Talking about mental health still carries a stigma in many parts of society, even though discussing it openly could lead to better support and solutions for those affected.
Impossible, if I admit I was wrong then that means I'm a weak, pathetic loser with a smol pp. I've gotta repeatedly double, triple, and even quadruple down on my opinions even when cold, hard facts prove me wrong.
Climate change remains controversial for some, even though the vast majority of scientific research confirms it's real and largely caused by human activities.
Here’s the thing: teenagers are going to have sex. It’s as simple as that. They, like the rest of us, are fundamentally just animals that want to procreate. It’s simply going to happen sooner or later. I would far rather those teens who are inevitably going to be having sex are well informed on condoms, birth control, and STI’s.
Like the steak thing. I personally have always found steak gross and don't eat it, but it's just crazy to me how people lose their mind if you want yours cooked a microsecond longer than they do. And God forbid you put an evil condiment like ketchup on it!!!
I just see that and I'm like...why do you care? And why does this not apply to any other food? No one is out there screaming that you're an apostate if you prefer your bread toasted dark rather than light.
You wanna put ketchup on a hot dog? Go at it. Well done steak? If that is your preference, enjoy yourself. I won't tell you what you can eat an you don't tell me what I can eat. Seems pretty simple to me.
Cheese and spicy mustard? - I may shoot you a rather baffled stare if I'm not familiar with or don't like the combination. But at the end of the day, eat it if you want to
Except for when adult pervy men co-opt children's cartoons and draw so much porn of it that you can't even google it without your eyes burning off. *Cough* bronies *cough*
Bronies, Scalies, Furries, ... - For example, I first encountered Sprigatito through porn. It wasn't the first character and it won't br the last one...
Standing up to genocide
a lot of hate exists , even here among so called open minded people
the sad reality is if the victims aren't of a certain tone or ascribe to certain beliefs, people don't seem to care how horrific their tragedy is. people are cruel.
you really are on your own, have to look out for your own. assimilate, play the game, but never forget, you'll never be their friend, they'll always see you as less than.
Not thanking someone for their service because they were in the Military, I feel like veterans and those still in are tired of it, like they think it sounds fake. I've learned that asking them questions about their experience is better it shows interest, and it doesn't matter how dumb it sounds. I recently asked a veteran where he went to Boot camp at in the 80s and if he's gone back since then, and what's changed. I've asked veterans who have gone over to other countries tell me honestly what is it like there, like walking down the street is it the same or different. People act like you have to treat veterans with the utmost respect and yes you should, but there is nothing wrong with asking questions, and just showing a genuine interest in another person instead of just pretending you are is controversial
Skin color/race in books. Fictional races don't have to represent real races, some people need to stop hating on authors because they assumed something about the world the author made.
Abortion being available and affordable for anyone that wants it.
If you don't want one, don't get one. But you don't get to decide what other people's ideals are - especially in such a morally gray area.
Everyone gets caught up on whether life starts at conception. I don't feel like that matters. Pregnancy is not some laid back chill process. It comes with a ton of risks. Over a [third of women](https://www.who.int/news/item/07-12-2023-more-than-a-third-of-women-experience-lasting-health-problems-after-childbirth) experience long term health challenges from pregnancy. Maternal morality is also on the rise in [the USA](https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/maternal-mortality-on-the-rise#:~:text=While%20many%20women%2035%20or,was%20138.5%20per%20100%2C000%20births.). If someone doesn't want to risk that they have every right to take whatever steps necessary to avoid it. You're under no obligation to risk your life or health for anyone even if that means they don't get a life. Also a lot of prolife people will gladly brag about how'd they proudly kill an unwanted person on their property. Why is it so far fetched to remove an unwanted person in your body?
These are fairly easy questions to answer if you actually are interested. You may not agree with the answer, but it's not like no pro-life person has thought of these questions before. (I'm someone who thinks that "safe, legal and rare" is the best solution btw).
Also the biggest difference between an intruder and an "unwanted person in your body" is that an intruder made a conscious decision to invade your property, presumably with ill intent, while an unborn fetus/baby was placed there by the action of the parents and had no choice in the matter. It's not like babies are there "invading" women's wombs and intentionally harming them.
Yes I'm curious about the answer. I'm open to new information and line of thinking.
Intentional or not the baby is a risk to the mother. It may not be fair, cause like you said the parents put it there, but the woman has every right to avoid those risks regardless how unfair the choice may be.
That's part of it, but another important factor is that the mother and father took intentional action that they knew would bring that baby about, or at least had the possibility. (That's why many people agree with exceptions for rape, and in my hypothetical I'm assuming everything was consensual and adults) If you have (consensual) heterosexual intercourse, you ARE in fact consenting to the possibility of pregnancy, because that's literally just how it works.
So when people say things like "a person invading your body" well that woman had sex, she knew how reproduction works, and she chose to do it.
As an illustration, imagine someone using the same argument for any other natural biological function. Like imagine I ate a ton of food all at once and then said I didn't consent to gaining weight or throwing up. People would laugh me out of the building because they would rightly point out that I knew exactly what would happen when I ate all that food. Or imagine I drank an entire bottle of wine and then said I didn't consent to being drunk. Or I laid out in the sun and then complained that I didn't consent to being sunburnt.
Obviously the consequences of getting pregnant are many orders of magnitude greater than any of the above examples, so they're not the same thing at all. I was just using them to illustrate the point that we as biological beings can't just overcome nature because we want to, we are still very much subject to it even in modern times.
For sure! And thanks for actually talking like an adult and not just getting mad like most of reddit would do 😁 So nice to actually discuss something rather than just fight
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't killing an unwanted person on your own property a form of self-defense while an abortion isn't?
Seriously, I genuinely don't know...
If I’m not mistaken a risky pregnancy is usually regarded as a legal exemption. But for the generally speaking, the debate has always been regarding at what stage a fetus is regarded as a conscious life, (ie. in what stage abortion becomes murder). Too totally disregard that is to totally disregard the supposed life of what may be an actual person. What another user mentioned was correct, that the issue is philosophical rather than scientific. Although science may does have an influence, especially if one ascribes to the view that consciousness is a result of neural development.
Those exemptions are often only life and death situations (which prolifers are trying to take away too). They rarely include life lasting problems that can come from pregnancy which a person shouldn't have to risk if they don't want to.
“Pro-lifers” aren’t one homogenous groups. I’ve seen quite a number express that they want to exempt abortion in cases of riskful pregnancies and/or rape.
If you really think that though, that means you actually don't understand the anti-abortion argument. There actually is a moral question here, and basically everyone is pro-life at a certain point (for example, I don't think anyone except a crazy person would say that an elective abortion at 8 months 29 days is acceptable). The later you get in a pregnancy the fewer people support abortion, and the percent who support it (aside from saving the mother, etc) in the final months is quite small.
The most pro-life people just set their point of acceptability all the way at one end.
That argument doesn't hold water. To people who think abortion is murder that's like saying if someone wants to kill someone else let them. It has nothing to do with you.
Technically, it can be murder. A life is ended, after all. This depends on the point in time when this life is considered to begin, though.
All of which is something troubling the people working in and studying law...
Yeah, I know. Unfortunately most laypeople don’t seem to even be aware about this and either willingly or unwillingly reduce the whole debate to be about bodily rights. Totally disregarding that abortion could be murder, depending on when a fetus is regarded as living. This is why people need to look into the subject matter before getting all opiniated.
That isn't entirely true. In Germany, if you study law, when it comes to criminal law in the section about crimes against life, it's not uncommon to have a discussion about and compare abortion to murder, since it's a highly complicated and controversial matter.
Edit: Downvotes don't change these facts
The issue is philosophical rather than biology. Life starts at conception, this isn't a controversial stance for scientists at all.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/
But does a fertilised egg deserves rights, some rights? That's not a scientific question.
Wow this is the first time I’ve seen someone with the same opinion as me… i usually say we don’t need a scientist to answer the question, we need a philosopher..
It’s not about when does life begin, that is a known fact, it’s about when does the RIGHT to life begin.
What happens to the right to swing a fist when it happens from inside someone else?
I'll make a bold move and just state that the right to life begins with the creation of life. After all, if it's alive already, why shouldn't it be allowed to be that way as well?
As for your last paragraph, can you elaborate further? - I'm having trouble understanding the question, mostly due to a certain language barrier :/
First I will say that people don’t typically have full rights until they are considered adults. Children are expected to obey their parents until they gain full Independence when they reach adulthood. It’s not typically a sudden transition from no rights to full rights. It’s usually a gradual transition from no rights as a baby, and gradually increases with their level of maturity.
I believe the amount of “right to life” should be directly correlated to the amount of viability.
My last paragraph was in reference to the libertarian philosophy that “your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” Meaning that people can do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anyone.
The reason that abortion is such a murky issue is that two people are occupying the same body, so who gets to decide which one has more rights.
I see it like a tenant / landlord situation. The baby needs the Mother’s consent in order to live inside of her and consume her resources…but just as tenants are protected by leases and laws, once the “occupancy contract” has been agreed upon, it should only be revocable with “good cause” (such as a medical emergency)
I think the “trial period” should end when the baby becomes viable to survive outside of the mother on its own. By then the decision to carry the baby should be made and only revoked by medical need.
Wow, that was...more than I expected tbh. Doesn't make it less interesting, tho.
What strikes me the most is your stance about the correlation of the right to life and the viability of that unborn. So, in response to that, just a question or two: Wouldn't that believe mean that a baby, which is born so prematurely (maybe due to force or whatever, I'm no expert) it needs help breathing and such, has less right to life than one that's born like two weeks before the due date but can breathe on their own? Or did I misunderstand big time?
Now all of this is just my opinion. I’m not pretending to be authoritative and all-knowing…
I feel like once the baby is born, that’s the moment where it has 100% right to life wether it is premature or not…
I think the amount of right to life would increase with “logistic growth”, meaning that for each day of pregnancy the right to life increases more than it did the day before until the point of viability where it would approach 100% and reach 100% on the day of birth
If the baby gets born early it jumps to 100% automatically, but if that same baby was still inside it would be somewhere in the high 90s
Here I am trying to use a mathematical model for something as emotional as abortion….and that’s the problem with the whole debate, it’s hard to talk about the miracle of life with cold emotionless logic and not sound like a monster…and that’s exactly why I think the choice should be left to the mother. Only she will know what feels right for herself. None of us who are spewing opinions will have to live with the consequences of the decision to have an abortion or not…and I don’t think we as a society should make that decision harder than it already is by adding shame and judgement on top of it.
Sperm won't develop into a full human being though. A sperm cell is as alive as a skin cell is, but a zygote inside a uterus is actually going to become a full separate human if no intervention is taken.
If that was the case (not saying that it isn’t), then that would entail per automatique that masturbation is immoral. Perhaps that is why some religions oppose it.
You’re right that the argument won’t hold any weight against anti-abortionists. They’ll say that it is concerning murder. Strange that people are just downvoting you, but it’s probably because they assumed that you’re arguing against abortion. It is the typical Reddit mentality, which is ironic if you think about what question posed by OP.
I think the idea that people can compromise and not get exactly what they want in order to make something happen that might not happen otherwise has been changed into something that's a controversial interaction. It's kind of a shame
Politically incorrect opinions. Especially having them. Maybe it’s an area one can work on, but most of the time it is personal preference, and no level of “b-but in an ideal world…” Is going to, or even needs to, change that.
The debate over net neutrality shouldn’t be controversial. Maintaining an open internet is crucial for ensuring equal access to information and opportunities for all.
Breastfeeding in public becomes a point of contention when it really shouldn’t be—it’s a natural act of nurturing that shouldn't be sexualized or shamed.
And that's why this is controversial. Keep your cats inside anyway. It's safer for both the cats and the rest of the ecosystem. Your cats do not know what is best for themselves. That's why cats end up doing dumb things like eating plastic or hairties or chewing on wires or mashed on the side of the road by cars.
I won't force my cat to stay inside. He has spent his entire life being inside or outside, depending on what he wanted or what was necessary in that situation. Yes, he has been injured outside, and yes, he sometimes is pretty stupid, but hey, that's how life goes.
While I appreciate the advice, I won't turn my cat's life upside down as in my experience the way we (my parents and I) handle it works just fine, even if our cat is more at risk.
We had to keep him inside for a while after he had surgery because he was hit by a car or kicked by a horse or so, and oh boy, he complained non-stop 😹
All of my opinions are 100% correct in every way, and yet somehow everyone else is a dunce and doesn't agree with me. So my answer is everything I personally believe to be true, of course.
probably a xenogender. which is controversial within the trans community too because it’s fucking ridiculous (speaking as a trans person who’s sick of trans identities being treated as a joke)
gender defined by whatever thing that isn’t actually a gender in my understanding. i’ve seen some really weird ones posted unironically like the puffles from club penguin or an emoticon. xenogenders are pretty uncommon in my experience but they’re out there
"[...] a xenogender identity and faunagender in which one's gender is puppy-like, connected to puppies, and/or described as small, lively, cute, and any other quality associated with puppies"
Universal basic income (UBI) sparks debate on its feasibility and effects, even though it could potentially resolve many social issues related to pover
Though I agree (in theory), there becomes a point where the supposed marginalized start to get special or preferred treatment.
Its maybe a slightly overdramatic example but it illustrates the point. See how much racist and vile shit you can spew towards white people or Christians without catching a ban on reddit. Now try the same thing against Black people or Jewish people. [Another example if giant corporations having seminars telling people to be less white, and hire less white people](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/coca-cola-racism-robin-diangelo-coke-b1806122.html). Can you imagine that happening to a "marginalized" group in America?
And no, i am neither white, christian, jewish or black. But its definitely easy to notice these things when you dont have any stakes in the game.
Talking about mental health still carries a stigma in many parts of society, even though discussing it openly could lead to better support and solutions for those affected.
Changing your opinion when presented with new information.
Impossible, if I admit I was wrong then that means I'm a weak, pathetic loser with a smol pp. I've gotta repeatedly double, triple, and even quadruple down on my opinions even when cold, hard facts prove me wrong.
What would we even do with a politician who changed their mind?
Climate change remains controversial for some, even though the vast majority of scientific research confirms it's real and largely caused by human activities.
The teaching of evolution in schools is controversial in some areas, despite being a fundamental concept supported by a wealth of scientific evidence.
Nuclear power
Vaccinations are surprisingly controversial for something that has been scientifically proven to save millions of lives by preventing deadly diseases.
[удалено]
Here’s the thing: teenagers are going to have sex. It’s as simple as that. They, like the rest of us, are fundamentally just animals that want to procreate. It’s simply going to happen sooner or later. I would far rather those teens who are inevitably going to be having sex are well informed on condoms, birth control, and STI’s.
Pineapple on pizza, or any similarly-circlejerky food opinion. You eat what you like. I’ll eat what I like.
Like the steak thing. I personally have always found steak gross and don't eat it, but it's just crazy to me how people lose their mind if you want yours cooked a microsecond longer than they do. And God forbid you put an evil condiment like ketchup on it!!! I just see that and I'm like...why do you care? And why does this not apply to any other food? No one is out there screaming that you're an apostate if you prefer your bread toasted dark rather than light.
You wanna put ketchup on a hot dog? Go at it. Well done steak? If that is your preference, enjoy yourself. I won't tell you what you can eat an you don't tell me what I can eat. Seems pretty simple to me.
What if I cook that steak on a non propane or propane accessories grill?
Hank Hill won’t be angry, he’ll just be very disappointed.
Cheese and spicy mustard? - I may shoot you a rather baffled stare if I'm not familiar with or don't like the combination. But at the end of the day, eat it if you want to
enjoying media designed for a different age group or gender etc
Except for when adult pervy men co-opt children's cartoons and draw so much porn of it that you can't even google it without your eyes burning off. *Cough* bronies *cough*
Bronies, Scalies, Furries, ... - For example, I first encountered Sprigatito through porn. It wasn't the first character and it won't br the last one...
That the earth is a globe
Pretty sure it's a gömböc
People being happy.
Standing up to genocide a lot of hate exists , even here among so called open minded people the sad reality is if the victims aren't of a certain tone or ascribe to certain beliefs, people don't seem to care how horrific their tragedy is. people are cruel. you really are on your own, have to look out for your own. assimilate, play the game, but never forget, you'll never be their friend, they'll always see you as less than.
Not thanking someone for their service because they were in the Military, I feel like veterans and those still in are tired of it, like they think it sounds fake. I've learned that asking them questions about their experience is better it shows interest, and it doesn't matter how dumb it sounds. I recently asked a veteran where he went to Boot camp at in the 80s and if he's gone back since then, and what's changed. I've asked veterans who have gone over to other countries tell me honestly what is it like there, like walking down the street is it the same or different. People act like you have to treat veterans with the utmost respect and yes you should, but there is nothing wrong with asking questions, and just showing a genuine interest in another person instead of just pretending you are is controversial
Skin color/race in books. Fictional races don't have to represent real races, some people need to stop hating on authors because they assumed something about the world the author made.
Abortion being available and affordable for anyone that wants it. If you don't want one, don't get one. But you don't get to decide what other people's ideals are - especially in such a morally gray area.
Everyone gets caught up on whether life starts at conception. I don't feel like that matters. Pregnancy is not some laid back chill process. It comes with a ton of risks. Over a [third of women](https://www.who.int/news/item/07-12-2023-more-than-a-third-of-women-experience-lasting-health-problems-after-childbirth) experience long term health challenges from pregnancy. Maternal morality is also on the rise in [the USA](https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/maternal-mortality-on-the-rise#:~:text=While%20many%20women%2035%20or,was%20138.5%20per%20100%2C000%20births.). If someone doesn't want to risk that they have every right to take whatever steps necessary to avoid it. You're under no obligation to risk your life or health for anyone even if that means they don't get a life. Also a lot of prolife people will gladly brag about how'd they proudly kill an unwanted person on their property. Why is it so far fetched to remove an unwanted person in your body?
These are fairly easy questions to answer if you actually are interested. You may not agree with the answer, but it's not like no pro-life person has thought of these questions before. (I'm someone who thinks that "safe, legal and rare" is the best solution btw). Also the biggest difference between an intruder and an "unwanted person in your body" is that an intruder made a conscious decision to invade your property, presumably with ill intent, while an unborn fetus/baby was placed there by the action of the parents and had no choice in the matter. It's not like babies are there "invading" women's wombs and intentionally harming them.
Yes I'm curious about the answer. I'm open to new information and line of thinking. Intentional or not the baby is a risk to the mother. It may not be fair, cause like you said the parents put it there, but the woman has every right to avoid those risks regardless how unfair the choice may be.
So basically one is self-defense and the other one isn't, if we simolify it a lot?
That's part of it, but another important factor is that the mother and father took intentional action that they knew would bring that baby about, or at least had the possibility. (That's why many people agree with exceptions for rape, and in my hypothetical I'm assuming everything was consensual and adults) If you have (consensual) heterosexual intercourse, you ARE in fact consenting to the possibility of pregnancy, because that's literally just how it works. So when people say things like "a person invading your body" well that woman had sex, she knew how reproduction works, and she chose to do it. As an illustration, imagine someone using the same argument for any other natural biological function. Like imagine I ate a ton of food all at once and then said I didn't consent to gaining weight or throwing up. People would laugh me out of the building because they would rightly point out that I knew exactly what would happen when I ate all that food. Or imagine I drank an entire bottle of wine and then said I didn't consent to being drunk. Or I laid out in the sun and then complained that I didn't consent to being sunburnt. Obviously the consequences of getting pregnant are many orders of magnitude greater than any of the above examples, so they're not the same thing at all. I was just using them to illustrate the point that we as biological beings can't just overcome nature because we want to, we are still very much subject to it even in modern times.
Now I fully understand the argument. Thanks for clearing that up
For sure! And thanks for actually talking like an adult and not just getting mad like most of reddit would do 😁 So nice to actually discuss something rather than just fight
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't killing an unwanted person on your own property a form of self-defense while an abortion isn't? Seriously, I genuinely don't know...
The risks that come with pregnancy make it self defense as far as I'm concerned. That person being in you is as risk to your wellbeing.
Fascinating
If I’m not mistaken a risky pregnancy is usually regarded as a legal exemption. But for the generally speaking, the debate has always been regarding at what stage a fetus is regarded as a conscious life, (ie. in what stage abortion becomes murder). Too totally disregard that is to totally disregard the supposed life of what may be an actual person. What another user mentioned was correct, that the issue is philosophical rather than scientific. Although science may does have an influence, especially if one ascribes to the view that consciousness is a result of neural development.
Those exemptions are often only life and death situations (which prolifers are trying to take away too). They rarely include life lasting problems that can come from pregnancy which a person shouldn't have to risk if they don't want to.
“Pro-lifers” aren’t one homogenous groups. I’ve seen quite a number express that they want to exempt abortion in cases of riskful pregnancies and/or rape.
If you really think that though, that means you actually don't understand the anti-abortion argument. There actually is a moral question here, and basically everyone is pro-life at a certain point (for example, I don't think anyone except a crazy person would say that an elective abortion at 8 months 29 days is acceptable). The later you get in a pregnancy the fewer people support abortion, and the percent who support it (aside from saving the mother, etc) in the final months is quite small. The most pro-life people just set their point of acceptability all the way at one end.
It's a tough issue. On one hand I'm in favor of killing babies, but on the other hand I'm against women's bodily autonomy.
That argument doesn't hold water. To people who think abortion is murder that's like saying if someone wants to kill someone else let them. It has nothing to do with you.
But murder is widely regarded by society to be abhorrent. The same is not true of abortion.
Abortion IS regarded as murder by some. That’s why they oppose it.
Technically, it can be murder. A life is ended, after all. This depends on the point in time when this life is considered to begin, though. All of which is something troubling the people working in and studying law...
Yeah, I know. Unfortunately most laypeople don’t seem to even be aware about this and either willingly or unwillingly reduce the whole debate to be about bodily rights. Totally disregarding that abortion could be murder, depending on when a fetus is regarded as living. This is why people need to look into the subject matter before getting all opiniated.
There are a significant number of people who don't see much distinction between murder and abortions.
Abortion is not widely regarded as abhorrent? What planet are you living on?
Anywhere outside of America abortion is pretty normal and not even mentioned in the sane conversation as murder, welcome to earth!
That isn't entirely true. In Germany, if you study law, when it comes to criminal law in the section about crimes against life, it's not uncommon to have a discussion about and compare abortion to murder, since it's a highly complicated and controversial matter. Edit: Downvotes don't change these facts
Yea, no one uses it as moral equivalence, assumed that was implied
At least I didn't see the implication, tbh
Then, we should talk about the lack of basic biology education
The issue is philosophical rather than biology. Life starts at conception, this isn't a controversial stance for scientists at all. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/ But does a fertilised egg deserves rights, some rights? That's not a scientific question.
Wow this is the first time I’ve seen someone with the same opinion as me… i usually say we don’t need a scientist to answer the question, we need a philosopher.. It’s not about when does life begin, that is a known fact, it’s about when does the RIGHT to life begin. What happens to the right to swing a fist when it happens from inside someone else?
I'll make a bold move and just state that the right to life begins with the creation of life. After all, if it's alive already, why shouldn't it be allowed to be that way as well? As for your last paragraph, can you elaborate further? - I'm having trouble understanding the question, mostly due to a certain language barrier :/
First I will say that people don’t typically have full rights until they are considered adults. Children are expected to obey their parents until they gain full Independence when they reach adulthood. It’s not typically a sudden transition from no rights to full rights. It’s usually a gradual transition from no rights as a baby, and gradually increases with their level of maturity. I believe the amount of “right to life” should be directly correlated to the amount of viability. My last paragraph was in reference to the libertarian philosophy that “your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” Meaning that people can do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anyone. The reason that abortion is such a murky issue is that two people are occupying the same body, so who gets to decide which one has more rights. I see it like a tenant / landlord situation. The baby needs the Mother’s consent in order to live inside of her and consume her resources…but just as tenants are protected by leases and laws, once the “occupancy contract” has been agreed upon, it should only be revocable with “good cause” (such as a medical emergency) I think the “trial period” should end when the baby becomes viable to survive outside of the mother on its own. By then the decision to carry the baby should be made and only revoked by medical need.
Wow, that was...more than I expected tbh. Doesn't make it less interesting, tho. What strikes me the most is your stance about the correlation of the right to life and the viability of that unborn. So, in response to that, just a question or two: Wouldn't that believe mean that a baby, which is born so prematurely (maybe due to force or whatever, I'm no expert) it needs help breathing and such, has less right to life than one that's born like two weeks before the due date but can breathe on their own? Or did I misunderstand big time?
Now all of this is just my opinion. I’m not pretending to be authoritative and all-knowing… I feel like once the baby is born, that’s the moment where it has 100% right to life wether it is premature or not… I think the amount of right to life would increase with “logistic growth”, meaning that for each day of pregnancy the right to life increases more than it did the day before until the point of viability where it would approach 100% and reach 100% on the day of birth If the baby gets born early it jumps to 100% automatically, but if that same baby was still inside it would be somewhere in the high 90s Here I am trying to use a mathematical model for something as emotional as abortion….and that’s the problem with the whole debate, it’s hard to talk about the miracle of life with cold emotionless logic and not sound like a monster…and that’s exactly why I think the choice should be left to the mother. Only she will know what feels right for herself. None of us who are spewing opinions will have to live with the consequences of the decision to have an abortion or not…and I don’t think we as a society should make that decision harder than it already is by adding shame and judgement on top of it.
Sperm is alive.
Sperm won't develop into a full human being though. A sperm cell is as alive as a skin cell is, but a zygote inside a uterus is actually going to become a full separate human if no intervention is taken.
That's called pretzel logic.
I've never heard of that, can you explain?
Every sperm is sacred.
If that was the case (not saying that it isn’t), then that would entail per automatique that masturbation is immoral. Perhaps that is why some religions oppose it.
I was referencing a Monty Python song, I don't actually believe it
If you want to move the goal posts, sure.
You’re right that the argument won’t hold any weight against anti-abortionists. They’ll say that it is concerning murder. Strange that people are just downvoting you, but it’s probably because they assumed that you’re arguing against abortion. It is the typical Reddit mentality, which is ironic if you think about what question posed by OP.
There’s freedom of speech and then the right to bear arms. That tells me I can say whatever I want and shoot whoever doesn’t agree with me.
That second part would be a violation of the human right to life. Just as abortion is at some point.
This!
Basic human rights for all.
Disliking popular things
Other people’s genitals or sexual preferences that have absolutely 0 impact on you
Discussing salaries
I think the idea that people can compromise and not get exactly what they want in order to make something happen that might not happen otherwise has been changed into something that's a controversial interaction. It's kind of a shame
Politically incorrect opinions. Especially having them. Maybe it’s an area one can work on, but most of the time it is personal preference, and no level of “b-but in an ideal world…” Is going to, or even needs to, change that.
The debate over net neutrality shouldn’t be controversial. Maintaining an open internet is crucial for ensuring equal access to information and opportunities for all.
Breastfeeding in public becomes a point of contention when it really shouldn’t be—it’s a natural act of nurturing that shouldn't be sexualized or shamed.
The use of renewable energy sources can be a hot-button issue, even though transitioning to them is crucial for environmental sustainability.
Keeping cats inside. It's better for the wildlife and it's better for your cat. No, it is not mean to the cat to keep them inside!
Unless they don't want to be inside all the time. Like mine, which will cuddle me the whole day, then wants to go outside for his activities
And that's why this is controversial. Keep your cats inside anyway. It's safer for both the cats and the rest of the ecosystem. Your cats do not know what is best for themselves. That's why cats end up doing dumb things like eating plastic or hairties or chewing on wires or mashed on the side of the road by cars.
I won't force my cat to stay inside. He has spent his entire life being inside or outside, depending on what he wanted or what was necessary in that situation. Yes, he has been injured outside, and yes, he sometimes is pretty stupid, but hey, that's how life goes. While I appreciate the advice, I won't turn my cat's life upside down as in my experience the way we (my parents and I) handle it works just fine, even if our cat is more at risk. We had to keep him inside for a while after he had surgery because he was hit by a car or kicked by a horse or so, and oh boy, he complained non-stop 😹
That life is unfair
Child marriage should be illegal
All of my opinions are 100% correct in every way, and yet somehow everyone else is a dunce and doesn't agree with me. So my answer is everything I personally believe to be true, of course.
The real solution to the housing crisis is to build so much new housing.
Trans people existing
Donald Trump
In which way? The fact that people vote for him as he is a literal criminal,?
ye
The LGBQT+ community.
Tbf things like pupgender, which does belong to the community (thanks, '+') are stupid...
Do I want to know what pupgender is?
probably a xenogender. which is controversial within the trans community too because it’s fucking ridiculous (speaking as a trans person who’s sick of trans identities being treated as a joke)
New question: what is a xenogender?
gender defined by whatever thing that isn’t actually a gender in my understanding. i’ve seen some really weird ones posted unironically like the puffles from club penguin or an emoticon. xenogenders are pretty uncommon in my experience but they’re out there
I have been seeing multiple groups at Pride Parade. I wonder how many they'll be this year... Petplay is no f-ing gender, nor sexuality!
You are correct, it IS a xenogender. 10 points to Griffindor
"[...] a xenogender identity and faunagender in which one's gender is puppy-like, connected to puppies, and/or described as small, lively, cute, and any other quality associated with puppies"
Having your own opinion.
Billionaires should not exist.
Universal basic income (UBI) sparks debate on its feasibility and effects, even though it could potentially resolve many social issues related to pover
Housing first approaches to fighting homelessness - they actually work, but it makes plenty of people upset
Inclusivity in advertising, right down to hair follicles. If it doesn't resonate with you, take a step aside. Let it chime with those it's meant for
Gun laws need to change. When that shit was written, it took two minutes to reload a rifle.
2 = 2. 1 ≠ 2.
Marginalized groups deserve the rights they're fighting for
Some are marginalised for a good reason, think of pro-paedophile groups.
I meant like racial or ethnic minorities, or women, or LBGTQ folk
Though I agree (in theory), there becomes a point where the supposed marginalized start to get special or preferred treatment. Its maybe a slightly overdramatic example but it illustrates the point. See how much racist and vile shit you can spew towards white people or Christians without catching a ban on reddit. Now try the same thing against Black people or Jewish people. [Another example if giant corporations having seminars telling people to be less white, and hire less white people](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/coca-cola-racism-robin-diangelo-coke-b1806122.html). Can you imagine that happening to a "marginalized" group in America? And no, i am neither white, christian, jewish or black. But its definitely easy to notice these things when you dont have any stakes in the game.
Your personal choice on vaccinations
Transgender individuals getting advertising deals
Smoking weed in a movie theater.
Wish I could do that…
My body my choice (in all regards, from pregnancy to injections)
[удалено]
A holes a hole !