• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Irrelevant. Consent to sex is not consent to become and remain pregnant.


Traffic collisions are potential outcomes of driving on public motorways. Choosing to drive is not consenting to traffic collisions.


You're pretty dumb.

Having sex and getting pregnant != traffic collisions.

A person who has sex knows that a very common outcome of sex is getting pregnant. They chose to get pregnant by choosing to have sex. The child has done nothing to warrant killing just because the mother was too stupid to say no.

P.S The next response with an insult I will stop conversing with you, grow the fuck up
 
Traffic collisions are potential outcomes of driving on public motorways. Choosing to drive is not consenting to traffic collisions.

I understand what you're going for with this analogy, but traffic collisions are not the designed outcome of driving on a road, pregnancy is the designed outcome of sex. I realize HAL brought it up, so you're doing your best to speak on his terms.
 
I understand what you're going for with this analogy, but traffic collisions are not the designed outcome of driving on a road, pregnancy is the designed outcome of sex. I realize HAL brought it up, so you're doing your best to speak on his terms.

Oooh dude, don't get into the "design" argument, I nearly posted that a minute ago before a rethink.
 
Oh ffs you can't read.
I can read fine.

My statement that morality is not always based on fact.
Where was that statement? Please quote it for me.

Was not a moral statement and thus not a moral fact, it was a statement about how people form morality.
You said [paraphrased] that "Morality is based on potential." That is not a fact.

It was not expressing any morality of it's own. There for while it was a fact, it was not a moral fact.
The statement that you claim you made you did not actually make. The statement you did make was not a fact.

Moral facts don't exist.
That's what I said.

Really don't know what you're talking about, do ya?
I don't know what you're talking about, that's for sure.
 
Having sex and getting pregnant != traffic collisions.
The principles are the same.

A person who has sex knows that a very common outcome of sex is getting pregnant. They chose to get pregnant by choosing to have sex.
False. Pregnancy involves violations to a person's bodily integrity, and waivers to a person's right to bodily integrity must be explicit.

The child has done nothing to warrant killing just because the mother was too stupid to say no.
We're not talking about any child. We're talking about fetuses.

P.S The next response with an insult I will stop conversing with you, grow the fuck up
I calls 'em as I sees em. If you don't like being called stupid, don't be stupid.
 
False. Pregnancy involves violations to a person's bodily integrity, and waivers to a person's right to bodily integrity must be explicit.

How much more explicit can you be than inviting someone into your bedroom, and letting them pop their penis in you?!
 
You cannot derive purpose from function.

Ah, semantics. Then I'll rephrase; "The designed function of sex, is reproduction." I know you could now say that when having sex, the purpose/intent is not always to fulfill function; but really, at that point all you're doing is attempting to circumvent function.
 
Nope. I was just raised to respect life.


yeah it would be fine to condemn a living human to potential poverty by bringing to term a bag of cells to the form of a living human, that then may be raised in a life of poverty, malnutrition, and poor education, b/c the living incubator of that cells is ill-prepared and irresponsible, yet that bag of cells seems to have more potential for life in your mind, thus its rights are greater than the rights of a living human?

:hmm:
 
yeah it would be fine to condemn a living human to potential poverty by bringing to term a bag of cells to the form of a living human, that then may be raised in a life of poverty, malnutrition, and poor education, b/c the living incubator of that cells is ill-prepared and irresponsible, yet that bag of cells seems to have more potential for life in your mind, thus its rights are greater than the rights of a living human?

:hmm:

a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
 
Having sex and getting pregnant != traffic collisions.

A person who has sex knows that a very common outcome of sex is getting pregnant. They chose to get pregnant by choosing to have sex. The child has done nothing to warrant killing just because the mother was too stupid to say no.

P.S The next response with an insult I will stop conversing with you, grow the fuck up

A brainless clump of cells is not a "child" and that is the disagreement in the argument.
 
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n

Unfortunately, people are not rushing to adopt babies with FAS, neural tube defects, crack addiction, HIV, etc. Some of the more .. derelict carriers of a fetus could do (even by omission) some very serious lifelong harm to a child well before it's born.
 
Ah, semantics. Then I'll rephrase; "The designed function of sex, is reproduction." I know you could now say that when having sex, the purpose/intent is not always to fulfill function; but really, at that point all you're doing is attempting to circumvent function.

I disagree. That is only one purpose, not the sole purpose.
 
Ah, semantics. Then I'll rephrase; "The designed function of sex, is reproduction."
Dressing a baseless assertion up in newfangled clothing does not suddenly give it foundation.

I know you could now say that when having sex, the purpose/intent is not always to fulfill function; but really, at that point all you're doing is attempting to circumvent function.
You're still confusing function with purpose. Sex can lead to pregnancy. In the vast majority of cases it does not. Please think about the number of times you've had sex and compare it to the number of times pregnancy has resulted. There's no evidence that it was "designed" for anything.
 
Unfortunately, people are not rushing to adopt babies with FAS, neural tube defects, crack addiction, HIV, etc.

That's true.

But ask an adult orphan that was brought up in an orphanage if they'd rather they had been aborted.

The ones I know wouldn't want that.

Life is better than no life in the vast majority of cases.
 
Back
Top