Charlie Kirk permanently owned on abortion

[Scrabaholic]

What's galling are pro-abortion advocates clinging to such asinine arguments as Glieb's - moronically asserting that because "human beings don't have tails" (Glieb), the human embryo therefore isn't "human."

Please link to the post where this was said.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Gleib uses the term "life" to mean a born human being. Prior to the dolphin picture he states that "life (a human being) begins at birth". Soon after his discussion about the beginning of "life" he says of the dolphin embryo picture, "I don't believe it is a life (human being) because human beings don't have tails." It's semantic chicanery and it's stupid.

The two of them define the same terms differently but never discussion their definitions. They talk past each other, interrupt and ignore facts, statistics, studies, research. The whole one+ hour is silly. Neither made the least effort to present honest arguments.

Thank you - the gist of my point. Kirk was silly to step into Glieb's silly argument and he was duly humiliated for doing so. Should've known better, imho. And I agree, the whole thing was a waste of time.

And if pro-life advocates were honest they would be discussing women's contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the effects on a family of a child that was not wanted. Instead they keep repeating their old mantra of it's human (meaning its a human being) and killing it is murder therefore women are murderers schtick.

I know of very few pro-life advocates who are against contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Some, Catholics I imagine mostly, are against contraception in general. Most however, myself included, have no issues with contraception - particularly of the "mechanical" sort (e.g. condom, etc.) that prevent the sperm and egg getting together in the first place. Even better is abstinence. My wife and I practiced both for awhile - abstinence before marriage and contraception during the first few years of our marriage.

I do know some pro-life advocates who are against other forms of contraception, i.e. chemicals that work primarily to destroy a fertilized egg after conception. Their argument is however consistent with the pro-life stance, and for basically the same reason(s)...

Regardless what one calls it - egg, embryo, fetus, whatever - its natural process, when uninterrupted, ends up human and for this reason we, pro-lifers put utmost value on it - from conception on. We don't buy in to the semantic chicanery of some who quibble over what for us are just... words for the same thing - something incredibly valuable.

The "unwanted child" argument therefore lacks a significant amount of credibility against the "it is something incredibly valuable" argument - especially when we take a closer look at what that word "unwanted" really means in this context.

Barring the minute percentage of pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest, or the similarly minute percentage of pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother, the vast majority of "unwanted pregnancies" occur as a result of casual unprotected sex or improperly protected sex or faultily protected sex - the common, operative word there being... SEX. And by "casual sex" I mean sex purely for the enjoyment of sex and obviously not for the purpose of making a baby.

In other words, the vast precentage of unwanted pregnancies - and therefore the vast percentage of arguments for abortion are based primarily on not wanting to deal with the consequences of casual sex. Period. Philosophically it's no more difficult than that. And an honest pro-abortion advocate would admit to that.

 

[weaver2]

Please link to the post where this was said.

Here's the link to the program where the embryo pictures are discussed. The discussion of tails and embryos begins abruptly at 23:15. It would be better to start at about 23:10. The program is well over an hour and in spot checking both the host 'sand the guest's conversations I give the quality of discussion about a -5 on a scale of -5 to +10. Neither is logical. Neither backs up anything with facts. And both play fast and loose with definitions of the words life, human, living, human being, baby. This guest doesn't know embryology. He doesn't know the history of PP. He seems to have bought into the adoption solution. He doesn't counter the fetus only-birth only argument of the host. He has no factual evidence to back up his arguments. He was invited onto the program by the host. Neither side comes off as intelligent or well read on the subject they are discussing.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Barring the minute percentage of pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest, or the similarly minute percentage of pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother, the vast majority of "unwanted pregnancies" occur as a result of casual unprotected sex or improperly protected sex or faultily protected sex - the common, operative word there being... SEX. And by "casual sex" I mean sex purely for the enjoyment of sex and obviously not for the purpose of making a baby.

In other words, the vast precentage of unwanted pregnancies - and therefore the vast percentage of arguments for abortion are based primarily on not wanting to deal with the consequences of casual sex. Period. Philosophically it's no more difficult than that. And an honest pro-abortion advocate would admit to that.

Incorrect. Most women who abort are in a steady relationship w/ the man who go them pregnant. 51% were using contraception.

BTW, what's so valuable about an unwanted embryo?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Here's the link to the program where the embryo pictures are discussed. The discussion of tails and embryos begins abruptly at 23:15. It would be better to start at about 23:10. The program is well over an hour and in spot checking both the host 'sand the guest's conversations I give the quality of discussion about a -5 on a scale of -5 to +10. Neither is logical. Neither backs up anything with facts. And both play fast and loose with definitions of the words life, human, living, human being, baby. This guest doesn't know embryology. He doesn't know the history of PP. He seems to have bought into the adoption solution. He doesn't counter the fetus only-birth only argument of the host. He has no factual evidence to back up his arguments. He was invited onto the program by the host. Neither side comes off as intelligent or well read on the subject they are discussing.

I wanted him to link to a post here at DP where someone (on this forum) said what he claims pro choicers believe:

What's galling are pro-abortion advocates clinging to such asinine arguments as Glieb's - moronically asserting that because "human beings don't have tails" (Glieb), the human embryo therefore isn't "human." And if it's not human, it's perfectly ok to abort it, thinking such logic somehow deflates the pro-life argument of [human] life at the point of conception. Post 71

 

[weaver2]

I wanted him to link to a post here at DP where someone (on this forum) said what he claims pro choicers believe:

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[weaver2]

I know of very few pro-life advocates who are against contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

The pro-life movement is responsible for the Hobby Lobby SC decision which allows corporations to prohibit health insurance to cover the contraceptives they do not approve of. States can declare certain contraceptives to be abortifacients and ban support for them. Almost all the contraceptives that women control, except the pill and pro-life is researching that, have been deemed to be abortifacients.

Some, Catholics I imagine mostly, are against contraception in general.

The official Catholic policy is that all contraceptives are banned.

Most however, myself included, have no issues with contraception - particularly of the "mechanical" sort (e.g. condom, etc.) that prevent the sperm and egg getting together in the first place. Even better is abstinence. My wife and I practiced both for awhile - abstinence before marriage and contraception during the first few years of our marriage.
I do know some pro-life advocates who are against other forms of contraception, i.e. chemicals that work primarily to destroy a fertilized egg after conception. Their argument is however consistent with the pro-life stance, and for basically the same reason(s)...

The pro-life movement has declared all of the contraceptives women control, IUD, hormone injections, hormone implants and eventually the pill to be abortifacients and there for not allowed. That was the the reason the pro-life movement worked so diligently to have the law recognize fertilization as the moment life started. Anything that disrupted life could be called an abortion justifying removal of approval of those contraceptives.

Regardless what one calls it - egg, embryo, fetus, whatever - its natural process, when uninterrupted, ends up human and for this reason we, pro-lifers put utmost value on it - from conception on. We don't buy in to the semantic chicanery of some who quibble over what for us are just... words for the same thing - something incredibly valuable.

Yes, a fetus is incredibly valuable. So is the family, the woman, the already born children and the quality of life the fetus will live. Women's right to make decisions is also incredibly valuable. Fetus only-birth only says only thing that has value is the fetus. That is quite obviously not true and denying abortion to a family also obviously harms many people.

The "unwanted child" argument therefore lacks a significant amount of credibility against the "it is something incredibly valuable" argument - especially when we take a closer look at what that word "unwanted" really means in this context.

Barring the minute percentage of pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest, or the similarly minute percentage of pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother, the vast majority of "unwanted pregnancies" occur as a result of casual unprotected sex or improperly protected sex or faultily protected sex - the common, operative word there being... SEX. And by "casual sex" I mean sex purely for the enjoyment of sex and obviously not for the purpose of making a baby.
In other words, the vast precentage of unwanted pregnancies - and therefore the vast percentage of arguments for abortion are based primarily on not wanting to deal with the consequences of casual sex. Period.

75% of all abortions are done for women who are low wage workers or women living at or below the poverty line. Most unwanted pregnancies are the due to male decisions about contraceptives either through public policy: the Hobby Lobby decision, the refusal to make women's contraceptives easily available through insurance or subsidy: or through the refusal to wear a condom, the failure of a condom, the promise to withdraw or active sabotage of birth control. Birth control is not the sole responsibility of women. If it is then it is irrational to blame women for unwanted pregnancies when it is men who deny the most effective contraception to women.

Philosophically it's no more difficult than that. And an honest pro-abortion advocate would admit to that.

Yes, having a simple minded slogan "fetus only-birth only" as the answer to all the complex problems of unwanted pregnancies makes life easier and more smugly righteous.
H.L. Mencken was right when he said, "“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”

 

[prometeus]

Even better is abstinence. My wife and I practiced both for awhile

While you are welcome to live as you please, you have no right to tell anyone else when, why or who to have sex with.

Regardless what one calls it - egg, embryo, fetus, whatever - its natural process, when uninterrupted, ends up human and for this reason we, pro-lifers put utmost value on it - from conception on. We don't buy in to the semantic chicanery of some who quibble over what for us are just... words for the same thing - something incredibly valuable.

Till it is borne and then you crap on it.

Barring the minute percentage of pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest, or the similarly minute percentage of pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother, the vast majority of "unwanted pregnancies" occur as a result of casual unprotected sex or improperly protected sex or faultily protected sex - the common, operative word there being... SEX. And by "casual sex" I mean sex purely for the enjoyment of sex and obviously not for the purpose of making a baby.

Yes ****ing for pleasure is great. You don't like it tough

In other words, the vast precentage of unwanted pregnancies - and therefore the vast percentage of arguments for abortion are based primarily on not wanting to deal with the consequences of casual sex.

It is none of your ****ing business. Period.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The pro-life movement is responsible for the Hobby Lobby SC decision which allows corporations to prohibit health insurance to cover the contraceptives they do not approve of. States can declare certain contraceptives to be abortifacients and ban support for them. Almost all the contraceptives that women control, except the pill and pro-life is researching that, have been deemed to be abortifacients.

Hobby Lobby is not responsible for your decision to have sex.

The official Catholic policy is that all contraceptives are banned.

I think that's what I said?

The pro-life movement has declared all of the contraceptives women control, IUD, hormone injections, hormone implants and eventually the pill to be abortifacients and there for not allowed. That was the the reason the pro-life movement worked so diligently to have the law recognize fertilization as the moment life started. Anything that disrupted life could be called an abortion justifying removal of approval of those contraceptives.

I think that's what I said?

Yes, a fetus is incredibly valuable. So is the family, the woman, the already born children and the quality of life the fetus will live. Women's right to make decisions is also incredibly valuable. Fetus only-birth only says only thing that has value is the fetus. That is quite obviously not true and denying abortion to a family also obviously harms many people.

Rationalization. You don't know what "quality of life" ANY child will have. Nor is it up to you do determine what constitutes "quality." What IS up to any who worship choice, at least currently, is whether to even ALLOW/DENY life to the child. That's what abortionists advocate - the right to ALLOW/DENY life to a child based on the sheer hubris of presuming to know whether or not the child's life, if you allowed/denied it to live, would be a "quality" one.

Which....and let's be honest here - has NOTHING at all to do with the real reason for wanting the right to abort a baby.

Rationalization. There are countless examples of children born in poverty whose lives did not turn out as you prefer to assume. There are countless examples of unwanted, unexpected, unplanned, unprepared pregnancies that produced AMAZING individuals.

Rationalization. There are equally countless examples of children born into wealth and privilege and opportunity who turn out to be AMAZING PROFLIGATES. Degenerate, depraved, evil individuals; individuals who, by your power of choice over life and presumed knowledge about what is or will be good for them that you graciously allowed them to live.

The issue isn't the circumstances into which the child is born (circumstances which, btw you neither control nor understand), or the family, or the neighborhood, nor the culture/society into which it's born - none of that has anything to do with what the child's quality of life may or may not be were you to allow them to live.

75% of all abortions are done for women who are low wage workers or women living at or below the poverty line. Most unwanted pregnancies are the due to male decisions about contraceptives either through public policy: the Hobby Lobby decision, the refusal to make women's contraceptives easily available through insurance or subsidy: or through the refusal to wear a condom, the failure of a condom, the promise to withdraw or active sabotage of birth control. Birth control is not the sole responsibility of women. If it is then it is irrational to blame women for unwanted pregnancies when it is men who deny the most effective contraception to women.

Rationalization. It's not about Hobby Lobby; it's not about the "quality of life" you merely imagine the baby may or may not have; it's not about some sort of male-dominated society that prohibits women to have the most effective contraceptives available.

When you peel away all the rationalizations, the pro-abortion stance is about ONE THING, and ONE THING ONLY - the desire to have sex without consequences. Period.

 

[weaver2]

Hobby Lobby is not responsible for your decision to have sex.

No but Hobby Lobby is responsible for denying their women employees insurance that covers contraceptives that Mr. Green doesn't approve of. And 5 men on the SC backed him up.

I think that's what I said?

No it isn't.

I think that's what I said?

Again, no you didn't.

Rationalization. You don't know what "quality of life" ANY child will have. Nor is it up to you do determine what constitutes "quality." What IS up to any who worship choice, at least currently, is whether to even ALLOW/DENY life to the child. That's what abortionists advocate - the right to ALLOW/DENY life to a child based on the sheer hubris of presuming to know whether or not the child's life, if you allowed/denied it to live, would be a "quality" one.

No pro-choice advocate would ever tell a woman or make a decision for any woman about the quality of life for their child. What pro-choice advocates is that the women be allowed to decide what is quality of life for their child. And it is not up to any pro-life advocate to tell a woman she has to have a child she knows she cannot care for, love or support. Which is exactly what the pro-life movement is trying to do. . I don't think you are in a very good position to talk to anyone about hubris

Rationalization. There are countless examples of children born in poverty whose lives did not turn out as you prefer to assume. There are countless examples of unwanted, unexpected, unplanned, unprepared pregnancies that produced AMAZING individuals.

No there aren't. If you think there are, tell us about these countless unwanted children brought up in poverty who are amazing individuals. Let me remind you that two or three people are not "countless"

Rationalization. There are equally countless examples of children born into wealth and privilege and opportunity who turn out to be AMAZING PROFLIGATES. Degenerate, depraved, evil individuals; individuals who, by your power of choice over life and presumed knowledge about what is or will be good for them that you graciously allowed them to live.

It sound like you are trying to tell us that you think poor women should all carry all pregnancies to term because one or two children might be a successful adult , but rich women should be prevented from giving birth because they produce countless degenerates and evil-doers. Really? That's your response to the pro-choice belief that all women decide for themselves what they can and can not handle.

The issue isn't the circumstances into which the child is born (circumstances which, btw you neither control nor understand), or the family, or the neighborhood, nor the culture/society into which it's born - none of tha
has anything to do with what the child's quality of life may or may not be were you to allow them to live.

BTW I do understand, extremely well and in detail, the circumstances and the chances of a child raised in poverty. But you are right neither I nor any other pro-choice advocate controls another woman's decisions about child bearing. Each person makes their own decision free from anyone's morals, including yours, pure and virginal and sanctified as they may be. (snicker)

Rationalization. It's not about Hobby Lobby; it's not about the "quality of life" you merely imagine the baby may or may not have; it's not about some sort of male-dominated society that prohibits women to have the most effective contraceptives available.

Women did not make the Hobby Lobby decision. Women are not trying to take away the right for other women to make their own reproductive decisions. Women didn't decree that all of women's most effective contraceptives were abortifacients and therefore unacceptable. These were all decisions made by men who dominate the right wing sex police.

When you peel away all the rationalizations, the pro-abortion stance is about ONE THING, and ONE THING ONLY - the desire to have sex without consequences. Period.

LOL and there it is: the religious right's attitude toward sex. Me, Edwin, I have instructed my wife in the ways of morality all the rest of you women are nothing but nasty little sex obsessed rabbits. When you get to heaven it's going to be full of rabbits. ........................

 

[EdwinWillers]

 

[weaver2]

Edwin's pro-life position.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Abortion proponents generally are immoveble from their support of abortion even if the fetus is a human being. Yet they continually engage in debates about the fetus' humanity. Either they're unsure of their position, or they're just dishonest.

You are wrong. First of all, nobody is pro-abortion. There are pro-choice and anti-choice people. That's it. I am pro-CHOICE. You are anti-CHOICE.

Second, a lot of people are movable on their opinions about abortion. Like any other political issue, people can change their minds in any direction as they learn more about it.

 

[GummyVitamins]

This Ben Gleib guy is great at atomizing conservative arguments. In this instance he asks if humans have tails. Kirk is confused. Gleib then asks if Charlie Kirk is absolutely sure that the photo he's holding up is of a human life. Kirk says 'without a doubt', only to be informed that the photo is of a dolphin fetus. There was no trickery, despite Kirk's protests.

Who are these people and how was he owned? He flashed an image real quick on an abortion debate and asked if it was human. Due to context he said yes. Anyone who thinks this is "owning" someone isn't very intelligent. A human fetus is human. That's not debatable. Tricking someone into thinking a fetus is human doesn't make their argument that a human fetus isn't human any stronger. It just makes them even dumber.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Well, of course they're all going to run from a guy who will humiliate them in public. Steven Crowder literally has to tip-toe around Sam Seder's time zone to avoid bumping into him on the Internet.

Again, who the hell are these people? I can't imagine how absurdly stupid someone's political views would be from watching this garbage. Also, if you agree to debate someone you do your research and prepare for your opponent. Ambushing someone whose arguments you researched while not giving them the opportunity to prepare for you is cowardly. I've heard of Crowder, find his personality annoying. But, who is Sam Seder? His YouTube videos don't have a lot of views. How do people find this garbage?

 

[choiceone]

Hobby Lobby is not responsible for your decision to have sex.


I think that's what I said?


I think that's what I said?


Rationalization. You don't know what "quality of life" ANY child will have. Nor is it up to you do determine what constitutes "quality." What IS up to any who worship choice, at least currently, is whether to even ALLOW/DENY life to the child. That's what abortionists advocate - the right to ALLOW/DENY life to a child based on the sheer hubris of presuming to know whether or not the child's life, if you allowed/denied it to live, would be a "quality" one.

Significant problems of fetal form do indicate "quality of life." People don't adopt newborn infants lacking a brain, two limbs, organs growing on the outside of the body, etc., and the state doesn't fund adequate care of such infants.

If you give birth to it, then, you are personally liable. You could bankrupt yourself or family, have to care 24/7 for one infant, ignoring your other kids.

Even if multimillionaires wanted to adopt, some women have said they'd rather die than give give birth to such babies, because they don't want to use their own life to impose such evil on anyone.

When you peel away all the rationalizations, the pro-abortion stance is about ONE THING, and ONE THING ONLY - the desire to have sex without consequences. Period.

You write as if you think this is on the woman and no one else.

It is not the fault of a girl/woman who is raped, defrauded by a bigamist, etc.

If married people don't have more sex than they have kids, they rarely get along and end up divorced.

If women stop having sex altogether, you think it'll be women who complain? It'll be men, I assure you, and the state will scream like a spoiled brat that women are producing no kids and creating social problems.

You want kids? If you don't let women and girls have the right to choose, then you should have to make the kids of the next generation all by yourself. And you should pay for their care yourself. Good luck!

 

[Jason Warfield]

Absolutely appalling - what phenomenally twisted logic - that actually proves nothing in the end!

This moron tricks Kirk with a photo of a dolphin fetus (with a tail), then produces a photo of a human fetus and gets Kirk to embarrass himself by [wrongly] asserting the dolphin fetus is a human fetus. So, Kirk was silly to assert ("without a doubt") that photo was of a human fetus. He definitely embarrassed himself, "without a doubt."

The moron then proceeds to make fun of Kirk for confusing the two, accusing Kirk of not knowing the difference between a dolphin fetus and a human fetus IRL. < clap > < clap >

The moron's premise however seems to be based on the [false] premise that "fetuses have tails" (of course, fetuses do not have tails), whereupon he proceeds to assert via his absurd logic that "humans don't have tails" - ergo, fetuses with tails aren't human. So far, so "good."

But this is when he refers back to the dolphin fetus - proving what? Dolphins aren't human?

Honestly, what's sadder here? Kirk's making a minor fool of himself for asserting what he did, or the moron's twisted logic that proved absolutely nothing? Or those who think the moron somehow "owned" Kirk with this nonsense?

It's no wonder attempting to reason with some people can be so difficult.

I am guessing you did not watch the entire exchange. Because if you think this was bad of the “moron” then what about what Kirk did at the end of the exchange.

When the topic switched to January 6 and the “moron” was pressing Kirk on his stance over it, Kirk made the accusation that the “moron” was a terrorist for having been arrested at the Capitol a few years prior.

What Kirk was trying to do was make a false equivalence that the reason why the moron was arrested (peacefully protesting in violation of the law) was the same as unlawfully breaking into the Capitol, trespassing, property destruction as well as assaulting officers (resulting deaths) and trying to overthrow a legal election while threatening members of Congress and the Vice President.

So in the end, the real moron is till Charlie Kirk.

 

[HangLow]

Significant problems of fetal form do indicate "quality of life." People don't adopt newborn infants lacking a brain, two limbs, organs growing on the outside of the body, etc., and the state doesn't fund adequate care of such infants.

If you give birth to it, then, you are personally liable. You could bankrupt yourself or family, have to care 24/7 for one infant, ignoring your other kids.

Even if multimillionaires wanted to adopt, some women have said they'd rather die than give give birth to such babies, because they don't want to use their own life to impose such evil on anyone.

You write as if you think this is on the woman and no one else.

It is not the fault of a girl/woman who is raped, defrauded by a bigamist, etc.

If married people don't have more sex than they have kids, they rarely get along and end up divorced.

If women stop having sex altogether, you think it'll be women who complain? It'll be men, I assure you, and the state will scream like a spoiled brat that women are producing no kids and creating social problems.

You want kids? If you don't let women and girls have the right to choose, then you should have to make the kids of the next generation all by yourself. And you should pay for their care yourself. Good luck!

 

[it's just me]

I was asking because Patriotic Voter had described Joe Biden as being a Catholic for "most of his life". "Lifelong" implied that it was the religion in which he was raised. I wasn't getting into the technicalities of baptism. Some Christians (The Society of Friends, for instance) do not baptize at all.

The Society of Friends are not Christians.

 

[weaver2]

The Society of Friends are not Christians.

LOL They are certainly going to be surprised when you tell them they aren't Christian.

 

[Sam4anuncle]

This Ben Gleib guy is great at atomizing conservative arguments. In this instance he asks if humans have tails. Kirk is confused. Gleib then asks if Charlie Kirk is absolutely sure that the photo he's holding up is of a human life. Kirk says 'without a doubt', only to be informed that the photo is of a dolphin fetus. There was no trickery, despite Kirk's protests.

This is just deflection. It’s not really owning him to use trickery, and it was trickery cause he knew they were similar looking in the photos like he said. Yes, Charlie made the wrong assumption and was caught off guard but the other guy just proved how little the other side has, they have to resort to trickery or deflecting the real issues and belittling just like the host did.