Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: Today at 03:17:13 am »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 16, 2026, 10:18:11 pm
You were the one who brought it up!

That their suffering can usually be temporarily relieved non-lethally is irrelevant because they still have to suffer in the first place and what we're discussing is a preventative measure (abortion). And "usually" is far from adequate.

Quote
That's what you would be doing by killing them without permission.

I never denied that abortion would be a gamble. By forcing them out of the game, they might never "lose", but they also won't "win".

You are denying that letting nature force them to stay in is a gamble.
While you "wait" for their command, they'll have to suffer repeated consent violations.
After already being forced into the game in the first place!
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 16, 2026, 10:18:11 pm »

"Irrelevant."

You were the one who brought it up!

"Gambling on someone else's behalf is still gambling."

That's what you would be doing by killing them without permission.

"Not an option for a baby who is literally still in the womb."

You are illiterate:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/abortion-kindness/msg31960/#msg31960

Quote
Wait for their instruction.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 16, 2026, 09:25:49 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 16, 2026, 08:35:08 pm
A crying baby can usually be relieved without killing them. (Also, I myself have never seen a baby crying prior to birth.)

Irrelevant.

Quote
I don't make a profit either way, therefore not a gamble.

Gambling on someone else's behalf is still gambling.

Quote
Each person decides for themselves.

Not an option for a baby who is literally still in the womb. Try again.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 16, 2026, 08:35:08 pm »

"most people understand a crying baby is usually distressed or uncomfortable and needs relief."

A crying baby can usually be relieved without killing them. (Also, I myself have never seen a baby crying prior to birth.)

"So, gamble on their suffering."

I don't make a profit either way, therefore not a gamble.

"Pick one:"

Each person decides for themselves.

"- A compassionate human decides, despite not being explicitly requested to"

You sound like every tyrannical parent justifying the violence they initiate towards their offspring.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 16, 2026, 05:49:59 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 16, 2026, 04:25:09 pm
You should debate with the person whose opinion you accuse me of valuing.

Debating with unempathetic people won't make them empathetic. Thankfully, most people understand a crying baby is usually distressed or uncomfortable and needs relief.

Quote
Wait for their instruction.

So, gamble on their suffering.

Quote
you should not get to decide how quickly it leaks into anyone else's room, except those who have explicitly requested you alone to decide for them.

Pick one:
- A compassionate human decides, despite not being explicitly requested to
- Nature decides, despite not being explicitly requested to
Posted by: christianbethel
« on: January 16, 2026, 05:17:24 pm »

'Do unborn babies have a duty to live?'
Human beings that are already alive have a duty not to reproduce.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 16, 2026, 04:25:09 pm »

"I accuse you of valuing unempathetic opinions, now what?"

You should debate with the person whose opinion you accuse me of valuing.

"Place your bet:
- Let them suffer in case the pleasure outweighs the pain
- End their suffering in case it doesn't"

Wait for their instruction.

"We were never inside their room (their life). We're inside our own. The poison gas is already leaking in, slowly, decaying us."

If you would prefer it to leak more quickly into your own room, I am sure you can find a way to make it happen. But you should not get to decide how quickly it leaks into anyone else's room, except those who have explicitly requested you alone to decide for them.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 16, 2026, 04:01:26 pm »

Quote from: christianbethel on January 15, 2026, 09:37:35 pm
It's not attachment, it's duty.

Do unborn babies have a duty to live?

That's the meaningful distinction. Not semantics around your personal reason to live.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 16, 2026, 03:50:52 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 15, 2026, 04:48:49 pm
OK, so now both sides each accuse the other of having an unempathetic opinion. Now what?

I accuse you of valuing unempathetic opinions, now what?

Quote
Someone else says the individual will experience excitement, joy and pleasure. Now what?

Someone else says the room contains extreme opportunity. Now what?

Place your bet:
- Let them suffer in case the pleasure outweighs the pain
- End their suffering in case it doesn't

Quote
We were inside the same room once. We were not poisoned. How come we are now outside the room?

We were never inside their room (their life). We're inside our own. The poison gas is already leaking in, slowly, decaying us.
Posted by: christianbethel
« on: January 15, 2026, 09:37:35 pm »

Quote
Resentful attachment is still attachment.
It's not attachment, it's duty.

Quote
Yet you promote it anyway, even though criminalizing abortion doesn't serve as a "means to an end" (unlike selective conception).
We would rather criminalize unregulation conception, as NRF (90sRetroFan) has already stated.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 15, 2026, 04:48:49 pm »

"Why should we value their unempathetic opinion?"

OK, so now both sides each accuse the other of having an unempathetic opinion. Now what?

"- The individual will almost inevitably experience bouts of unbearable panic, distress, and agony before they can communicate their wishes"

Someone else says the individual will experience excitement, joy and pleasure. Now what?

"- The room contains extreme danger, requiring luck and effort to avoid"

Someone else says the room contains extreme opportunity. Now what?

"- The release of poison gas is inevitable, and the only known way to escape."

We were inside the same room once. We were not poisoned. How come we are now outside the room?
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 15, 2026, 02:32:59 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 14, 2026, 06:30:26 pm
You say it is. Someone else says the opposite. Now what?

Why should we value their unempathetic opinion?

Quote
If someone has been non-consensually locked inside a room with presently no way to communicate with those outside, but a window is timed to open tomorrow which will enable communication, should we wait until tomorrow to hear how the prisoner wants us to help, or should we release poison gas into the room today?

- The individual will almost inevitably experience bouts of unbearable panic, distress, and agony before they can communicate their wishes
- The room contains extreme danger, requiring luck and effort to avoid
- The release of poison gas is inevitable, and the only known way to escape. You would only be releasing it sooner.

This is about your opinion, not mine. What would you choose and why?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 14, 2026, 06:30:26 pm »

"The end (non-suffering) is their clear preference"

You say it is. Someone else says the opposite. Now what?

"Babies have no "choice" they can "pass to others" in the first place. Nature is already choosing on their behalf, without their consent."

If someone has been non-consensually locked inside a room with presently no way to communicate with those outside, but a window is timed to open tomorrow which will enable communication, should we wait until tomorrow to hear how the prisoner wants us to help, or should we release poison gas into the room today?

"Any intervention would be in violence which is already being committed"

You are arguing that, because violence was already committed by non-consensually locking the prisoner in the room, you are entitled to release the poison gas without permission from the prisoner.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 14, 2026, 02:34:46 pm »

Quote from: christianbethel on January 14, 2026, 12:23:38 pm
We hate life. We only live to complete our mission.

Resentful attachment is still attachment.

Quote
Everything you just said is the opposite of what we believe in.

Yet you promote it anyway, even though criminalizing abortion doesn't serve as a "means to an end" (unlike selective conception).
Posted by: christianbethel
« on: January 14, 2026, 12:23:38 pm »

Quote from: Aucontraire on January 10, 2026, 01:52:59 pm
You don't want to be killed because you've grown attached to life and afraid of death.
We hate life. We only live to complete our mission.

Quote from: Aucontraire on January 10, 2026, 01:52:59 pm
Innocence means babies have not. They don't consent to life or death. They have no discernable preference. They grow and survive because they are programmed to. Not because they will it — because nature wills it.
The only way to stop this cycle of torture is to prevent them from being conceived in the first place.

Quote from: Aucontraire on January 10, 2026, 01:52:59 pm
Aryanists understand life means they will have a body. That they will suffer and decay. They believe this outweighs any supposed "advantages". That life isn't a gift but a curse. Yet Aryanists advocate letting nature impose this curse on unborn babies, on top of having state authorities coerce people to carry through unwanted pregnancies. They also advocate exploiting children by selectively conceiving them to further their political aims.

What say you in your defense?
Everything you just said is the opposite of what we believe in.