The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

No, I'm not. Read my previous response again. Carefully. Note how I very specifically explained that my objection is on the grounds of context.



Boo's assertion was necessarily relating to a human fetus, and specifically from a biological perspective. If you believe the gestation cycle of ants is at all similar to that of humans, your school's biology department failed you miserably.



No more than I'm offended by stupid questions.



Actually, my preferred pronoun is "your majesty". I'll take your lack of a rebuttal as evidence of your lack of a rebuttal, if you catch my drift, "Dude".

You know what's the biggest problem with SJWs? They don't just let anyone on their side unless you grew up with liberal parents and liberal friends etc, etc. They're a gigantic clique that believe if they don't find you "hip" (as in being gay, trans, black, a woman, or have a family member or best friend who is) they think you're a misogynist homophobic war loving Nazi.

I wish I had liberal parents and more liberal friends growing up, cause I wish I can be on the winning side of things. I always get thrown into the losing side of things.

There are a lot of Christians women who are against abortion (of all kinds!), the ones against it don't have only to be men.




I think most medical bodies are allowed to proceed with this if it's medically necessarily. I don't think the abortion debate is about that tho.

Actually ants don't have "centralized brain" like we do it's differently segmented across their bodies....but that's an another topic .

But yeah, I was only referring to Homo Sapiens.

Sounds like Aktion T4, hopefully you are never in the position where someone else decides whether your life is worth living or not

I missed out on the flame war

Just to clarify, I am not against abortion at all (especially for rape and medical cases).

But there's no use to deny that it's killing an unborn infant - especially at a late stages.

I was a subject of abortion myself.

So you back Trump and Pence on the pro-life stuff?

I was referring to the men on this specific thread. I'm more than aware that their are anti choice women as well. Internalized misogyny exists lol.

If I'm a vegetable or in a coma that seems long term I want someone to pull the plug. You aren't going to guilt me lmao. Don't ever lightly compare other people or groups to Nazis. Disgusting.

Another problem with SJWs is that they treat men like crap. I thought that all people are supposed to be treated as equals, not like crap. The original SJWs were good for society in the way that women can now have careers because they've paved the way. The ones of today appear to be man haters.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. I grew up with very nice brothers and it's always bothered me to hear unfair stuff about men. SJWs fundamentally misunderstand feminism and use it to be selfish jerks.

I got a picture text from an older family member last night of one of our mutual family members in tears after the election. It was a selfie from Facebook. Said older family member never bothered asking me who *I* voted for because I'm a woman so of course I must be on "their side." I resisted temptation to send her back a picture of me, my husband, and my son celebrating after the election...mostly because I didn't take a selfie of my reaction because why would I do that??? My first reaction when I'm feeling emotions is not to take a picture of myself and post it online.

Yes, I do know that very well.

Boo's argument, as I understand it, was:

All Bs are C.
As are Bs.
Therefore, As are C.

I challenged the first premise - that neural activity is sufficient for personhood.

If you want to argue that the first premise should be that all humans with brain activity are persons, OK. I then put the case that not all humans are persons (for example, the dead), which means that being human is not sufficient for personhood. Then see above - brain activity alone does not distinguish persons from non-persons.


No, that doesn't logically follow at all. Pregnancy is a chance event. Having sex is not choosing to become pregnant.

Anyway, I've already said that I don't think embryos have the right to life, so this is a massive red herring.


The law calls one of those murder, so the cat.

But assuming it is really a "fair" choice (I don't already know one, I'm not going to be treated differently based on my choice, neither is inherently easier) then I wouldn't have a preference.

They still wouldn't have a right to life. If it was more convenient for their owners to destroy them, then that's within the owner's rights.

What are you talking about Boo?

Oh, and Your Majesty, what The Walrus said.

From context, and with deference to Boo's confirmation, I don't see any alternative but to accept that as the premise.

You're saying that death nullifies personhood. I agree, but don't see the relevance. A dead human is (at risk of turning this into a Monty Python sketch) an ex-human, not an extant human. By way of a reminder, I'm the one pointing out that abortion laws are based on arbitrary developmental checkpoints and statistical viability of live birth rather than on sentience, brain activity or presence of life. For that last one, the fact that cell division is occurring would be more than sufficient.



Pregnancy is a consequence of sexual intercourse. When one chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, one accepts the possibility of pregnancy, however long the odds are.



Rights are determined by laws, so ultimately it's up to the lawmakers to decide. In the UK, an embryo is granted human rights at the age of 24 weeks based on "viability". There is ongoing debate as to whether that age should be reduced, as constant improvement to medical technology leads to earlier "viability". This was debated as recently as 2008 by our MPs.



Interesting answer. I would argue that killing the cat is the prosocial choice, regardless of personal morality. In terms of value, I place much more on my own species than others.



Assuming that the artificial wombs had a high success rate (which would be necessary in order for them to be legal) all blastocysts thus transplanted would have to be treated as "birthed". In other words, they'd enjoy all of the legal rights that newborns have at present.



Much better, but I don't think Walrus needs a cheerleader section. Of course, one cannot speak in certain terms about the ego of another, so perhaps you should put a little more energy into shaking those pom-poms.

My best pompom shaking days are behind me.

Anyway, it will be nice when science develops some sort of incubator so this will not be an issue.