Madonna Speech: "Yes - I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House"

[Zephyr Storm]

The thing is, while those debates on what the definition of human life is and such are going on, there are people who need an abortion right now. There are old academicians sitting in a comfy lab and writing articles, and then there are people like Madonna, who are telling you: "Look at these people, these women need an abortion".

If you favor the rights of an individual above anything else, then, regardless of your personal stance on the subject, you have to agree that what other women do with a part of their organism is none of your business. And if you don't... well, I don't know how to convince people with authoritarian views to change their mind.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone (even pro-life people) be against an abortion that is medically necessary (example: the abortion needs to happen, otherwise the mother will die or be seriously injured/crippled). It's the ones that are done for reasons like the mother doesn't want to deal with the inconvenience of pregnancy, was too stupid to know what a condom is, or something along those lines.

[NYC17]

I don't particularly care for debating this topic (abortion) all that much myself, as pretty much any conclusion would be, ultimately, entirely subjective. There's no real answer to questions such as when a foetus (or even baby) could be refered to as an actual 'person', etc and so forth, and without such it's unlikely that any form of consensus will ever be reached.

That said, there is little question as to whether or not a human foetus is an actual human being or not - it quite obviously is, if we go by the metrics of science. I've certainly never encountered a situation where someone with a biological or medical degree disputed that fact, not as a university student taking endless classes nor as a PhD and researcher, and I would have been very surprised if I had.

Being in a developmental stage, and thus a "not yet fully formed individual" of the species in question, has no bearing on whether or not it is a member of said species. Which of course still doesn't mean it would, or should, be considered an actual 'person' (in the case of humans), so it's doubtful if that fact plays much of a part in a discussion about abortion as a concept either way.

That's the point. No actual scientist worth a shit claims life begins at any certain point due to the many factors, and it not being a strictly scientific proposition. Any declaration goes beyond what science can actually provide.

[Sci Fi Samurai]

It's good to see a celebrity live to such a ripe old age and not kill herself with drugs and an unwholesome lifestyle.

[NYC17]

"My opinion is more valid than yours because you think of human beings and animals differently than I do!"

K.

- - - Updated - - -



And call it anecdotal all you want. It was something taught at university by professors with far more degrees and knowledge in the subject material than you could ever hope to possess. And by doctors with far more degrees, knowledge, and firsthand experience (several of them being obstetricians, maternal fetal medicine specialists, and a few infertility specialists who actually did studies on the matter) than you could ever possibly hope to obtain. But please, go on trying to shove your opinion down my throat as fact.

Posting that again in case you missed it.

I don't have to do it "all I want". One time is usually all it takes to dismiss nonsense, but as a courtesy here it is again. Your discussions are not anything beyond anecdotal evidence. It means nothing within this discussion. it lends no more credibility, and once again this discussion is you being wrong about a statement you made.

[Zephyr Storm]

I don't have to do it "all I want". One time is usually all it takes to dismiss nonsense, but as a courtesy here it is again. Your discussions are not anything beyond anecdotal evidence. It means nothing within this discussion. it lends no more credibility, and once again this discussion is you being wrong about a statement you made.

Being proven wrong on the matter has hurt your delicate sensibilities hasn't it?

[araine]

Madonna falls in the Meryl Streep category in my mind, very left wing.

Thats why they are so smart.

[May90]

A foetus, however, isn't by any stretch of the imagination "a part of their organism". Not really trying to argue for either side of the fence here (and there are better arguments for both allowing and disallowing abortions than this one either way), just pointing out the fact that the mother and the foetus are two separate organisms from pretty much the get go.

Well, yes, but it is within the woman's organism. As far as I'm concerned, an individual can do whatever they want to their body, regardless of what foreign organisms are there. I am also strongly against the anti-suicide laws for that reason: if a person wants to kill themselves, you are free to try to talk them out of it, but ultimately it is their decision.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone (even pro-life people) be against an abortion that is medically necessary (example: the abortion needs to happen, otherwise the mother will die or be seriously injured/crippled). It's the ones that are done for reasons like the mother doesn't want to deal with the inconvenience of pregnancy, was too stupid to know what a condom is, or something along those lines.

Well, you can't police the would-be-mother's mind. However silly the reason is (even if it is, "Whoa, sex leads to pregnancy?! Damn, no one has ever told me!"), you shouldn't dictate what a woman does with her fetus.

[NYC17]

Being proven wrong on the matter has hurt your delicate sensibilities hasn't it?

You haven't proven anything. You've appealed to a laughable authority, and offered anecdotal evidence.

Plus, I have no sensibilities. I'm a godless prick.

[Zephyr Storm]

You haven't proven anything. You've appealed to a laughable authority, and offered anecdotal evidence.

Plus, I have no sensibilities. I'm a godless prick.

Let's go over what we know:

1. From the moment of conception, the zygote that forms is considered a human being. There is literally nothing else on Earth that has the same genetic makeup as this zygote, therefore making it uniquely and undeniably human. This is scientific fact, that you cannot refute.

2. Aborting at any point after the zygote comes into existence is, in effect, killing the organism which science has already stated is a human being. There are examples of later term abortions in which the fetus actually survived and went on to become a human adult, but for argument's sake, aborting from this point forward will be considered killing the human being (because that IS the point of the abortion.....to kill the organism/human).

3. The only point of contention in the debate of pro-life and pro-choice is when either side determines that the organism (aka fetus, human being) is considered to be what they feel is philosophically and morally a human that can or cannot have rights.

So of the three main things we know of during the debate of pro-life and pro-choice, two are scientific facts that cannot be refuted, with the third being nothing more than a matter of opinion. And pro-choice people want to argue that the mother's rights trump that of the fetus on the SOLE assumption that their opinion is more valid than that of the opposition? When the opposition (pro-life) actually has the two scientific facts backing up what they're saying constitutes a human being and therefore what should be given basic human rights, just like any other human being.

Pro-choice people are saying that one human being is more important than another human being, simply because it's a matter of personal preference/convenience/opinion. Where did the human rights you're fighting to defend suddenly go? The human rights apply to the mother but not the fetus? Sorry, but science has already established the fetus as a human being. So therefore the fetus should have the right to live, otherwise you're being nothing more than a hypocrite based solely on your own opinion of the entire matter. You're advocating the killing of what science has said is a human being, simply because you are ranking one human life as more important than another. That's not equality or defending human rights. That's picking and choosing what you want in order to fit your narrative. End of story.

And before you say "Well the mother has her rights as well!". You're right, she does. But those rights go out the window the moment she chooses to partake in a situation that can lead to conception. She goes into said situation knowing full well what the consequences could be and chooses to do so at her own risk. The ONLY time this could be considered otherwise is in the case of rape victims, which is a morally and ethically grey area when it comes to abortions. All other situations are done with the knowledge and consent of the female knowing that it could potentially end in the conception of another human being, at which point she cannot dictate whether that human being lives or dies, unless it's medically necessary to save the mother's life or prevent undue harm to her.

Funny how you're all about human rights when it comes to the maternal human in the situation, but those human rights suddenly disappear when the filial human is brought into the discussion. Like I said, fucking hypocrite. Anything else you say is nothing but a matter of opinion and should be treated as such.

[May90]

snip

Interesting. You call people who value life of one human being more than that of another hypocrites - but when I apply the same logic talking about you and animal rights (and human is an animal too), you suddenly start talking of my depravity... Like I and a few other people have said, your position is not rational, mate, and it is not consistent.

There is nothing wrong with valuing life of one human being over another in certain situations. When a murderer with an axe runs at you and a police officer is nearby, that police officer will value your life more than that of the murderer and shoot the murderer down. When a war is going on, soldiers value lives of those on their side more than lives of those on the other side. I can go on and on... But what's for certain is this: if you seriously think that there is no difference between the life of a fetus (or, let's go back, a zygote!), and that of an actual person - then something is seriously screwed up in your system of values.

The purpose of human rights is to protect an individual from other individuals. You can't protect an individual that hasn't been born yet: it is not an individual. Human rights do not apply to dead humans or unborn humans. You can extend the concept of human rights however much you want to suit your narrative, but reasonable people are unlikely to take your position seriously then.

There is no hypocrisy here, there is just you choosing an obviously fallible position and trying to defend it by various vocabular and logical tricks. There shouldn't be even a debate here: the problem of preserving life of a freaking fetus or zygote isn't even a first world problem, this is some kind of a king's palace problem.

[Zephyr Storm]

Interesting. You call people who value life of one human being more than that of another hypocrites - but when I apply the same logic talking about you and animal rights (and human is an animal too), you suddenly start talking of my depravity... Like I and a few other people have said, your position is not rational, mate, and it is not consistent.

There is nothing wrong with valuing life of one human being over another in certain situations. When a murderer with an axe runs at you and a police officer is nearby, that police officer will value your life more than that of the murderer and shoot the murderer down. When a war is going on, soldiers value lives of those on their side more than lives of those on the other side. I can go on and on... But what's for certain is this: if you seriously think that there is no difference between the life of a fetus (or, let's go back, a zygote!), and that of an actual person - then something is seriously screwed up in your system of values.

The purpose of human rights is to protect an individual from other individuals. You can't protect an individual that hasn't been born yet: it is not an individual. Human rights do not apply to dead humans or unborn humans. You can extend the concept of human rights however much you want to suit your narrative, but reasonable people are unlikely to take your position seriously then.

There is no hypocrisy here, there is just you choosing an obviously fallible position and trying to defend it by various vocabular and logical tricks. There shouldn't be even a debate here: the problem of preserving life of a freaking fetus or zygote isn't even a first world problem, this is some kind of a king's palace problem.

Your entire notion is rendered moot when you equate human rights to animal rights. No one can take you seriously at that point. Especially when animal rights don't even factor in to the discussion at hand. And your other examples don't even apply to this situation at all either. Self Defense and war are completely different than abortion. If you can't see the difference there, then there is something seriously screwed up in your system of values.

It was a nice attempt with the strawman though.

And I already covered the rest of your reply in my previous post. It's literally your opinion and nothing else. Because you choose to believe that the fetus isn't an individual human yet doesn't make it so. It just means you're using your opinion to justify the killing of said human.

[May90]

Your entire notion is rendered moot when you equate human rights to animal rights. No one can take you seriously at that point. Especially when animal rights don't even factor in to the discussion at hand. And your other examples don't even apply to this situation at all either. Self Defense and war are completely different than abortion. If you can't see the difference there, then there is something seriously screwed up in your system of values.

It was a nice attempt with the strawman though.

And I already covered the rest of your reply in my previous post. It's literally your opinion and nothing else. Because you choose to believe that the fetus isn't an individual human yet doesn't make it so. It just means you're using your opinion to justify the killing of said human.

I don't need to justify killing of a fetus any more than you need to justify killing of a virus. You have utterly failed to explain a qualitative difference between a human being and an animal being. You know that difference, of course, and you know that it makes your point moot.

[Ryme]

It's nothing, just a sentence aimed at riling up an angry crowd. It's dumb and hell if the secret service feels the need to investigate, let them go right ahead.

[Macaquerie]

Well I don't know about you guys, but my momma always told me that she brought me into world and she can take me out too, so if we just reverse the order of those...

In all seriousness though, if the pro-life camp aren't prepared to pony up substantial funding to help raise and take care of unwanted babies, then all of this abstract philosophical debate about what is and isn't human is just a waste of time.

[TwoNineMarine]

Free speech. Although it will be funny when the Secret Service dives into every aspect of her life to see if she's actually planned anything.

Stupid irrelevant people being stupid and irrelevant.

[Xandrigity]

It's nothing, just a sentence aimed at riling up an angry crowd. It's dumb and hell if the secret service feels the need to investigate, let them go right ahead.

It's not that they "want to" it's the law. It's against the law to threaten the sitting president. Vague or not they are doing their job.

[Saucexorzski]

Hating on Trump is what Cool kids do, lets all be the Cool kids!

[Beazy]

First time I've seen this. Why would she say that? We all know shes not educated enough to create a proper bomb. Crazy old lady is crazy.

[Zephyr Storm]

I don't need to justify killing of a fetus any more than you need to justify killing of a virus. You have utterly failed to explain a qualitative difference between a human being and an animal being. You know that difference, of course, and you know that it makes your point moot.

A virus is generally something considered bad and harmful. A fetus is not. Once again, your examples are terrible and your strawmans are hilarious.

And this continued insistence that an animal should have just as many rights as a human being only serves to continue to make you look like an ignorant prick.

But please, continue on with your terrible line of thought with absolutely nothing to back it up other than your own opinions and nothing more.

[MatadorMedia]

I'd love to see the gun-free Left try to do anything to the gun-toting Right. It's hilarious to even think about it. Words and safe spaces won't do any good against bullets if it were to ever go that far (hopefully it doesn't, but yet here we are with liberals threatening shit like this).

What are you talking about? Madonna implied that the government could be taken down by the people if they try to take our civil liberties away. It's the exact same thing as the gun-toting Right making threats about the right to bear arms. It would be the citizens against the government, not a civil war between political parties, dumdum.