What's your most controversial opinion?

[Cometk]

wb sperm and egg

[chris1089]

wb sperm and egg

When they fuse you have new DNA. Before that they are just cells like skin, blodd, fat, epithelial etc.

[Victor_swe]

If the child becomes a legitimate human being in its own right when it develops its own consciousness (which you can't define precisely btw), then when it loses consciousness it loses that value given to it on the basis of having consciousness.
LOGIC

im going back to making bad memes, ur hopeless

[Sargsyan]

@GiBthedurrty hi

[gibson]

If the child becomes a legitimate human being in its own right when it develops its own consciousness (which you can't define precisely btw), then when it loses consciousness it loses that value given to it on the basis of having consciousness.
LOGIC

Except you're missing the part of the argument where this is only being discussed because the fetus is inside the mother, and the point isn't to kill it, but rather remove it from the mother, death being an unfortunate byproduct.

[Dsy]

This topic is way too much political. I dont get why 65/15 pages about abortion. There are so many non political stuffs you could mention in this topic.
US election might took away your mind guys.

[vardar]

“Death being an unfortunate by product”

[chris1089]

If the child becomes a legitimate human being in its own right when it develops its own consciousness (which you can't define precisely btw), then when it loses consciousness it loses that value given to it on the basis of having consciousness.
LOGIC

im going back to making bad memes, ur hopeless

Ur argument hopeless?

[chris1089]

If the child becomes a legitimate human being in its own right when it develops its own consciousness (which you can't define precisely btw), then when it loses consciousness it loses that value given to it on the basis of having consciousness.
LOGIC

Except you're missing the part of the argument where this is only being discussed because the fetus is inside the mother, and the point isn't to kill it, but rather remove it from the mother, death being an unfortunate byproduct.

But the point is that this is considered an acceptable byproduct because the baby (fetus is just Latin for small child or baby) is not considered to have consciousness.

[Cometk]

It took me 7 months but I finally thought of an opinion of mine that could be viewed as controversial. I hate babies

[gibson]

If the child becomes a legitimate human being in its own right when it develops its own consciousness (which you can't define precisely btw), then when it loses consciousness it loses that value given to it on the basis of having consciousness.
LOGIC

Except you're missing the part of the argument where this is only being discussed because the fetus is inside the mother, and the point isn't to kill it, but rather remove it from the mother, death being an unfortunate byproduct.

But the point is that this is considered an acceptable byproduct because the baby (fetus is just Latin for small child or baby) is not considered to have consciousness.

But that doesn’t make it always acceptable to kill anything that lacks consciousness, the argument also hinges about bodily autonomy. There are two arguments that hinge upon each other here. You can’t remove one and put it in its own situation( killing anyone who lacks consciousness) and than act like that’s what gs was arguing for, which is why I called you out as a bad faith arguer in the first place and don’t know why I’m actually answering this.


Anyway For me it having consciousness isn’t relevant in terms of legality. It should be legal either way, although we should strive to lower the amount we do it via proper sex education, access to contraceptives etc.

[princeofcarthage]

Her body her choice is a perfectly reasonable statement. Why should someone be forced to carry something for 9 months. Not to mention the impact of that on the person and that you would be making child orphan effectively at birth.

So you believe that pregnant women have 2 hearts, 2 brains, 4 legs and 4 arms so that by having half of them cut up and sucked out of her uterus or dissolved in acid she is making a choice about her own body?

Its arguable based on at what stage of pregnancy she is. And yes she is making a choice about her body. She is choosing not to carry something in herself for months against her wish which is going to change her mentally and physically and affect her life in million ways. The "entity" you call is not independent of her body. It is part of her until it is not. I think tech to grow babies outside womb or transfer them in another woman is already in different phases of testing/underway which is a good alternative solution. But, until that is possible it is still her choice.

[fightinfrenchman]

@princeofcarthage How do you feel about vanilla

[princeofcarthage]

@princeofcarthage How do you feel about vanilla

You will have to be more specific, vanilla is a spice and nothing controversial about it.

[fightinfrenchman]

@princeofcarthage How do you feel about vanilla

You will have to be more specific, vanilla is a spice and nothing controversial about it.

Vanilla ice cream. Thoughts? Opinions? Or what

[princeofcarthage]

@princeofcarthage How do you feel about vanilla

You will have to be more specific, vanilla is a spice and nothing controversial about it.

Vanilla ice cream. Thoughts? Opinions? Or what

It is a very basic and neutral flavor. I think most people like it.

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

@princeofcarthage How do you feel about vanilla

You will have to be more specific, vanilla is a spice and nothing controversial about it.

Vanilla ice cream. Thoughts? Opinions? Or what

It is a very basic and neutral flavor. I think most people like it.

Someone said it was bad. It's also not neutral, it's vanilla flavored

[deleted_user]

Vanilla ice cream is great ice cream. The flavor of the rich cream supports and steadies the more expressive, more nimble vanilla. They share the stage well in different but equal capacities. Too many ice creams try to do too much and come off as overwhelming. Vanilla is a duet out of Nutcracker.

For some reason I can eat a pint of shitty Ben and Jerrys and hate my life afterwards. But when I go to an actual ice cream parlor with 20% butterfat cream and fresh, slow-churned, deep-in-texture, dense ice cream made with local milk and eggs, I only want the smallest serving of natural vanilla served in a paper dish. Now frick, that's a fucking treat -- 10x better than any pint of B&Js.

[fightinfrenchman]

My most controversial opinion is that nothing beats a Dominos bread bowl

[chris1089]

Show hidden quotes

If the child becomes a legitimate human being in its own right when it develops its own consciousness (which you can't define precisely btw), then when it loses consciousness it loses that value given to it on the basis of having consciousness.
LOGIC

Except you're missing the part of the argument where this is only being discussed because the fetus is inside the mother, and the point isn't to kill it, but rather remove it from the mother, death being an unfortunate byproduct.

But the point is that this is considered an acceptable byproduct because the baby (fetus is just Latin for small child or baby) is not considered to have consciousness.

But that doesn’t make it always acceptable to kill anything that lacks consciousness, the argument also hinges about bodily autonomy. There are two arguments that hinge upon each other here. You can’t remove one and put it in its own situation( killing anyone who lacks consciousness) and than act like that’s what gs was arguing for, which is why I called you out as a bad faith arguer in the first place and don’t know why I’m actually answering this.


Anyway For me it having consciousness isn’t relevant in terms of legality. It should be legal either way, although we should strive to lower the amount we do it via proper sex education, access to contraceptives etc.

Could you explain which words he said that argue that because I don't see them?

[princeofcarthage]

Callen posts be like

1 min: 3 lines
3 min : 5 lines
15 min: 9 lines
30 min: 2 paragraphs
1 hr: tl:dr

[Ashvin]

If the child becomes a legitimate human being in its own right when it develops its own consciousness (which you can't define precisely btw), then when it loses consciousness it loses that value given to it on the basis of having consciousness.
LOGIC

Except you're missing the part of the argument where this is only being discussed because the fetus is inside the mother, and the point isn't to kill it, but rather remove it from the mother, death being an unfortunate byproduct.

Do you even know how abortion works?

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

Pro choice is not pro abortion. There is no advocating the deed, only the right. It is not equivalent to your (mis)representation.

This subject is really grey and I'm not taking sides, but c'mon.

You're picking the side that pretends this is "grey". To me it's not at all.

"Oh but it has the potential to become a person" fuck that. Is it murder not to have sex with the next person you meet on the street because there's potential of a baby coming out of that? Is it murder to use birth control? What a load of crap. It's just a bunch of cells. Murder implies consciousness. It's robbing an entity of their choice to live. A group of cells living inside you has made no such choice. If anything, it's just an extension of you, and the choice is yours to make until it develops its own consciousness.

It actually is a person with a unique set of DNA though.

Like I said for me it's about consciousness. Once the bunch of cells develops its own consciousness we can consider it a separate entity from the mother. Before that, it's just that: a bunch of cells, and part of the mother's body, so it's her decision what to do with it. I don't care if it has unique DNA.

So I take it you are consistent and believe it is ok for me to enter a hospital and murder people who are in comas.

Please do better than this. It seems rather pointless to spend time explaining the differences between murdering a coma patient and abortion. In this context, I suppose the important ones are:
- The coma patient had consciousness before and lost it (although we still don't really know what goes on in a coma patient's head); a 5 weeks old bunch of cells never had it
- The coma patient is not part of you

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

@Goodspeed How would you like this to be done?

Ban churches and any other for-profit religious oranizations, and most importantly ban religious education. Children should get a picture of reality that is consistent with science, no matter which family they're born into.

So you want people to make the scientific method God as a replacement?

The scientific method god? Can you explain what you think that is, exactly?

People can believe whatever they want. My issue is with institutional religion. It is and has been extremely destructive.

Taking the scientific method as the highest standard of authority.

The scientific method is simply a formalized way to learn from observation, something everyone does every day. It doesn't replace god and god doesn't replace it. A higher power is not a method of gaining knowledge. That's why it has no place in schools.

People makes gods out of something, it's just a question of what.

I don't. Neither do most people I know.

Why is religion being institutionalised worse than religion that isn't in your view?

Institutionalized religion has some really nasty side effects. To be honest, I don't really feel like getting into it. They should be obvious to anyone. I think most importantly to me, organized religion tends to be an anti-intellectual movement and anti-intellectualism is one of the more damaging "isms".

[fightinfrenchman]

@Goodspeed Why don't you ever respond to questions I ask you in my dreams?