I just do not understand why religous people are so fearful of people having personal choice. No one is tellin or forcing them to use birth control or have abortions. I certainly don't go around telling them how to plan their family because it's none of my business. I just wish they would have the same respect for others.
Zaunstar, we at live action did get planned parenthoods funding cut federally, also can you please look at this video called "180 Documentary", and tell me if you think the same way.
@jo3jo3221 As I understand it, you did not get the cuts you wanted. Go ahead and fight for what you want, but I don't ever see it being illegal in most of the country. I think your best possible scenario is that it will be restricted out of the reddest of the red states.
@jo3jo3221 Well, to be completely honest, there needs to be restrictions, and if they keep it around, it needs to be only in the most high cases of emergency.
Being a largely antiabortion atheist, I can say I find a slight law with you're 'who's playing god now?' question.
That being, I work large off a consequentialist frame work, where the right actions are those likely to have the best consequences at the time of the making.
When deciding to end a pregnancy, you're ending all possible positive outcomes that fetus could ever have had.
@mordinvan Well, I would say you end ALL possible outcomes. For you, your life is also altered. Is your life happier with or without the baby? No telling, since there is no control group for that exactly, but I do know there are people that wish they had fewer kids, but of course wouldn't give up the current ones.
@mordinvan Not sure when they would find that out, and even if they did, how much different it would be if the parents simply decided not to have more children. We get to decide whether we want offspring still, even if there is an accident. Certainly there are limits to quibble about, but first trimester, I have no issue with abortion on demand.
Actually its 'not good' when it does happen. The kid is generally left with the permanent sensation of having just dodged a bullet, I believe the term is 'survivor's guilt', and even kids get to share the love on that one, after finding out that the sibling just ahead of them or just behind was deemed 'inconvenient'.
Anyway Christians seem very protective of there "Monotheistic" status. And Yet they have god, and his son, who is still some how god himself, but some ghost. I Learned how to count in grade school, its been years so I might be a bit shaky..... but..... I believe that's 3 isn't it? Making them Polytheist by definition and yet they have as one of their "rules" No other gods before god? HUH? This has always made no sense to me.
I love all the ad hominems. Yes, Republicans have to be wrong. Why? Because they're white. Because they're men. Never mind the fact that American women tend to be more against abortion than American men.
Being pro-life is NOT about controlling people. Being pro-life is about protecting the rights of unborn children. It's not about deciding whether to reproduce. If a woman is pregnant, she already has an offspring, and that offspring oughtn't be killed.
@Nulono More women than men are against it? Please show me that study.
Also, that is the problem. You draw the "offspring" line differently, so how do we decide who is right? It needs to be the woman that is pregnant that decides. Not talking edge cases here like late-term, I am talking just basic do they or do they not have control over whether they bring a pregnancy to term.
@Zaunstar YouTube doesn't allow links, but it was a Gallup poll. Go to their site and search for their article "Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans".
As for offspring, that's a basic biological question. MedicineNet says "Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.".
@Nulono OK, and what branch of biology is going to be able to magically tell us at what point the developing fetus, embryo, whatever you want to call it, is required to have the full set of rights related to being a "person"? This is not such an easy question, unless you invoke an imaginary higher power, and then you would just be making things up.
@Nulono It's a developing human, yes, but we do not consider it something with all of the rights that you and I have, and that is as it should be, as far as I'm concerned. It is up to us whether we want to reproduce, and for you to tell people that you can't have sex without there being some chance of being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is generally a religiously-based position which many, including me, reject.
@Zaunstar Why should some human beings be denied the most basic of human rights?
Also, if a woman is pregnant, reproduction has already occurred. The question is whether we should be allowed to kill our offspring. Saying that prenatal rights are "generally a religiously-based position" is a fallacious reason to reject it.
@Nulono I'm not saying it's wrong BECAUSE religious people tend to think that way. I'm saying that religious people have a different view of things, and it's not going to be reasonably possible to get the sides to agree. It will need to remain an individual issue, and I believe it will. Having a child should not be a *necessary* possibility of sexual activity.
@Zaunstar Having a child not be a *necessary* possibility of sexual activity, but that doesn't mean that the child has no right to live once conceived.
@Zaunstar: Actually, the bastion of Presbyterian, fundamentalist, denial is Oklahoma. I knew a guy who was head of sales for a very large software company headquartered in California. He was from Britain. He had traveled to just about every state and once said to me, "You know shamrockbaby, all the smart people in your country live on the coasts and they get progressively dumber the further inland you go until you get to Kansas." He had a special class for Florida. And not a good class.
@RainCityBlues I don't expect you to understand, but I was actually in the spirit realm and HE appeared as the brightest light imaginable & HE spoke to me "telepathically" not with actual audio, but it was very clear. I have also had dreams & visions. "GOD" is very real.Ask HIm to reveal himself to you. Once again, i don't expect you to understand, but wether you understand or not, doesn't change what i've experienced. If you can't interface more respectfully I will just ignore you. Stay open!
Ah, I share this account with my dad and thats why I'm afraid to comment on these videos. I'm afraid some teapartier will starting ranting and ranting about all kinds of crap if I state my actual opinion.
I frist wnated to say I lkied tihs vid. Now I jsut wnated to say taht its fnuny wehn poeple use the fcat taht smoeone dseo'nt tkake the tmie to spell prefcet or use pnucutatoin to dsicredit teihr satmenets. one souhld just be mroe orginial.
i find it odd how abortion is generally legal in most countries yet euthanasia isn't. Killing a human being that has not chosen to die and that has not had a chance to live is acceptable yet killing someone who has chosen to die and who has lived their life is deemed as morally wrong.
@Zaunstar I just want you to know the truth. But me insulting or arguing with you only repels you. I am a THINKING theist. I have questioned GOD, & you can call me delusional if that floats your boat, but HE has countless times revealed that He is real. Religion has always been a big turn off to me, but spirituality has been unavoidable. Please just keep your mind OPEN to further realities. I am not part of the CROCIDUCK nation LOL!! ...BUT I AM a believer. We're not all quacks.
@BRUTHAWAR Arguing with me doesn't repel me. I don't mind a good argument. As for theists, they are clearly not all equal in my eyes. The ones that deny science are the most bizarre. They tend to be the evangelicals in the southern US.
@BRUTHAWAR I have a question for you then. Did the god that revealed "himself" to you show you "his" penis? If not, how are you sure it is a he? Further, how has "he" revealed himself? Was it in a way that could be easily demonstrated to the rest of us? Did "he: stop an earthquake, a flood, a horrible outbreak of Cholera, or was it just a voice in your head? I am quite interested to know, honestly.
But lose that shirt. Doesn't do anything for ya. Or is it a beloved shirt that you hide from your wife because she keeps on trying to throw it out? LOL...
@BRUTHAWAR Thanks, hehheh. Well, something for everyone I suppose. Some of my theist commenters are far less polite. In fact there will be a new video later about JUST that topic. *;-)
I like Planned Parenthood for helping women with screenings, pregnancy testing, etc. etc. However, I don't support them because they provide abortions. Our country is so f***** up! I can't stand either political party anymore. None of the Republicans I know that are pro-life want to help the poor with health care and not one of the Democrats I know want to stop abortion! If a pro-life candidate supported health care reform, I would proudly support them. Take care.
@Conservative122 Very good point! I used to have a bumper sticker that read "True Christians are morally Conservative but fiscally Liberal." Most Americans today are the exact opposite.
It's always "white men?" I've met a lot of black men that are pretty up tight and religious. Maybe you should focus on what's wrong with a position instead of gross generalizing, racist.
@Zaunstar This is what you said: "I've always found it interesting to consider who's consistently making these decisions, to restrict options, and exert control over young women. It's almost always White Men, old enough to be grand parents." It's kind of interesting how you're "consistently" bashing White people. If I disagreed with someone, even in the context you're speaking of, I'd never have mentioned whiteness. It's very revealing and not the first time you've shown anti-white bias.
@ambidextrality Yes, you quoted me correctly that time. So I'm a self-loathing white guy? This is really not the point of the video. I make a video about abortion and you're concerned that I might be biased against my own race based on a small portion of the video? There's a saying about missing the forest for the trees...
@Zaunstar I don't need to quote 100% of what you said. My argument is still the same. You're committing an ad hominem genetic fallacy. Yet you hold yourself up to be some kind of authority on arguing, and an impartial law supporter who's against bias crimes. But you're inherently biased. It would never have occurred to me to mention that people who disagree with me are white. This brings me back to the fact you're genetically a Jew, as you dodged the subject before.
@ambidextrality I never said I was genetically anything in particular. I didn't want to respond to it, because I wanted to figure out your angle. Now I get it. Just another of my "white nationalist" (to put it as politely as possible) trolls. Racism is a failure, every time it's tried. Oh, and if you must know, my heritage is northern European, not that it matters other than a point of curiosity, well, unless it defines someone, as only a racist would believe.
@Zaunstar I don't know that I'm a white nationalist, actually. I'm not even pure white. I'm just tired of covert anti-white philosophy disguised as anti-racism/anti-hate by people so far left they're book burning, speech limiting tyrants. But nice try with the ad hominem. That's pretty much your staple to arguing. My opponents are white, old, religious, white nationalist, etc. etc. etc. You're an extremist left radical and you think you're some kind of authority on logic but you stink.
@Zaunstar Here with the white attacks again. What's your position on Israel? After all, they're a bunch of nationalists? Let me guess: Only white nationalists are bad? I should have learned from your propaganda video that the biggest threat in the world is the dangerous and terrifying racist nazi hate from white people. We should just throw them all away in concentration camps.. I mean prison.
Your inferring and implying things that were never said, and then twisting single sentences into a supposed whole world-view.
Sure you /can/ take an entire sentence as a world view, but it's only fair to do so when said sentence, is ABOUT someones World View!
And incidentally, if you want to keep referring to the group you seem to be wanting to defend AS 'Nazi's ... Don't go expecting sympathy when others flags aren't raised in your defence.
@PurpleGhost So you think defending white people makes me a Nazi? Here we go again. No actually, Zaunstar is the one who made a whole video about evil white Nazis and said he wanted to throw haters away in jail for as long as possible. Now he's implying that a position is bad because it comes from white men. The only people I know *that* obsessed with eliminating Nazis and white hate and speech are Jews. But what do I know. I'm just a "Nazi."
@ambidextrality - Again you're inferring things that were never said. In fact did not /even/ imply that they were. I said 'IF' and I said 'group', and then I mentioned what You keep calling them. Never even implied that you were, or even that you might be, part of that group either. Simply didn't happen.
Anyways, moving on.
Actually no, that's not what he did at all; he said it as an aside, and specifically to *point out* that these people *aren't /likely/ to be affected* by their policies.
@PurpleGhost Maybe we should put kindergarteners in charge of lawmaking on education? And dogs should run animal control laws. And put retards in charge of retarded institutions. It doesn't matter if they'd be affected. What matters is whether or not the reasons for the legislation are wrong, or the reasons one thinks legislations is wrong. Not the race or sex of the legislators.
@ambidextrality - That might be a good line of reasoning. If women were incapable of speaking (such as dogs) or not capable of making higher-functioning rational decisions (such as those with mental handicaps), or not yet capable of grasping the subject matter (such as children). But unless you really think that about women, then please don't use poor arguments like that.
You're right, the sex and race of the legislators shouldn't be his major argument against the legislation. And it wasn't.
@PurpleGhost That might be a good argument if white men where deaf dumb and blind, too. But they're not. Simply being a white man or unaffected by the law doesn't mean they're incapable of sound argument. it's the argument that's at issue. Opening this door leads to genetic fallacy and ad hominems and they're not sound forms of logic.
@ambidextrality - Oh no, THAT statement is *shit*, and shit doesn't fly on it's own.
When I said that the persons who are affected are at the opposite end of the spectrum - YOU, buster brown, compared said people (So young women, and if we're going to bring in race, as you so seem to want to make a big deal of it - then young women of colour) and then compared them to dogs, the mentally handi-capped, and children.
And you do NOT get to go BINARY and PRETEND like I did.
@ambidextrality - And I said shit-all that was ad-hominem about your legislators. (<- Please note the period) - All that I've said about them so far has to been to point out that Zaunstar mentioned them as an aside. Then I gave my best observation as to why he might have even mentioned them. And I did even That, Only because you were making a fuss about it.
You sir or madam, are *acting like* a troll. Smarten up, or you are destined to be simply ignored.
@Zaunstar You didn't want to mention it because I was right. Genetic fallacy again. If you're so into evolution, you should know that "racism" is a fundamental to the avoidance of predators or dangerous plants, etc. It might not be perfect, and collective fears can spread and be auto toxic, such as with homophobia, but it does work more often than not. And that's probably why racism exists. Never say never. Better to work within reality than to punish human nature with your own auto-toxic fears.
@ambidextrality - How do you figure? o.O - Xenophobia is the avoidance and fear of other species. Racism just refers to hatred among ones own species, and I'm really not seeing the benefits.
@PurpleGhost Race is a genetic thing. Evidence shows that some relatives of humans were wiped out by others. I can't remember which ones, but obviously speciation doesn't ONLY occur because they got pleasantly stranded on respective islands. Sometimes speciation occurs because groups keep to themselves and segregate. And people still tend to segregate, naturally. Often other species, even races, can't tell the difference between individuals of different races. A memetic immune system at work.
@ambidextrality - Actually, anthropology's current theories seem to suggest that it was more likely that a group of people would segregate because the group had become too large, and so a segment breaking away to go elsewhere to find food, made sense, or they'd all starve. When people became largely agrarian, this number had to be a lot larger before people would be tempted to break away for this reason.
And yes, groups of humans did wipe each other out, but usually for food/foraging territory.
@ambidextrality - However, I will concede that, what you say is somewhat true, speciation does partially occur because of 'self-imposed' segregation. But I still don't see that as an argument for racism - the people who choose to self-segregate aren't necessarily gaining any more benefits than those who don't - and it's not likely to be a choice made exclusively for racist reasons.
@PurpleGhost You don't have to know why. But it is a fact of human nature. and to wrap yourself up in some dogma and deny it, while at the same time insisting that it's always 100% wrong, which is a genetic fallacy.. well, to do that is not logical, and it's revisionist. Some come back to reality. Face facts. And stop calling everyone a Nazi and seeking to put all racists in jail. Because then you're just engaging in genocide because of your bias.
Just whom did I address as a Nazi? That's right. I didn't.
Next, when someone says they concede something, you don't start accusing them of denying everything your saying. You say "Hey! We agree on something, lets go from Here!"
That's just courtesy.
Next, if you have facts, Don't say anything which resembles "Face-facts I'm right" and list no facts.
You list facts, or list search terms.
Hardy-har. I'm disagreeing SO much, look at me ask you again and again to explain yourself.
@PurpleGhost We learn what memes are good and bad for our species, through experience, and by watching/communicating with our species. We're skeptical of memes from outsiders. Even threatened. This is why ching chong is offensive from a white person but not from an Asian saying it. Or the N word. Calling an identical meme racist because someone isn't a member of your race, is a racist rejection of an identical meme. This is why people use genetic fallacies and ad hominem. Biased meme rejection.
@PurpleGhost In addition to the racism inherent in such a system, and rejection of valid memes by their origin (genetic fallacy), we also acquire bad memes, or auto-toxic memes, such as homophobia, because we witness other members of our species being homophobic. As groups, this is how we avoid predators in the wild. By learning when to freak out from others who perceive danger. Sometimes these memes are more wrong and auto-toxic, as I said. But not always. Some argue it's open to debate.
@PurpleGhost Open to debate, as in the dangers of homosexuality, guns, Nazis, racism, terrorism, cancer, disease. Insert whatever the people or the media is trying to frighten us about. People will, or should debate how real these dangers are. I don't see Nazis as a huge threat today. I think the Holocaust is long over, Nazis are vastly hated, and the threat today is to our civil liberties, with nonsense like the "patriot" act and attempts to control speech to stop Nazi hate.
@PurpleGhost As I said, it's an immune system. The immune system allows the whole body to coexists without falling apart to infection. It allows the body to orchestrate itself. Self discrimination occurs in utero. And the brain acts as a memetic immune system, probably differentiating during childhood. It learns self, and by doing so, permits species inter-cooperation. That means that we're all designed to be discriminatory. And species memes spread easily between your species.
@ambidextrality - Were you going somewhere specific with this?
You were talking about how meme tend to be within specific cultural groups, and those groups tend to be within the same race.
... And then you said memes spread easily among our species. (Which they do - and being raised in the same group is more important than 'race' for meme-sharing.)
But I still frankly don't see how this connects with what we were talking about. Or how it answers my question, about if racism has any benefits.
@PurpleGhost Discrimination is the normal function of a learning brain. I don't understand how you refuse to see that to avoid being racist. If I told you a species of animal is known to bite, you'd be okay with that, but if I said a group of people are known to do something, everyone's up in arms, and you get banned for hate speech. It's retarded. Obviously, no one wants to be labeled by the bad actions of a small faction, but statistically speaking, there are (forbidden) patterns in groups.
@ambidextrality - And in the context he was saying it, he seemed to be referring to people making decisions about it, rather than just generally people opposed to it. Sure you may have known many tight-asses of any number of ethnicities ... But what demographic (for that is indeed what it is) makes up the american republicans (I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this one, by factual sources) it seems to be from all I can find - older white males. The very people Zaunstar was talking about.
The point behind Zaunstar's statement wasn't to generalize what people within society think (your assumption), but who are behind these restrictive laws. The majority of people in legislation who make these decisions are generally white men. That's simply pointing out an obvious fact, not "white man self loathing". Your obvious over sensitivity of that subject is disstorting what's actually being said.
@88Keyz101 It's interesting that a black man is defending this. It's interesting. I mean, you are black, and defending him. That's a fact. Facts are interesting. That's all. It's also interesting to note that lots of black men are in prison and illiterate. And that studies show that whites are smarter. That's all. Just interesting. Don't take offense or point out the vacuous ad hominem genetic fallacy that I'm hinting at, mister sensitive.
@88Keyz101 It doesn't matter. Insert whatever race. His argument is actually not an argument at all. He uses this technique constantly and it's pathetic. And he has a whole propaganda video dedicated to promoting "hate" crime laws which focuses exclusively on white Nazis and tries to employ this same technique to persuade people with a weak grasp on logic.
The point is that the majority of people affected by restrictive abortion laws are statistically 1-lower income, 2-young, 3-minority 4-women. Zaunstar pointed out the irony that most people pushing for more restrictive laws that affect these individuals are usually the polar opposite... 1-higher income, 2-older, 3-majority (white), 4-males...
When you anticipate racism you see it everywhere, like a hammer sees everything as a nail.
@88Keyz101 What I said was, it doesn't matter what color you are. Insert whatever race in my comeback. The argument as to what kind of people are making laws is not an argument that the laws are wrong. You can't argue that based on the race of the people arguing. You can only do so by showing why the law is wrong. And as someone who identifies as white, I wouldn't criticize the position of someone else as "white." I asked if he's Jewish because of his biased Nazi video, and he was evasive.
Maybe he's not anti-white. Maybe he's anti-male. Or maybe anti-old, or anti-rich. There were a lot of things mentioned & you zero in on race. I wonder why that is.
"The argument as to what kind of people are making laws is not an argument that the laws are wrong."
True. However, he wasnt MAKING this argument. He was pointing out irony.
Now you mention some "biased" Nazi video. I know where your mind is at, which explains everything. You got a dog in this 1. Let it go.
@ambidextrality - Pre-tell, what studies? And while it seems likely that 'smarter' was a term merely inferred, I will still ask: How is it that you have come to this word in particular, was it mentioned as a specific term on one of said studies?
@PurpleGhost There was a book. I think it was called Bell Curve or something. It suggested a hierarchy of intelligence based on scores or something. It went like: Jewish, Asian, White, Hispanic, Black. But I was just making a sarcastic demonstration, and the validity of such studies is irrelevant.
This is all very nice, and the logical processes you go through to reach your conclusions all seem valid to me, but I don't think that the pro-lifers are necessarily out to get women the way you imply they are. To me, it seems that the issue is whether or not the zygote/fetus/whatever is a person, and all the other stuff is just words. There are obvious cons to outlawing abortion, but the idea is "better these cons than universal access to killing in cold blood". We must define what a person is.
I really wish that there was more distinction between the people who are anti-vaccine and those who want safer vaccines. There is a difference. I'm a bit sick of people mashing us all together :P
@sarcastichick424 Hm, well I can agree with you if you are talking about things that are actually known to be issues with them, like suspensions that a lot of people have allergies too (eggs, for instance). If on the other hand you're talking about the Jenny McCarthy autism stuff, well, that's a whole other thing entirely.
@GrapplingIgnorance I can think of four immediately, but isn't there a saying that goes "Anything more than a handful is a waste"? Well, I guess that was referring to something else, never mind. It's late and I'm confused...
But remember, abortion is not the best option. Education and family planning is. In this day and age a sexual act between a man and a woman does not have to result in pregnancy. Humans in The United States of America can determain the when of conception, this is the primary work of Planned Parenthood, not abortion.
By the way, I agree with your stand against the Republican reasoning to defund the measly 75 million provided for Planned Parenthood. P.P. offers family planning, H.I.V. counseling, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screening and other services for women, and no federal dollars are actually given for abortions anyway. Nevertheless, your view that all right-to-life advocates are right wing jerks or religious a-holes is untrue, unfair and, at best, very stereotypical at best.
I am agnostic. Years ago, I twice experienced getting women pregnant who opted for abortion. For the simple fact that I wanted these children, I begged on my hands and knees for these women not to have them killed - Oh, excuse me, is that the wrong word for ending an innocent life? True, I was irresponsible for not using contraceptives, but my point is, paternal investments are not restricted to the hearts of the religious. I find pro-choice very myopic in that respect.
@pianodavy That is true that it is not strictly speaking a religion/non-religion argument. Unfortunately for you in these cases, it is the woman that decides. It's a case where only one person CAN get the final say. I certainly don't begrudge your asking them to not go through with the abortion, but I don't begrudge their decision to do what they felt was right for them either. I do have empathy for your feelings, but I do not believe you had or should have had the final say in the matter.
@Zaunstar Why? You didn't give reasons. And if it's not strictly a religious thing why do you constantly label all arguments against you "religious," as if that makes them wrong. It's ad hominem.
How is cutting off funding for planned parenthood "eroding access"? That's like saying if Obama didn't bail out AIG he'd be restricting access to insurance.
Not using tax money for something doesn't mean you're "restricting access". Tax money is EXTORTED from people, and you're arguing with republicans over how the stolen booty should be spent.
@MoneyIsSilver No, it isn't, because the people that would need it are not people that have the money to go anywhere else if they need it, unlike the insurance example. That whole taxes are illegal thing that some libertarians are fond of is just like Communism, in a way, in that it's another example of an idea that's good on paper, but completely non-workable in practice.
@Zaunstar well if they're too broke to pay for contraceptivesor an abortion, and they don't want kids, then they should stay home and keep their pants on, because its certainly not fair to force other people to pay for their fuck ups.
@StarControl69 No it's legal unill birth. That's how the law it written. I know you have no idea what you are talking about because you start your arguents with personal attacks.
@MrGreeneggsnham Google is not a source. It is a search engine. I am not doing your research for you, you made the bloody claim, so you can fucking back it up. I happen to know for a fact that that is not true everywhere, and am unaware of any place where it is true, so I am requesting a source that agrees with your statement.
@MrGreeneggsnham You can either provide one, admit that your views are not backed up by the evidence, or decline to debate the issue further. But continuing on this path without providing evidence for your claims is only going to result in you being mocked mercilessly.
@MrGreeneggsnham I'm not the one making the claim, so I'm not going to look for one supporting your point. I will, however, search for a link supporting my own claim that it does not apply everywhere.
Also, nice copy paste there, you didn't even rewrite the sentence fragment so it could stand on its own. I don't even need to mock you, you're doing a credible job of that yourself.
@MrGreeneggsnham Apparently you're the one who can't read. Roe v Wade says that the government can't "restrict the right to access" "in the first trimester". They can put all kinds of obstacles in the way during the first trimester though, and after that, they're free to ban it. Various conditions such as rape or incest, health concerns, or the woman's life being at risk are all still valid beyond the first trimester, but voluntary abortion is banned in most if not all states after that.
@MrGreeneggsnham I ask again for you to provide a source. I gave you mine, you disagreed with it. Provide an alternative. Go read Roe v. Wade, and show me where it supports your position, or use any other source you like. I used wikipedia, because it's the easiest option and it has a nice summary at the top. The ball is in your court at this point.
@MrGreeneggsnham Also, they ruled that the woman's right to privacy was counterbalanced by the state's interest in the life of the fetus. That's why you guys have this trimester system. Fuck dude, I'm Canadian, and I know more about your country's abortion laws than you do! Also more than I know about my own country's laws on the matter, which amuses me as well.
@MrGreeneggsnham The only intervention in abortion that the federal gov't of the united states has made is the Roe v. Wade ruling saying that women are guaranteed the right to an abortion in the first trimester. Other than that, it leaves it up to the individual states. So depending on your definition of intervene, you're right, but federal government is not the only government. State governments regulate abortion rights individually within the bounds of Roe v. Wade.
@MrGreeneggsnham Don't change the subject. Are you going to provide proof of your claims or not? I won't discuss the morality of abortion until and unless you either back up your claims or concede the point.
@MrGreeneggsnham Oh hey, guess what I found. Go to wikipedia, /wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States.
Hey, guess what else I found. You were actually right, but not about anywhere in the US. Canada has no restrictions on abortion. /wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
@StarControl69 I didn't say embryo. It's legal to kill a baby 1 minute before birth but it's concidered murder one minute after. That's the law. It's disgusting. Why do you support causing unborn people physical harm?
I've had almost this exact argument with someone who was adopted shouting at me that IF an abortion had happened in their case they wouldn't be alive... lets all leave the ego at the door please... If there had been no abortion in mine I would not be alive...so yeeeeah
@nelliediddle I've had some ask me 'how would you feel if your mother decided to abort you?'. To which I answer ' I would feel nothing, because I would not exist'. It's that simple.
If guys would learn from Mark Foley's and Larry Craig's examples, we would even have to deal with this pregnancy business. Get with penis, I mean program.
It is amazing to me that the same people who object to one person having an abortion because it is "playing god" has no problem with getting chemotherapy to extend his own life. Isn't that playing god, too? If god wants him to live, wouldn't he do so regardless of what medical treatment he got? His god is an awesome god, right? Why not just pray the cancer away?
What's most important to consider is the idea that Republicans and other politicians focus on abortion is a means to distract our attention to issues they can't resolve and have no idea how to resolve issues like the economy, jobs, social security, social and corporate welfare, Republicans know that the Bible Belt engage into a perpetual conflict with cosmopolitan urban dwellers. Such a rivalry will prevent us from asking them other questions such as "What about the economy...stupid?"
@VerseInfinitum So these issues are just a conspiracy to distract us? I think I'd need some evidence of that first. I don't doubt that people feel passionately about these issues.
@Zaunstar I never mentioned the word conspiracy. Although this issue remains in debate to this day. Some politicians and I mean some, would take advantage of this issue to stay away from others they have no idea how to address issues like the economy, jobs, retirement, etc. It would suit them just fine. Abortion is not the only issue we're dealing with in the U.S.A.
Some atheists also don't agree with taxpayer funded abortion, so isn't just about religious issues. If you want to help pay for someone to terminate a pregnancy, then please donate your money to that cause and stop whining that others don't want to help pay for them.
@MegF142857 It costs the taxpayers more without abortion than with. Think of it. A one time session would cost around $100-$500 depending mostly on the timing (mind you, I don't know exactly). How much would it be once a child is born? Now we are talking about paid maternal leave from a company (if employed), food stamps and social security (for the unemployed), and, where available, state run child care. Of course, they may not need all of them, but just one is more money than abortion.
@skywize You are forgetting that Republicans are cutting massive support out of everything you just mentioned. What is more likely to happen is the rate of child death due to poverty and starvation is going to rise. Hooray for Pro-Life!!
/sarcasm/
Seriously though, if these people were actually pro-life, they would spend more time focusing on the children who are already here instead. But it's not like this planet is overpopulated or anything.... (sarcasm again)
@AvalonDraconis It will never happen, I know it's totalitarian or something, but I still think that there should be a limit to how many kids you can give birth to legally. This would cut down on all the money issues, and people would be forced to adopt if they want more. That last bit is my real reason, I could give a crap about most of the rest.
@skywize Actually, it already has happened. Look at the recent budget cuts and concessions Obama gave into over the past few weeks. Massive job cuts, Medicare cut, funding for abortion support cut, funding for women's health cut...
@skywize If you think it is just about saving money, then by this logic you should go drown babies to save money for the tax payers. Your comments make me nauseous.
@MegF142857 lovely, your personality is showing..... I went with the money bit because that's where you went... "taxpayer funded abortion" "pay for someone to terminate a pregnancy" "donate your money to that cause" "pay for them. "...... Your entire post was about money and you give me shit for trying to follow your logic? Seriously?
@skywize Reason I limited comment as "taxpayer funded abortion" is because that is what was mentioned in the video with Planned Parenthood funding. Not all atheists are 100% pro-choice. I'm such an atheist and agree in restricting abortion because I think there is a baby involved along the way in pregnancy. It isn't just 'poof ' a baby when gets birthed.
@MegF142857 You're right, that's fair. I don't like the consequences though. There are far too many people having kids when they are not financially or grown up enough just because they are pressured into it, which is likely how they type of girl gets pregnant in the first place. I hate the idea that a child which would otherwise have not been born has to deal with foster situations or, sometimes worse, parents who resent their very existence.
I just do not understand why religous people are so fearful of people having personal choice. No one is tellin or forcing them to use birth control or have abortions. I certainly don't go around telling them how to plan their family because it's none of my business. I just wish they would have the same respect for others.
isis1933 3 weeks ago
It's so nice to hear rational talk when it comes to abortion instead of hype and hate!
isis1933 3 weeks ago
Zaunstar, we at live action did get planned parenthoods funding cut federally, also can you please look at this video called "180 Documentary", and tell me if you think the same way.
jo3jo3221 1 month ago
@jo3jo3221 As I understand it, you did not get the cuts you wanted. Go ahead and fight for what you want, but I don't ever see it being illegal in most of the country. I think your best possible scenario is that it will be restricted out of the reddest of the red states.
Zaunstar 1 month ago
@jo3jo3221 Well, to be completely honest, there needs to be restrictions, and if they keep it around, it needs to be only in the most high cases of emergency.
jo3jo3221 1 month ago
Brilliant.
DeadMeltedFace 2 months ago
abortion isn't black and white
neonbutterflys 2 months ago
Christians aren't suppose to follow the Old Testament, other than that, I like your videos on pro-choice reasoning. :)
mrafro 3 months ago
That's one thing I was happy about not being a Catholic anymore. I can eat what ever the fuck I want during Lent.
ilackedtheheart 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Zaunstar
@ilackedtheheart Well among other things. There's a lot I'm happy about when I became an Atheist.
ilackedtheheart 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Zaunstar
This has been flagged as spam show
i wish my parents had an abortion so i wasn't born, fml
webmastertool 6 months ago
i wish my parents had an abortion so i wasn't born, fml
webmastertool 6 months ago
Being a largely antiabortion atheist, I can say I find a slight law with you're 'who's playing god now?' question.
That being, I work large off a consequentialist frame work, where the right actions are those likely to have the best consequences at the time of the making.
When deciding to end a pregnancy, you're ending all possible positive outcomes that fetus could ever have had.
mordinvan 6 months ago
@mordinvan Well, I would say you end ALL possible outcomes. For you, your life is also altered. Is your life happier with or without the baby? No telling, since there is no control group for that exactly, but I do know there are people that wish they had fewer kids, but of course wouldn't give up the current ones.
Zaunstar 6 months ago
@Zaunstar
One must not forget the side effect on the living children when they find out they have aborted siblings. That's always a fun one.
mordinvan 6 months ago
@mordinvan Not sure when they would find that out, and even if they did, how much different it would be if the parents simply decided not to have more children. We get to decide whether we want offspring still, even if there is an accident. Certainly there are limits to quibble about, but first trimester, I have no issue with abortion on demand.
Zaunstar 6 months ago
@Zaunstar
Actually its 'not good' when it does happen. The kid is generally left with the permanent sensation of having just dodged a bullet, I believe the term is 'survivor's guilt', and even kids get to share the love on that one, after finding out that the sibling just ahead of them or just behind was deemed 'inconvenient'.
mordinvan 6 months ago
Speaking of confusing christian word play, There is one thing that has always confused me.
SummerRay89 8 months ago
Anyway Christians seem very protective of there "Monotheistic" status. And Yet they have god, and his son, who is still some how god himself, but some ghost. I Learned how to count in grade school, its been years so I might be a bit shaky..... but..... I believe that's 3 isn't it? Making them Polytheist by definition and yet they have as one of their "rules" No other gods before god? HUH? This has always made no sense to me.
SummerRay89 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man became a living soul only after God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life - Homeless Christ watch?v=71ltN5meyGY
Colloquium2011 9 months ago
Why are you so sarcastic? Or.. are you trying to win an argument with wit?
mahogonywhisper 9 months ago
I love all the ad hominems. Yes, Republicans have to be wrong. Why? Because they're white. Because they're men. Never mind the fact that American women tend to be more against abortion than American men.
Being pro-life is NOT about controlling people. Being pro-life is about protecting the rights of unborn children. It's not about deciding whether to reproduce. If a woman is pregnant, she already has an offspring, and that offspring oughtn't be killed.
Nulono 10 months ago
@Nulono More women than men are against it? Please show me that study.
Also, that is the problem. You draw the "offspring" line differently, so how do we decide who is right? It needs to be the woman that is pregnant that decides. Not talking edge cases here like late-term, I am talking just basic do they or do they not have control over whether they bring a pregnancy to term.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar YouTube doesn't allow links, but it was a Gallup poll. Go to their site and search for their article "Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans".
As for offspring, that's a basic biological question. MedicineNet says "Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.".
Nulono 10 months ago
@Nulono OK, and what branch of biology is going to be able to magically tell us at what point the developing fetus, embryo, whatever you want to call it, is required to have the full set of rights related to being a "person"? This is not such an easy question, unless you invoke an imaginary higher power, and then you would just be making things up.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar Rights are a philosophical topic, but biology does tell us that the fetus is a human being.
Tell me, how can you justify granting rights to born people?
Nulono 10 months ago
@Nulono It's a developing human, yes, but we do not consider it something with all of the rights that you and I have, and that is as it should be, as far as I'm concerned. It is up to us whether we want to reproduce, and for you to tell people that you can't have sex without there being some chance of being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is generally a religiously-based position which many, including me, reject.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar Why should some human beings be denied the most basic of human rights?
Also, if a woman is pregnant, reproduction has already occurred. The question is whether we should be allowed to kill our offspring. Saying that prenatal rights are "generally a religiously-based position" is a fallacious reason to reject it.
Nulono 10 months ago
@Nulono I'm not saying it's wrong BECAUSE religious people tend to think that way. I'm saying that religious people have a different view of things, and it's not going to be reasonably possible to get the sides to agree. It will need to remain an individual issue, and I believe it will. Having a child should not be a *necessary* possibility of sexual activity.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zaunstar Having a child not be a *necessary* possibility of sexual activity, but that doesn't mean that the child has no right to live once conceived.
Nulono 10 months ago
@Zaunstar: Actually, the bastion of Presbyterian, fundamentalist, denial is Oklahoma. I knew a guy who was head of sales for a very large software company headquartered in California. He was from Britain. He had traveled to just about every state and once said to me, "You know shamrockbaby, all the smart people in your country live on the coasts and they get progressively dumber the further inland you go until you get to Kansas." He had a special class for Florida. And not a good class.
shamrockbaby 10 months ago
@RainCityBlues I don't expect you to understand, but I was actually in the spirit realm and HE appeared as the brightest light imaginable & HE spoke to me "telepathically" not with actual audio, but it was very clear. I have also had dreams & visions. "GOD" is very real.Ask HIm to reveal himself to you. Once again, i don't expect you to understand, but wether you understand or not, doesn't change what i've experienced. If you can't interface more respectfully I will just ignore you. Stay open!
BRUTHAWAR 10 months ago
@BRUTHAWAR You do realize that's a symptom of both head trauma or oxygen deprivation.
Macrochenia 10 months ago
Ah, I share this account with my dad and thats why I'm afraid to comment on these videos. I'm afraid some teapartier will starting ranting and ranting about all kinds of crap if I state my actual opinion.
oortdoug 10 months ago
I frist wnated to say I lkied tihs vid. Now I jsut wnated to say taht its fnuny wehn poeple use the fcat taht smoeone dseo'nt tkake the tmie to spell prefcet or use pnucutatoin to dsicredit teihr satmenets. one souhld just be mroe orginial.
p.s. I bet it btohers you taht you can raed tihs.
ElectricPurple2009 10 months ago
i find it odd how abortion is generally legal in most countries yet euthanasia isn't. Killing a human being that has not chosen to die and that has not had a chance to live is acceptable yet killing someone who has chosen to die and who has lived their life is deemed as morally wrong.
Amazongrassmonster 10 months ago
@Zaunstar I just want you to know the truth. But me insulting or arguing with you only repels you. I am a THINKING theist. I have questioned GOD, & you can call me delusional if that floats your boat, but HE has countless times revealed that He is real. Religion has always been a big turn off to me, but spirituality has been unavoidable. Please just keep your mind OPEN to further realities. I am not part of the CROCIDUCK nation LOL!! ...BUT I AM a believer. We're not all quacks.
BRUTHAWAR 10 months ago
@BRUTHAWAR Arguing with me doesn't repel me. I don't mind a good argument. As for theists, they are clearly not all equal in my eyes. The ones that deny science are the most bizarre. They tend to be the evangelicals in the southern US.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@BRUTHAWAR I have a question for you then. Did the god that revealed "himself" to you show you "his" penis? If not, how are you sure it is a he? Further, how has "he" revealed himself? Was it in a way that could be easily demonstrated to the rest of us? Did "he: stop an earthquake, a flood, a horrible outbreak of Cholera, or was it just a voice in your head? I am quite interested to know, honestly.
RainCityBlues 10 months ago
Love love love your vids!
But lose that shirt. Doesn't do anything for ya. Or is it a beloved shirt that you hide from your wife because she keeps on trying to throw it out? LOL...
ZelphKinderhook 10 months ago
"I do miss the weekend goat sacrifices though!" very funny. Although our beliefs are often diametrically opposing, I do enjoy your humor.
BRUTHAWAR 10 months ago
@BRUTHAWAR Thanks, hehheh. Well, something for everyone I suppose. Some of my theist commenters are far less polite. In fact there will be a new video later about JUST that topic. *;-)
Zaunstar 10 months ago
I like Planned Parenthood for helping women with screenings, pregnancy testing, etc. etc. However, I don't support them because they provide abortions. Our country is so f***** up! I can't stand either political party anymore. None of the Republicans I know that are pro-life want to help the poor with health care and not one of the Democrats I know want to stop abortion! If a pro-life candidate supported health care reform, I would proudly support them. Take care.
Conservative122 10 months ago
@Conservative122 Very good point! I used to have a bumper sticker that read "True Christians are morally Conservative but fiscally Liberal." Most Americans today are the exact opposite.
DovefromGod 10 months ago
In many ways the goat sacrifices never left... you just need to hang out with the right goats.
weirdThingsTV 10 months ago
humanity makes so much sense..
we can start as many wars and kill as many people as possible in what ever cause.
its ok to stop a life when it finally has meaning when you have reached consiousness.
but somehow humanity dosent allow to stop life when that life dosent have meaning and dosent have consiousness.
sometimes i hate humanity. but then i realize that i am just as biggoted in other causes....
fuck it, fuck religion and fuck humanity
Responding2ISLAM 10 months ago
It's always "white men?" I've met a lot of black men that are pretty up tight and religious. Maybe you should focus on what's wrong with a position instead of gross generalizing, racist.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality That is not what I said. Either quote me correctly, or don't bother arguing.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar This is what you said: "I've always found it interesting to consider who's consistently making these decisions, to restrict options, and exert control over young women. It's almost always White Men, old enough to be grand parents." It's kind of interesting how you're "consistently" bashing White people. If I disagreed with someone, even in the context you're speaking of, I'd never have mentioned whiteness. It's very revealing and not the first time you've shown anti-white bias.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality Yes, you quoted me correctly that time. So I'm a self-loathing white guy? This is really not the point of the video. I make a video about abortion and you're concerned that I might be biased against my own race based on a small portion of the video? There's a saying about missing the forest for the trees...
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar I don't need to quote 100% of what you said. My argument is still the same. You're committing an ad hominem genetic fallacy. Yet you hold yourself up to be some kind of authority on arguing, and an impartial law supporter who's against bias crimes. But you're inherently biased. It would never have occurred to me to mention that people who disagree with me are white. This brings me back to the fact you're genetically a Jew, as you dodged the subject before.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality I never said I was genetically anything in particular. I didn't want to respond to it, because I wanted to figure out your angle. Now I get it. Just another of my "white nationalist" (to put it as politely as possible) trolls. Racism is a failure, every time it's tried. Oh, and if you must know, my heritage is northern European, not that it matters other than a point of curiosity, well, unless it defines someone, as only a racist would believe.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar I don't know that I'm a white nationalist, actually. I'm not even pure white. I'm just tired of covert anti-white philosophy disguised as anti-racism/anti-hate by people so far left they're book burning, speech limiting tyrants. But nice try with the ad hominem. That's pretty much your staple to arguing. My opponents are white, old, religious, white nationalist, etc. etc. etc. You're an extremist left radical and you think you're some kind of authority on logic but you stink.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@Zaunstar Here with the white attacks again. What's your position on Israel? After all, they're a bunch of nationalists? Let me guess: Only white nationalists are bad? I should have learned from your propaganda video that the biggest threat in the world is the dangerous and terrifying racist nazi hate from white people. We should just throw them all away in concentration camps.. I mean prison.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality - Quite frankly, you're out of line.
Your inferring and implying things that were never said, and then twisting single sentences into a supposed whole world-view.
Sure you /can/ take an entire sentence as a world view, but it's only fair to do so when said sentence, is ABOUT someones World View!
And incidentally, if you want to keep referring to the group you seem to be wanting to defend AS 'Nazi's ... Don't go expecting sympathy when others flags aren't raised in your defence.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost So you think defending white people makes me a Nazi? Here we go again. No actually, Zaunstar is the one who made a whole video about evil white Nazis and said he wanted to throw haters away in jail for as long as possible. Now he's implying that a position is bad because it comes from white men. The only people I know *that* obsessed with eliminating Nazis and white hate and speech are Jews. But what do I know. I'm just a "Nazi."
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality - Again you're inferring things that were never said. In fact did not /even/ imply that they were. I said 'IF' and I said 'group', and then I mentioned what You keep calling them. Never even implied that you were, or even that you might be, part of that group either. Simply didn't happen.
Anyways, moving on.
Actually no, that's not what he did at all; he said it as an aside, and specifically to *point out* that these people *aren't /likely/ to be affected* by their policies.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost Maybe we should put kindergarteners in charge of lawmaking on education? And dogs should run animal control laws. And put retards in charge of retarded institutions. It doesn't matter if they'd be affected. What matters is whether or not the reasons for the legislation are wrong, or the reasons one thinks legislations is wrong. Not the race or sex of the legislators.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality - That might be a good line of reasoning. If women were incapable of speaking (such as dogs) or not capable of making higher-functioning rational decisions (such as those with mental handicaps), or not yet capable of grasping the subject matter (such as children). But unless you really think that about women, then please don't use poor arguments like that.
You're right, the sex and race of the legislators shouldn't be his major argument against the legislation. And it wasn't.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost It's not any argument. It's more of an ad hominem fallacy. It may fool the illiterate, but it's a fallacy.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost That might be a good argument if white men where deaf dumb and blind, too. But they're not. Simply being a white man or unaffected by the law doesn't mean they're incapable of sound argument. it's the argument that's at issue. Opening this door leads to genetic fallacy and ad hominems and they're not sound forms of logic.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality - Oh no, THAT statement is *shit*, and shit doesn't fly on it's own.
When I said that the persons who are affected are at the opposite end of the spectrum - YOU, buster brown, compared said people (So young women, and if we're going to bring in race, as you so seem to want to make a big deal of it - then young women of colour) and then compared them to dogs, the mentally handi-capped, and children.
And you do NOT get to go BINARY and PRETEND like I did.
YOU *started* ad-hominem.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago 2
@ambidextrality - And I said shit-all that was ad-hominem about your legislators. (<- Please note the period) - All that I've said about them so far has to been to point out that Zaunstar mentioned them as an aside. Then I gave my best observation as to why he might have even mentioned them. And I did even That, Only because you were making a fuss about it.
You sir or madam, are *acting like* a troll. Smarten up, or you are destined to be simply ignored.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@Zaunstar You didn't want to mention it because I was right. Genetic fallacy again. If you're so into evolution, you should know that "racism" is a fundamental to the avoidance of predators or dangerous plants, etc. It might not be perfect, and collective fears can spread and be auto toxic, such as with homophobia, but it does work more often than not. And that's probably why racism exists. Never say never. Better to work within reality than to punish human nature with your own auto-toxic fears.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality - How do you figure? o.O - Xenophobia is the avoidance and fear of other species. Racism just refers to hatred among ones own species, and I'm really not seeing the benefits.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost Race is a genetic thing. Evidence shows that some relatives of humans were wiped out by others. I can't remember which ones, but obviously speciation doesn't ONLY occur because they got pleasantly stranded on respective islands. Sometimes speciation occurs because groups keep to themselves and segregate. And people still tend to segregate, naturally. Often other species, even races, can't tell the difference between individuals of different races. A memetic immune system at work.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality - Actually, anthropology's current theories seem to suggest that it was more likely that a group of people would segregate because the group had become too large, and so a segment breaking away to go elsewhere to find food, made sense, or they'd all starve. When people became largely agrarian, this number had to be a lot larger before people would be tempted to break away for this reason.
And yes, groups of humans did wipe each other out, but usually for food/foraging territory.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@ambidextrality - However, I will concede that, what you say is somewhat true, speciation does partially occur because of 'self-imposed' segregation. But I still don't see that as an argument for racism - the people who choose to self-segregate aren't necessarily gaining any more benefits than those who don't - and it's not likely to be a choice made exclusively for racist reasons.
So benefits? Still not really seeing them.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost You don't have to know why. But it is a fact of human nature. and to wrap yourself up in some dogma and deny it, while at the same time insisting that it's always 100% wrong, which is a genetic fallacy.. well, to do that is not logical, and it's revisionist. Some come back to reality. Face facts. And stop calling everyone a Nazi and seeking to put all racists in jail. Because then you're just engaging in genocide because of your bias.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality
Just whom did I address as a Nazi? That's right. I didn't.
Next, when someone says they concede something, you don't start accusing them of denying everything your saying. You say "Hey! We agree on something, lets go from Here!"
That's just courtesy.
Next, if you have facts, Don't say anything which resembles "Face-facts I'm right" and list no facts.
You list facts, or list search terms.
Hardy-har. I'm disagreeing SO much, look at me ask you again and again to explain yourself.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost That goes for you or Zaunstar, or whoever is some aggressive racist hunter.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost We learn what memes are good and bad for our species, through experience, and by watching/communicating with our species. We're skeptical of memes from outsiders. Even threatened. This is why ching chong is offensive from a white person but not from an Asian saying it. Or the N word. Calling an identical meme racist because someone isn't a member of your race, is a racist rejection of an identical meme. This is why people use genetic fallacies and ad hominem. Biased meme rejection.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost In addition to the racism inherent in such a system, and rejection of valid memes by their origin (genetic fallacy), we also acquire bad memes, or auto-toxic memes, such as homophobia, because we witness other members of our species being homophobic. As groups, this is how we avoid predators in the wild. By learning when to freak out from others who perceive danger. Sometimes these memes are more wrong and auto-toxic, as I said. But not always. Some argue it's open to debate.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost Open to debate, as in the dangers of homosexuality, guns, Nazis, racism, terrorism, cancer, disease. Insert whatever the people or the media is trying to frighten us about. People will, or should debate how real these dangers are. I don't see Nazis as a huge threat today. I think the Holocaust is long over, Nazis are vastly hated, and the threat today is to our civil liberties, with nonsense like the "patriot" act and attempts to control speech to stop Nazi hate.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost As I said, it's an immune system. The immune system allows the whole body to coexists without falling apart to infection. It allows the body to orchestrate itself. Self discrimination occurs in utero. And the brain acts as a memetic immune system, probably differentiating during childhood. It learns self, and by doing so, permits species inter-cooperation. That means that we're all designed to be discriminatory. And species memes spread easily between your species.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality - Were you going somewhere specific with this?
You were talking about how meme tend to be within specific cultural groups, and those groups tend to be within the same race.
... And then you said memes spread easily among our species. (Which they do - and being raised in the same group is more important than 'race' for meme-sharing.)
But I still frankly don't see how this connects with what we were talking about. Or how it answers my question, about if racism has any benefits.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost Discrimination is the normal function of a learning brain. I don't understand how you refuse to see that to avoid being racist. If I told you a species of animal is known to bite, you'd be okay with that, but if I said a group of people are known to do something, everyone's up in arms, and you get banned for hate speech. It's retarded. Obviously, no one wants to be labeled by the bad actions of a small faction, but statistically speaking, there are (forbidden) patterns in groups.
ambidextrality 9 months ago
@ambidextrality - And in the context he was saying it, he seemed to be referring to people making decisions about it, rather than just generally people opposed to it. Sure you may have known many tight-asses of any number of ethnicities ... But what demographic (for that is indeed what it is) makes up the american republicans (I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this one, by factual sources) it seems to be from all I can find - older white males. The very people Zaunstar was talking about.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@ambidextrality
The point behind Zaunstar's statement wasn't to generalize what people within society think (your assumption), but who are behind these restrictive laws. The majority of people in legislation who make these decisions are generally white men. That's simply pointing out an obvious fact, not "white man self loathing". Your obvious over sensitivity of that subject is disstorting what's actually being said.
88Keyz101 10 months ago
@88Keyz101 It's interesting that a black man is defending this. It's interesting. I mean, you are black, and defending him. That's a fact. Facts are interesting. That's all. It's also interesting to note that lots of black men are in prison and illiterate. And that studies show that whites are smarter. That's all. Just interesting. Don't take offense or point out the vacuous ad hominem genetic fallacy that I'm hinting at, mister sensitive.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality
Ummmmm... Im not a black man, you imbecile.
88Keyz101 10 months ago
@88Keyz101 It doesn't matter. Insert whatever race. His argument is actually not an argument at all. He uses this technique constantly and it's pathetic. And he has a whole propaganda video dedicated to promoting "hate" crime laws which focuses exclusively on white Nazis and tries to employ this same technique to persuade people with a weak grasp on logic.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
@ambidextrality
Oh, so now it doesnt matter,eh lad?
The point is that the majority of people affected by restrictive abortion laws are statistically 1-lower income, 2-young, 3-minority 4-women. Zaunstar pointed out the irony that most people pushing for more restrictive laws that affect these individuals are usually the polar opposite... 1-higher income, 2-older, 3-majority (white), 4-males...
When you anticipate racism you see it everywhere, like a hammer sees everything as a nail.
88Keyz101 10 months ago
@88Keyz101 What I said was, it doesn't matter what color you are. Insert whatever race in my comeback. The argument as to what kind of people are making laws is not an argument that the laws are wrong. You can't argue that based on the race of the people arguing. You can only do so by showing why the law is wrong. And as someone who identifies as white, I wouldn't criticize the position of someone else as "white." I asked if he's Jewish because of his biased Nazi video, and he was evasive.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ambidextrality
Maybe he's not anti-white. Maybe he's anti-male. Or maybe anti-old, or anti-rich. There were a lot of things mentioned & you zero in on race. I wonder why that is.
"The argument as to what kind of people are making laws is not an argument that the laws are wrong."
True. However, he wasnt MAKING this argument. He was pointing out irony.
Now you mention some "biased" Nazi video. I know where your mind is at, which explains everything. You got a dog in this 1. Let it go.
88Keyz101 10 months ago
@ambidextrality - Pre-tell, what studies? And while it seems likely that 'smarter' was a term merely inferred, I will still ask: How is it that you have come to this word in particular, was it mentioned as a specific term on one of said studies?
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost There was a book. I think it was called Bell Curve or something. It suggested a hierarchy of intelligence based on scores or something. It went like: Jewish, Asian, White, Hispanic, Black. But I was just making a sarcastic demonstration, and the validity of such studies is irrelevant.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
Big government Republicans!
brianswine 10 months ago
This is all very nice, and the logical processes you go through to reach your conclusions all seem valid to me, but I don't think that the pro-lifers are necessarily out to get women the way you imply they are. To me, it seems that the issue is whether or not the zygote/fetus/whatever is a person, and all the other stuff is just words. There are obvious cons to outlawing abortion, but the idea is "better these cons than universal access to killing in cold blood". We must define what a person is.
Brysonmdulack 10 months ago
@Brysonmdulack - What you mean, is re-define, and re-examine the definition which has hither-to been set out.
Because each country has the right to define it, and most have. The states certainly has, it's just that not everyone agrees with that set definition.
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost You're right. The problem some people are having is where the line defining personhood has been set.
Brysonmdulack 10 months ago
It's no one's right to tell someone else what they can't do with their body. For that reason alone, I am Pro- (It's the woman's) Choice.
weirddudeonice 10 months ago
For an interesting read on an unintended consequence of abortion, read the chapter on abortion in the book "Freakonomics."
Almamater8888 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Almamater8888 Why don't you just tell us what it is.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
I love your videos :3
WARNING: MINI RANT
I really wish that there was more distinction between the people who are anti-vaccine and those who want safer vaccines. There is a difference. I'm a bit sick of people mashing us all together :P
sarcastichick424 10 months ago 7
@sarcastichick424 Hm, well I can agree with you if you are talking about things that are actually known to be issues with them, like suspensions that a lot of people have allergies too (eggs, for instance). If on the other hand you're talking about the Jenny McCarthy autism stuff, well, that's a whole other thing entirely.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@sarcastichick424 ...and thank you for the compliment as well. *:-)
Zaunstar 10 months ago
Exactly how many women fit into a "handful?"
GrapplingIgnorance 10 months ago
@GrapplingIgnorance I can think of four immediately, but isn't there a saying that goes "Anything more than a handful is a waste"? Well, I guess that was referring to something else, never mind. It's late and I'm confused...
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar Haha, I can think of some dirty, elaborate responses for that saying, but the short answer is "no."
GrapplingIgnorance 10 months ago
But remember, abortion is not the best option. Education and family planning is. In this day and age a sexual act between a man and a woman does not have to result in pregnancy. Humans in The United States of America can determain the when of conception, this is the primary work of Planned Parenthood, not abortion.
joestfrancois 10 months ago
@joestfrancois I agree on all points.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
By the way, I agree with your stand against the Republican reasoning to defund the measly 75 million provided for Planned Parenthood. P.P. offers family planning, H.I.V. counseling, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screening and other services for women, and no federal dollars are actually given for abortions anyway. Nevertheless, your view that all right-to-life advocates are right wing jerks or religious a-holes is untrue, unfair and, at best, very stereotypical at best.
pianodavy 10 months ago
Comment removed
pianodavy 10 months ago
I am agnostic. Years ago, I twice experienced getting women pregnant who opted for abortion. For the simple fact that I wanted these children, I begged on my hands and knees for these women not to have them killed - Oh, excuse me, is that the wrong word for ending an innocent life? True, I was irresponsible for not using contraceptives, but my point is, paternal investments are not restricted to the hearts of the religious. I find pro-choice very myopic in that respect.
pianodavy 10 months ago
@pianodavy That is true that it is not strictly speaking a religion/non-religion argument. Unfortunately for you in these cases, it is the woman that decides. It's a case where only one person CAN get the final say. I certainly don't begrudge your asking them to not go through with the abortion, but I don't begrudge their decision to do what they felt was right for them either. I do have empathy for your feelings, but I do not believe you had or should have had the final say in the matter.
Zaunstar 10 months ago 4
@Zaunstar Why? You didn't give reasons. And if it's not strictly a religious thing why do you constantly label all arguments against you "religious," as if that makes them wrong. It's ad hominem.
ambidextrality 10 months ago
Great video, Thanks...
cosmos11 10 months ago
@StarControl69 Well said, good sir (or madam)
rogerstill71 10 months ago
How is cutting off funding for planned parenthood "eroding access"? That's like saying if Obama didn't bail out AIG he'd be restricting access to insurance.
Not using tax money for something doesn't mean you're "restricting access". Tax money is EXTORTED from people, and you're arguing with republicans over how the stolen booty should be spent.
MoneyIsSilver 10 months ago
@MoneyIsSilver No, it isn't, because the people that would need it are not people that have the money to go anywhere else if they need it, unlike the insurance example. That whole taxes are illegal thing that some libertarians are fond of is just like Communism, in a way, in that it's another example of an idea that's good on paper, but completely non-workable in practice.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar well if they're too broke to pay for contraceptivesor an abortion, and they don't want kids, then they should stay home and keep their pants on, because its certainly not fair to force other people to pay for their fuck ups.
MoneyIsSilver 10 months ago
@StarControl69 No it's legal unill birth. That's how the law it written. I know you have no idea what you are talking about because you start your arguents with personal attacks.
MrGreeneggsnham 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Source?
cha0sniper 10 months ago
@cha0sniper google dot com
MrGreeneggsnham 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Google is not a source. It is a search engine. I am not doing your research for you, you made the bloody claim, so you can fucking back it up. I happen to know for a fact that that is not true everywhere, and am unaware of any place where it is true, so I am requesting a source that agrees with your statement.
cha0sniper 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham You can either provide one, admit that your views are not backed up by the evidence, or decline to debate the issue further. But continuing on this path without providing evidence for your claims is only going to result in you being mocked mercilessly.
cha0sniper 10 months ago
@cha0sniper You provide one. I know the law. I'm not looking it up for you because you are too lazy to do it yourself.
Without providing evidence for your claims is only going to result in you being mocked mercilessly. Back at ya.
MrGreeneggsnham 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham I'm not the one making the claim, so I'm not going to look for one supporting your point. I will, however, search for a link supporting my own claim that it does not apply everywhere.
Also, nice copy paste there, you didn't even rewrite the sentence fragment so it could stand on its own. I don't even need to mock you, you're doing a credible job of that yourself.
cha0sniper 10 months ago
@cha0sniper Go read the Roe v Wade decision. The government can't intervene. They ruled it was a violation of medical privacy laws.
Really you can't type Roe vs. Wade into google then start reading? Get the fuck out of here!
MrGreeneggsnham 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Apparently you're the one who can't read. Roe v Wade says that the government can't "restrict the right to access" "in the first trimester". They can put all kinds of obstacles in the way during the first trimester though, and after that, they're free to ban it. Various conditions such as rape or incest, health concerns, or the woman's life being at risk are all still valid beyond the first trimester, but voluntary abortion is banned in most if not all states after that.
cha0sniper 10 months ago
@cha0sniper No it isn't.
MrGreeneggsnham 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham I ask again for you to provide a source. I gave you mine, you disagreed with it. Provide an alternative. Go read Roe v. Wade, and show me where it supports your position, or use any other source you like. I used wikipedia, because it's the easiest option and it has a nice summary at the top. The ball is in your court at this point.
cha0sniper 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Also, they ruled that the woman's right to privacy was counterbalanced by the state's interest in the life of the fetus. That's why you guys have this trimester system. Fuck dude, I'm Canadian, and I know more about your country's abortion laws than you do! Also more than I know about my own country's laws on the matter, which amuses me as well.
cha0sniper 10 months ago
@cha0sniper The Federal government doesn't intervene in abortion. You are not even required to report that it occured.
MrGreeneggsnham 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham The only intervention in abortion that the federal gov't of the united states has made is the Roe v. Wade ruling saying that women are guaranteed the right to an abortion in the first trimester. Other than that, it leaves it up to the individual states. So depending on your definition of intervene, you're right, but federal government is not the only government. State governments regulate abortion rights individually within the bounds of Roe v. Wade.
cha0sniper 10 months ago
@cha0sniper It's murder. Smart liberals like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens understand this.
MrGreeneggsnham 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Don't change the subject. Are you going to provide proof of your claims or not? I won't discuss the morality of abortion until and unless you either back up your claims or concede the point.
cha0sniper 10 months ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Oh hey, guess what I found. Go to wikipedia, /wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States.
Hey, guess what else I found. You were actually right, but not about anywhere in the US. Canada has no restrictions on abortion. /wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
cha0sniper 10 months ago
Hm, We only sacrificed chickens on weekends, goats were too scarce to lose nearly 50 a year.
Now the semiannual human sacrifices, those were festive. :)
LordLoco87 10 months ago
You don't sacrifice goats ??!?! .... what kind of atheist are you ? LOL XD
gaglamesh731 10 months ago
When did Seth MacFarlaine start making direct-to-YouTube videos...
GlorifiedTruth 10 months ago
@StarControl69 I didn't say embryo. It's legal to kill a baby 1 minute before birth but it's concidered murder one minute after. That's the law. It's disgusting. Why do you support causing unborn people physical harm?
MrGreeneggsnham 10 months ago
I've had almost this exact argument with someone who was adopted shouting at me that IF an abortion had happened in their case they wouldn't be alive... lets all leave the ego at the door please... If there had been no abortion in mine I would not be alive...so yeeeeah
nelliediddle 10 months ago
@nelliediddle I've had some ask me 'how would you feel if your mother decided to abort you?'. To which I answer ' I would feel nothing, because I would not exist'. It's that simple.
DeeDemonwitch 10 months ago
heh, nicely done.
dannypantsgm 10 months ago
@dannypantsgm Thanks pants. Welcome to the Crocoduck Army, by the way! Here's your insignia...
Zaunstar 10 months ago
If guys would learn from Mark Foley's and Larry Craig's examples, we would even have to deal with this pregnancy business. Get with penis, I mean program.
ctso74 10 months ago
It is amazing to me that the same people who object to one person having an abortion because it is "playing god" has no problem with getting chemotherapy to extend his own life. Isn't that playing god, too? If god wants him to live, wouldn't he do so regardless of what medical treatment he got? His god is an awesome god, right? Why not just pray the cancer away?
You are right. It really is all about control.
curlew0609 10 months ago
1:52 I wasn't. My parents wanted me. :)
jebus6kryst 10 months ago
@jebus6kryst Did you ever make them regret their decision? *;-)
Zaunstar 10 months ago
"Who's playing god now?"
I LOLED.
LordSlag 10 months ago
This was NOT what I expected when I read the title :/
tamc1337 10 months ago
@tamc1337 I conjured up an image of a big dumb guy with a rusty knife, lol
skywize 10 months ago
@skywize Ok, step one, you want to make sure you have a nice, sharp coat hanger...
tamc1337 10 months ago
@tamc1337 You expected a step by step tutorial? Hehheh.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar You provide the fetuses, I'll make some amazing fetus onion soup with beef consume' and chateau potatoes.
tamc1337 10 months ago
What's most important to consider is the idea that Republicans and other politicians focus on abortion is a means to distract our attention to issues they can't resolve and have no idea how to resolve issues like the economy, jobs, social security, social and corporate welfare, Republicans know that the Bible Belt engage into a perpetual conflict with cosmopolitan urban dwellers. Such a rivalry will prevent us from asking them other questions such as "What about the economy...stupid?"
VerseInfinitum 10 months ago
@VerseInfinitum So these issues are just a conspiracy to distract us? I think I'd need some evidence of that first. I don't doubt that people feel passionately about these issues.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar I never mentioned the word conspiracy. Although this issue remains in debate to this day. Some politicians and I mean some, would take advantage of this issue to stay away from others they have no idea how to address issues like the economy, jobs, retirement, etc. It would suit them just fine. Abortion is not the only issue we're dealing with in the U.S.A.
VerseInfinitum 10 months ago
Some atheists also don't agree with taxpayer funded abortion, so isn't just about religious issues. If you want to help pay for someone to terminate a pregnancy, then please donate your money to that cause and stop whining that others don't want to help pay for them.
MegF142857 10 months ago
@MegF142857 It costs the taxpayers more without abortion than with. Think of it. A one time session would cost around $100-$500 depending mostly on the timing (mind you, I don't know exactly). How much would it be once a child is born? Now we are talking about paid maternal leave from a company (if employed), food stamps and social security (for the unemployed), and, where available, state run child care. Of course, they may not need all of them, but just one is more money than abortion.
skywize 10 months ago
@skywize You are forgetting that Republicans are cutting massive support out of everything you just mentioned. What is more likely to happen is the rate of child death due to poverty and starvation is going to rise. Hooray for Pro-Life!!
/sarcasm/
Seriously though, if these people were actually pro-life, they would spend more time focusing on the children who are already here instead. But it's not like this planet is overpopulated or anything.... (sarcasm again)
AvalonDraconis 10 months ago
@AvalonDraconis It will never happen, I know it's totalitarian or something, but I still think that there should be a limit to how many kids you can give birth to legally. This would cut down on all the money issues, and people would be forced to adopt if they want more. That last bit is my real reason, I could give a crap about most of the rest.
skywize 10 months ago
@skywize Actually, it already has happened. Look at the recent budget cuts and concessions Obama gave into over the past few weeks. Massive job cuts, Medicare cut, funding for abortion support cut, funding for women's health cut...
AvalonDraconis 10 months ago
@AvalonDraconis lol, maybe, but that's not my idea! That's just making broke people....um....broker....
skywize 10 months ago
@skywize If you think it is just about saving money, then by this logic you should go drown babies to save money for the tax payers. Your comments make me nauseous.
MegF142857 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegF142857 lovely, your personality is showing..... I went with the money bit because that's where you went... "taxpayer funded abortion" "pay for someone to terminate a pregnancy" "donate your money to that cause" "pay for them. "...... Your entire post was about money and you give me shit for trying to follow your logic? Seriously?
skywize 10 months ago
@skywize Reason I limited comment as "taxpayer funded abortion" is because that is what was mentioned in the video with Planned Parenthood funding. Not all atheists are 100% pro-choice. I'm such an atheist and agree in restricting abortion because I think there is a baby involved along the way in pregnancy. It isn't just 'poof ' a baby when gets birthed.
MegF142857 10 months ago
@MegF142857 You're right, that's fair. I don't like the consequences though. There are far too many people having kids when they are not financially or grown up enough just because they are pressured into it, which is likely how they type of girl gets pregnant in the first place. I hate the idea that a child which would otherwise have not been born has to deal with foster situations or, sometimes worse, parents who resent their very existence.
skywize 10 months ago
I think a consequence can either be positive or negative... but it just has a negative connotation associated with it.
OukaKisa 10 months ago
@OukaKisa Good point, though I think everyone got my meaning. I should technically have said "negative consequence".
Zaunstar 10 months ago