, 2017 23:57:55 GMT
He pretty much said women should be ashamed of giving birth and subjecting the child to life.  Wow. Just, wow. What? |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 10, 2017 23:59:05 GMT
I'm just trying to wrap my head around that. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 11, 2017 0:00:38 GMT
I will never understand your view of the world Mic. I'm not sure I want to either. That happens frequently with atheists/non christians, they think nothing of killing the young. Such as God killing Egyptian babies in the Bible, right? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 11, 2017 0:01:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 0:01:40 GMT
So let me see if I understand you, are you saying that giving birth is wrong and should be frowned upon but having an abortion should be applauded? He pretty much said women should be ashamed of giving birth and subjecting the child to life. Now that's not quite right. If the woman has given birth and has not thought beforehand of the risks that she would be imposing on the child, then I do not believe that she should be made to feel ashamed, and I certainly would not condemn someone for doing something when they had no idea that there were compelling moral reasons not to do it. What I want is for the antinatalist argument to be considered before pregnancy, and then if women proceed to be come pregnant anyway, I want them to be aware that they are procreating for selfish reasons. |
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 11, 2017 0:01:53 GMT
That happens frequently with atheists/non christians, they think nothing of killing the young. Such as God killing Egyptian babies in the Bible, right? God is an atheist?  |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 11, 2017 0:02:28 GMT
The Wikipedia article also concludes by saying: " The Silent Scream has been credited with winning "many converts to the pro life cause" by its graphic scenes that shocked many viewers. The film helped "to shift the public focus from the horror stories of women who had suffered back-alley abortions to the horror movie of a fetus undergoing one." The film has been very important for the pro life movement and is widely available..." Which doesn't say that anything in it is even remotely true. DO YOU EVER understand the actual meaning of anything you read or do you always think the things you read say things they simply do not say? Ayn Rand's insane ramblings have won many converts to her brand of corporate libertarianism, that doesn't change the fact that she was wrong. Please learn to read well enough to actually comprehend the meaning of complete sentences. Yes, I do, thank you. Of course Pro-choice advocates would criticize this film (which was provided by a one-time abortion activist). It goes against everything they fight for. I (& other pro-life posters on this message forum) could just as easily provide links to stories from plenty of women who HAVE regretted their abortions right from the very bottom of their hearts, & tell the world, it was the biggest mistake they had ever made!!! |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 11, 2017 0:02:41 GMT
tpfkar Much less moral.
A black guy getting chicken?  |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 11, 2017 0:05:05 GMT
Such as God killing Egyptian babies in the Bible, right? God is an atheist? So you're going to throw a red herring. Predictable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 0:05:20 GMT
Giving birth imposes unnecessary risks, hazards and responsibilities on a sentient being that has not given consent, with the justification that the imposer/bestower believes that there are likely to be benefits which would make the risks worthwhile (in the estimation of the person who is imposing life). That would be considered morally wrong in any other context, and I don't think that birth should be any different just because we cannot request consent from the foetus.
Ideally, women should take precautions to avoid becoming impregnated. However, in the event that a pregnancy does occur, then the most ethical course of action would be to terminate the pregnancy.
Just to be clear, and I am pretty sure this is just an issue in interpretation, but are you suggesting that all pregnancies carried to term are immoral? I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks (on the basis that they may reap a reward that would, in the estimation of the parents "make it all worth the risk"). However, I would hesitate to use the word 'immoral' in relation to a pregnancy carried to term, if the mother had never considered the antinatalist perspective. If they weren't aware that they were imposing unnecessary risks, then they were just following their biological programming. |
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 11, 2017 0:07:07 GMT
God is an atheist? So you're going to throw a red herring. Predictable. So God is an atheist or a non Christian? Oh you mean you tried to make a false comparison? Pretty tricky there mister.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 11, 2017 0:09:25 GMT
He pretty much said women should be ashamed of giving birth and subjecting the child to life. What I want is for the antinatalist argument to be considered before pregnancy, and then if women proceed to be come pregnant anyway, I want them to be aware that they are procreating for selfish reasons. It could also be said that you want to force your opinion on people for selfish reasons. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 0:12:07 GMT
I'm giving the rational line. It makes little sense to view abortion as morally neutral. Because if you're not depriving someone of life by having a foetus aborted, then it makes sense to consider whether or not there might actually be some kind of upside to abortion. I would say that at least pro-life theists are consistent with their reasoning, albeit stemming from a faulty premise. But saying that there's nothing morally wrong with abortion is not consistent with the woolly narrative of life being a wonderful gift that is bestowed upon those fortunate enough to receive it. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 0:13:38 GMT
Which doesn't say that anything in it is even remotely true. DO YOU EVER understand the actual meaning of anything you read or do you always think the things you read say things they simply do not say? Ayn Rand's insane ramblings have won many converts to her brand of corporate libertarianism, that doesn't change the fact that she was wrong. Please learn to read well enough to actually comprehend the meaning of complete sentences. Yes, I do, thank you. Of course Pro-choice advocates would criticize this film (which was provided by a one-time abortion activist). It goes against everything they fight for. I (& other pro-life posters on this message forum) could just as easily provide links to stories from plenty of women who HAVE regretted their abortions right from the very bottom of their hearts, & tell the world, it was the biggest mistake they had ever made!!! Nice goalpost move. Now could you explain why you quoted a part of the wiki article I linked as though that part disproved my position and supported yours while in reality it did neither? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 0:13:39 GMT
What I want is for the antinatalist argument to be considered before pregnancy, and then if women proceed to be come pregnant anyway, I want them to be aware that they are procreating for selfish reasons. It could also be said that you want to force your opinion on people for selfish reasons. I can't be unborn, so I don't have skin in the game here. Life for me would actually be a great deal harder than it presently is, in the event that we don't have another generation to prop up the economy at a time when we have a lot of people in retirement. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 11, 2017 0:15:44 GMT
It could also be said that you want to force your opinion on people for selfish reasons. I can't be unborn, so I don't have skin in the game here. Life for me would actually be a great deal harder than it presently is, in the event that we don't have another generation to prop up the economy at a time when we have a lot of people in retirement.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 11, 2017 0:20:24 GMT
tpfkar I think it is only rational under the extremely, pathologically morbid outlook you profess to have, that most healthy people do not share. The wild irrationality comes in when one tries to reconcile your various beliefs with each other.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 0:20:57 GMT
I can't be unborn, so I don't have skin in the game here. Life for me would actually be a great deal harder than it presently is, in the event that we don't have another generation to prop up the economy at a time when we have a lot of people in retirement. To clarify: a) I'm not "forcing [my] opinion" on anyone. b) it is not in my selfish self-interests for people to stop reproducing. Especially not the type of people who would be most receptive to the ideas of antinatalism (educated atheists). |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on May 11, 2017 0:24:49 GMT
To clarify: a) I'm not "forcing [my] opinion" on anyone. No, but you want to don't you. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on May 11, 2017 0:39:06 GMT
Woof! Man, that subtle implication that women are ethically bound to bring a rapist's baby to term. That's some classy stuff, right there. This is the sort of thing that indicates troll not drooling idiot As if the two were mutually exclusive.  You see an awful lot of similar hostility towards women on the red pill channel, the "manosphere" and other bastions of bachelor bitterness. They're not all trolls. Some of it's just letting off the steam of being perma-single. |
|
