Personhood and Abortion Rights

[_Maksutov]

My first memory of Subgenius posting on this board was him sharing fabricated and out of context quotes of Margaret Sanger to lie about her views in an effort to discredit planned parenthood and abortion.

Don’t forget the doctored photo he posted of her supposedly preaching to klan members, lol.

So many fond memories, it's hard to choose. Still, I have sweet recollections of Subby's Holocaust denial.

[_subgenius]

So many fond memories, it's hard to choose. Still, I have sweet recollections of Subby's Holocaust denial.

Never denied the holocaust, just argued that it lacked actual proof of happening, at least "proof" in the same vein that other posters insist that proof flows. The context of that whole episode was clear on the matter of belief in the holocaust being an act of faith.
But yeah, spin it so you can perpetuate your bigotry.

[_subgenius]

Problem:
1.25% of birth mothers endure major complications.
Solution:
Kill the baby.

I’m sure that you can tell me why the alternative is a morally superior choice.

Lots of space here on the Internet. Have at it.

I did not make a moral assertion, let alone a value based moral assertion.
Perhaps you could explain why you spend so much time reading between the lines instead of actually reading the lines.

But alas, if we are going to put ourselves in a position to "choose" then inconvenience/burden/and near-death discomfort is superseded by actual death.....from most common moral positions....but perhaps you would like to argue that your moral philosophy values death as superior over life in certain circumstances, like when a baby commits a premeditated murder with an assault rifle....or when another human life can be executed without due process....or "whenever pakes likeys"...

[_subgenius]

Problem:
1.25% of birth mothers endure major complications.
Solution:
Kill the baby.

Is it better to kill the mother if only one or the other can be saved? And what if neither can be saved without the abortion?

ETA: What would your own choice be if your own wife's only chance of survival were to have an abortion?

All good questions, and perhaps all best left to those faced with answering those questions for it is they that are realizing the consequences of those decisions.

But let us look at your first question - the mother or the baby, who to save?....most likely the mother will choose which?...and should she be the only one who gets to decide?, why does the baby not get a "choice"?...ok, the baby is (arguably) unable to offer their choice...so who gets to choose for the baby? the mother alone?...she is under duress and unlikely to be in a legal state of mind to make such a decision...so in your mind, who should make the decision and why?

[_canpakes]

I did not make a moral assertion, let alone a value based moral assertion.
Perhaps you could explain why you spend so much time reading between the lines instead of actually reading the lines.

But alas, if we are going to put ourselves in a position to "choose" then inconvenience/burden/and near-death discomfort is superseded by actual death.....from most common moral positions....but perhaps you would like to argue that your moral philosophy values death as superior over life in certain circumstances, like when a baby commits a premeditated murder with an assault rifle....or when another human life can be executed without due process....or "whenever pakes likeys"...

Well, that was a whole lot of awkward dancing, even for you.

So, you got nothin’ to back up your moral posturing, except to deny that you’re doing so in the midst of your moral posturing.

Lol, OK.

[_subgenius]

My first memory of Subgenius posting on this board was him sharing fabricated and out of context quotes of Margaret Sanger to lie about her views in an effort to discredit planned parenthood and abortion.

I can't remember the 1st post I read of yours, because they have all always been the same sort of snarky self-aggrandizing posts devoid of actual/original intellectual rigor seasoned with a blatant rephrasing-to-avoid-appearance-of-copy/paste-plagiarism.

[_subgenius]

[_canpakes]

Keep dancin’ : D

[_EAllusion]

Subgenius's take on the holocaust is that holocaust denial is the only reasonable position unless you adopt his utterly moronic ideas about epistemology. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument that is so bad that it's easy to mistake it for flat out holocaust denial. What he doesn't get is that he's portraying holocaust denial as the only reasonable position because no one in their right mind would think his views about epistemology are correct.

[_canpakes]

Ask him if rainbows existed prior to Noah’s flood adventure.

But I digress.