A Rebellious People

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've stated it multiple times, because they are a sentient being capable of feeling fear and love, and sentient beings are given the right to life, the mother had she not wanted children could have easily chosen not to welcome that seed into her womb, in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb.

Anyways I posit to you that Energy is the Essence of Sentience. That Energy is actually ALIVE, I have a pamphlet for this entire thing but its going to be published in the book I'm writing which I am calling ******. Of course if Energy is actually itself Sentience then the entire cosmos which is made of Energy would be essentially a Sentient Entity that we might call... God.

Here we have you, in another thread, claiming that all energy is sentient.  So chicken and cows have sentience, but then, so do all plants, as they all have energy.  So, according to you, it is immoral to eat both plants and animals because doing so is depriving them of the right to life.  I'm just curious.  What do you eat?

(Bold mine)

His own words, apparently.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

A mother and a father have an obligation to care for their children, a mother especially has the obligation to care for the life inside of her, through the act of procreation she already gave her consent for life to dwell within her she knew the consequences that would arise from a union with a man she was not married to, and no surprise men who aren't married to you often don't want to take responsibility for the child they helped produce therefore it is the Male Patriarchal Society that tries to convince women who are the only ones who can create life, that this gift that has been given to her, the gift of life, should be instead ripped from her stomach using crude surgical tools that tears the infant apart in the womb leaving a bloody mess and scenes that would make horror movies cringe. But that's humane... and loving... isn't it? right? To rip asunder that child limb from limb while it kicks in its mother's womb.

Hard to believe there are only two sentences in that paragraph. So now the fetus is not only a baby, but a child too? Can you tell the difference betweek an egg and a chick, I wonder? And the majority of abortions are medication induced.

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/...-abortions

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it the misogynist who advocates for women to act like trollops so that they may please him sexually? or to hold fast to the virtue of chasteness?
Is it the misogynist who advocates for a mother to take the life of their own child so that he doesn't have to accept the consequences of his actions? Or does the misogynist instead tell her that they'll work through this together and that he'll take responsibility for the child?



You're still losing even on the misogynist argument, jeez, you can't win at any argument that involves critical thinking can you? Its almost as if... you weren't a critical thinker...

Pretty safe bet the incel talking about trollops is the misogynist in any situation.

[Deesse23]

...a mother especially has the obligation to care for the life inside of her...
....ripped from her stomach using crude surgical tools that tears the infant apart in the womb leaving a bloody mess and scenes that would make horror movies cringe.
....somebody is living inside of her...

Killing, even murdering* another human through abortion. What do you think should be the proper punishment for this (granted, abortion will be outlawed according to your wishes)?


*abortion is premeditated, its taking the life of a human being, according to YOUR words. Thus its 1st degree murder, murder in a particularly cruel way.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The moment you have to fall back on the 'prove to me it does' and saying that nothing I have 'appealed' to would give them the Right 

I have not fallen back to anything you have failed to establish this right you keep insisting it has.

I have appealed using reason and logic and all my points still stand, you rejected all of them saying flagrantly 'they have no right! they have no right!' 

You have appealed to empty assertions and you point collapses to dust in front of you. I  have simply rejected a non answer as any reasonable person would and reestablished the fact no has the right to force her to remain pregnant. You have failed in this task spectacularly 

yet when I asked you to prove that they have no right after illustriously proving to you that they do have a right you fall back on the 'prove to me it does' after I already have done so.

You never once proved anything that establishes that a women should have to remain pregnant against her will or that she should be forced to have another entity inside her.

Saying 'they have no right' doesn't mean they do not have that right even if you believe in your carnal heart that would rather end the life of a sentient being because you've convinced yourself to value a life free of consequences rather than take responsibility for your actions we give rights to Sentient Beings because our society demands equality, you think that one's age determines whether one receives such rights or not, that the unborn ought to be sacrificed over the altar of the gratification of the carnal desires of men and women, why stop at ones age when determining what rights they should receive, why don't you take it a step further and say that the rights one will receive is dependent on their race. In Nazi Germany you would be yelling at the Jews going to the concentration camps, "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT!"

Again at no point did you establish it has any such rights and you have not established anyone has the right to force a women to remain pregnant or to have to keep another entity inside themselves. And invoking the Nazi's and the holocaust is just an act of desperation.

But you would never do such a thing! Really? Your prejudice against the unborn children for their age speaks differently, and you support the murder of millions of innocent sentient beings capable of emotions capable of feeling both fear and love because you believe 'they have no right' despite the fact as we have proven that they are their own individual being.

Nope again you have failed to establish why a women should be forced to remain pregnant or forced to have another entity inside themselves 

You lost because you were not fighting for the cause of God, I won this argument because you have proven yourself incapable of saying anything to support your claim 'they have no right' only stating how you believe a promiscuous woman ought to also, in lieu of her poor decisions, be able to take the life of an innocent sentient being who is her very own child, a mother should never take the life of her own child, such things are sacrilege.

Nope i won because you totally failed at making a point here or at any other time thus far.


So congrats at losing yet again . We know what it's time for 



Me draped in victory and glory after repulsing your pathetic attempt above 



You draped in defeat and humiliation as you can't establish your point accept by empty appeals and assertions 

[brewer]

In nature animals mainly only have sex to procreate (sure you get the odd walrus trying to have sex with a penguin but we're not talking about extraordinary cases here), the act of coitus is itself the act of procreation, ergo having sex is indeed a willing invitation to get pregnant because it is the act of procreation for which all intents and purposes animals solely engage in to produce offspring. As far as loaded language goes really you're going to nark on me for my polite word choices in the face of such hostility from the community here who took the opportunity not to have a fruitful conversation but instead rail against me personally, of course I take it with stride, there's nothing I love more than ruffling the feathers of atheists.

A mother and a father have an obligation to care for their children, a mother especially has the obligation to care for the life inside of her, through the act of procreation she already gave her consent for life to dwell within her she knew the consequences that would arise from a union with a man she was not married to, and no surprise men who aren't married to you often don't want to take responsibility for the child they helped produce therefore it is the Male Patriarchal Society that tries to convince women who are the only ones who can create life, that this gift that has been given to her, the gift of life, should be instead ripped from her stomach using crude surgical tools that tears the infant apart in the womb leaving a bloody mess and scenes that would make horror movies cringe. But that's humane... and loving... isn't it? right? To rip asunder that child limb from limb while it kicks in its mother's womb.

A mother has an obligation to care for her children, its not that 'another person has no right to live inside another person without their consent' its a mother has an obligation to her children. These are the values we set for ourselves as a society, we expect women to mature into loving mothers. Tell me how a woman is going to feel attached to her children after having three of them aborted because she didn't want them? Seems to me that she would have less attachment to her children than the mother that did not have an abortion done to her. By advocating for abortion you are advocating for the mother to take the life of her own children, how does that build a warm fuzzy feeling for her children after seeing the remains of her dead son or daughter in a glass tube dismembered and disemboweled? The Parent has a DUTY to their children, and that duty begins the moment they were conceived, for our society was structured in such a way that if done properly children are only conceived in the marital bed of a husband and wife. Just because someone wanted to 'express' themselves for a moment of passion, does not mean they get to rid themselves of the consequences of an act that should remain between a husband and a wife. They practiced their 'bodily autonomy' and that's fine, but as you have said, somebody is living inside of her, which means that body belongs to someone that is not the mother, and so draws to the sad conclusion for you that her 'autonomy' does not extend to the life of her unborn child, who as we have shown multiple times has its own cognizance and is capable of feeling fear and love.

Would you disagree and say that a mother and father do not have an obligation to their children?

[The Architect Of Fate]

In nature animals mainly only have sex to procreate (sure you get the odd walrus trying to have sex with a penguin but we're not talking about extraordinary cases here), the act of coitus is itself the act of procreation, ergo having sex is indeed a willing invitation to get pregnant because it is the act of procreation for which all intents and purposes animals solely engage in to produce offspring. As far as loaded language goes really you're going to nark on me for my polite word choices in the face of such hostility from the community here who took the opportunity not to have a fruitful conversation but instead rail against me personally, of course I take it with stride, there's nothing I love more than ruffling the feathers of atheists.

No act of sex is not an "invitation" to pregnancy or anything else and even if it was there is no reason that  "invitation"can't be revoked .Sex is for any purpose the two humans say it's for. If the two humans in question are doing it purely for pleasure as they have every right too. Then it's purpose is not procreation it's recreation and pregnancy was an unintended result but there is no reason that result must stand.

A mother and a father have an obligation to care for their children, a mother especially has the obligation to care for the life inside of her, through the act of procreation she already gave her consent for life to dwell within her she knew the consequences that would arise from a union with a man she was not married to, and no surprise men who aren't married to you often don't want to take responsibility for the child they helped produce therefore it is the Male Patriarchal Society that tries to convince women who are the only ones who can create life, that this gift that has been given to her, the gift of life, should be instead ripped from her stomach using crude surgical tools that tears the infant apart in the womb leaving a bloody mess and scenes that would make horror movies cringe. But that's humane... and loving... isn't it? right? To rip asunder that child limb from limb while it kicks in its mother's womb.

No women has an obligation to the fetus and getting an abortion is taking responsibility as it resolves the pregnancy. You have yet to establish a counter to this you are simply preaching. 

A mother has an obligation to care for her children, its not that 'another person has no right to live inside another person without their consent' its a mother has an obligation to her children. These are the values we set for ourselves as a society, we expect women to mature into loving mothers. Tell me how a woman is going to feel attached to her children after having three of them aborted because she didn't want them? Seems to me that she would have less attachment to her children than the mother that did not have an abortion done to her. By advocating for abortion you are advocating for the mother to take the life of her own children, how does that build a warm fuzzy feeling for her children after seeing the remains of her dead son or daughter in a glass tube dismembered and disemboweled? The Parent has a DUTY to their children, and that duty begins the moment they were conceived, for our society was structured in such a way that if done properly children are only conceived in the marital bed of a husband and wife. Just because someone wanted to 'express' themselves for a moment of passion, does not mean they get to rid themselves of the consequences of an act that should remain between a husband and a wife. They practiced their 'bodily autonomy' and that's fine, but as you have said, somebody is living inside of her, which means that body belongs to someone that is not the mother, and so draws to the sad conclusion for you that her 'autonomy' does not extend to the life of her unborn child, who as we have shown multiple times has its own cognizance and is capable of feeling fear and love.

A women has no obligation to the fetus and there is no reason they should not be allowed to remove it without limit. It's free to it's autonomy outside of her but not inside her.If it's removal results in death that's unfortunate but it's death is justified to retain here bodily integrity.

Would you disagree and say that a mother and father do not have an obligation to their children?

They have no obligation to the fetus and every right to remove it from her body if they wish you have not countered this.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Disdain for women? 

Yup because in your arrogance you want to control their bodies.

I'm not the one advocating that a mother should rip the life of her child from her womb in one of the most grotesque ways possible known to man.

No your the one who simply wants to reduce women to an incubator. I'm the one saying they have the right to themselves and the right to act as they wish on that point in regards to procreation and sex. 

Also your only response was to call me a misogynist

See above 

As for what gives them the right? I've stated it multiple times, because they are a sentient being capable of feeling fear and love, and sentient beings are given the right to life,

 Nothing you just listed gives them that right .

the mother had she not wanted children could have easily chosen not to welcome that seed into her womb, 

She didn't welcome it and even if she did there is no reason she can't withdraw that welcome. 

in the act of her copulation she consented for that life to grow in her because she did invite that seed into her womb. 

She didn't welcome it and even if she did there is no reason she can't withdraw that welcome. 

Again you reprobate you should not advocate for the shedding of innocent blood over a childish desire to be free from responsibility, 

There is no reason she should have to remain pregnant and resolving the pregnancy through abortion is not childish in the slightest

you should mature and grow up and accept responsibility for your actions, as should all women who find themselves mothers to be.

Getting an abortion is growing up making a decision wither you want to be a parent or not is grew up.

 Saying that innocent children should be murdered by the hand of their own mother just because society said its acceptable does not make it right,

Saying there is no reason that a women should remain pregnant against her will is both acceptable and right period and you have yet to counter this

 rather it shows the degradation of our society and the lack of respect that is given to human life.

Nope it shows we value the individuals self and choice.

 How can you call yourself a humanitarian when you advocate to shed innocent blood?

Because women are humans and should be free to choose to remain pregnant or not. 

 When you advocate that a mother should murder their own children.

Nope advocating for a women to have a choice if she remains pregnant or not

 Who really is the misogynist here?

You because you want to force women to do things against their will.

 Because if you really cared about women you would hold them to a higher standard than the one you currently do.

I hold them to the standard of being able to make decisions about there sex lives and their bodies and being able to have choices about those choices. 

 It is the standards we set for ourselves that determines how we live our lives.

Yup and your standard is despotic and regressive mine is not.

You clearly have very low standards if you advocate for a mother to take the life of her own child.

Nope i have high standards as i believe women are perfectly capable of making correct choices about their bodies and their sex lives .You by contrast demigrate their choice when they don't conform to your ideology.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Is it the misogynist who advocates for women to act like trollops so that they may please him sexually? or to hold fast to the virtue of chasteness?

Your assumption is that this is about pleasing men rather then mutual satisfaction and women being allowed to have a independent sex life.If you think that's misogynist you are dense.

Is it the misogynist who advocates for a mother to take the life of their own child so that he doesn't have to accept the consequences of his actions? Or does the misogynist instead tell her that they'll work through this together and that he'll take responsibility for the child?

Nope men get to choose if they want to be fathers too that's simply equality of sexes and again it's  misogynist to try and limit women's options to deal with pregnancy and artificially push a narrative that the only form of responsibility is pregnancy. Abortion is taking responsibility full stop. 

You're still losing even on the misogynist argument, jeez, you can't win at any argument that involves critical thinking can you? Its almost as if... you weren't a critical thinker..

Nope you have lost here body as you always lose. He has more thoughts in his head then ten of you 

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ooooh now we're going to go to calling me an incel now that the misogynist route didn't pan out for you?

Well you essentially speak like an incel and it went perfectly for him unlike you who as usual blathered on and said nothing 

How do you think calling me an incel is going to win this pro-life debate?

Because we already won this is just examining your seeming disdain for women having a sex life. 

Oh no I'm sorry that's just your immaturity showing, you never grew up thinking about accepting responsibility did you? 

Nope his perfectly mature meanwhile you seem to have a childishly simplistic comprehensions the world 

No you wanted to stay in your consequence free childhood and that followed you into adulthood, you abandoned God to be free of any consequence of Sin (afterall if there is no God there can't be such a thing as sin meaning you could do whatever you want) and following that you chose 'sexual liberation' following after the carnal desire of the flesh, which the New Testament warns against if you ever bothered reading it, you are cloaked with spiritual leprosy and you would advocate the deepest of abominations that a mother should take the life of her own child.

You realise Grand is a parent right? Advocating that parenthood be a free choice rather then external imposition is again very mature and adult. As for your preaching it really has nothing to do with anything.