I've definitely seen arguments in support of that

but as far as potential life goes, I don't see how sperm as the result of masturbation has any potential life if it hasn't fertilized an egg.

i agree there is a distinction, i just find it moot most of the time. preventing fertilization by some incredibly unnatural means seems as morally wrong as killing a life, at least in the context of procreation of the species.

i also brought it up because a pro-choice counter to the pro-life perspective is free birth control for all. we basically already have free condoms but pills are more effective, an implant would be even more so. So if a pro-lifer is against abortion, because it's different to them from contraceptives, and is concerned with their money being used via the tax pool for "murder", then they should be 100% in favor of the money instead going to free birth control, which is a "murder" preventative, to them. And yet whenever i broach the subject people seem to not be in support of free birth control for poor people. they deflect to arguments that this encourages sex in young people, as if that's a thing we can effect. young people fuck, putting that fact in front and then finding a solution is the way. instead people put their perceived culpability at the forefront and make it a tax issue. its a public health issue that effects us all with a variable that doesn't really vary based on the factors we're playing with.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 31 2018 08:50am

It has the potential to fertilize an egg and result in life. The same argument could be made against contraception (which has been held by the Vatican for a long time).

That’s why I don’t think ‘potential’ for life is a good indicator compared to consciousness or survivability.

No, worse case scenario, they die. Second worse case scenario is they never come out of the coma. By your logic we should pull the plug on all those individuals because they’re not conscience, so not truly alive.


Cool, I’m always down to help a friend navigate the treacherous waters of the shmashmortion discussion

Do any of those things you listed destroy an already developing life form, or for the sake of the discussion, fetus ?

If the answer is yes, then yes, it is.

if you draw the line at fetus then no. if you think it's immorally unnatural to prevent a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs on their scheduled time then yes. i tend to think that killing a fetus with no consciousness and preventing eggs from dropping are equally unnatural. so if i'm drawing a moral line i'd do it based on unnatural. if i consider murder being the killing of a consciousness then killing a young fetus doesn't count.

is it worse to kill a 4 week old fetus or Jarvis from the avengers movies? One is a consciousness without a body, the other is a body without a consciousness. i'd rather kill the baby. and i'm not pro abortion, just pro choice.



this part is objectively false tho. people have consciousness while in a coma, just not the ability to express it. if it were as easily debunked it wouldnt have been the go-to for decades in this debate.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 31 2018 08:55am

If they have no chance of recovery, then by all means pull the plug. Comatose people and undeveloped foetuses don’t have the same level of consciousness. One can retain his neurologic fonctions, one does not even have a formed brain.

Sperm and unfertilized eggs are by definition ‘living’. Ejaculation will lead to the destruction of that life and the loss of potential to create a more developed life form.

That was Mitch McConnell and the GOP Senate, not Trump.

How about a coma where you'd wake up in 9 months? Abort you because it makes your life easier & saves medical bills?

woooooosh.



so 50-50? he did nominate Gorsuch. it's not like congress can write-in.

think he may have been talking about the stalling that occurred when Garland was nominated by Pres Obama in 2016

Speaking of which Drumpf should nominate Garland next as a troll. most obvious bait ever but the usual suspects will call Garland the next coming of Hitler