BoM

Back when we had civilized degenerates...

Oh yeahh uhhh lockedd

My thoughts.

Thank you

Who said that though? The argument is that they are not unborn people. Was avoiding throwing this out but since you're virtue signalling here, it's just a clump of cells not a person. Also I know you wouldn't know, but creampies are great. Worth whatever sacrifice we gotta make.

Nah I'm gonna be pro choice and have kids. owned!

And on that note...

Yeah there were a ton of these thoughts running through my head after reading/responding. I think you'd end up in some very scary societal decisions on all those unborn babies and shit but idk that's probably not my bridge to cross.

who's arguing?

Honestly I'm not sure, just makes sense to me I guess. Like at some point its cells...and then sort of this amorphous blob, and then a sort of baby looking thing that can now survive. Somewhere in there it gains value for me. What defines why we value life? The look...the connection...the interactions...the potential. If it looks like a clump of cells, my only connection to it is some sperm, I have zero interactions with it, and all it has is a potential for life you tell me what else I should use to value life. You nailed it. The day we the science to take the fertilized cells out of the mom and go grow the baby in a tube and gain more life instead of throwing it away, we can talk about bumping abortion out all together and giving a better alternative (in most peoples' eyes I'd imagine). Give a way that the mom doesn't have to be told she is forced to carry it in her body or be an incubator if you will and I have zero issue completely removing abortions from society.

There is a point in which, if the growing fetus was not in the mother, it could live...i.e. pre-mature baby. It is a rough hard go of it, but it's been proven that it's possible. Anything before that is just a future potential for life, but does not actually hold value as a life for me.

No it isn't just semantics, it is based a lot more in science. I, based on scientific f a c t, understand that sustainable human life is not established at conception. When the growing fetus becomes something that can sustain life and therefore be valued as human life in my eyes, then I am no longer for abortions. And no, in weighing all human life properly I cannot set aside the mother's health at all. Your intrinsic value of life is simply far skewed from what I know to be true. This is so far from semantics or nonsensical arguments lmao.

It actually perfectly represents modern ethics, foundation and all. I am weighing all the pros and cons of restricting a woman's right(s) to her own body compared to that of potentially dead fetuses that are considered pre-life to me. It has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with exactly what you're saying, viewing the value of human life from all sides. I am valuing and understanding the impact of pregnancy on a woman and her *life*, while considering all social and realistic situations where a woman might end up pregnant regardless of preventative measures and then having a need to have an abortion. I am all for owning up to how I view things and explaining that directly to you, but do not go and say it is undermining modern ethics when in fact it is me applying a proper ethical understanding of the situation as a whole.

I simply see it differently, and don't care about the dead fetuses. (spoiler) So like regular contraceptives > abortion > avoiding sex all together > sterilizing yourself

Idk man you said it not me...at the end of the day you're still pushing abortion to the end of the line no? As in that should be the last resort and they should get their tubes tied prior to considering that (abortion) as an alternative to pregnancy.

You inferred it by your line of reasoning in response to others man. Don't bullshit me. 'women also have a way of preemptively preventing pregnancy through surgery that doesn't involve killing fetuses. ' ?????????? If this isn't you saying 'stop killing fetuses and get sterilized instead' then please lets clarify.

I agree its a rather loose comparison and I really don't even like going down that line of thinking, but at the same time I don't think vasectomies and tubal litigation should be directly compared. While it's not 100% viable vasectomies can be reversed and there are newer blockers being developed (to my understanding) that are even more viable in being temporary. On the other side of it you would be telling females they are no longer allowed to have 100% control over something in their body and instead have to sterilize themselves permanently. It's a stark argument no matter you spin it.

Nah ur gaslighting me now. No way you actually want women to permanently sterilize themselves...

DM me retard

I think the world is just more informed of the 'laxness' that has existed for many many centuries. Finally owning up to human instinct and desire rather than trying to hide and lie about it.

Y i k e s. People have been having 'casual sex' for as long as society has existed, to think otherwise is ignorant and just shows an innate lack of sex and sexuality as a whole. There is not a single point in history where people were only off having sex to have kids. Does the fun and thrill of it feed into our need to procreate? absolutely...but it is not solely why people do or should do it. You gotta be trolling me on this one. Uhhh yeah don't really care, think it's good as is which is that you are 'supposed to be over 18' and is regulated by the parents for the most part. Should not be anymore legally regulated than it already is, leave it to the parents / therapists / etc. I really have trouble believing that crippling porn addictions are out there ruining society, and fact is people that shy away from sexual exploration seem to be ruining society more than those that are out there figuring out what they want from a girlfriend/boyfriend/partner etc. Overall seems like you have a very narrow view on sexual activity as a whole, but not enough for me to really go down that rabbit hole because fuck that. Just not the place for it.

I got you covered, was already written. Alright so what you have to understand about law is that it represents a collective group of people and what they feel is their 'right and wrong', both based on a moral compass and also the potential impacts on society which can but do not always weigh into someone's moral compass. So I'll break that down clearly for you, here is my priority for anything related to laws, government, etc: 1. Does it agree with or conflict with my personal moral compass. 2. How does it affect everything else...societal impact, money, logistics, etc. It's that simple, I weigh my moral compass over all the other bullshit. It keeps it clear cut for me, as I want to worry about the right thing before I worry about the financially sensible thing. I also want to clarify that my moral compass is built on logic, pragmatism, and what I find to be a crystal clear understanding of my emotions. I am driven by that moral compass and compelled to argue for very clear laws stating that abortion is legal as is the right for doctors to perform those abortions throughout the country. I understand fully that this conflicts with a whole group of people and their moral standing, however I have a strong conviction about it. I weigh a woman's right to her own body and her right to carry on with her life in a way she sees fit over the life of an unborn baby, up to the point when that baby actually starts looking like baby...has a face etc. I can run down all the reasons scientific or otherwise that I have that hardline stop, though mostly just the thought of killing something that has a face starts to become harder to stomach...even more so something that has been proven to be able to live...i.e. premature babies and stuff. Prior to that I just don't respect that life in a sense that I would weigh it over the livelihood and even potential life of a woman. I find it odd that it's like woman and children first, but also unborn children over women. So okay we don't really weigh women as highly as we pretend...interesting. I also find most people don't actually take their moral stance and apply it to a personal scenario, only being able to talk about it in a general sense as if it has nothing to do with them and would never affect that. Take it or leave it. Really I'd love to meet people in the middle, but if you can't come out and say 'abortion should be legal up to XYZ', unrelated to rape, incest, etc...then we fundamentally disagree on a moral level that I cannot look past. Edit: Final thought - clearly easterpink see's that it his moral compass conflicts with others and simply wants to let each person make their own choice on it, instead of pushing that these people are solely in the wrong and it should not be allowed by anyone anywhere.

Feels like you don't really understand morals here? They are better than yours because they are my morals, that is how they work. I weigh my morals above everyone else morals, and in some places my morals align with other people and that is where you see progress. You're looking at this adding way too many factors in, if you'd like me to break it down I am happy to do so. So far you've simply brought up money which doesn't really reflect where our morals *might* collide, so please inform me further here. I will not weigh your worries about money above my morals. As said above...you're very weirdly typing other things into what should just be initially at its base, a clear cut statement based on your morals. Then you go from there. Stop instantly blending it all together.

Someone who actually just said how they morally feel about it vs what the law should be. Respect the shit out of this. Come hit me up at promo time.

I can agree with most of this. I think ZE is pretty fucked/a lost cause. I'm all for the big 3 mentality but I think we as a community really need to sit down and assess if we really have the players that are remotely interested in that server for any sort of long period of time beyond seeding.