Good Reason News

Awwww you don't like people being assholes to you? Have a taste of your own medicine you hypocrite.

Sat, 18 May 2013 11:27:58 -0400

Sounds like somebody’s got a poopy diaper. Do you have a poopy diaper? I think you do! I think you got a poopy diaper!

atheist-feminism: provoice: strong-as-light: Can you imagine how mad everyone would get if we did...

Fri, 17 May 2013 00:28:31 -0400

atheist-feminism:

provoice:

strong-as-light:

Can you imagine how mad everyone would get if we did to animals what we did to children in abortion?

1) There are no children involved in abortions. Children are born. The term you are looking for is fetus.

2) Animal abortions do happen, because sometimes things go wrong with pregnancies.

I’m not vegan or vegetarian, but I do want to point out that thousands of animals are regularly tested on, injured, deprived of proper habitats, and generally treated inhumanely in the name of ~beauty products~ so saying humanity doesn’t mistreat the bunnies whose eyelids get chopped off to test shampoo, and that a fetus has it worse off, really is cruel

Yeah, are we really going to pretend there’s any meaningful outrage over the treatment of animals? Veal? Foie Gras? I heard about a restaurant serving fucking lion meat. If the premise is that people should be as outraged about abortion as they are about what we do to animals, I think you’re trapped in your own little bubble. I’d rather have been aborted than lived the life of a duck whose never seen the outside of a cage barely bigger than it’s body who regularly got a metal pipe shoved down its throat and is force fed until it develops a lethal liver condition from being immobile and grossly overweight, just to have its head cut off, its inflammed liver removed and served undercooked to some asshole willing to pay nearly $100 a pound for what amounts to an appetizer all the while acting like the server who brought it to him has dance like a fucking clown just to earn a measly 15% tip.

Yes, it was the criticism of the other person's argument :P

Thu, 16 May 2013 23:46:55 -0400

OK. I can dig it. You’re quite brainy and, like many of my followers (but unlike all of my detractors) quick than I.

atheist-feminism: The appropriate response to someone asking you not to make a rape joke is not...

Thu, 16 May 2013 23:42:37 -0400

atheist-feminism:

The appropriate response to someone asking you not to make a rape joke is not “What, were you raped or something?”

Yeah, definitely fucking not. If someone says “What, were raped or something?” You’re going to have to ask them if their humanity is broken.

What I mean is that the degree of cognition of a newborn is akin to that of a parrot, or a dog. So any criterion of "personhood" that includes human adults but doesn't include parrots and dogs must automatically exclude unborn humans.

Thu, 16 May 2013 23:33:12 -0400

I agree with your conclusion, but I’m not totally on board with the reasoning, particularly the premise that ‘degree of cognition’ is a criteria to judge “personhood” by. Unless that’s your criticism of that other person’s comment. Then I get it, you’re revealing the flaw in their argument. I’m sorry, it’s not you, you’re writing it right, it’s me, I lost the thread.

Cool. How far do those rights extend then? In other words do rights start once you have taken your first breath or when part of the body is out? At what point if any is a fetus too far along to not be aborted. If that makes sense. Eh. Rape is a real factor in abortion. It should be addressed.

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:54:00 -0400

I understand your desire for things to be clean-cut, black-and-white and universal. This is how we’re all educated in our outdated Western education system. We want the rules to be consistent. 90-100% = A, 80-89%=B and so on. This is approach doesn’t work so well in society. There are mitigating contingencies. Some situations are different than others. Clearly, some late-term abortions are necessary (exemplified by Dr. George Tiller) whereas others are not, (as exemplified Kermit Gosnell).

Rape is not a factor in abortion, it’s a distraction. To bring it into the conversation makes it seem like individuals pregnant from a rape are more justified in getting an abortion than others. They are not. They are equally justified. Because the situation in which an individual becomes pregnant is not a factor in whether or not their right to an abortion is legal. You don’t gain a right by being raped. Everyone has the right to an abortion.

queriesofaqueer replied to your post: So when are you going to address those other asks? Or do...

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:23:19 -0400

queriesofaqueer replied to your post: So when are you going to address those other asks? Or do you not have a logical answer? You’re not done you’re “A+ arguing” yet.

not to make this about me or anything, but I dislike that someone with their head so obviously and viciously shoved up their own ass is quoting me

Hear that, pushy anon? Better watch who you’re quoting. qOq isn’t to be reckoned with.

Your analogy is similar to the cancer analogy. Sorry but those patients still have options for life in those situations and their right to life is still respected. An abortion only has one option and the one being aborted doesn't get to choose.

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:21:38 -0400

I agree that the “one” getting aborted doesn’t get to choose. Make me care.

I'm proj-choice. Abortion should be made available to woman as long as it's rare and safe. Normally I would agree with most of what you say but today you could have done a little better at defending our view. It came off as insult without substance. Just my opinion. But I agree. Abortion should be kept legal.

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:20:58 -0400

And what is “our” view? I don’t know your view. My view is abortion on demand without apology. I don’t care if it’s rare and safe or if it’s common and safe. I agree on the “safety” aspect because that implies a government regulation upon the provider and government should regulate industries. I disagree with the “rare” aspect because that implies a government regulation on the consumer and I can’t support that.

Also, I should point out that fetuses/embryos aren't people by any standard that includes all adult humans but doesn't include parrots, dolphins or bonobo monkeys.

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:10:20 -0400

I’m glad you pointed this out, but I’m not sure I understand it.

Regarding the "agree to disagree" person, according to Aumann's Agreement Theorem, no two rationalists possessing the same information can disagree on a factual matter. If two people disagree, at least one of them is necessarily wrong.

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:09:35 -0400

That’s how I’ve always felt about it, except instead of ending that definition “one of them is necessarily wrong,” I’ve been saying “therefore, I’m necessarily right.” ;)

So when are you going to address those other asks? Or do you not have a logical answer? You're not done you're "A+ arguing" yet.

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:00:42 -0400

Hey assbutt, I blog on my time, not yours. I’ll answer them when I fucking feel like it.

Here to tell you that you have done some A+ blogging and arguing today. Stay glorious, my friend.

Wed, 15 May 2013 17:08:07 -0400

Oh, my, flying spaghetti monster, but don’t you know you are the one who haz all the awesome?

You are my new favorite.

Wed, 15 May 2013 16:08:44 -0400

awwww, shucks,. Thank you.

Do you agree with batatonia that because a child is conceived through rape that makes them a punishment? When do rights begin? Only after birth? Legitimate question.

Wed, 15 May 2013 16:07:35 -0400

Rights for individuals begin after they become individuals, so yes, after birth. As far as I’m concerned, these side issues about punishment or a rape aren’t really a part of the conversation, they were just put there by people trying to manipulate the conversation and add complicating factors. The only issue is whether or not people have the right to their own autonomy. I think they do. Anyone who thinks there should be restrictions on access to abortion thinks people don’t deserve a right to be autonomous and are, therefore, supporting a degree of fascism.

"it is wrong to punish a child for an evil man's actions so let's punish the woman instead by putting her through 9 months of hell as something she doesn't want inside her grows and makes her sick and fatigued"

Wed, 15 May 2013 15:34:05 -0400

Plus however long it takes her (or him) to recover.

Once again, we can agree to disagree. And once again, if you want me to respond to your statement I will.

Wed, 15 May 2013 15:33:14 -0400

“Agree to disagree” is a thought-terminating cliche. You’re opting to discontinue this conversation. I can agree to that, but I’m not going to pretend we’re at some stalemate here.

Obviously we can only agree on one thing, and that is to disagree. I respect your opinions although I strongly disagree with them. If you would like me to respond directly to your last statement I will otherwise I'm going to drop the conversation because it's not going anywhere and we aren't going to agree on anything.

Wed, 15 May 2013 15:25:26 -0400

I don’t agree to disagree, I will accept your inability to meet my challenge as a forfeit and an admission that you refuse to consider the humanity of your stance.

oh, okay! well thanks for bringing it to my attention. i always appreciate fighting the good fight on my dashboard

Wed, 15 May 2013 15:23:20 -0400

who what what?

"I do not support rape" but "That being said it is wrong to punish the child for an evil mans actions." that awkward moment when you don't realise you're a rape apologist...

Wed, 15 May 2013 15:23:01 -0400

Right, it’s like saying “I’m against slaughtering innocent kittens, but some evil man’s actions shouldn’t keep me from enjoying this delicious kitten burger.”