Sarah Silverman Thinks It’s Time To Start Legislating Male Masturbation

Just because you say it's a person doesn't make it so....and you can scream against the law but that hasn't changed it

And if it was a person you want it to have rights no other person has, to use another's persons body to sustain it's life. NO one else has that right.

IF it was ever deemed a person the woman it's in has every right to self defense , women do NOT lose the right to self defense because they get pregnant and you think they should lose all their rights...




Why do you want a fetus to have Super rights over others ??



Oh ya, Anti-Choicers believe in women's right to exist....as long as they follow orders...and grovel and obey...

 

Not person...human.

Biology defines the human life cycle, starting at conception, growing in the womb as fetus, birth, infancy, growing into an adult.

You, me...all of us on this thread started this way.

Were you born with the ability to find food and water, shelter? At birth, we're just as vulnerable. We depend on others for our survival, yet I doubt anyone who is pro-choice would support killing an infant out of convenience. We'd all be appalled.

So why is it so difficult to understand, some of us are equally appalled in condoning abortion? Killing the fetus is no different in my estimation than if it were an infant. I see no distinction, both are stages in the process of human life.

 

Eh, making a screed about the whole thing does make it such.

 

Saying a fetus has the right to life at the expense of the mother would be like mandatory organ donation. How would you feel if the government said you're giving a kidney away against your will because another human has a right to life. Does their right get to infringe on yours?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Non sequitur!

 

It's a joke, and you got trolled. Maybe you need a safe space to recover? Where have I heard that before?

 

Because it is a human being they created inside themselves, a baby.

 

But you claimed it wasn't part of her body....so she should be able to have this foreign thing removed....just like a soldier would get shrapnel removed because it isn't part of her body. Or someone is impaled by a sharp object, a foreign thing inside their body...they shouldn't have a right to have it removed?

And , if it's not part of her body, it should be able to be removed and live on it's own.

 

Women like sex and have the luxury to not have sex with men who will not be there of it produces a new life. And I support legislation to GREATLY improve the current system to enforce child support and penalize abandonment.

 

Sometimes you don't know the guy will disappear until he disappears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No one gets pregnant by accident, unless of course it is forced upon on them. In this instance, we can certainly discuss the philosophical implications of abortion as it relates to these criminal acts. I think this area is worthy of consideration as a special circumstance.

In 99% of other circumstances, perhaps the pregnancy is an accident, but the act of sexual intercourse was not an accident.

We're all driven by biological urges, but we're not a slave to instincts.

It's actually possible to go through life having never put someone in a situation where abortion is a possible option. Men certainly play a role in an unwanted pregnancy. They are equally culpable when a decision is agreed to, to terminate the unwanted pregnancy by aborting the fetus.

I'm 51, I have never gotten a woman pregnant, forcing her to make a choice between abortion and carrying to term a child she is not ready for. It's possible, I'm living proof.

If you don't wish to get pregnant as a couple, maybe it's best to avoid that particular behavior. There are other ways to emotionally bond with someone...or minimally use safeguards to prevent pregnancy.

Once conception starts, it's too late... a 3rd party is now involved.

All of us who are pro-life defend this 3rd parties right to exist, the goal is not to punish a woman for a mistake. There are other options, adoption as an example.

Killing out of convenience is wrong.

I hope people can discern what is right and wrong.

Religion has nothing to do with the recognition of what is a wrong thing to do.

It's wrong to steal, as an example. Well so is killing an unborn child because you don't want it.

 

No one likes the idea of Abortion.

Women are going to have unwanted pregnancies and that is why educating kids at a young age on how to get and use Plan B and Morning After Drugs is so important.

AA

 

I agree we've gotta legislate this (*)(*)(*)(*) and I volunteer to round up all the perpetrators

 

We get in car accidents, does that mean we don't drive because there's a risk of car accident?

What the pro life movement seems to miss is that pro choice people want fewer abortions, we're just realistic about it. You get fewer abortions through comprehensive sex education and affordable birth control that is easy to obtain. Yet for some crazy reason the pro life movement is also anti sex ed and birth control. You cannot have absence only education and hard to get expensive birth control AND no abortions. If people were really pro life they would hand condoms out like Costco free samples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I find it really funny that the same people who spout..."A FERTILIZED EGG CELL IS A BABY!!"....which of course is incorrect.....are the same people who completely support the use of FERTILITY CLINICS AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION!!! LOL!!!

Of course these people never want to talk about how many eggs are fertilized by clinic doctors and only a FEW are used and the rest discarded.

AA

 

And she should stick to topics of which she is not so ignorant.

 

It's funny when it has some logical basis, the joke doesn't except for the ignorant.

 

Yep if a male comdeiane joked about women's periods.....

 

Um they do all the time...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It does have a logical base to pro choice people. Therefore we find it funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Again what I really find funny in this thread is that no conservatives have said masturbation was a sin. We're only focusing on abortion, I thought conservatives hated non procreative sex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And the logical basis of comparing a sperm to a complete and unique human being is what exactly. But then I've never found pro abortion people very up on biology even as simple as this.

Why did the egg cross the road? Well the premise of the joke is specious therefore there is no logic to it and leaves one wonder how does an egg cross the road of it's own accord.

Same with her joke the premise is entirely flawed therefore so is the humor in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would you expect a conservative to do so? So you don't know much about biology AND conservatives?

 

Because in many threads conservatives are arguing that procreative sex is the line. Gay sex is wrong because it's non procreative. Solo sex is pretty non procreative. I've heard way more conservatives that aren't ok with masturbation than are. Perhaps that is an inaccurate assessment or my sample is not representative of most conservatives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The argument itself centers on objective vs. subjective principles.

The religious tend to argue in objective terms and use some sort of divine authority as the basis of the objectivism.

One can argue in objective terms outside of the religious influences.

Ayn Rand, for example, was an atheist and an objectivist.

I'll boil the objectivist position down into this...the greatest good in the world is to be happy. Each individual person should be working toward what makes him or her happy, as long as it is not done at the expense of another person or people.

An unwanted pregnancy does not make a person happy...no argument. For many, it's something to be dreaded. That doesn't mean they hate children or are self-centered. Maybe they can't afford a child or are focused on a career. Not wanting a child, having an unwanted pregnancy is not in and of itself a moral wrong. The issue then is, what is the solution. A way to terminate the pregnancy is by abortion, thus making the person happy...they are no longer pregnant. By definition being pregnant means "with child," having an abortion means killing this child, or fetus as we'll call it.

Now many claim, a fetus is not a person and thus undeserving of consideration. A fetus isn't the same thing as an infant who is born...so the argument goes.

So we need an objective definition of what is a "person." We don't have that really. Some argue viability outside the womb, but there's no objective definition that science can rely upon. What science can rely upon is that at the moment of conception the process of a human life begins.

No argument, this is a fact. Our life cycle starts at conception...all of us. We're not only a human when we're outside the womb, we're a human inside the womb also.

An objective view is important, rather than a sliding scale, subjective interpretation. I can explain my own personal reason I prefer objectivism, and I"m not a fan of Ayn Rand, but in this case she's correct about the importance of objectivism. Bear with me a moment as I actually have a point. As a former military trained and professional airplane pilot, one facet of this job is navigation. Say for example you are flying in low visibility conditions. In order to safely aviate, you can no longer rely upon outside visual references, you need to trust fully in your instruments and in the navigation aids that will guide you. There is no subjectivity about this, you need to trust objectively that your instruments are guiding you in the proper direction.

Here's my point. We're all sort of flying blind in this life to some extent. There is no instruction manual. Therefore, on a practical level, we can't rely upon a subjective definition of say "morality," in order to guide us. We need some objective rules, rules that don't change...rules that we can count on to guide us to prevent us from getting lost. An objective rule should be that we are human from conception forward..and biology supports this. An objective rule should be, we don't kill each other, unless it is to defend another innocent life.

Abortion kills a life, a separate life. While pregnancy can potentially kill a mother, in the vast majority of abortions their life is not threatened...perhaps their happiness, but at the time of the abortion, they aren't terminating the pregnancy to save the woman's life.

Objectively then...we are human at conception and we should not kill our fellow human, even a tiny fetus... because our happiness should not be derived at the expense of taking another life.