🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@augustus No.. people took the vaccine because they beleived in the vaccine and science. The overwhelming majority of people who took it didnt do so because the government told them too.. This should be obvious as most of them took every other vaccine on the market, most of which the government never had a stance on.

@kj6dbe Oh and dont forget next time your pulling this sexist nonsense you bother to demand anyone with an opinion on abortion describe their genitals AND tell you if they are post-menopause or otherwise sterile... Remind them they are required to tell you so you can verify if they are permitted their opinon, since once they cant bear children, according to you, they are no longer allowed an opinion on abortion.

::rolls eyes::

@trinsec I am describing a scenario where abortion is limited to 10 weeks which is only viable with free pregnancy tests.. without free pregnancy tests then I couldnt support a 10 week pwerioud.

@kj6dbe

> Unless someone is flashing their genitals in public, their genitals are of nobody else's concern.

Great then we agree, I am not flashing my genitals in public therefore its none of your business, leave me alone you perv.

> The problem is that you 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 claiming the right to tell others what they can do with their own bodies, based on their genitals, which opens yours as a topic of discussion.

Right, just like someone who is claiming what transpeople can or cant do with their body by entering a bathroom. Therefore they have to announce their genitals like yo demand of me right? Yea you can get out of here with that sexist bs.

Giving birth to a child is the most selfish thing a person could do. Raising a child is the most selfless thing a person can do.

Parents are nice and all, but those who adopt are (often) saints :)

@admitsWrongIfProven

The entire end of your last message left on this note:

> So, we are somehow looking at one side (protect life), but completely ignore the consent side - did this life want to exist?

@admitsWrongIfProven

Are you suggesting we should be free to murder people wyho havent explicitly expressed a will to live? If someone is nonverbal for example we should be free to shoot them in the head at will?

I would think that we agree that if someone doesnt express they have a will to live that it should be the default assumption unless stated otherwise. Afterall it is the case for virtually everyone with only a few exceptions. Even those exceptions we try to treat first.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> What is your definition of a minimal system to experience suffering?

this is already back to where I started. We cant define exactly when suffering, consciousness, or thought begins. We dont have the ability to test for it.

The only thing we know is it requires a brain, and we therefore know it is garunteed not to be possible before 10weeks, and that sometime between 10 weeks and infinity those properties develop.

Therefore 10 weeks is the natural line... Now if you want to move it beyond 10 weeks it is on **you** to prove that suffering and consciousness is not possible before the new time period you propose.

And while you cant ask a child if it wants to be born,t hat doesnt matter. Our laws are such that murdering something is wrong whether it wants to be murdered or not. But obviously doubly so if you **assume** and the thing you kill gave no indication it wanted to die.

@kj6dbe

> When you decided to make woman's "genitals" your business, you've made 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨 a valid topic of discussion. Or, are you claiming some special right to privacy that you would deny others?

So if someone fights for the right for transgendered people to use the woman's bathrooms by your logic I have the right to demand what such a persons genitals is? It is therefore appropriate for me to demand transgendered in woman's bathrooms to tell me what their genitals look like"

Get out of here with that sexist bullshit.

> Since your chances of becoming pregnant would appear to be zero, absent the availability of a time machine, abortion laws have no direct impact on you. Only woman are, which is why I think 𝘺𝘰𝘶 shouldn't have a say in them.

Irrelevant, my chance of committing murder is 0 yet i still have a right to talk about what the laws should be around a murderer.

You are going to sprain something with those mental gymnastics...

@admitsWrongIfProven

> Well, i would argue that the host system takes priority until a system under construction is viable on its own.

Generally thats true, afterall its why its ok to remove a tumor (even if that tumor may have a brain which can happen).

the difference here is we have a host system who **forced** the subsystem into existance **and** waited long enough for the subsystem to develop that it potentially could suffer or expiernce its death. So the analogy breaks down quickly.

If I abduct a human, force them to be biologically dependant upon me against their will, then murder them I dont kind it an acceptable excuse that just because they were dependent on me (as a consequence of my actions) that I had a right to kill them.

@admitsWrongIfProven and I disagree.. anyone who is or has been a fetus should have a say on who is or was allowed to kill them.

@admitsWrongIfProven No worries.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> Really? Is this a defense mechanism or are you alledging that male presentation in past posts might have been a lie?

I have never once publicly talked about my genitals, I dont plan to start. Thats like asking someone who looks like a woman in a womans bathroom if she is a "Real woman" aka, what genitals she has. Its not appropriate to do so I do not appreciate when people assume ones outward appearance must match ones genitals, its counter productive to society.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> The murderer comparison does not fit. Victim would be the person that has the consequences.

Great, then that would be the fetus, and when someone is unable to express their will to live we assume they have one.

The risk to the murderer is not nonexistant.. they risk emotional damage fromt heir acts, harm from the victim fighting back, etc. So both have consequences. The reason we facor the victim isnt because they are the only one with consequences, it is because the murderer put them in the situation against their will, much like a moth puts their unborn child int hat situation against the childs will.

@trinsec Life viability doesnt seem relevant here for me.. two reasons 1) the mother by not getting an abortion in the first 10 weeks (remember pregnancy tests are free so no excuse in this scenario) they are choosing to make a life dependeant on them for 9 months. That choice makes them responsible to see it through in my eyes since you put the child in that risk to begin with.

@dashrandom So what exactly is that "social contract"... Do I have to sign the contract or is it automatic? Which contracts am I automatically enrolled in and what qualifies them as such?

@admitsWrongIfProven

> Well, good thought in general, but i'd disagree on the timeframe.

Most people do so thats understandable. Obviously I disagree.

> You see, you messed up one thing: you're a man, and this is a decision that the woman in question needs to make.

Dont assume what genitals I have.

More important it very much has effected me. I like all humans have been fetuses and at the mercy of the law regarding abortion. Therefore since everyone has been ont he receiving end we all have a right to say.

Thats a bit like saying "you cant judge what laws we should have for murder, your not a murderer so it wont effect you!"... No but i am a potential murder victim....

> Not loosing my shit, but omniously whispering "seeeeexismmmm" ;-)

Lawl

@admitsWrongIfProven

?Yea when i talk of it being respectful I am emplying your using language to try to show that respect ins ome way.

@manlycoffee

@TammyGentzel

Again, since the person has the right to still have an abortion it isnt a measure of who is more valuable. It is a measure that both have value (without measruing who has more) and ensuring both have their value honored by looking after the bodily autonomy of each of them.

I picked a scenario where both can survive, have their will respected, and the woman still has the right to not follow through with an unwanted pregnancy...

I am far more concerned that you are trying to find the value of two humans so you can determine which has the right to murder the other. I prefer a stance where no murder occurs and both have value.