Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[nmoore63]

All of human history has considered life to begin at live birth.

??????

[Fife]

All of human history has considered life to begin at live birth.

??????

Somebody should add some code to the board so that whenever someone quotes catass, a particular youtube link is automatically included:

[SuburbanFarmer]

All of human history has considered life to begin at live birth.

??????

You disagree?

[SuburbanFarmer]

1. Yes.

2. No.

To be clear, you want to hold a murder trial for any miscarriage?

After all, you can’t leave it up to your feels, to determine intent.

No, just for women beyond say four months of pregnancy. The intent is irrelevant.

You are aware that accidental miscarriage is also a fact of life, correct?

My grandmother had a stillborn baby, that would have been my aunt. I did not “lose” an aunt. I simply didn’t have one.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Comparing fetuses to tumors..?

If a child is born early, say two months, it comes out as a child and can survive into adulthood with no noteworthy damage to his/her quality of life. Terminating such a life is thus murder. Also, I can't remember at which point of the term it happens, but a fetus at some point develops the neural ability to feel pain like a human. An abortion after that point is cruelty.

As for the Bible, though... who cares? Bible never stated that life starts in the womb, it starts when the child *draws breath*. Thankfully, most civilized people now ignore that bullshit claim.

All of human history has considered life to begin at live birth. You do not have a child, until it is born and survives the birthing process.

It’s only because of modern medicine’s incredible victories against infant mortality that we could even consider a different answer to the question.

It's a pretty big "only", GCF. It is precisely because of modern medicine we ought to discard what biblical and other ancient savages thought constitute the beginning of human life.

Based on our unusual experience of the past 50-ish years?

Do our standards revert back, if there’s a civilization all collapse? And how do those standards look to the third world?

That’s a pretty radical change in our moral compass, based on some pretty modern developments.

[Okeefenokee]

To be clear, you want to hold a murder trial for any miscarriage?

After all, you can’t leave it up to your feels, to determine intent.

No, just for women beyond say four months of pregnancy. The intent is irrelevant.

You are aware that accidental miscarriage is also a fact of life, correct?

My grandmother had a stillborn baby, that would have been my aunt. I did not “lose” an aunt. I simply didn’t have one.

Keep going. Make up some more hypotheticals to demonstrate what a disgusting person you are.

[SuburbanFarmer]

No, just for women beyond say four months of pregnancy. The intent is irrelevant.

You are aware that accidental miscarriage is also a fact of life, correct?

My grandmother had a stillborn baby, that would have been my aunt. I did not “lose” an aunt. I simply didn’t have one.

Keep going. Make up some more hypotheticals to demonstrate what a disgusting person you are.

Not a hypothetical. It’s a true story.

I know I’m trampling in some feelz and speaking scary talk. You don’t have to read it, just remind yourself how Evil I am, that’s fine. Jesus loves you, special boy.

[BjornP]

To be clear, you want to hold a murder trial for any miscarriage?

After all, you can’t leave it up to your feels, to determine intent.

No, just for women beyond say four months of pregnancy. The intent is irrelevant.

You are aware that accidental miscarriage is also a fact of life, correct?

My grandmother had a stillborn baby, that would have been my aunt. I did not “lose” an aunt. I simply didn’t have one.

Never ever defended any sort of criminalization of miscarriage. Stop moving the goalposts. This was the question of yours I replied to:

Teen mother drinks herself silly, and miscarries a baby. Is this murder, or child abuse? Put her in the rape cage?

Bonus question: Do unfertilized eggs count as humans, or only those with combined DNA strands?

And now you're on from that, to the totally unrelated "so, what you're saying is you want to hold murder trials for miscarriages"? Teen mother drinks her 8 month old baby in the womb to death, then absolutely she is guilty of manslaughter (not murder, unless one can prove intent somehow). A three week year old fetus, otoh? Irresponsible if she wanted the child, otherwise not a crime.

Btw, about your earlier reply to me pointing out that the Bible only mentions children being considered alive when they first "draw breath"... I ignored because I simply didn't understand what you meant. You do understand that babies/fetuses inside the womb, don't actually breathe on their own, right? "Drawing breath"

[BjornP]

All of human history has considered life to begin at live birth. You do not have a child, until it is born and survives the birthing process.

It’s only because of modern medicine’s incredible victories against infant mortality that we could even consider a different answer to the question.

It's a pretty big "only", GCF. It is precisely because of modern medicine we ought to discard what biblical and other ancient savages thought constitute the beginning of human life.

Based on our unusual experience of the past 50-ish years?

Do our standards revert back, if there’s a civilization all collapse? And how do those standards look to the third world?

That’s a pretty radical change in our moral compass, based on some pretty modern developments.

I barely understand what you're saying there. Deal with the real world, GCF, not with juvenile fantasies about the end of civilization, and how on earth is third world opinions on our change of ethical standards over the years in regards to abortion, relevant to us, you, anyone in the Western world? You do realize that even the third world is taking advantage of advances in modern medicine, right?

[BjornP]

No Dane has ever called Denmark a "Socialist" country. Ever. Only Americans would use and still use that to describe Scandinavia. Neither Danish Socialists or Danish Conservatives would say something as asinine. Plenty of American right-wingers have called Scandinavia "Socialist" over the last couple decades. Small wonder low-information American leftist voters would eventually think those idiots must be right in their analysis of our political system, see how stuff works here, and conclude that "Socialism" must work. Nevermind that no Scandinavian country ever was, is, and likely never will be, Socialist.

As for the video... uhmm, lots of good points, also some hilarious missed opportunities to make fun of US leftists who call Scandinavia a "Socialist" dream, but also some big self-contradictory points by Crowder. He correctly points out, and makes the segment pretty much about American leftists being clueless about Scandinavia not being Socialist at all. I get back to that, and some good missed opportunities, but what struck me most was that he, too, misdiagonoses things like a welfare state, or socialized medicine, as "Socialistic". That's essentially what he's mocking US leftist for. Welfare states is not Socialist, public education is not Socialist, universal health care is not Socialist. Or "Socialist-ic", for that matter.

Now... for the missed opportunities: How could he NOT make jokes about Scandinavian countries NOT having a minimum wage, giving how that's apparantly something your leftists think matters alot? Or having state religion? Or monarchies? Or since we're discussing abortion now, you can find several US states that have more liberal abortion laws than Scandinavian ones.