Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

cl2unk

Members
  • Content count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cl2unk

  • Rank
    Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ

Converted

  • Location
    Minnesota
  • Gender
    Male
  1. http://www.fox29.com/news/local-news/247193363-story Here Because pain qualifies as a thing. It's just plain logic it doesn't require a hypothesis. ... and no ability to refute a point. It also isn't a belief to say a fetuses life is ended by abortion. It's pure logic. That would make sense if I routinely invoked the people to make my argument. However I haven't. Unlike you I have actually posted scientific peer reviewed articles. You have stated opinions back up by your own opinions.
  2. I could say that at the numerous spots to paraphrase you have said I am not going to answer that because it would force me to assume. Think you have that backwards. The act of sex has implicit purposes. The amount of births due to sex is like 99.999%. It is essentially the method. Even the one's that aren't except for an extremely limited couple are from sexual acts. If something is the method for something the end result is the purpose for the method taking place. Actually you did. The context is dramatically different. I say it because you try to postulate invalid arguments by standing on the backs of rape and incest victims. You say it to inflate your ego. That is in itself an argument. Because either will be met with a point. Ergo it is an argument. What was that about you not using rape and incest victims to bolster your argument? So you are saying they aren't objects, they are living, and they are human. Because you are on record saying they are parasites, On the life you never postulated that it was Rick. These have started to blend together. However you did emphatically state they have no position on life or death which while not able to be proven would most certainly be life. While this doesn't include fetuses for obvious reasons, babies as young as a couple months will move away from steep cliffs. Why self-preservation. Why because they want to die. Sentience according to google means able to perceive or feel things. No the argument were you postulated fetuses do irreparable harm to the mother therefore must be removed. That argument is invalid because until you prove it one way or another it is both sentient and not-sentient. You have to take both into account. Science says they do. sentience-able to perceive or feel things. I would say ability to feel pain qualifies as perceiving and feeling things. Again you are the one taking action therefore you have to prove sentience doesn't exist. Because it deals with the quality negatives. A fetus's life is ended if it is aborted a woman is mildly inconvenienced.
  3. No @Storm hmm wonder why.... Hypocrisy at it's finest. I copied the entire passage that was context. If you make assumptions you can get to where you are at. However you can't force the reader to assume. To enjoy the benefits of sex(dopamine and oxytocin release) while attempting to mediate the more costly negatives (e.g. children if you need help see the name "birth control"). Already told you pleasure is a principle purpose of sex. Clearly one of the purposes of having sex is to have children it's asinine to say otherwise. If you want kids the first protocol is to in fact have sex. Clever but no. Also you are implying abortion is immoral if it is illegal. That is a gigantic backpedal and it means it's morality isn't determined by what it is but by what value others bestow upon it. I do. What I don't do is sit and puff myself up by saying I am correct and because I said I am correct therefore I am correct. Then why are you using them as an argument. Clearly you do need to use them or you wouldn't be. You can't postulate arguments surrounding them and then declare I actually don't need them as an argument while maintaining the argument. Ergo you are in fact standing on the backs of rape and incest victims. And the next sentence you are back to using them in your argument right after you said "I don't need to use them". I actually don't because my position the entire time has been abortion is murder. Your principle argument is they are non-human, non-living, non-sentient, objects that cause irreparable harm to the mother physically and emotionally and therefore must be removed because they are there without the mothers consent. Well they are for sure human, they are absolutely living, and they are there with the mothers consent. The straw you have to grasp before you fall is on the issue of sentience. However this problematic because you are the aggressor. It's problematic because since you are the aggressor it is incumbent on you to prove it isn't sentient. Science has shown in multiple studies that fetuses are in fact sentient before exiting the womb. The issue becomes then at what point does it become sentient you can't prove it. So even on your last sticking point it is not conclusive therefore abortion is unethical even on this issue. Hey if the swastika fits. Clearly it isn't ethically neutral or we wouldn't be talking about it. Because you deem it ethically neutral doesn't in fact make it ethically neutral. Ethics in the broad sense are community based not individual. Actually it is valid because you are the aggressor in the situation. Meaning you have to prove it isn't sentient. Because without proof either way it is both murder and not murder. Therefore you are advocating for murder. People with locked-in syndrome can't perform any action besides blink and in the most severe cases can't breath on their own. Even fetuses can perform more actions such as kick, hug, and kiss. As far as arguing goes they are equivalent yet one to you use is murder the other is nothing.
  4. Did you just assume it's gender? Notice how you asked a question and I answered. The phrase said "It's slavery you're advocating. You've yet to show otherwise.". None of you take things other then face value. Why should I be forced to debate based on assumptions when you can presented yours purely on face value. It is irrelevant if you decide you don't want the child. It is on principle wrong. Trust me I get what you are saying just fine it doesn't mean what you are saying is correct. If you say 1+1=3. It doesn't matter how many times you say it it's just wrong. The simple fact is there a million things you can do before getting pregnant to prevent pregnancy. If you don't do those things that isn't the fetuses fault. It is yours take responsibility for it. Because you fail to the child pays with it's life. Pure intellectual cowardice. You guys have nothing. Your ethics and logic are so shaky you have to hide away from questions like this and then default to «agree with my conclusion, then I'll explain myself». Pathetic. It shouldn't be a watchdog because people should be expected to make the morally correct choice. I was referring to sex. Last time I checked death is hard to recover from. HA! You are simply are using rape and incest cases which make up a staggeringly low amount of abortion cases and using it as an excuse to say one's that aren't are okay. Call me callus how does it feel to prop up your argument on the backs of rape and incest victims. If you were being factually honest you would realize they make up a statistically insignificant amount of cases. If you remove costs to the mother attributed to fetuses your entire argument deflates because there isn't a need for abortion. Legal and morally/ethically okay are two different arguments. Jews were slaughtered in the 1940's pretty sure that wasn't okay. Interestingly they were murdered on the same presumption they were just a clump of cells. ...... added to this post 6 minutes later: Actually no they don't have an independent body. They rely completely on others to do everything for them. You can't possibly prove that. Even if you could is it greater then the number that would prefer to be alive, or the mothers who aborted (while she didn't abort Norma McCorvey is a shining example). Can you prove it isn't? Difference here is no one dying on my wishes. They are on yours.
  5. Well both logic and scientific articles disagree with you. Still a blanket statement without a specific flaw pointed out. Again I can go you fucked up by saying I fucked up with my "ludicrous" definition of the purpose of sex. It means nothing. Well first I am not catholic so try again. However you are even wrong by saying "When you consent to sexual intercourse you consent to a fuck.". Sexual intercourse is more specific then "fucking". Fucking is a broad statement of sexual acts, sexual intercourse is a specific act. Logic Aren't a whole lot of options in between. If there is nothing to learn, it's pretty hard to. To say sex has no purpose of human of intent is a poorly stated claim because intent requires a goal by definition. Therefore it does in fact have a purpose. It was an analogy. The consent isn't legal in nature. It does confer a responsibility however. The government shouldn't have to be a watchdog to make you take care of your responsibilities. We aren't talking legal responsibilities however so the argument is meaningless. I understand what you are saying it is just deeply flawed and fundamentally wrong. When you have sex you are accepting that pregnancy is a possible outcome. You are willing to play roulette and take that chance. That is consenting. You know the risks and you want the "rewards" more then the risks scare you. When the negative outcome occurs you can't then turn around and say hey I didn't consent to this. If you go into surgery and a negative outcome occurs you can't turnaround and go hey I demand things to be the way they were before. Again you are making a mistake by trying to masquerade like it is a generality. When you agree that abortions are bad we can have that discussion. Otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest. Something @Storm knows all about. ...... added to this post 15 minutes later: By your own logic someone who has locked-in syndrome would then have no rights. I surely hope you think you they have rights and are human beings. It also doesn't take a leap of faith to assume they would prefer to be alive. A severed arm isn't a sentient human being. A removed cancer tumor is also not a sentient human being. Funny you are now trying to focus on the majority of cases. What about the one's that occur after? By your own logic we apply those broadly. Parasites by nature offer no benefit to the host. Well numerous examples in the literature show a fetus offers some benefits to the host. Such as this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2887685/ and this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3365532/. Seems like a mutually beneficial relationship to me. Sorry the mother and the baby's life are equal. The only way it wouldn't is if you could prove the fetus wasn't sentient. When you can prove it isn't then we can talk about the differing of rights. The fact you can't say it is is telling. The only reason it would be would be to shirk their responsibility. It is actually a quite apt analogy to abortion. Because most abortions are done for inconvenience and finances. Pretty sure I specified indentured servitude. Try to be a little more intellectually honest.
  6. If you sign a contract saying you will do X. You have an obligation to do X. It isn't slavery you consented. When women have intercourse they consent to carrying a baby to term. See: "Actually presumably you have had intercourse. I am forced to assume you knew one possible outcome after engaging in the act was having a child. Ergo you consented to having a child. The best analogy is those extremely lengthy legal forms any major company has you agree to when you use their product. Maybe you dislike the amount they invade your privacy. However you agree anyways. Why because you want to use the product more then you dislike the negative outcomes. You still consent to the negative outcomes occurring by using the product. Likewise when you have intercourse you want it more then you dislike the negative outcomes. Ergo just like the analogy you consent to the negative outcomes. Because you consented you are responsible for your actions. " I could maybe get the incorrect calculus required to get calling a fetus not a person. However to say a fetus isn't a human is asinine due to that they are sometimes for clarification called "human fetuses". Recheck your math they have the double helix and everything. Here are few examples: for instance this headline by rt.com "Nearly 250 human fetuses dumped in forest aged at 5-6 months" Wikipedia on fetus: "A human fetus, attached to placenta" How about this scientific journal on nature.com: "Every month, Lishan Su receives a small test tube on ice from a company in California. In it is a piece of liver from a human fetus aborted at between 14 and 19 weeks of pregnancy." Pub Med: "We examined the anatomic variations of the brachial plexus (BP) in human fetuses." Pub Med: Ependymal denudation and alterations of the subventricular zone occur in human fetuses with a moderate communicating hydrocephalus. Wayne state: Human fetuses destined to be born preterm have a disorder of neuroconnectivity which may explain their predisposition to neurodevelopmental disorders I could a ridiculous number more but I am going to leave it there. Fact human fetuses are in fact human. Show me where I went wrong then. Pretty damn easy to go "hey you fucked up" when you don't say how. For instance the entire argument you have presented on this topic has been fucked from the start. Poor wording but you know what I meant. However in case you left your critical thinking cap at home what i meant was when you have sexual intercourse you consent to and have a responsibility to carry a baby to term. Obviously in extreme cases of abortion less then two percent rape and incest come into play. For obvious reasons it becomes a different conversation because you cannot take an insignificant amount of cases and apply it broadly. I am point out those cases to a least display a modicum of intellectual honesty unlike @Storm.
  7. By what virtue do you get to take away the rights due to it being inconvenient? As human beings we decided other human beings have rights. You seemed to gloss right over 2-3 didn't you. 2. For oxytocin release 3. For dopamine release. Again saying I am a misogynist and opposing your position doesn't make me a misogynist. It does however make you an asshole for making baseless claims. Have you? Based on your complete incompetence on the subject I don't think you have. Pretty that is saying carrying and delivering a baby is in fact slavery. Weird how you suddenly back track when someone on your side makes a claim you disagree with. Maybe you are a misogynist for not taking as extreme of a stance. Actually it isn't. Slavery implies no choice. To carry a child implies except in the most extreme examples a choice to have sexual intercourse. Try again. Actually presumably you have had intercourse. I am forced to assume you knew one possible outcome after engaging in the act was having a child. Ergo you consented to having a child. The best analogy is those extremely lengthy legal forms any major company has you agree to when you use their product. Maybe you dislike the amount they invade your privacy. However you agree anyways. Why because you want to use the product more then you dislike the negative outcomes. You still consent to the negative outcomes occurring by using the product. Likewise when you have intercourse you want it more then you dislike the negative outcomes. Ergo just like the analogy you consent to the negative outcomes. Because you consented you are responsible for your actions. Because the only qualification for generic human rights is to be in fact human. If you owe a large debt to someone is killing them responsible? Are we supposed to feel bad because they are fiscally irresponsible
  8. Yeah envirodude pretty much made my argument for me. Here we go.... As soon as someone disagrees with your worldview they are misogynistic. That doesn't make them misogynistic. You essentially creating the saddest conditions possible for your scenario. Are they also disabled? As I have stated it is poor logic to take extreme marginal cases and use it as veneer for an argument. I may have been unclear I don't support "abortion" I support life saving treatment. Ergo if a patient is diagnosed with say osteosarcoma I would support immunotherapy. The immunotherapy would likely kill the fetus. That is different then performing a D&E abortion. The baby dies as a result of the treatment not at the hands of a human being. The only exemption I make is for the life of the mother. The logic doesn't change because something bad happened. Murder is still murder. Again you are taking marginal cases and posturing like they are common. With all that said rapists should be castrated or killed. Nope read above. It's mildly problematic to say "his" actions without a specific scenario. This is a tremendously flawed argument and here is why: The fetus has rights to it's own bodily autonomy. By slaughtering it you deny it its bodily autonomy. I can end right there if I wanted to but I won't. Sex has three purposes 1 to produce progeny. Every time intercourse occurs you are playing roulette and may have a child. Therefore you are consenting to have a child even if you don't have one. 2. For oxytocin release 3. For dopamine release. If someone is accidentally injured there isn't an intent to harm the person ergo the equation has changed. If intent to injure is there it is a felony and they go to jail. As far as organ donation from inmates I support it. However it is another ethical debate. Bottom line as I stated above just something tragic happens doesn't mean you can make the situation worse. It isn't slavery take responsibility for your actions. If you get yourself in debt you have a responsibility to get yourself out. Have you ever read about slavery? To compare having a baby to slavery is an amazingly uneducated claim. Grab a history book and do some reading.
  9. Well first the operative word there is probably. The confounds the propose are later determined wrong by this study http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.14484/full.
  10. No.... because: A 1995 study by A.C. Gilchrist in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that in women with no history of psychiatric illness, the rate of deliberate self-harm was 70 percent higher after abortion than after childbirth. A 2002 record-linkage study of California Medicaid patients in the Southern Medical Journal, which controlled for prior mental illness, found that suicide risk was 154 percent higher among women who aborted than among those who delivered. By 2003, the data was so compelling that a team of researchers published in the Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey (OGS), one of the top three obstetrical journals in the United States, identified a number of studies that found that “induced abortion increased … [the incidence] of mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts at self-harm” and concluded that, as a matter of medical ethics, “any woman contemplating an induced abortion should be cautioned about the mental health correlates of an increased risk of suicide or self-harm attempts as well as depression.” A 2006 study by New Zealand researcher David M. Fergusson in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, which controlled for a prior history of depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (wanting to take one’s own life or thinking about suicide), found that 27 percent to 50 percent of women after abortion reported suicidal ideation. Mr. Fergusson found that the risk of suicide was three times greater for women who aborted than for women who delivered. Finally, last September (2011), a meta-analysis in the British Joulrnal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of mental trauma after abortion. Try reading the Bold. First this makes up an incredibly minute portion of the abortion procedures performed. Second I have no issue with abortion in the context of saving the mothers life. Would post-partum depression support my claims because the rates of suicide are almost 7x higher for someone who has had an abortion vs given birth. They are also 2x+ the rate of the normal population. I have addressed life after birth. It is actually fairly straightforward logic. In one case the life has been extinguished the other the person has a chance. As far as other needs it is an inappropriate argument on your part. Simply put if you walked across someone being murdered on the street would you stop and help the person? Assuming you have some moral character you would. Does that mean you would invite them into your home after? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.14484/full To act like this case isn't an ethical dilemma is asinine. However I think in this specific case I think the mother should have the ability to choose between ending her life and saving the child or saving her life and ending the childs life. The distinction here being in almost every scenario a death will happen. Weird being aborted causes these too but on a grander scale. I am pro-life because abortion causes pain, death, hurt, and oppression of freedom. Here is why you are emphatically wrong. In most cases in the life of the mother both parties will die. Ergo 2 deaths not 1. By allowing the fetus to die because things such as immunotherapy drugs were administered is still "saving a life". Additionally we are talking about something that is incredibly rare that are trying to apply to an argument. You can't take an extreme and apply it broadly to suit your purposes. It is intellectually dishonest. We are dismissing the fact that in 98% of cases one party died because the other party was too lazy to take responsibility for her actions.
  11. Abortion is immoral because it is murder. The fact that the suicide rate increases with women who have had an abortion destroys the crux of your argument that it is beneficial to women. A 1995 study by A.C. Gilchrist in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that in women with no history of psychiatric illness, the rate of deliberate self-harm was 70 percent higher after abortion than after childbirth. A 2002 record-linkage study of California Medicaid patients in the Southern Medical Journal, which controlled for prior mental illness, found that suicide risk was 154 percent higher among women who aborted than among those who delivered. By 2003, the data was so compelling that a team of researchers published in the Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey (OGS), one of the top three obstetrical journals in the United States, identified a number of studies that found that “induced abortion increased … [the incidence] of mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts at self-harm” and concluded that, as a matter of medical ethics, “any woman contemplating an induced abortion should be cautioned about the mental health correlates of an increased risk of suicide or self-harm attempts as well as depression.” A 2006 study by New Zealand researcher David M. Fergusson in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, which controlled for a prior history of depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (wanting to take one’s own life or thinking about suicide), found that 27 percent to 50 percent of women after abortion reported suicidal ideation. Mr. Fergusson found that the risk of suicide was three times greater for women who aborted than for women who delivered. A 2010 study by Natalie P. Mota in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that “abortion was associated with an increased likelihood of several mental disorders - mood disorders … substance abuse disorders … as well as suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.” Finally, last September (2011), a meta-analysis in the British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of mental trauma after abortion.
  12. A 1995 study by A.C. Gilchrist in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that in women with no history of psychiatric illness, the rate of deliberate self-harm was 70 percent higher after abortion than after childbirth. A 1996 study in Finland by pro-choice researcher Mika Gissler in the British Medical Journal found that the suicide rate was nearly six times greater among women who aborted than among women who gave birth. A 2002 record-linkage study of California Medicaid patients in the Southern Medical Journal, which controlled for prior mental illness, found that suicide risk was 154 percent higher among women who aborted than among those who delivered. By 2003, the data was so compelling that a team of researchers published in the Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey (OGS), one of the top three obstetrical journals in the United States, identified a number of studies that found that “induced abortion increased … [the incidence] of mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts at self-harm” and concluded that, as a matter of medical ethics, “any woman contemplating an induced abortion should be cautioned about the mental health correlates of an increased risk of suicide or self-harm attempts as well as depression.” A 2005 study by Mika Gissler in the European Journal of Public Health found that abortion was associated with a six-times-higher risk for suicide compared to birth. A 2006 study by New Zealand researcher David M. Fergusson in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, which controlled for a prior history of depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (wanting to take one’s own life or thinking about suicide), found that 27 percent to 50 percent of women after abortion reported suicidal ideation. Mr. Fergusson found that the risk of suicide was three times greater for women who aborted than for women who delivered. A 2010 study by Natalie P. Mota in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that “abortion was associated with an increased likelihood of several mental disorders - mood disorders … substance abuse disorders … as well as suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.” Finally, last September (2011), a meta-analysis in the British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of mental trauma after abortion. See above Who the fuck is popping champagne after an abortion? Yes they are two different procedures however they are quite similar. You still haven't answered my question? See above or this one done in 2016. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.14484/full The existence of something doesn't mean it is a natural instinct or something that is productive to society. Robbery has existed for probably longer then abortion and I think everyone can agree it is not wanted in society.
  13. There are a couple issues here. 1. You heavily imply that systems can't have more then one function. That is definitively wrong. For instance oligondendrocytes provide structural support in the CNS as well as form the myelin sheath around axons. 2. You are essentially trying to imply the only function of a female is to produce progeny which is completely wrong. However I do think murder is wrong. To say abortion is a natural instinct is wrong is also completely wrong. The simple proof being humans still exist. Restraining them from "unwanted" pregnancies may be beneficial because the suicide rate goes up like 6x after an abortion. If were a natural instinct it would go down or stay level. It doesn't. http://www.chop.edu/treatments/fetal-surgery/about First can we both agree on something that medicine is pretty damn cool. Second there are multiple cases of such surgeries including procedures using a technique like a c-section and removing the fetus. Sounds like being born to me.
  14. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/health/baby-born-twice-fetal-surgery/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37750038 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/10/26/the-baby-who-was-born-twice/?utm_term=.e258ee7819b3 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-baby-born-twice-after-life-saving-surgery-outside-of-womb/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/baby-born-twice-after-miracle-surgery-outside-womb/ Happy? Take your pick.
  15. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/baby-born-twice-after-being-9113872