Please go **** yourself, Cuckbox. I’ve had enough of your bullshit today.

This is actually a serious issue for women’s healthcare, not some philosophical sandbox for you to muck about in for leisure.

What did I say?
You agree that nobody compared women to animals I suppose? I'll take that as your retraction.

I am going to give a hard no on that. Because the answer to that question is going to inevitably be arbitrary enough that most people are just going to decide on whatever convention that is most convenient to their politics.

I only have one normative position that I'm going for here in 2p2 politics which is don't kill people. And so figuring out what are people is an important part of that. Sorry but it is what is. Try to keep your jimmies in a more dispassionate state like Max does when dealing with me.

He's not on some metaphysical inquiry, he's taking a position opposed to abortion rights and JAQing off with a long tedious irrelevant exploration of marsupial gestation.

You say it's a hard no, but not a single person has stepped up to the plate to call that penny-sized and totally not "viable" joey not life. So I think we all do agree on at least that. Now when that penny-sized joey became life--whether it was at conception or some point between then and when it reached penny-size is still open for discussion.

'Person' is the key thing for me. A fetus is not a person whereas all the other stages you mention are still people. Again this is not wordplay. This is key to the abortion debate.

Every dump I take is teaming with life. Do you want a picture with a penny?

I would never deny that you aren't teeming with e. coli.

It doesn't appear anyone has any problem reconciling a joey being life with whatever ideologically motivated view on abortion they already had. This doesn't surprise me at all.

Let me know if anything changes.

Nowhere do I agree with you. I think you’re a complete idiot.

I agree with this though.

Reminder that a central component of Kel's ideology is the oppression and control of women.

It would seem that most of the most vocal abortion defenders here disagree that these distinctions are important at all.
But what is the basis that you're using to define what a person is? Because I feel like it'll be really hard to justify some sort of distinction between inside a person vs outside a person, or "viable" was non-viable. [And this is sort of the point behind me bringing up marsupials]
And if you want to argue something like "having personality" or something then we're pushing personhood back even further until idk how many months old but at least several.

Pretty much.

I'm sure that the admirable pro-lifers will continue to fight to defend the gargantuan influx of unwanted babies or pay for the medical needs of the mothers at their expense.

Like we talked about, when you're reduced to silence and/or insults--I'm fine considering that agreement.

I do think the comment "women should have control over their own bodies" is interesting, but not in the way intended.

It seems that establishing norms for sexuality and mating for breeding age females is a central concern, if not the central concern, of pretty much all human social organization; to the point where the question can be asked whether human societies can even exist without having some established norm that addresses this issue.

Of course it can simply be an answer where societies comprised of men that are more effective controlling their females breeding (with them) carry on their genes, and the ones that dont don't, so it is an highly selected for norm.

Relevance? Idiot.

Also, learn how to edit a post. Idiot.

In case anyone thought I was joking.

You shouldn’t confuse being ignored for silence. Your input in most discussions can scarcely be valued above nuisance and white noise. Low quality and low intelligence posters like you don’t get to dictate to me how I spend my time.

I think based on this thread there’s a pretty solid argument to be made for sexual cannibalism. It improves fecundity, naturally selects against inferior males, and, for incels like Kelhus, ensures paternity considering well-fed females are less likely to mate repeatedly.

Consider the arachnids. Or look what happens when we compare human males to gastropods... It really is so interesting; regard my intelligence and tremble.

Ok but can I at least get you to agree to nobody compared women to marsupials?
Really what I compared was all placental mammals to all marsupials. And I didn't appreciate you lying about what I said.
But do you agree with lagtight that God created humans to be special over the rest of the animal kingdom or not? Because it seems like you're still arguing that but I can't tell.

This is a thread framing an issue of women’s healthcare, not all placental mammals.

And no, I don’t have to be a creationist to point out that human beings have a moral code that isn’t shared with other species. For example, if a marsupial aborts her pregnancy nobody will call her a “baby murderer”.

See, these kinds of posts are why I ignore you. You’re constantly forcing me to dictate answers to you that would be astoundingly obvious to anyone with an IQ above 71.

Part of the moral code that humans have is to not kill other humans. You agree on that I'm sure and so the disagreement consists of "what are other humans?".
Because this question is complex and involves all sorts of obsfucation about fetal heartbeats and viability, sometimes it is necessary to invoke other members of the animal kingdom.
Since you're so smart I assume you followed all that. But you are arguing that humans are special and that other members of the animal kingdom shouldn't be invoked (precisely because they lack a moral code even)--which is probably exactly what lagtight would argue, interestingly enough. I'll need to process that for a second given my low iq so please bear with me.

I am going to go ahead and push back against this.

I imagine that such a pacifist human society if it ever did exist, would be quickly outcompeted and exterminated.

It seems what societies do is create norms for the circumstances for when killing other humans is permitted, but killing other humans in the course of competition is probably an extremely selected for survival behavior.