Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Rank #28141 on Comments
Level 232 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Send mail to fogglebeast
Invite fogglebeast to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress:
Level 232 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 233 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Total Comments Made:
What people say about fogglebeast
latest user's comments
- You see no logic in the statement because you're unfamiliar wi…
- It isn't hypocritical at all. In fact, having a child be born …
Then I suppose the only way to end all human suffering is to end the race as a whole. I guess suffering outweighs the worth of existence then. We should probably go ahead and nuke everything on earth, kill all life, that way nothing has to suffer anymore.
Yes - but the extermination of all life could cause suffering. If there were a button that would end all life instantly and painlessly,
it could be considered the moral thing to do, yes.
You treat life as though it's the most valuable thing in the world because you're biologically programmed to think so - get over it.
I would like you to explain why having a choice among individuals is a problem.
If it's legal, and you want to do it. Fine, it's your body. If you don't want to do it, don't.
Nobody is going door to door demanding you abort your unborn child.
Because I dont believe that anyone gets to decide whether or not the child gets to live. It's more than a choice among individuals, it's more than just the mother's body.
First of all. It's a fetus, not a child. That's why they made a different word to describe it. It doesn't even have a functioning brain, pain receptors or organs. It's a clump of unthinking and unfeeling cells.
Also, If you masturbate (and are male) you are a massive hypocrite.
Wow, there's that argument again. Sperm cells will not become a baby if left alone. Sperm and egg cells on their own are killed and recycled daily as a part of the reproductive system. These single cell organisms do not have the potential for advanced life on their own, they will not evolve or multiply on their own, and therefore do not hold the same value a fetus does.
A fetus does not have the same value as a baby, it is not a baby, I know this. I believe, that since a fetus
grow into a child (unlike sperm), that it should hold enough value to not be killed.
Pro-Choice. Choice being the operative word. Like I said before, you don't agree? Don't do it.
I think they should take a poll of the people like yourself who are against abortion, and then anyone who was thinking of an abortion has the choice to have the kid and just pick your name off the list and BAM, you got a saved abortion kid.
What's that? You didn't WANT a kid? It's not yours? You can't afford it? Too bad, it's here because of you now, so you can take care of it.
Also, if it would be alright in your example to force the woman to carry it to term, and birth, just as long as she didn't have to take care of it. Shouldn't men be able to decide whether or not to take care of a kid. A man gets a woman pregnant, shouldn't he have an out like she does?
You seem to be completely ignoring the point. It's not simply a matter of choice, once you are pregnant, there is another living being inside there, developing into a human being. That has some worth. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't fucking have sex. Sure, the mom may not want to be pregnant, but I can tell you right now I'm pretty fucking glad my mom didn't decide to abort me, deny me the right to live.
That last part is fucking retarded. I didn't make the choice to go fuck someone and get them/get pregnant. Pregnancy doesn't just fucking happen.
Of course you're "pretty fucking glad" you grew up knowing your parent(s) and since you are on a computer you obviously don't lack for basic needs like food or shelter.
Now think of someone raped in a third world country. They didn't choose to have sex. They might not be able to afford the child or support it's basic needs if she can barely meet her own, but you are fine condemning the child AND parents to a life of extreme poverty, struggle and sadness.
Also, using the example above, you should be fine accepting that child as your own right? The mother had no choice in conception, and is unable to support the child. Why then are you not out there right now adopting all the orphans of rape victims? Not yours? Can't afford them? Don't want one? Because you care less than 2 shits about them, because they are not yours.
You aren't pro-life, you're anti-choice.
Rape is a completely different circumstance as far as I'm concerned. The issue for me, when it comes to the vast majority of pregnancies, is that it was consensual. When you consent to sex, you accept the chance of pregnancy, there should almost be a EULA for it.
Pro life and pro choice are both bullshit titles. Don't tell me what I'm for. I believe that if you have sex you deal with the fucking consequences. You be an adult and deal with your choices/mistakes.
The ideal for me would be to have widely available contraceptives (pretty much already a thing, and one thing I disagree with with alot of republicans) and widely available, accurate sex education. If people were taught, when they started having sexual thoughts, what those were, how to deal with them, and how to do it safely, abortion wouldn't be necessary except for the most extreme circumstances. If someone knew about contraceptives, knew what would happen if they had sex unprotected, then it is their responsibility to take care of it. Issues of poverty are just that, issues of poverty and need to be addressed as such. You think people in third world countries have the ability to fund safe abortion facilities?
I'm not anti choice, don't don't try to slander me like that. I never called you anti life. You have plenty of choice whether or not to have sex. The value of someone else's life isn't your choice.
Yes, and my point is that pro-choice gives these certain people the CHOICE to abort rape-children, whereas the alternative give nobody any freedom.
If you have consensual sex with no protection and end up pregnant, and you abort your child, you are a piece of shit person. This is true.
If you have consensual sex with protection and end up pregnant, you should be allowed to have an abortion. The protection was supposed to remove the chances. It's almost like buying a car and when the brakes turn out faulty and you crash the car, you take it to the manufacturer and they say "Not our problem".
Having the choice is better in almost every single case. If anything at all it should only be illegal for people who have unprotected consensual sex to have abortions, and last time I checked most people don't have unprotected sex without expecting a kid, unless they have other plans. Like Plan B or they're on meds, whatever it is.
Pro choice isn't jsut for rape victims, and people who need them. It's for every instance. Like I said, pro choice and pro life are both bullshit, because they are both extremes.
And I disagree with your third paragraph there. No contraceptive is 100% effective. That's where that 99.9% thing comes in (and that's if you use it 100% perfectly), it's a legal thing because there's always a chance.
Nothing involving humans is 100%. Clearly it's not 100% for my car brake example, otherwise we would never have had court cases and vehicle recalls. Yet for some reason people find that when their brakes malfunction and they crash their car and family members die, they should have some kind of option or recompense.
"Too bad, you chose to drive. There's always a chance something will happen when you drive"
You seem to think that just by legalizing it people are going to say "I can have an abortion now? AWESOME! Fuck condoms, fuck Plan B, fuck ANY kind of contraceptive. Why would I use these extremely simple and cheap ways to prevent children when I can just go through an expensive and invasive surgery?"
- But a child can never give consent to be born. To say that abo…
What the hell is that kind of bs?
I see no logic of the statement that a child "Can never give consent to be born", it just is a nonsense line.
The only consent that matters is the one given when two adults decides to have unprotected sex.
I have nothing against people having unprotected sex, but they need to take responsibilities for their actions. If they didn't want a baby they should have used protection.
And i all the "arguments" for abortion is rubbish.
"before date *** its just a bunch of cells" The implications of this is if it doesn't have a conscience it isn't human. id like to hear someone use that to the families of people in a vegetative or comatose state.
Its a human being formed.
"what kind of life would this baby live with a mother" a.k.a. it'l be poor buhu.
That argument is incredibly disgusting because it basically says that if you are poor you'l be better of dead.
And it also is a slippery slope to go along with. Look at >19 argument below.
"mothers regret their children who grow up to be a burden on society"
His argument boils down to that, what is valuable to society. accepting that how can one disagree with expanding on that for the "good" of society.
Sterilizing poor for the "good" of society
Sterilizing blacks for the "good" of society
Sterilizing jews for the "good" of society
Sterilizing gingers for the "good" of society
When a woman is pregnant the child in her is a fucking human.
Calling it an it/fetus/lump of cells does not change that. And i find i horrible how easy people be ok with killing a child just because it's inconvenient.
People should take some responsibility for their actions.
You see no logic in the statement because you're unfamiliar with logic itself. I can tell since your arguments seem to have little to no basis in logic. Bringing a child into the world cannot possibly be done with the child's consent, so it is a selfish thing to do.
selfish - people who want kids generally want them due to their desires, and if they accidentally get pregnant then bringing the child into the world is just as bad as aborting it (and arguably aborting it would be the moral thing to do - I'd certainly say so).
>The only consent that matters is the one given when two adults decides to have unprotected sex.
then why should we care whether or not the "fetus" consents to being removed?
>id like to hear someone use that to the families of people in a vegetative or comatose state.
i will right now. the diffirence between a fetus in the first trimester and a person in the vegetative state is that one has a somewhat functioning brain, and the other has barely even started brain growth.
>When a woman is pregnant the child in her is a fucking human.
being genetically a human isnt what gives you human rights. theres a reason that we are thinking about giving chimps and and animals like that human rights, and its not because of their DNA.
"The only consent that matters is the one given when two adults decides to have unprotected sex."
Means that they consent to the sex and every thing that follows that act. There are numerous ways to have protected sex so that childbirth isn't an issue.
Talking about a fetus giving consent is a nonsense argument since it can give either, and to use that as a reason for killing it is an unlogical conclusion.
The two parents agreed to this possibility when they decided to have unprotected sex, if they didn't want it they shouldn't have rubbed their unprotected genitals against each other.
Would it make a difference if the person in the vegetative state had no brain-function?
First of all, the only ones who are trying to give animal human rights are extreme animal rights activists and is not taken seriously by anyone else. So please don't use it as a serious argument.
Secondly, beeing a human is what gives you human rights, like a baby in a womb.
>There are numerous ways to have protected sex so that childbirth isn't an issue.
protection can fail. end of story.
>The two parents agreed to this possibility when they decided to have unprotected sex, if they didn't want it they shouldn't have rubbed their unprotected genitals against each other.
and smokers can get lung cancer, does that mean we should stop helping them?
>Would it make a difference if the person in the vegetative state had no brain-function?
yes, the family should decide what to do with them. whether they pull or plug or not should be up to the family, not the general public, same with aborting a fetus. and also, ive already stated the in numerous other situations, that person with no brain function has already been born and has met/influenced many people in their lives
no one is going to miss a fetus they havent met yet.
>Secondly, beeing a human is what gives you human rights, like a baby in a womb.
no. its not. having intelligent neural activity is what gives us human rights
and also, how is that only extreme animal rights activists giving chimps human rights, yet a supreme court judge gave two of them rights?
You can use the adequate protection and still have it fail on you. For instance, condoms can brake (it has happened to me twice) even when using them properly due to them being faulty. What happens then if you take the morning after pill and it still doesn't work? Are you to be burdened with a baby at a young age just because some products you bought did not work? Hell no.
Also, people having children when they are young can be a bad thing for both the parents and the kid: the parents won't likely be able to fulfill their education (as they will have to work to provide for the child) and he will also probably live in a family that can't afford quite a lot of things.
When fetuses can be legally aborted in my country (12 weeks after conception) I don't think they are sentient beings, even less able to decide or live independently, so you're not terminating a life, you're basically preventing a life from developing from your own body. You're basically killing one part of yourself that could have potentially become a person.
Firstly, why wasn't the woman using any protection?
The way i'm reading you is that you were the only one concerned with it when in reality the woman should also use protection.
Secondly yes. You are responsible for the actions you have taken, even if the condom broke. If anything blame the woman for not doing her part of the job.
Regarding the morning after pill i simply have no answer to give. I am personally quite conflicted in my view on that and don't know where i stand on it.
I do not see the argument that it's bad for the parents to have a baby when they are young/poor as a valid argument. As i see it as a kind of repackaged eugenics.
And the value of a life is more important then material want. Quite frankly you cannot determine the quality of life of a child born into poverty.
I at-least want it to have a shot at a life .
Thing is, a fetus is a child being formed. It is a natural process that will result in the birth of a child (barring accidents). It is already a life, even if it cannot survive on its own.
Our entire medical complex is built upon the idea of fighting everything nature can throw at us to keep people alive. And i do not understand why people suddenly do a 180 on that and decide that a childs life is not worth fighting for.
When a man wears a condom it's not that the woman says "Fuck protection, I don't care", but rather that the couple has agreed on the condom being the protection method. What are couples supposed to do, the man wearing a condom and the woman being on the pill? This is absurd.
Also, I don't get where you'd be conflicted on the morning after pill, the only thing it does is kill the sperm and/or prevent it from reaching the egg. I don't see why somebody would be conflicted by that.
Last but not least, if you are so pro-life, would you be willing to pay a lot more taxes to help support those unwanted kids? (Either because their biological parents can't fend from themselves since they are so young or because they are directly being put for adoption). If you don't, you're not pro-life, you're pro-birth.
- Surely you're aware that you're free to stop reading whenever …
ya but i will like to read them all but it just becomes repetitive with so many
i know one thing you you'll never think is repetitive
- You can't use that logic to justify slavery and rape, since th…
My Unpopular Opinion
- The trick isn't to always tell the truth, but rather to never …
must be corrected
- Enjoy it whilst you can - the Tories are selling anything that…
- That doesn't make sense - many people want to do X but don't d…
The Truth Hurts
- An interesting point, but a point I've considered in the past.…
- In ancient history polygamy was widespread in the east, and at…
I agree with you with not being guided by emotions; but remember that before all that logic: it was an emotion that started your relationship.
So all the logic that came after is based on a feeling that told you to be with your partner...unless of course you did it for a visa, money, sex, etc (material things).
An interesting point, but a point I've considered in the past. Here's how I think following passions can be okay:
- Imagine you have a choice to make consisting of options A and B.
- Both options would lead to different outcomes, except option A would be more emotionally satisfying. Neither option would cause harm.
- One may as well pick option A since it will be more satisfying at no extra cost.
What can these options represent? Well, imagine a child walking along with an opportunity to jump in a puddle. If they do it, they'll get satisfaction, then continue as normal; if they don't, they'll miss out on the satisfaction but then carry on as normal. As long as it has no negative consequences, we can agree that they may as well go for the satisfying option.
With a relationship, one can choose to enter it, or not enter it. Neither choice will cause indefinite harm, so if the people consent they may as well go for it as it will be emotionally satisfying.
My argument is that within a relationship, if partner X forbids partner Y to have sex with someone else because they're following their emotions, they
cause harm, since partner Y is denied their autonomy. It works both ways - each partner wants to be selfish, yet for some reason the monogamous, controlling partner always wins. I think that's unfair, as partner Y having sex with someone else doesn't do any non-emotional harm to partner X.
Show Comments (8)