Look at that, you took something nice and made it political. Now everyone wants to be your friend.
@Unicorn456, it's funny because that's the opposite of reality. *slaps knee in uproarious laughter*
@Devious Olive , I didn't know you were such a cowboy.
@The Flame War, what can I say, I just bebop my way through life (I haven't actually seen that anime I just wanted to make the joke)
@Unicorn456, dammit. I was laughing until I saw your comment. Now I'm sad. Jerk...
Fűck you Day Clancy. All he did was say he was glad that one of his ex-girlfriends was born and being mildly Christian. God forbid that. More importantly, you lack any ingenuity and have to rip off other people's creations for your political gain.
Rant aside, he is being hounded for being Pro-Life and Christian on Twitter. Sad that someone who brought joy is being attacked for not liking abortion
@ptitty1231, and for something he didn't publically say nor advocate through his content.
You’re the worst kind of person, Day.
It's more like "Oh no I didn't take the necessary precautions to prevent this from happening since I don't like to look at consequences. Now I need to take responsibility for my actions or kill a baby."
@Tentastic, condoms break. Birth control fails. Precautions sometimes fall through. In reality it’s more like “well I can now go through 9 months of discomfort, hormone fluctuations, nausea, and permanent changes to my body, followed by hours of agony so that I can have a child I don’t want nor can provide for, or I can go stop this growing ball of cells that would have one day become a child”
@Fuggles, So are you saying that you are for preventing abortions that weren't accidents? If no then that's a disingenuous argument
@Fuggles, these things failing is also a well known thing. Ought we pay back the gambler or the stock investor when they take a risk and lose? I say no.
@PoliticalOtters, I’m saying that his argument that every person who has ever gotten an abortion is because they decided “to hell with the consequences” is false.
Your second argument is just dumb, because reimbursing someone after they’ve lost in gambling requires that the person who earned the money to give it back. There is no equivalent to this in abortion. Nobody “loses” anything in an abortion, because like I said, you’re aborting a small worthless clump of cells that could have one day been something.
@Fuggles, so then you agree that people who decided to hell with the consequences should incur the effects of their choices?
@PoliticalOtters, no, and I never said anything to that effect. If you’re going to try to twist my words at least do a good job of it. Again, I said that it’s unfair and incorrect to assume that every person who’s ever gotten an abortion did so because they didn’t consider the consequences, that is in no the same as saying that people who disregard wearing a condom should be forced to carry to term an unwanted child for no reason other than “to teach them a lesson”
@PoliticalOtters, just as a point of curiosity, what are your opinions on morning after pills? Should they be made illegal?
@Fuggles, fun fact: babies are made through sex. No sex=100% no chance of baby.
These facts brought to you by Fact of the Day
@Richard Cypher, fun fact: unwanted baby + abortion = no more unwanted baby.
These facts are brought to you by Fact of the Day.
@Fuggles, morning after pills are fine with me. I believe in life and rights beginning at brain activity which coincides with heartbeat. I have yet to find an argument that negative rights are imbued at brain activity.
@Fuggles, this philosophical debate is as old as heck. There are so many details and variables that make this almost impossible to discuss. In this case you played the devil's advocate, and I understood your counter evidence (and agree to some extent) but some people take this as a complete disregard. In general, those who are unwilling to view other perspectives are NOT to debate, otherwise it's an argument. There's no "winning" only an enlightening of new ways of thinking. I wish people would understand that sometimes.
@PoliticalOtters, I’m personally of the opinion that if the child is capable of surviving outside the mother, then it should be carried to term (unless doing so would prove dangerous for the mother, then it’s her call). And obviously the further into the pregnancy the woman is in, the less I would advise she get an abortion, but considering that (to me at least) what makes someone human is the mind, I don’t start treating it like a human until it’s brain is fully developed.
@Fuggles, So as technology advances would you further and further tighten the restrictions?
If we take a woman in the Congo who is 7mo pregnant and move her to America then would you say that she can't abort the baby? If so, then what has changed about the baby?
By your standard of fully developed then we should be ok with killing a child after birth. In fact, your brain keeps developing until you're 25.
@PoliticalOtters, you are making an essentialist error here in that you think there is some sort of “essential” point where a clump of cells becomes a full fledged human. There is no such point, and at the end of the day your cut off point for when you should be able to able to abort is going to be as arbitrary as mine is.
By fully developed, I was referring to the point where the child’s brain is developed enough for them to survive outside of the mother, and all of their mental structures are formed and functional. But these arguments are worthless because abortion isn’t an argument of logic, it is an argument of pure emotion and opinion on at what point we call a fetus/embryo a human.
@Fuggles, If there isn't a point in which a being becomes a person and has inherent rights then that means rights are imbued by someone or some group. If they are imbued by someone then that means they can be taken away.
Regardless of that, even if we take you supposition then you'd have to argue the benefit and consistent reasoning of giving rights at the point you purpose.
Well children can't survive on their own until probably at best 5 (meaning if they were in the wild) and even then they'd have a high mortality rate. By your argument would you be fine with people killing their two year olds?
This is an argument of logic and reason. Preventing abortion before heart beat may be emotional or belief based, but I have yet to hear an argument of a universal rule that justifies abortion after heartbeat or prevention before.
@PoliticalOtters, your argument that the presence of a heartbeat means that abortion shouldn’t be allowed is arbitrary. Which makes it emotional and not requiring of a logical counter.
I feel you need to either read my comments better or think about them a bit more, because I said that the child must be capable of surviving outside of the mother. I did not say that the child must be capable of foraging for itself and successfully making its way through the world alone, I said that the child’s body must be capable of sustaining life (and I will note because I know you will nitpick, I feel it must be capable of doing so with minimal medical support) outside of the mother before I would consider it a full fledged human.
@Fuggles, why is it arbitrary. I think I have some pretty good and consistent reasons for it being brain activity.
A person who can't eat for very long won't be able to survive on its own.
why does medical support matter? If your dad fell into a coma would you be allowed to kill him? what if it was medically induced and he'd be out of it in a week? could I come and stab him while he's under?
@PoliticalOtters, brain activity is a terrible marker. A couple of neurons firing in an underdeveloped hump of cells that will one day develop into mental structures is as arbitrary as saying “a fetus becomes a human when it develops kneecaps”
As for your second point, I have no idea what you’re going for there, but it looks irrelevant to my previous comment.
And I brought up medical support because so many of your counters are weak and nit picky. Had I not brought it up you would have said something along the lines of “well what about when medical science advances to the point where doctors can remove the embryo/fetus at any point and keep it alive?” I was aiming to save us time by cutting that worthless question off, but my efforts were fruitless because you just asked a different irrelevant question instead.
@Fuggles, I think brain activity is a great marker. It covers the three seemingly universal arguments for rights: "Is it alive?", "is it a human?" "Is it a person?".
The point being is a living human is not developed enough to survive on its own. Meaning it needs aid from another being. Just like a child in womb. My point of the medical question hints at this too. You could argue it doesn't have to be the mother who cares for the two year old just someone. That's true. If that is true then the question of a fetus being able to be taken care of outside the womb becomes critical. Because if it can then my your own terms its a person with the right not to be killed.
I bring up life support because if you believe a person must be capable of living with minimal life support then by your own reasoning it should be alright to kill people in comas even if they'll be perfectly normal humans in say 9 months.
@PoliticalOtters, salamanders have brain activity, that doesn’t make them human. It isn’t brain activity that makes a human human, it’s that our brain activity is so complex as to allow us to experience something as amazing as consciousness.
My point is that it’s body is capable of sustaining life outside of the mother without immediately dying. Are its lungs capable of breathing? Is its brain developed enough for its organs to function correctly? Things like that. I’m not implying that the baby needs to then be completely self sustaining, I’m saying that, if given the basic requirements for survival and occasionally some minimal medical aid, that it’s body is capable of sustaining itself. Because why abort it at that point?
@PoliticalOtters, When I said that it must be minimal medical support, I was merely cutting off the argument that with medical science growing as it is, we will soon (or already, I dunno) be able to remove the fetus or embryo at any point of development, ship it off to a lab, and have it survive and grow there. In my scenario here, “minimal medical support” just means that it is medical science that is considered normal right now, which keeping a coma patient alive falls under. Keeping a treatable coma patient alive is pretty standard, growing a human being in a lab isn’t.
@Fuggles, Right. That's why I stated the three questions that one must fulfill in order to have rights like the right to not be killed.
How do you know it doesn't have conciousness after brain activity. It certainly seems to react to stimulus like a conscious person would.
All the requirements you stated for survival are also things a person in a coma cannot do without medical aid. Its brain is not functioning enough to function many of its vital organs. So if their brain can't manage vital organs then by your rules we could stab them to death.
@PoliticalOtters, which means that until the fetuses brain is developed enough to perform something as complex as consciousness, it isn’t a fully fledged human, and consciousness is located in the prefrontal cortex which is one of the later brain portions to develop. So I can say with confidence they aren’t experiencing consciousness yet.
The distinction between a coma patient and a clump of cells is that the world loses out if a coma patient dies. We work hard to keep them alive because they have families and friends who love them and would miss them. They have a job, they volunteer, they contribute to their society, etc. Losing them is a net loss for all of us. Destroying a clump of cells is no different from never getting pregnant is the first place.
@Fuggles, you throw out conciousness like its a settled definition. It is not and the location of conciousness is yet to be determine and is most likely distributed throughout the brain.
So if the distinction between a human and a fetus is their benefit to others than would you be alright with killing someone who is a net loss to society or who has no one who cares for them? That seems like a precarious world to live in.
@PoliticalOtters, you mean like pulling the plug on a person who is in a coma and has no potential to come out of it? Sure.
I will concede that consciousness is by no means a settled matter, but the prefrontal cortex is easily the most believed location for where it is based, and even if it is evenly distributed throughout the brain that would imply that each separate brain structure would have to be quite developed for consciousness to arise, which means my point still stands.
@Fuggles, what about a handicapped person with no family or loved ones? Should we just kill them off? Or how about a person that's just a burden to society that no one loves. Maybe he's just living off welfare and hanging around drinking all day. Should he die?
Here's the kicker about the brain though. As a young child you can have half your brain removed and still function fine and be conscious. So it seems you just have to have some parts of brain (what parts we don't know) in order to be concious. Also the cerebrum (which you said was the most important) develops at 8-10 weeks. If the developed brain and cerebrum are what matters (according to you) wouldn't it not be appropriate to at least prevent abortions after week 8?
@PoliticalOtters, your example is flawed because unlike in pregnancy, an asshole handicapped person isn’t leeching off of me and disrupting my entire life. I think a better example would be if I have an asshole uncle who’s terminally ill, and needs extremely expensive treatments to survive. Would I be willing to bankrupt myself and ruin my life to save a man who’s done nothing for me and will be missed by nobody? No I wouldn’t.
As well, just because something is “developed” doesn’t mean it’s functional. Fetuses develop lungs but aren’t actually able to breathe with them until later in development. A lot of structures in fetuses “develop” early on in that they are somewhat formed, but they haven’t developed in their capabilities yet.
@Fuggles, you're completely right about the accidents, rape, etc.
However, if we stopped funding planned parenting and other free birth control orgs, and put all the money toward raising kids from these accidents (rape, failed birth control), we'd have more than 100000 dollars per child to raise them with.
This does not include people who decided to go ahead and have unsafe sex.
@Tentastic, it’s important to not conflate planned parenthood with just abortion. Planned parenthood is for all aspects of pregnancy including support services for, but not limited to, mothers who ended up losing the child in childbirth, mothers who are giving birth without the presence of a father, mothers who are dealing with post partum depression, and parents who need support in raising a child they child didn’t expect. Regardless of your stance on abortion, planned parenthood is still beneficial to parents who are in over their heads and need help in providing the best life for their child that they can.
As well, getting rid of birth control orgs will easily result in more unexpected/unwanted kids being born which will lower the $100,000 estimate because that money will have to be distributed between more children.
Her later comment about her intentions not being trying to cancel him seem disingenuous, like obviously you're trying to steer people away from him, smh
Beyond religion, is potential life sacred? Do we as a society have the right to say so? What is the difference between something that will become and something that is? And probably the most important question of all, where’s that other blunt I rolled?
@Jim Carrey Acolyte, ur holding it bro
@speedway guy, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiit u right
@Jim Carrey Acolyte, do you value youre life? Do you value the life of your mother? Your father? If you do i think we have an answer.
Politics and what not aside, these aliens have genders? I thought it was the same two (guys) in every comic. But by saying guys that means there is a gender. So what do the girls look like? Do the girls look like guys? Do they themselves sometimes get mixed up?
@crazysheep, I'm sorry I don't believe in gender.
Ah yes. The typical libtard asshole who just can’t leave people be.
Honestly I think it's possible to separate aspect of your life, such as work and politics, especially if your work is social commentary. He's pro life, I'm pro choice, I love his fudging comics and I hope he makes them forever.
Was the original comic pro life?
@SimonPetrikov, no, he doesnt put his political/religious beliefs in his comics. He just tweeted that he was glad that one of his ex-girlfriends was born (dunno if she was considered being aborted). This is just an embittered political narcissist using this "controversy" to promote herself because she cant create and has to trace his comics to make something half passable