Watching these Ali G sketches makes me laugh so much that I genuinely find it hard to believe that this is Sacha Baron Cohen, who is an incredibly intelligent and articulate man, doing all these, goofy and laughable things.
Let us reiterate this point once more: a fetus is not a child. Although a fetus may hold life and the capacity to grow into a human being, it cannot do this unaided. Skin cells may hold life and also retain the capacity to grow into a human being (on the condition that you provide it with the right means to do so) - however, skin cells are not children. A fetus is no different from a large mass of cells within yourself.
Sacha Baron Cohen, this despicable man, is laughing all the way to the bank, as we guffaw at the pranks he pulls. He impersonates gays, Eastern European perverts, and another sort of pervert (one affecting to be black when he manifestly isn't; which is part of the act itself) from an English ghetto. This utterly despicable atheist is from a wealthy family, has had the best education that money can buy, and is an intelligent person. Yet he routinely attacks decency and morality in his skits.
@sam0smith Well, not all intelligent people are atheists. Some very smart people are theists and they give very smart arguments for theism. The intelligent people who are atheists tend to give very unsound and stupid arguments for atheism.
@BenjiAJ Sacha Baron Cohen is funny. Take a joke. He's just being funny, not seriously trying to offend people. He's not an atheist, he's a jew himself, yet in Borat he takes the piss out of jews in the harshest ways imaginable.
FUCK PRO-LIFE, AND FUCK YOUR STUPID IDEALS, IM AN ANARCHIST AND I SUPPORT ABORTION TOO, WHY? BECAUSE ITS EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO MAKE THIER OWN CHOICE TO HAVE AN ABORTION STUPID PRO-LIFE MOTHERFUCKERS GO TO HELL YOU BITCHES!
@MrButton1991 No one has the right to kill something as defenceless and inocent as a baby. How would you feel if your mother aborded, you? Well you proabaly would'nt feel anything because you'd be dead.
Its always murder... plain and simple. Plus, even if you buy the bull about abortions out of medical necessity, well... that also sounds like garbage. Anyone I've ever known who had an abortion had one out of convenience.
@runningisdeath We can clearly see that a woman impregnated as a result of rape would be severely tempted to kill the child in her womb. Yet for all that such a child is still an innocent and defenceless human being with an inalienable right to life. If she murders that child, she would be sinning. The wrong she suffered doesn't entitle her to murder the innocent.
@BenjiAJ What if she doesn't have the resources to take care of that child? Don't you have any compassion for the woman who suffered this traumatic event and is now going to be painfully reminded of that event every time she looks into the eyes of her child? Of course not, because a woman is always expected to sacrifice her life for others and deal with her pain in silence. These women have rights and if you're not the one expected to look after the kid, you don't have a say in the matter.
@runningisdeath What if the child were born and she then came to lack the resources to care for him; and what if she were then to feel (for whatever reason) that looking into the eyes of this child could serve to do nothing other than painfully to remind her of some event in her past by which she had been traumatized? Would then she have the right to murder? Your argument if accepted would justify a woman in murdering an innocent just because of her trauma. cont'd
@runningisdeath In fact, even the modern law courts would punish a woman for premeditating and carrying out the murder of her own rapist. If a man were charged with rape, and the victim of the rape were then to murder him once he had served his sentence, that victim would still be tried for murder. If that is true, then would it not be even more horrendously wrong that an innocent child should be murdered? Your argument is morally despicable.
@runningisdeath You want women to be given the right to murder their own children when it becomes inconvenient to bring the children to term. You want the right of the murder to be given to women so that they can murder children as a form of back-up birth-control. Very few pregnancies in any case are the result of rape. What you have said is truly despicable.
@CheekyLad9 I don't have to get pregnant to recognize abortion as murder; any more than I have to have a child to recognize as a murderer a mother who kills a 2-year-old 'because he's going to grow up unloved'. Wake up and get real. And no - I won't keep my opinions to myself as long as this country legalizes murder. We oppose child-murder in the name of Christ.
@CheekyLad9 a new born child also deppends on her mother or in other person to survive, so you are saying that we can kill new born childs also ... fantastic logic no doubt lol
@CheekyLad9 Thank you! Finally someone has said what I've been trying to put into words and explain all along! The foetus depends on the mother, it's a part of her until it can survive without living off her, and so she should have the right to get rid of it if she feels it neccessary. Without her it wouldn't be a alive anyway.
@xxSnowy96xx Hold up..you're a 15-year-old girl?????? I thought you were a guy...ok..the age isn't that surprising..but a girl????...I'm genuinely surprised..anyway
@xxSnowy96xx ...Neither a spermatozoon nor an egg is such that it is genetically predetermined to change into one, given, specific individual at a later stage; so neither is a person..
@xxSnowy96xx what makes a baby the same person that he is as a teengaer and the teenager the same person that he is as an adult..is the fact that at each of those stages, there would only be one possible person that the subject in question could turn into at a later stage..which is a reason for thinking that he is already that person at the earlier stage..the foetus meets this condition - a condition not met by either the spermatozoon or the egg..
@xxSnowy96xx the unborn child has the same genetic identity as the adult that he would be liable to turn into..that isn't true of the spermatozoon nor the egg from which the child would have been formed..either of these entities could have become any one of an endless number of possible individuals depending on which particular one of their possible counterparts they might have happened to fuse with during conception..
@xxSnowy96xx I'm just surprised that you are a 15year old girl...you don't argue like one...i thought you were a twentysomething guy....what is this world coming to??..when did teenaged girls start to argue like men?...
@BenjiAJ I do actually understand what you're on about. If I'm honest, your argument and reasons make perfect sense when I look at them from a different point of view. However, even though your reasons make sense, I still think abortion can be a justified thing in some cases. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, right? And I'm gonna take the fact that I argue like a twenty something year old guy as a compliment, even though it isn't meant as one.. :)
@xxSnowy96xx Well, I didn't mean it as an insult. It's just that I assumed from the quality and tone of your argumentation and of your various responses to me, that you were fundamentally male, and certainly not a teenager. At any rate, you must be quite an unusual, pehaps gifted, teenager - you must stand out from your peers, especially the girls.
@BenjiAJ Wow, really? That is so unbelievably sexist I just vomited all over my computer. Does that mean you're a guy because you sound like an asshole?
Is your dob seriously 96? Refreshing to see that teenage girls can discuss with such confidence and displayed critical thinking. First time I have seen that.. I do agree with you, of course abortion should be a choice, if someone does not want the child the parents and the child will have a bad quality of life. We should also be able to use the embryos discarded for research and medical usage to help the people who are indisputably alive but may not be without medical help.
@RogerabbitGosu Yeah it is, and thank you:) I totally agree with you. If they are being discarded then surely it is better to, in a way, recycle them, and to put them to good use rather than to just 'throw them out' or anything. They will never become people and lead lives, but they have the ability to be used for research that may one day save the life of a person who already has a life, and surely that life is more important than the moral issues of using the embryos. If that makes sense...
@xxSnowy96xx That's easy for you to say since you're not in the womb but just because an embryo has no voice or the mental capacity to debate about whether it should be mashed or turned into a smoothie or not doesn't make it any more right to do it. When federalised abortion first started after the Roe and Wade case, it was a fringe idea and people used exceptions to justify it. Now its a free for all. A downtown New York mother can go to the inner city and get an abortion 7 or 8 times a year.
xx@xxSnowy96xx They may never have the opportunity to attain later stages of development but that doesn't mean they aren't already each endowed with a specific genetic identity. It isn't their fault that they aren't allowed to attain these stages of development and there can as such therefore be no justifcation for killing them so that others can be saved. You are trying to link the right to life to what is conceived of by you in qualitative terms as a live worth living which is evil.
@BenjiAJ The simple fact that the world is grossly overpopulated and that due to this fact the Planet is dying ecologically is all the justification anyone should need for abortion.
@KrazyKonspiracyKult Well then, maybe should you vote to let some people have the right to kill you...since you approve of culling...why then let yourself be the first in line to be culled...you dirty hypocrite...
@BenjiAJ Why would I want to kill myself when there are religiously insane conspiracy kooks & reich wing assholes such as yourself who deserve it so much more ?
@BenjiAJ that is the mostly overly sexist AND ageist reply to a comment I have seen in a while. Do yourself a favour and stop arguing, l o l its not doing you any good, mate.
@BenjiAJ actually, are you male? who do you think you are, attempting to drive your inexhaustible drivel on what is essentially a female issue into someone else's head?
@stellarcircle9 If skin cells were to be given whatever it is that they would need to be given in order for them subsist as the parts of whichever person whose parts they might happen already to be, they would never, for so long as they should be given this form of sustenance, be liable to turn into any given specific individual - which means that they lack a natural potential to turn into a human person. To compare a skin cell to a foetus is thus otiose in the extreme.
@stellarcircle9 A skin cell in any case would never exhibit such a natural potential until it has been turned into an embryo in a process of cloning that would relevantly resemble monozygotic twinning. It is the possession of such a potential (and the fact that it is precisely the potential only to become one particular person at any given stage of later development) which marks the subject out to be a human person.
@stellarcircle9 You desperately resort to such a preposterous gambit only because you want to grant women the right to murder the infants they conceive, so that they can continue to have sex without worrying about the inconvenience of a pregnancy. You want women to be able to murder so that they can have sexual freedom. This is despicable in the extreme, more despicable than what the Aztecs did in practicing human sacrifice. No it's not a female issue; not when the murder of children is involved
@stellarcircle9 To put it crudely: you want women to be able to murder so that they can continue to spread it for their boyfriends and not worry about having to care for a child. I am sorry to be so crude but what you are proposing is utterly, satanically evil - hateful to any person of goodwill. Abortion is genocide against the most defenceless class of human persons - the unborn. Shame on you.
@CheekyLad9 The fact that A is dependent on B by itself doesn't entitle B to murder A since the newborn and some of the elderly and infirm are also dependent on their caregivers for the meeting of their basic needs. That A is physically connected to B for a period, and draws from B its sustenance (by sharing with B the nutrients B consumes and also in other ways as well) doesn't confer on B the right to murder A. cont'd
@BenjiAJ Actually it does entitle the host to reject the fetus. If you believe differently it's your problem. Transplants, blood and bone marrow donations are different things, you compare apples with fish just to make your case.
@CheekyLad9 The foetus isn't a parasite feeding on the mother. My point about blood and marrow donations was to make it clear that the giving of sustenance through the exchange of biological material doesn't justify giving the one who has given this sustenance the right to murder the one who might have happened to depend on him for the provision of his sustenance.
@CheekyLad9 How would you feel about your own mother if you knew that she had once considered aborting you? Would you have wanted to her to treat you as a dirty parasite to be shredded apart and thrown into a bucket of gore - simply because your mother had wanted to have sexual pleasure but yet without at the same time wanting the baby that might have come with that pleasure? Would you respect a woman who wants to kill a child just so that she can continue to have fun by spreading her legs?
@BenjiAJ I wouldn't care if she had aborted me, i would be dead. I would respect any woman that choses not to become a mother just to please egomaniac bullies like yourself. Sure she has the right to have sexual pleasure, accidents happen, she shouldn't have to pay for it with the rest of her life. Don't be ridiculous. A fetus is NOT a child, it might have the potential to become one, but it's not one yet.
@Extramark9 I have explained myself perfectly. Be quiet.
@CheekyLad9 That's like saying that I don't care if my mother might have considered murdering me, because if she had succeeded in the attempt, I wouldn't be alive. Don't you see how absurd that is? Is it not a matter of concern to you that a woman should have been your own mother might have once considered murdering you? Tim Tebow's mum kept him even when the pregnancy might have endangered her life. How do you think Tebow feels about her?
@BenjiAJ GIVE IT A REST YOU FUCKING IDIOTIC TROLL !!! NO I DON'T CARE IF MY MOTHER HAD ABORTED ME, I WOULDN'T BE ALIVE AND IT WOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER. ENOUGH ALREADY !!!!
@CheekyLad9 I'm not a troll, so don't think you can discredit my arguments by the tactic of smearing me in that way. The reason you have given for approving of what your mother would have done in aborting you - namely, that you wouldn't be alive if she had aborted you - does nothing other than indicate that you would be willing to let her murder you. After all, it is impossible for you to be aborted and not be dead; and it is impossible for you not to be alive without being dead.
@BenjiAJ You've stopped making sense 30 comments comments ago.... Enough, get it through your head that we do not agree. Your view on the matter is biased and distorted. Women don't abort fetuses for the sake of their 'sexual freedom' but because -for whatever reason- don't want to be mothers. The rights of someone's own body surpass the rights of everyone else and a fetus is solely dependant on the host.
@CheekyLad9 They don't want to be mothers but they want to be able to indulge in what ordinarily would cause them to become mothers; that's why they want the right to kill their babies. They want to be given the right to murder their own children so that they never have to worry about being saddled with the responsibility of carrying a child to term whenever they find that they have become pregnant as the result of having sex. That's they are willing to spill innocent blood for sexual freedom.
@CheekyLad9 So you are wrong. They want to open their legs for their boyfriends but don't want to be forced thereafter to carry a pregancy to term. They want the right to kill their own children so that they can continue to open their legs in this way without worrying about the consequences. And you, shameless, despicable dupe that you are, defend their right to do this. They are murderers and will suffer God's judgment at the end. Your daft arguments have been already addressed and destroyed.
@CheekyLad9 So saying you wouldn't be alive if you were aborted is doing nothing more than noting something that would necessarily be true of anyone who would have successfully been made the subject of the process of being aborted; and what would you would be noting is that the process in question would leave you dead. So your position reduces to the view that you would approve of your mother killing you for the sake of exercising her own sexual freedom. This does no justice to you nor your mum.
@BenjiAJ And women can continue to have sex just fine even after they become mothers so your argument is invalid. Sexual freedom has nothing to do with it. The problem with you is that you are a misogynist and you view women as uteruses in high heels. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant since this is something you will never experience so i don't see how you have the nerve to dictate what someone else does with THEIR BODY.
@CheekyLad9 Let's suppose that allowing someone to depend on you for the provision of part or all of his sustenance, is a fact that, if it were to involve the exchange of biological materials between the two of you, would give you the right the murder that person. If this were so, then if I were to save someone by virtue of donating my blood or marrow to him, I would thereby have acquired the right to murder him. Yet to suppose this is patently absurd and heinously immoral.
@BenjiAJ You're right, by law she can't murder the rapist, thankfully, that wasn't what I was arguing. In fact, those two arguments aren't even relevant to one another (but solid try, really!), and quite frankly, I probably would kill my rapist and not feel a damn thing. "Inconvenient to bring that child to term"? That's one underrated way to put it. Fuck you. You're calling me morally despicable and yet you show ZERO compassion for the true victim of a crime. A fetus is not a baby, look it up.
@runningisdeath What you would probably be able to feel or not feel in killing your rapist has nothing to do with whether that act is murderous. By the same token, what the rapist or the serial killer would be able to feel or not feel in raping or murdering has nothing to do with whether their acts should be evaluated as acts of rape or of murder. A baby isn't an adult just as (to quote you) a foetus isn't a baby; so what? A foetus is a human being in a nascent stage of development.
@runningisdeath You're daft - a stupid, airheaded bimbo who wants the right to murder children you happen to get knocked up with when 'protection' fails. You are despicable. You do nothing but bring up red herrings; in a real debate, you'd get your ass kicked and would end up on your sore butt, sobbing - reduced to a blubbering, sobbing mess. Get real you lying piece of scum.
@strethy That's a new one - reducing the unborn child to the level of a bacterium (singular). Anyway, I guess I do object to killing bacteria after all - because I would (on a jury) find it objectionable that someone should have murdered you.
@runningisdeath I don't see why your getting so much shit on here tbh.
I'm completely pro-abortion. If it's above the 20 week period, then sure it should be seen as murder. But if the kid is gonna grow up unloved and neglected, or if it's a child of rape, then surely it's better to put it out of it's misery before it's even able to think. That's my opinion.
And this is freaking hilarious! I love Ali G so much:')Sacha baron cohen is a right legend!
@xxSnowy96xx So if it's 19 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 mins, into the pregancy it's not murder; but less than 2 minutes' later it is? What an arbitrary definition as to what counts as human life! What if someone else wants to make that period 21 weeks? Is there no non-arbitrary definition of a human life on hand? Yes there is; but despicable people like you want to do away with it so that you can have recourse to murder as a form of birth-control.
@BenjiAJ Woah, chill dude, I'm allowed an opinion. I get what you're on about, but the foetus (not baby, I said foetus) has no thoughts, nothing. It won't realise what's happening to it; it doesn't even realise it's alive, so therefore it's not murder. You can't compare it to murdering a baby or an old person because old people and babies have thoughts and feelings and are people, where as a foetus has not yet developed this much and so it is not an apt analogy.
@xxSnowy96xx It doesn't have thoughts but it will have them if it is allowed to develop into a more mature form of the specific individual it already is. It's debatable whether infants a day old have thoughts; and in any case, the old and the infants, can be put into a state where neither can have any thoughts. If you say that in that state the potential to have thoughts is already present because they are already persons, then the same argument applies to the foetus. cont'd
@xxSnowy96xx The analogy is apt precisely because the state of thoughtlessness you attribute to the foetus is the same sort of state into which either an infant or an old person could be put; and the argument that you would then use to deny someone the right to kill either the infant or the old person, after either will have been put into this state, could then be used to deny someone the right to kill the foetus as well.
@BenjiAJ No it is not the same, your analogy is not apt. A foetus is not yet a person, a baby or an old person is. They are already in the world and they have already got thoughts and feelings, and their own LIVES! They're nothing alike. Not even similar. And you're a bit ignorant then aren't you, if you wont even respect my opinion. I'm respecting yours, although I'm debating it politely. I have a MORAL and LEGAL right to my opinion, just as you do to yours. You respect mine, I respect yours.
@xxSnowy96xx It's debatable whether extremely young infants have thoughts and feelings, and in any case, unconscious, anesthetized, or sleeping infants and old people need not have thoughts and feelings. So why say of an infant born unconscious - supposing this to be the case - that such an infant would have the right to life? Why say the same of an old person who is rendered unconscious? You'd the defend the right to life of both by saying that they are capable of exhibiting human consciousness
@xxSnowy96xx If having thoughts and feelings is has the connection with something being a human person in the way you seem to imply, then if at any time anyone - an old person or infant - were to cease to have thoughts or feelings, he would cease to be a human person. Yet there are states into which such individuals could be put, which are such that the said individuals would be rendered bereft of thought and feeling; so how would you then defend their personhood?
@xxSnowy96xx You would say that while they can't have thoughts and feelings for as long as they remain in the state into which they have been placed, they are still capable of having feelings and thoughts once they exit that state; and so that is why they don't lose their right to life whilst they are made to occupy the state in question. Yet the very same argument applies to the unborn infant.
@xxSnowy96xx If the unborn infant is allowed to become the infant it has been genetically programmed to become, then it would have and be whatever it is that it might reasonably be expected to have and to be at that later stage of development. The fact that it is genetically predetermined to become that individual and not any other implies it is not potentially, but actually human. Your argument about infants and the old having a right to life because they are in the world is absurd.
@BenjiAJ If a person were to cease being able to think, feel, be aware of anything, then I think they would want to be killed. It's called a vegetive state and many people in this state are put to rest through euthenasia. How is that any different to abortion? How is my argument absurd? Those people already have a life and family, friends, a foetus is unable to think. It doesn't know it's alive, it doesn't know it exists, therefore if a woman wants to abort it, there should be no problem.
@xxSnowy96xx A vegetative state is dianalogous to the state of the foetus. Someone in a vegetative state might never again think rationally or experience human emotion; indeed someone in such a state might well have lost the capacity for rational thought and feeling. The foetus however clearly has the capacity for rational thought and for human feeling, and will in due course exercise that capacity if it is not murdered before it is born.
@BenjiAJ But at the time that it would be terminated, the foetus does not have rational thought and feeling. Much like someone in a vegetative state. I don't think my argument is absurd at all, of course friends and family is a condition for personhood; just because something is alive it doesnt make it a person. That's like suggesting a plant is a person just because it is living and capable of all bodily functions. A foetus is human, but not yet a person.
@xxSnowy96xx Yet the same capacity to acquire these feelings and develop these responses is present in the unborn child, who would in due course also acquire these feelings and develop these responses if its natural development isn't impeded. Why should the infant be assigned the right to life and so be allowed to advance in its development sufficiently as to be able to act upon these opportunities if they were to be presented to the infant, but yet not the unborn infant?
@xxSnowy96xx Why should this be done just because the infant will have reached some arbitrarily defined state of mature development? Isn't it the case that both the infant and the unborn infant have, in principle, the same capacity for acquiring these feelings and developing these responses, and would in fact acquire these feelings and develop these responses, if the development of neither of them were interrupted by death?
@BenjiAJ And also, you're thinking purely of the foetus, while I am thinking of the mother, who is actually a person. What if she was raped? Or if the foetus has a significant abnormality that will mean it will most probably die once born anyway? Surely it's better to save the mother the pain of bringing a baby into the world only to see it die.
@xxSnowy96xx Even if a child is genetically deformed and is thus not likely to live for very much longer after it has been delivered, then wouldn't justify murdering it. The same argument can apply to justify the murder of any infrm individual which is why I have compared you to a despicable genocidist, a filthy Nazi. In any case, consult the statistics on abortion; and find out proportionally how many abortions are of healthy unborn children.
@BenjiAJ I'm not saying that lots of aborted foetus's are healthy, because lots are and I know that. I'm just saying that you can't judge a woman for having an abortion because you don't know the circumstances and in some cases it is justifiable. And in any case, it is her choice. I know that when a person has an abortion due to unprotected sex it is stupid and irresponsible, but it's still her choice whether to have an abortion or not and we shouldn't judge her by this one mistake.
@xxSnowy96xx Yet you want to focus on the so-called 'hard' cases and distract everyone from the real, Satanic game that you are cunningly playing: which is that of giving women the right to kill their own children because they happen to find their pregnancies inconvenient. For the record, very few of these are the result of rape; although I will state that even a child conceived in rape must be given the right of life. These pregnancies are rather overwhelmingly the result of consensual sex.
@xxSnowy96xx I'm not going to waste my time debating an individual who is engaging in sophistry to justify what is grossly wicked - what should in fact be criminalized by the law as an instance of murder. Your fact-challenged, and egregiously fallacious lines of reasoning are deployed by you to justify a heinous crime - your mind is debased and so is your conscience.
@BenjiAJ You do realise I have no idea what half the stuff you just said means right? Not because I'm dumb, but because I'm only 15 and I'm not a freaking genius. I'll try to understand and reply to the best of my ability though. Throughout our debate we have been expressing our opinions and trying to understand the others point of view a little more and to show them our own. This gives you no right to insult me or disrespect my opinions. I'm not a 'nazi', I'm a caring 15 year old girl
@BenjiAJ So don't compare me to one. You believe it to be 'grossly wicked'. But that is just your opinion, not solid fact. It also should not in fact, IN MY OPINION, be criminalized by law as an instance of murder because it helps women who are in difficult situations or have made mistakes in life. I'm sure you've made mistakes, so why should a woman be punished for life just for one mistake?
@BenjiAJ My reasoning may be fallacious, but it is still justifiable and makes total sense if you open your mind to it rather than completely ignoring the fact that you may be wrong. Also it is not a crime, and it is not heinous in any way what so ever, and so your reasoning makes no sense. Also, do not insult me. My mind is not debased and neither is my conscience. My conscience is perfectly fine thank you very much.
@xxSnowy96xx Having friends, family etc is not a condition for personhood; and the foetus already has whatever it needs to have in order for it to have an independent life and genetic identity of its own, so your argument here is completely absurd.
@xxSnowy96xx The fact that the mother has to care for the unborn infant after it is born ought not to give her the right to murder it before it is born, any more than having to care for a child of hers after the period of his infancy is over ought to give to the same mother the right to kill that child during its infancy. Killing a child in infancy to spare oneself the hassle of caring for it is as much murder as is killing the unborn child in the womb for the same reason.
@BenjiAJ And it's not murder so the mother does have the right. She's the one who will have to suffer at the foetus's expense, so it should be her choice whether she has to. No one elses. Killing an infant child would be murder. Infants have already developed feelings, and rational thought procedures, they've already made connections with family and friends, they know the difference between things (etc.) therefore they're people and to kill them would be murder, where as a foetus cant do any of
Bum Bum Bum... Puff Puff Puff ...A- A- Abortion
bboyham 26 minutes ago
whats the name of the tune at the start?
mop2mop 1 day ago
the beatboxing killed me
lospeech 3 days ago
ABORTIONS FOR ALL!!!
TheBecauseimawesome 5 days ago
We shall overcome with beatboxing. F###ing brilliant!
SuperAndrewMac 6 days ago
'brrrrrrrrr Fresh'....during the hymn. Fucking genius
martinmerrywinkle 1 week ago
'surely you should try something before you say it is bad' haha, true.
strethy 1 week ago
Free Mandela
!
TheFatbulldog50 1 week ago
he was actually quite funny when he first started out, but after that apauling film his only routine is shock techniques on gullible Americans
theghostofmayday 1 week ago
when those women started to sing and he beat boxed that was PERFECT!!! hahahahah
urname125 2 weeks ago
we shall overcome.... offensive
rigatony019 2 weeks ago
2:05
5dx4mr 3 weeks ago
@5dx4mr LMAO
Lanlegend08 2 weeks ago
33 people were in that crowd.
karbine409 3 weeks ago
I miss Ali G :(
Exoixx 3 weeks ago
ah- a bortion bch bmp phf phf fr- fresh
chyeaOGKush 4 weeks ago 2
Bff k d bff d bff k (abortion) lol
P3AC3inthe3AST 1 month ago 2
Watching these Ali G sketches makes me laugh so much that I genuinely find it hard to believe that this is Sacha Baron Cohen, who is an incredibly intelligent and articulate man, doing all these, goofy and laughable things.
Shinoda908 1 month ago
FUNNY SHIT COME BACK ALI G
cathunter79 1 month ago in playlist More videos from shifty486
33 people ended their interviews
stealingpeoplesmail3 1 month ago
Beatbox=comedy genius.
ottam 1 month ago
that beatbox in the end was aewsome!
SaDrogheda 1 month ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA this interview is over. LMao
MrOnlineGod 1 month ago
Free Nelson Mandelllaa!
ant40099 1 month ago 37
scrot rott hahahahahhahaha!!!!
ainsleywainsley 1 month ago
666 comments lol. take that father, you bellend
xHighDeff 1 month ago
@xHighDeff you are aware you made it 667 right? hahaha
aksaboutm3 1 month ago
love the beattbox hahahahahah xd
NighaPleas 1 month ago
Whats the tune at the start ???
gozippy 1 month ago
the fathers head almost exploded, he got really red
kerkoky 1 month ago
even worse something called a relationship xD Haha,
Thyphoidz 1 month ago
This interview is over.
onechipinc 1 month ago 33
Fuh fuh fuhr fresh
theafi99000 1 month ago
lol @ all these bellends arguin.
AntonioRepiso 1 month ago
Yo I is totally in to abortion. I is been responsible for at least five xD
mahku94 1 month ago
@mahku94 funniest part of the show:') He's a right legend! xD
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
Let us reiterate this point once more: a fetus is not a child. Although a fetus may hold life and the capacity to grow into a human being, it cannot do this unaided. Skin cells may hold life and also retain the capacity to grow into a human being (on the condition that you provide it with the right means to do so) - however, skin cells are not children. A fetus is no different from a large mass of cells within yourself.
stellarcircle9 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
"here me now...here me nowww....free nelson mandela!"
lilmissannette 1 month ago
''this interview is over''
filipi346 1 month ago
Sacha Baron Cohen, this despicable man, is laughing all the way to the bank, as we guffaw at the pranks he pulls. He impersonates gays, Eastern European perverts, and another sort of pervert (one affecting to be black when he manifestly isn't; which is part of the act itself) from an English ghetto. This utterly despicable atheist is from a wealthy family, has had the best education that money can buy, and is an intelligent person. Yet he routinely attacks decency and morality in his skits.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Intelligent people tend to be atheists, yup.
sam0smith 1 month ago
@sam0smith Well, not all intelligent people are atheists. Some very smart people are theists and they give very smart arguments for theism. The intelligent people who are atheists tend to give very unsound and stupid arguments for atheism.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Sacha Baron Cohen is funny. Take a joke. He's just being funny, not seriously trying to offend people. He's not an atheist, he's a jew himself, yet in Borat he takes the piss out of jews in the harshest ways imaginable.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
Lol, his laugh was a Bruno laugh actually.
Divinemadness2 1 month ago
great analogy burger king and abortion, i knew a chick that got an abortion in burger king
black101dahlia 1 month ago
the beat box part
MrLietotaajvaards 2 months ago
I love all the people talking facts about abortion. You just watched a Ali G video!!! STFU
AARON0829 2 months ago
The beat boxing was actually sick
Rikashk 2 months ago 22
1:07 all smiles and cheer, then few seconds later.... >:-(
Blake4014 2 months ago
FREE NELSON MANDELA, FREE NELSON MANDELA !!!
TheMinizola 2 months ago
This clip never looses it's charm. LOL
jdh2526 2 months ago
- so ur a virgin
- yes
- hihihihi
2kmarine 2 months ago
2:07, that laugh lol
stevenash13beast 2 months ago
FUCK PRO-LIFE, AND FUCK YOUR STUPID IDEALS, IM AN ANARCHIST AND I SUPPORT ABORTION TOO, WHY? BECAUSE ITS EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO MAKE THIER OWN CHOICE TO HAVE AN ABORTION STUPID PRO-LIFE MOTHERFUCKERS GO TO HELL YOU BITCHES!
MrButton1991 2 months ago
@MrButton1991 No one has the right to kill something as defenceless and inocent as a baby. How would you feel if your mother aborded, you? Well you proabaly would'nt feel anything because you'd be dead.
ricosuavable 2 months ago
@ricosuavable He said abortion, not infanticide. Know the difference.
MastermindX 2 months ago
"or even worse, something called a relationship" LOOOOOOOOOOL
TheGamegineer 3 months ago
@StoneBeatsScissors
Bah! I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian.
thecritiquevirtuoso 3 months ago
you firing blanks hahaha
jd666ify 4 months ago
ahahaha this guy cracks me up =))))
sibilkovic 4 months ago
@HashSmokerDude420
what the hell if you want to ban something like abortion you should consider specific cases stupid
punkymimi411 4 months ago
Comment removed
2217Glock 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its always murder... plain and simple. Plus, even if you buy the bull about abortions out of medical necessity, well... that also sounds like garbage. Anyone I've ever known who had an abortion had one out of convenience.
2217Glock 3 months ago
so what is you a virgin? yes. hahaha. LOL
DrinkGirlsARSE 4 months ago 32
2:27 best part ever!
muereteflanders 4 months ago
@HashSmokerDude420 You dont like abortion, that your problem so keep your shit to yourself.
WarioDS 4 months ago
@WarioDS Abortion is murder. I feel sorry for anyone who supports murder. Only a tormented individual could become so twisted.
2217Glock 3 months ago
F-f-fresh
1BubbleTrouble1 4 months ago
Free Nelson Mandela! That ain't racialist! LOL
espilehiyo 4 months ago
you not never got a ho pregnant?
genxgina 4 months ago
or does you fire blanks? lol
genxgina 4 months ago
does anyone know the name of the song?
fallyfresh7 5 months ago
@HashSmokerDude420
o yea and if a small girl is raped you think she wants to go through pregnancy...its a traumatizing experience
punkymimi411 5 months ago
@punkymimi411 What is more terrible... rape or murder?
2217Glock 3 months ago
Rape does not justify murdering an innocent unborn child.
2217Glock 3 months ago
@2217Glock
Why don't you wait to make that claim after you've been raped, alright?
runningisdeath 2 months ago
@runningisdeath You know its true... so get off it.
2217Glock 2 months ago
@2217Glock Really? That's the best come back you could come up with? How sad...
runningisdeath 2 months ago
@runningisdeath We can clearly see that a woman impregnated as a result of rape would be severely tempted to kill the child in her womb. Yet for all that such a child is still an innocent and defenceless human being with an inalienable right to life. If she murders that child, she would be sinning. The wrong she suffered doesn't entitle her to murder the innocent.
BenjiAJ 2 months ago
@BenjiAJ What if she doesn't have the resources to take care of that child? Don't you have any compassion for the woman who suffered this traumatic event and is now going to be painfully reminded of that event every time she looks into the eyes of her child? Of course not, because a woman is always expected to sacrifice her life for others and deal with her pain in silence. These women have rights and if you're not the one expected to look after the kid, you don't have a say in the matter.
runningisdeath 2 months ago
@runningisdeath What if the child were born and she then came to lack the resources to care for him; and what if she were then to feel (for whatever reason) that looking into the eyes of this child could serve to do nothing other than painfully to remind her of some event in her past by which she had been traumatized? Would then she have the right to murder? Your argument if accepted would justify a woman in murdering an innocent just because of her trauma. cont'd
BenjiAJ 2 months ago
@runningisdeath In fact, even the modern law courts would punish a woman for premeditating and carrying out the murder of her own rapist. If a man were charged with rape, and the victim of the rape were then to murder him once he had served his sentence, that victim would still be tried for murder. If that is true, then would it not be even more horrendously wrong that an innocent child should be murdered? Your argument is morally despicable.
BenjiAJ 2 months ago
@runningisdeath You want women to be given the right to murder their own children when it becomes inconvenient to bring the children to term. You want the right of the murder to be given to women so that they can murder children as a form of back-up birth-control. Very few pregnancies in any case are the result of rape. What you have said is truly despicable.
BenjiAJ 2 months ago
@BenjiAJ Just shut the fuck up already, if you ever get pregnant don't get an abortion, until then keep your opinions to yourself.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 I don't have to get pregnant to recognize abortion as murder; any more than I have to have a child to recognize as a murderer a mother who kills a 2-year-old 'because he's going to grow up unloved'. Wake up and get real. And no - I won't keep my opinions to myself as long as this country legalizes murder. We oppose child-murder in the name of Christ.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ I don't believe in Christ.
A fetus is not a child, a fetus is dependent on the host -the mother- and the host isn't obligated to keep it if she doesn't wish to do so.
End of story.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 a new born child also deppends on her mother or in other person to survive, so you are saying that we can kill new born childs also ... fantastic logic no doubt lol
Extramark9 1 month ago
@Extramark9 A new born child depends on an ANY adult, not just on the mother. Massive difference.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 And therefore by your logic ANY ADULT HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL the child .... you make me laugh of how ridiculous your logic is...
Extramark9 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CheekyLad9 And therefore by your logic ANY ADULT HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL the child .... you make me laugh of how ridiculous your logic is...
Extramark9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 Thank you! Finally someone has said what I've been trying to put into words and explain all along! The foetus depends on the mother, it's a part of her until it can survive without living off her, and so she should have the right to get rid of it if she feels it neccessary. Without her it wouldn't be a alive anyway.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx Hold up..you're a 15-year-old girl?????? I thought you were a guy...ok..the age isn't that surprising..but a girl????...I'm genuinely surprised..anyway
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx ...Neither a spermatozoon nor an egg is such that it is genetically predetermined to change into one, given, specific individual at a later stage; so neither is a person..
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx what makes a baby the same person that he is as a teengaer and the teenager the same person that he is as an adult..is the fact that at each of those stages, there would only be one possible person that the subject in question could turn into at a later stage..which is a reason for thinking that he is already that person at the earlier stage..the foetus meets this condition - a condition not met by either the spermatozoon or the egg..
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx the unborn child has the same genetic identity as the adult that he would be liable to turn into..that isn't true of the spermatozoon nor the egg from which the child would have been formed..either of these entities could have become any one of an endless number of possible individuals depending on which particular one of their possible counterparts they might have happened to fuse with during conception..
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx I'm just surprised that you are a 15year old girl...you don't argue like one...i thought you were a twentysomething guy....what is this world coming to??..when did teenaged girls start to argue like men?...
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ I do actually understand what you're on about. If I'm honest, your argument and reasons make perfect sense when I look at them from a different point of view. However, even though your reasons make sense, I still think abortion can be a justified thing in some cases. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, right? And I'm gonna take the fact that I argue like a twenty something year old guy as a compliment, even though it isn't meant as one.. :)
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx Well, I didn't mean it as an insult. It's just that I assumed from the quality and tone of your argumentation and of your various responses to me, that you were fundamentally male, and certainly not a teenager. At any rate, you must be quite an unusual, pehaps gifted, teenager - you must stand out from your peers, especially the girls.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Oh, thank you then. I think. I'm very glad you think I don't argue like a teenage girl. Now that would suck. :)
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ abortion is not human murder.
xomiakas 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Wow, really? That is so unbelievably sexist I just vomited all over my computer. Does that mean you're a guy because you sound like an asshole?
runningisdeath 2 weeks ago
@xxSnowy96xx
Is your dob seriously 96? Refreshing to see that teenage girls can discuss with such confidence and displayed critical thinking. First time I have seen that.. I do agree with you, of course abortion should be a choice, if someone does not want the child the parents and the child will have a bad quality of life. We should also be able to use the embryos discarded for research and medical usage to help the people who are indisputably alive but may not be without medical help.
RogerabbitGosu 1 month ago
@RogerabbitGosu Yeah it is, and thank you:) I totally agree with you. If they are being discarded then surely it is better to, in a way, recycle them, and to put them to good use rather than to just 'throw them out' or anything. They will never become people and lead lives, but they have the ability to be used for research that may one day save the life of a person who already has a life, and surely that life is more important than the moral issues of using the embryos. If that makes sense...
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx That's easy for you to say since you're not in the womb but just because an embryo has no voice or the mental capacity to debate about whether it should be mashed or turned into a smoothie or not doesn't make it any more right to do it. When federalised abortion first started after the Roe and Wade case, it was a fringe idea and people used exceptions to justify it. Now its a free for all. A downtown New York mother can go to the inner city and get an abortion 7 or 8 times a year.
fashklash 1 month ago
xx@xxSnowy96xx They may never have the opportunity to attain later stages of development but that doesn't mean they aren't already each endowed with a specific genetic identity. It isn't their fault that they aren't allowed to attain these stages of development and there can as such therefore be no justifcation for killing them so that others can be saved. You are trying to link the right to life to what is conceived of by you in qualitative terms as a live worth living which is evil.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ The simple fact that the world is grossly overpopulated and that due to this fact the Planet is dying ecologically is all the justification anyone should need for abortion.
KrazyKonspiracyKult 1 month ago
@KrazyKonspiracyKult Well then, maybe should you vote to let some people have the right to kill you...since you approve of culling...why then let yourself be the first in line to be culled...you dirty hypocrite...
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Why would I want to kill myself when there are religiously insane conspiracy kooks & reich wing assholes such as yourself who deserve it so much more ?
KrazyKonspiracyKult 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ that is the mostly overly sexist AND ageist reply to a comment I have seen in a while. Do yourself a favour and stop arguing, l o l its not doing you any good, mate.
stellarcircle9 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ actually, are you male? who do you think you are, attempting to drive your inexhaustible drivel on what is essentially a female issue into someone else's head?
stellarcircle9 1 month ago
@stellarcircle9 If skin cells were to be given whatever it is that they would need to be given in order for them subsist as the parts of whichever person whose parts they might happen already to be, they would never, for so long as they should be given this form of sustenance, be liable to turn into any given specific individual - which means that they lack a natural potential to turn into a human person. To compare a skin cell to a foetus is thus otiose in the extreme.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@stellarcircle9 A skin cell in any case would never exhibit such a natural potential until it has been turned into an embryo in a process of cloning that would relevantly resemble monozygotic twinning. It is the possession of such a potential (and the fact that it is precisely the potential only to become one particular person at any given stage of later development) which marks the subject out to be a human person.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@stellarcircle9 You desperately resort to such a preposterous gambit only because you want to grant women the right to murder the infants they conceive, so that they can continue to have sex without worrying about the inconvenience of a pregnancy. You want women to be able to murder so that they can have sexual freedom. This is despicable in the extreme, more despicable than what the Aztecs did in practicing human sacrifice. No it's not a female issue; not when the murder of children is involved
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@stellarcircle9 To put it crudely: you want women to be able to murder so that they can continue to spread it for their boyfriends and not worry about having to care for a child. I am sorry to be so crude but what you are proposing is utterly, satanically evil - hateful to any person of goodwill. Abortion is genocide against the most defenceless class of human persons - the unborn. Shame on you.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 The fact that A is dependent on B by itself doesn't entitle B to murder A since the newborn and some of the elderly and infirm are also dependent on their caregivers for the meeting of their basic needs. That A is physically connected to B for a period, and draws from B its sustenance (by sharing with B the nutrients B consumes and also in other ways as well) doesn't confer on B the right to murder A. cont'd
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Actually it does entitle the host to reject the fetus. If you believe differently it's your problem. Transplants, blood and bone marrow donations are different things, you compare apples with fish just to make your case.
Stop trolling.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago 2
@CheekyLad9 The foetus isn't a parasite feeding on the mother. My point about blood and marrow donations was to make it clear that the giving of sustenance through the exchange of biological material doesn't justify giving the one who has given this sustenance the right to murder the one who might have happened to depend on him for the provision of his sustenance.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Your point is not valid because you compare entirely different things. Get over it.
I wouldn't call it a parasite but it's def. a foreign object since it contains foreign dna.
Enough.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 How would you feel about your own mother if you knew that she had once considered aborting you? Would you have wanted to her to treat you as a dirty parasite to be shredded apart and thrown into a bucket of gore - simply because your mother had wanted to have sexual pleasure but yet without at the same time wanting the baby that might have come with that pleasure? Would you respect a woman who wants to kill a child just so that she can continue to have fun by spreading her legs?
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ I wouldn't care if she had aborted me, i would be dead. I would respect any woman that choses not to become a mother just to please egomaniac bullies like yourself. Sure she has the right to have sexual pleasure, accidents happen, she shouldn't have to pay for it with the rest of her life. Don't be ridiculous. A fetus is NOT a child, it might have the potential to become one, but it's not one yet.
@Extramark9 I have explained myself perfectly. Be quiet.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 That's like saying that I don't care if my mother might have considered murdering me, because if she had succeeded in the attempt, I wouldn't be alive. Don't you see how absurd that is? Is it not a matter of concern to you that a woman should have been your own mother might have once considered murdering you? Tim Tebow's mum kept him even when the pregnancy might have endangered her life. How do you think Tebow feels about her?
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ GIVE IT A REST YOU FUCKING IDIOTIC TROLL !!! NO I DON'T CARE IF MY MOTHER HAD ABORTED ME, I WOULDN'T BE ALIVE AND IT WOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER. ENOUGH ALREADY !!!!
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 I'm not a troll, so don't think you can discredit my arguments by the tactic of smearing me in that way. The reason you have given for approving of what your mother would have done in aborting you - namely, that you wouldn't be alive if she had aborted you - does nothing other than indicate that you would be willing to let her murder you. After all, it is impossible for you to be aborted and not be dead; and it is impossible for you not to be alive without being dead.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ You've stopped making sense 30 comments comments ago.... Enough, get it through your head that we do not agree. Your view on the matter is biased and distorted. Women don't abort fetuses for the sake of their 'sexual freedom' but because -for whatever reason- don't want to be mothers. The rights of someone's own body surpass the rights of everyone else and a fetus is solely dependant on the host.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 They don't want to be mothers but they want to be able to indulge in what ordinarily would cause them to become mothers; that's why they want the right to kill their babies. They want to be given the right to murder their own children so that they never have to worry about being saddled with the responsibility of carrying a child to term whenever they find that they have become pregnant as the result of having sex. That's they are willing to spill innocent blood for sexual freedom.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 So you are wrong. They want to open their legs for their boyfriends but don't want to be forced thereafter to carry a pregancy to term. They want the right to kill their own children so that they can continue to open their legs in this way without worrying about the consequences. And you, shameless, despicable dupe that you are, defend their right to do this. They are murderers and will suffer God's judgment at the end. Your daft arguments have been already addressed and destroyed.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Just because you say that i'm wrong, doesn't mean that i am.
You're just a sad misogynist and i don't take you seriously.
If only your mother had the guts to abort you, the world would be a much better place.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ God ? LOL keep your imaginary friends to yourself.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 So saying you wouldn't be alive if you were aborted is doing nothing more than noting something that would necessarily be true of anyone who would have successfully been made the subject of the process of being aborted; and what would you would be noting is that the process in question would leave you dead. So your position reduces to the view that you would approve of your mother killing you for the sake of exercising her own sexual freedom. This does no justice to you nor your mum.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ And women can continue to have sex just fine even after they become mothers so your argument is invalid. Sexual freedom has nothing to do with it. The problem with you is that you are a misogynist and you view women as uteruses in high heels. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant since this is something you will never experience so i don't see how you have the nerve to dictate what someone else does with THEIR BODY.
CheekyLad9 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 Wake up and get real. Don't debase yourself by becoming a parasite.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@CheekyLad9 Let's suppose that allowing someone to depend on you for the provision of part or all of his sustenance, is a fact that, if it were to involve the exchange of biological materials between the two of you, would give you the right the murder that person. If this were so, then if I were to save someone by virtue of donating my blood or marrow to him, I would thereby have acquired the right to murder him. Yet to suppose this is patently absurd and heinously immoral.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ You're right, by law she can't murder the rapist, thankfully, that wasn't what I was arguing. In fact, those two arguments aren't even relevant to one another (but solid try, really!), and quite frankly, I probably would kill my rapist and not feel a damn thing. "Inconvenient to bring that child to term"? That's one underrated way to put it. Fuck you. You're calling me morally despicable and yet you show ZERO compassion for the true victim of a crime. A fetus is not a baby, look it up.
runningisdeath 2 weeks ago
@runningisdeath What you would probably be able to feel or not feel in killing your rapist has nothing to do with whether that act is murderous. By the same token, what the rapist or the serial killer would be able to feel or not feel in raping or murdering has nothing to do with whether their acts should be evaluated as acts of rape or of murder. A baby isn't an adult just as (to quote you) a foetus isn't a baby; so what? A foetus is a human being in a nascent stage of development.
BenjiAJ 1 week ago
@runningisdeath You're daft - a stupid, airheaded bimbo who wants the right to murder children you happen to get knocked up with when 'protection' fails. You are despicable. You do nothing but bring up red herrings; in a real debate, you'd get your ass kicked and would end up on your sore butt, sobbing - reduced to a blubbering, sobbing mess. Get real you lying piece of scum.
BenjiAJ 1 week ago
do you object to killing bacteria as well?
strethy 1 week ago
@strethy That's a new one - reducing the unborn child to the level of a bacterium (singular). Anyway, I guess I do object to killing bacteria after all - because I would (on a jury) find it objectionable that someone should have murdered you.
BenjiAJ 1 week ago
@BenjiAJ just wondering
strethy 1 week ago
@runningisdeath I don't see why your getting so much shit on here tbh.
I'm completely pro-abortion. If it's above the 20 week period, then sure it should be seen as murder. But if the kid is gonna grow up unloved and neglected, or if it's a child of rape, then surely it's better to put it out of it's misery before it's even able to think. That's my opinion.
And this is freaking hilarious! I love Ali G so much:')Sacha baron cohen is a right legend!
xxSnowy96xx 2 months ago
@xxSnowy96xx So if it's 19 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 mins, into the pregancy it's not murder; but less than 2 minutes' later it is? What an arbitrary definition as to what counts as human life! What if someone else wants to make that period 21 weeks? Is there no non-arbitrary definition of a human life on hand? Yes there is; but despicable people like you want to do away with it so that you can have recourse to murder as a form of birth-control.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Woah, chill dude, I'm allowed an opinion. I get what you're on about, but the foetus (not baby, I said foetus) has no thoughts, nothing. It won't realise what's happening to it; it doesn't even realise it's alive, so therefore it's not murder. You can't compare it to murdering a baby or an old person because old people and babies have thoughts and feelings and are people, where as a foetus has not yet developed this much and so it is not an apt analogy.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx It doesn't have thoughts but it will have them if it is allowed to develop into a more mature form of the specific individual it already is. It's debatable whether infants a day old have thoughts; and in any case, the old and the infants, can be put into a state where neither can have any thoughts. If you say that in that state the potential to have thoughts is already present because they are already persons, then the same argument applies to the foetus. cont'd
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx The analogy is apt precisely because the state of thoughtlessness you attribute to the foetus is the same sort of state into which either an infant or an old person could be put; and the argument that you would then use to deny someone the right to kill either the infant or the old person, after either will have been put into this state, could then be used to deny someone the right to kill the foetus as well.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ No it is not the same, your analogy is not apt. A foetus is not yet a person, a baby or an old person is. They are already in the world and they have already got thoughts and feelings, and their own LIVES! They're nothing alike. Not even similar. And you're a bit ignorant then aren't you, if you wont even respect my opinion. I'm respecting yours, although I'm debating it politely. I have a MORAL and LEGAL right to my opinion, just as you do to yours. You respect mine, I respect yours.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx It's debatable whether extremely young infants have thoughts and feelings, and in any case, unconscious, anesthetized, or sleeping infants and old people need not have thoughts and feelings. So why say of an infant born unconscious - supposing this to be the case - that such an infant would have the right to life? Why say the same of an old person who is rendered unconscious? You'd the defend the right to life of both by saying that they are capable of exhibiting human consciousness
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx If having thoughts and feelings is has the connection with something being a human person in the way you seem to imply, then if at any time anyone - an old person or infant - were to cease to have thoughts or feelings, he would cease to be a human person. Yet there are states into which such individuals could be put, which are such that the said individuals would be rendered bereft of thought and feeling; so how would you then defend their personhood?
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx You would say that while they can't have thoughts and feelings for as long as they remain in the state into which they have been placed, they are still capable of having feelings and thoughts once they exit that state; and so that is why they don't lose their right to life whilst they are made to occupy the state in question. Yet the very same argument applies to the unborn infant.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx If the unborn infant is allowed to become the infant it has been genetically programmed to become, then it would have and be whatever it is that it might reasonably be expected to have and to be at that later stage of development. The fact that it is genetically predetermined to become that individual and not any other implies it is not potentially, but actually human. Your argument about infants and the old having a right to life because they are in the world is absurd.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ If a person were to cease being able to think, feel, be aware of anything, then I think they would want to be killed. It's called a vegetive state and many people in this state are put to rest through euthenasia. How is that any different to abortion? How is my argument absurd? Those people already have a life and family, friends, a foetus is unable to think. It doesn't know it's alive, it doesn't know it exists, therefore if a woman wants to abort it, there should be no problem.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx A vegetative state is dianalogous to the state of the foetus. Someone in a vegetative state might never again think rationally or experience human emotion; indeed someone in such a state might well have lost the capacity for rational thought and feeling. The foetus however clearly has the capacity for rational thought and for human feeling, and will in due course exercise that capacity if it is not murdered before it is born.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ But at the time that it would be terminated, the foetus does not have rational thought and feeling. Much like someone in a vegetative state. I don't think my argument is absurd at all, of course friends and family is a condition for personhood; just because something is alive it doesnt make it a person. That's like suggesting a plant is a person just because it is living and capable of all bodily functions. A foetus is human, but not yet a person.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx Yet the same capacity to acquire these feelings and develop these responses is present in the unborn child, who would in due course also acquire these feelings and develop these responses if its natural development isn't impeded. Why should the infant be assigned the right to life and so be allowed to advance in its development sufficiently as to be able to act upon these opportunities if they were to be presented to the infant, but yet not the unborn infant?
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ Because an infant is a person, who has a personality, feelings and thoughts, whereas a foetus is just a bunch of cells.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx Why should this be done just because the infant will have reached some arbitrarily defined state of mature development? Isn't it the case that both the infant and the unborn infant have, in principle, the same capacity for acquiring these feelings and developing these responses, and would in fact acquire these feelings and develop these responses, if the development of neither of them were interrupted by death?
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ And also, you're thinking purely of the foetus, while I am thinking of the mother, who is actually a person. What if she was raped? Or if the foetus has a significant abnormality that will mean it will most probably die once born anyway? Surely it's better to save the mother the pain of bringing a baby into the world only to see it die.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx Even if a child is genetically deformed and is thus not likely to live for very much longer after it has been delivered, then wouldn't justify murdering it. The same argument can apply to justify the murder of any infrm individual which is why I have compared you to a despicable genocidist, a filthy Nazi. In any case, consult the statistics on abortion; and find out proportionally how many abortions are of healthy unborn children.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ I'm not saying that lots of aborted foetus's are healthy, because lots are and I know that. I'm just saying that you can't judge a woman for having an abortion because you don't know the circumstances and in some cases it is justifiable. And in any case, it is her choice. I know that when a person has an abortion due to unprotected sex it is stupid and irresponsible, but it's still her choice whether to have an abortion or not and we shouldn't judge her by this one mistake.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx Yet you want to focus on the so-called 'hard' cases and distract everyone from the real, Satanic game that you are cunningly playing: which is that of giving women the right to kill their own children because they happen to find their pregnancies inconvenient. For the record, very few of these are the result of rape; although I will state that even a child conceived in rape must be given the right of life. These pregnancies are rather overwhelmingly the result of consensual sex.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx I'm not going to waste my time debating an individual who is engaging in sophistry to justify what is grossly wicked - what should in fact be criminalized by the law as an instance of murder. Your fact-challenged, and egregiously fallacious lines of reasoning are deployed by you to justify a heinous crime - your mind is debased and so is your conscience.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ You do realise I have no idea what half the stuff you just said means right? Not because I'm dumb, but because I'm only 15 and I'm not a freaking genius. I'll try to understand and reply to the best of my ability though. Throughout our debate we have been expressing our opinions and trying to understand the others point of view a little more and to show them our own. This gives you no right to insult me or disrespect my opinions. I'm not a 'nazi', I'm a caring 15 year old girl
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ So don't compare me to one. You believe it to be 'grossly wicked'. But that is just your opinion, not solid fact. It also should not in fact, IN MY OPINION, be criminalized by law as an instance of murder because it helps women who are in difficult situations or have made mistakes in life. I'm sure you've made mistakes, so why should a woman be punished for life just for one mistake?
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ My reasoning may be fallacious, but it is still justifiable and makes total sense if you open your mind to it rather than completely ignoring the fact that you may be wrong. Also it is not a crime, and it is not heinous in any way what so ever, and so your reasoning makes no sense. Also, do not insult me. My mind is not debased and neither is my conscience. My conscience is perfectly fine thank you very much.
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx Having friends, family etc is not a condition for personhood; and the foetus already has whatever it needs to have in order for it to have an independent life and genetic identity of its own, so your argument here is completely absurd.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@xxSnowy96xx The fact that the mother has to care for the unborn infant after it is born ought not to give her the right to murder it before it is born, any more than having to care for a child of hers after the period of his infancy is over ought to give to the same mother the right to kill that child during its infancy. Killing a child in infancy to spare oneself the hassle of caring for it is as much murder as is killing the unborn child in the womb for the same reason.
BenjiAJ 1 month ago
@BenjiAJ And it's not murder so the mother does have the right. She's the one who will have to suffer at the foetus's expense, so it should be her choice whether she has to. No one elses. Killing an infant child would be murder. Infants have already developed feelings, and rational thought procedures, they've already made connections with family and friends, they know the difference between things (etc.) therefore they're people and to kill them would be murder, where as a foetus cant do any of
xxSnowy96xx 1 month ago