*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, December 18th, 2011 10:54am PST - promote requested by longde.

http://videosift.com/video/No-More-Taco-Bell-Until-Abortion-Ends-the-sacrifice

If you don't know what she is talking about.

The link to Pepsi is in the comment stream.

Half of all pregnancies abort naturally (miscarriage, ectopic, etc.) so it would seem god is the most prolific abortionist of all time.

>> ^shuac:

Half of all pregnancies abort naturally (miscarriage, ectopic, etc.) so it would seem god is the most prolific abortionist of all time.


YES! I always say this too! It is hilarious! HAHA god loves abortion!

I gave up Taco Bell long ago in protest of terrible food.

Completely unrelated: DANG THIS GIRL NEED SOME FOOD LOOK @ THEM ARMS SON! GIVE HER SOME PEPSI

As a man, I vow to never personally get myself an abortion.
I also elect to never eat steel nails.

Go *femme go!

Adding video to channels (Femme) - requested by hpqp.

I am for the pro abortion argument, so here is my sacrifice: I will no longer video tape myself masturbating in front of a mirror while eating taco bell and pepsi, so I can watch it later while masturbating.

I'm not sure if this helps, but there it is.

I hadn't heard of this movement before. Really tragic, what (my fellow) middle class, sheltered youth think is a sacrifice.

The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.

People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.

What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

>> ^bcglorf:

The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.


I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.

And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?

How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.

There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.

The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.


I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.

You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.

Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.


No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.

I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.

Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.

If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?

So abortion is actively improving the health of the US population, for the women that require abortions for their safety as well as for the people that are anti-choice.

With this evidence, ff the surgeon general doesn't support abortions, she should be fired.

Note: I don't really know if the surgeon general has any sway in this matter.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^bcglorf:
The tragedy is neither side wants to discuss the underlying problem of reaching an agreement on when life begins, and thus is granted full human rights.
People have trouble accepting conception as that point.
People have trouble accepting birth as that point.
What's worse, is people refuse to discuss that point as it makes them uncomfortable.

I think one side rejects discussion more than the other - no prizes for guessing which one. And if it's true that abortion IS murder, we're gonna have to build a few hundred jails for all the millions of women that are gonna be imprisoned for murder.
And the doctors, and anyone else involved. Maybe fathers too?
How about rape pregnancies? Should we force the mother to look after it? Maybe dump it in an orphanage? If god forbid someone got pregnant in this way, and the woman got rid of it, the woman could end up with a smaller sentence than the scumbag who raped her.
There are a fucking billion nuances that need sorting out, but they just want to shout each other down, or stand outside abortion clinics yelling at innocent people in the street.
The pro life community in general has its head up its own arse - it is currently legal; to change the law you must put forward a convincing, logical argument. By taking the approach they're taking, they're never gonna get anywhere. Not that i want them to.

I said nothing about sides, but I dare say neither side has much claim to focusing on presenting a convincing, logical argument. People are either murderers or haters of women and lovers of rapists. Both sides are equally negligent and stubborn in their refusal to recognize or even acknowledge the real underlying question.
You should note you even just did it yourself leaping right over any discussion of when life begins and went straight after people's heart strings over jailing millions of women and even jailing of rape victims.
Stop and have the logical discussion of when a fetus is a human and should be granted full human rights.

No, i didn't skip over anything - you can hardly expect me to discuss all aspects of abortion in a few paragraphs. I stated some of the issues that would need to be handled if the law is changed, i stated my opinion, and criticised the approach of pro-lifers. I think that is a logical thing to do - the law is the law and if they want to change it, it is they who need the convincing argument. That isn't because i'm pro-choice, that's just a fact of life.
I didn't intend tug on any heart strings, hence why i framed my argument without emotive language; it appears matter of fact to me, if you can suggest some appropriate adjustments then i may make them. But why would you rather skip over the discussion of such things? Perhaps that shows your own desire to skip over some issues.
Don't forget that if i am pro-choice, then i will frame an argument for pro-choice. It is not my responsibility to do otherwise.
If i wanted to change marijuana laws (and i do), then i need to provide a convincing argument first (which i can). Then i have to make sure others are listening and focus my energies on those who are not. This seems logical and sensible to me. Do you disagree? If so, how else do you suggest we go about changing established norms? Problems must be identified before they are adressed, no?


My problem is you still have the same frightened attitude as any of the other combatants on either side. The 'heroic' girl in this video is the same as well.

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?

All of your pro-life arguments apply to the exact moment before the child leaves the womb. Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice.

The question of when life begins is paramount, and both sides are uncomfortable with it. You haven't shown my you are in any way unique, you've failed in both posts to even touch the notion of when a human life should be granted full rights. One might assume the being pro-life, you feel life begins at birth, but that of course introduces the ugliness mentioned above.

@bcglorf

And i think YOU are guilty of not considering the potentially devastating effects on certain people's lives if we change the law and if you want the law changed then i think you should start there. I don't like putting it like that, "i think you are" - it's confrontational and doesn't lend itself to a decent discussion, but hopefully you'll acknowledge what i'm saying this time if i use your own words.

When did i give you the impression that i am frightened? You've failed to address any of the questions i've asked you, nor do you discuss why my hopefully logical approach to instigating changes to the law is not adequate to you such that you have to label me as frightened. Are you frightened of actually reading my posts?

Understand this - i won't discuss when a life is a life until you answer why i must discuss that first (and only, it seems); if you want to start there then that is fine, but you need to justify it to me if you want me to do it as well. I start where i start because it makes most sense to me. The onus is on you to convince me otherwise.

I didn't suggest any "pro-life arguments", so i have to ask if you're reading my posts. It sounds to me like you are cherry picking the matter in order to push a point, regardless of whether i fit the required mould or not. I'm trying to discuss things with you but you're just accusing me of being frightened or being as foolish as everyone else because i don't first and only consider "when a life is a life". Why would you do that when you're trying to change someone's opinion? I've already said that this very method is gonna get pro-lifers nowhere but perhaps you didn't read that either.

Why is your starting point any better than mine? I can't phrase it any other way. Check my previous posts again (or for the first time?) to see the logic behind my approach. I am a sponge when it comes to new and useful information that can improve my understanding; ask yourself if you have anything you'd like for me to absorb before you accuse me of being frightened or foolish again please

Edit: It's very interesting to me that you accuse me of tugging heart strings (which you still haven't backed up) when you use very emotive language to say:

"Should anybody having a c-section get to choose if the doctor hands them the baby or slits it's throat and tosses it aside? After all, it hadn't been born yet so it's a matter of choice."

This coupled with your desire to ignore my attempts at discussion really lead me to believe you're just pushing a pro-life agenda here and not being impartial as you seemingly claim to be. I hope this discussion becomes worth having.

i won't discuss when a life is a life until you answer why i must discuss that first.

Fair enough, I suppose I thought it was self evident. When life begins is the underlying basic assumption upon which all your other arguments are based, as are the other arguments on the pro-life side. The pro-life and pro-choice camps are disagreed on the very original and basic assumption of when life begins. There should be no wonder at all that neither side can make heads or tails of the other side's logic and reasoning, as it is fundamentally based on a different starting assumption.

When life begins is the underlying assumption of all the accusations of murder, insensitivity to women, cruelty to other human beings, and all the related consequences.

You want to talk about the consequences of changing laws and making a rape victim a criminal if they pursue an abortion? You are assuming the fetus that is being ended is not a separate human life. If a rape victim is too traumatized and takes 10 months to come forward our country already removes her right to end the child's life. The important distinction is when life begins, and both sides need to recognize that they can not, and will not EVER understand one another unless they recognize and approach the true underlying difference of opinion they really have.


I didn't suggest any "pro-life arguments"
My apologies I meant to say 'pro-choice' and obviously confused things greatly . I was assuming you were pro-choice and thus tried to illustrate the importance of when life begins with a pro-choice example.

Pretty sure life begins millions of times in my testicles. It ends by the millions at the end of a condom too. Oh ok, just gametes right? Only "half" murder. Well then life begins when sperm and egg cell meet, but as has already been mentioned here that little bundle of cells doesn't always find itself alive for very long. The body has a rather nasty habit of flushing a fertilized egg out, Women commit infanticide by design. Bitches.

But seriously, the question of when life starts seems fairly simple. The question of when that life becomes sacred, when it becomes capable of suffering, of thought and human intelligence...We can have a debate about how far into pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, argue 1 week in one way or the other and it would be a reasonble and I think worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately the anti-abortion camp isn't reasonable. They pitched their tent in the extremes. The implausbility and insanity of their position is clear. Their assertions are emotional rather than logical and they shoudln't be listened too.

>> ^Jinx:

Pretty sure life begins millions of times in my testicles. It ends by the millions at the end of a condom too. Oh ok, just gametes right? Only "half" murder. Well then life begins when sperm and egg cell meet, but as has already been mentioned here that little bundle of cells doesn't always find itself alive for very long. The body has a rather nasty habit of flushing a fertilized egg out, Women commit infanticide by design. Bitches.
But seriously, the question of when life starts seems fairly simple. The question of when that life becomes sacred, when it becomes capable of suffering, of thought and human intelligence...We can have a debate about how far into pregnancy an abortion should be allowed, argue 1 week in one way or the other and it would be a reasonble and I think worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately the anti-abortion camp isn't reasonable. They pitched their tent in the extremes. The implausbility and insanity of their position is clear. Their assertions are emotional rather than logical and they shoudln't be listened too.


Myself I consider life to begin at implantation of the fertilized egg. The frequency of spontaneous abortion from that point on is radically reduced. None of the every sperm is sacred madness. Most importantly, it is the last clearly definable point I can think of prior birth. An arbitrary, x days, weeks or months just feels exactly that, arbitrary. Barring human intervention an implanted fertilized egg will by born, grow old and die. Sure, it still has the chance of dying naturally before birth, but we don't accept the infant mortality rates when prosecuting child murderers so it hardly seems a valid argument to when a fetus is differentiated as a human.

I'm open to being dissuaded on when life begins, but the lamentations over the consequences of any given definition aren't what I consider valid arguments.

I don't know about anyone else, but when life begins doesn't even come into the equation for me.

I swatted a bug today. I have no doubt that it was alive. And I didn't have any problem with killing it.

I also had roast beef for supper last night. That cow was once alive. I have no problem with eating meat and the fact that is was alive doesn't bother me in the slightest.

When life begins means shit all. Life isn't sacred. If I consider anything sacred it might be called 'humanness'.

The issue is when the cluster of cells inside a woman achieves the level of development to be called a viable human being. If the cluster of cells wouldn't be able to live on its own, it's no more important than that millions of cells I will lose today through scratching, shitting, eating, etc.

IS THAT AN ERLENMEYER FLASK BONG IN THE BACK GROUND?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

@bcglorf

The question of abortion is not about when life begins, it's about weighing the costs and benefits of pursuing a pregnancy, taking into account both the woman and the embryo/foetus/future human being. In order to do this, of course, one must take into account the not only physical health factors, but also the effect each life will have on the other. A woman's life is forever changed by childbirth; often the responsibility for caring and raising said child falls entirely on her shoulders; she may not have the (economic/emotional) resources to care for it, causing there to be two victims. How much does a ball of cells, or an embryo, with no memories, no personality, no identity, ... how much does that weigh against the irretrievable changes its continued existence would make to the woman? Why are some forms of life valued over others? Why do we feel no remorse removing a tumor - a living organism - from a person/animal? It's a question of checks and balances.

And please don't talk about the "potential" human being that an embryo or foetus is. That argument applies for every permutation of fapped sperm and period-flushed eggs that are lost every day. The point @Jinx makes about the debate is completely valid: we can argue (with the help of scientific evidence) the details about the moment when an embryo/foetus becomes capable of suffering/cognition (my opinion is that it's at the moment when the brain is capable of treating and storing sensory input), but the "pro-life" crowd are not up for rational debate, nor are they particularly pro-life. Instead, they will disregard the (quality of the) life of the woman as well as those of the future child simply because of their superstitious beliefs. They are also usually the same ignorant people who will fight against sexual education and the use of contraception for the same reasons and, more generally, against the autonomy of women and their rights over their own bodies (since their belief systems usually stem from the patriarchal desert monotheisms).

The issue is when the cluster of cells inside a woman achieves the level of development to be called a viable human being. If the cluster of cells wouldn't be able to live on its own

And viability is under constant change thanks to medical advances. If we reach a point where science can viably support a fetus after only 2 weeks does that become a new starting point?

As for cells that can live on their own, do we then count that same exclusion on humans of all other ages after birth as well, by the same logic?

The question of abortion is not about when life begins, it's about weighing the costs and benefits of pursuing a pregnancy, taking into account both the woman and the embryo/foetus/future human being.

And how you weigh that will be radically changed based on if you define the fetus as an independent human being with it's own human rights, or if you simply class it part of the woman's reproductive system.

How you define the point when a fetus is classed a human being with human rights is a fundamental base assumption of all your points and concerns. Admitting that should NOT be damaging or a hindrance to the discussion, unless you are uninterested in really pursuing it.

Hey do you guys remember that show "Bananas in Pajamas"? That show was cool...

>> ^LooiXIV:

IS THAT AN ERLENMEYER FLASK BONG IN THE BACK GROUND?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

That's what I was trying to figure out... like this girl could be any cooler.

did anyone else think that that pepsi can looked FUCKING HUGE in her TINY-ASS hands?

Why is everyone so scared by consideration of the real question, when does life begin?


First off, I agree it's clear there's value to this question. I think a logical, utilitarian ethical calculus has to rely on some definition of a "live human" and a "future live human" (not "could be" but "will be"). I think, going by a materialist view, this definition of life has to itself be based on some definition of "being human" involving capacity for thought or reason. And I think it also can't rationally be binary (not live human/live human); there has to be weighting (almost dead guy, 12 week-old fetus, guy in coma, etc... should probably all be partially weighted).

But humans aren't rational utilitarians when it comes to ethics. We're superstitious. We're habituated to rely on deontology. We value aesthetics.

And that's why debates like this take place is terms of analogies and emotions. And that's why, I think, you aren't putting down your simple answer for "when does life begin" - because we understand that having a single answer gets a whole deontological train moving. If we take any single answer there as a premise, we're driven to accept other answers we don't like, so instead it's arguing in the margins and specific cases.

It's a deadlock inherent in our irrationally based ethical system. Sorry.

Myself I consider life to begin at implantation of the fertilized egg.


OK, sorry, you did give your position. But what rational reason do you have for your position? Why implantation instead of fertilization? I mean, if it's just floating around in there and would "without interference" find it's way to the uterine wall, why is it OK to stop it or kill it? Suppose I have a kind of contraceptive that blocks an implanted egg from growing... why is that different than a contraceptive that prevents an egg from fully implanting, or why is it different than one that prevents an egg from implanting at all, or kills it on it's way?

You're making a magic touchdown line, and you could have drawn it 100 other places with exactly the same amount of reason. Sure it's kind of easy to define, but that's like saying that people should go to jail for 10 years because that's a round number. Ease of definition is a sad way to make this kind of judgement.

I think if you want to be rational you have to say humanity is a sliding scale. But, again, the consequences of that are messy and not acceptable to most humans. So we muddle through, trying to come up with arbitrary rules we can live with.

Giggle!

>> ^hpqp:

...
That argument applies for every permutation of fapped sperm and period-flushed eggs that are lost every day.
...