Non-Country Debate user SSj_Ness about rape..

[SSj_Ness]

He's getting pissy at people who support abortion for raped children and editing their comments

I edited the article in that instance you very mad retard

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

I edited the article in that instance you very mad retard

Dude, a whole page of you taking an unhinged stance on child rape and THIS is the only thing you have to say?

You have some serious misplaced priorities.

 

[VAIDS Victim]

I gave up trying to cap all his comments but he's been going for 20 pages so far and got mad about receiving negrates while calling people mad. Here are all his comments (so far) on the article:

---

Another weird take about rape...

 

[SSj_Ness]

Dude, a whole page of you taking an unhinged stance on child rape and THIS is the only thing you have to say?

You have some serious misplaced priorities.

This place is pretty fucked up to think being anti-child rape is unhinged.

Another weird take about rape...

Typically people don't classify considering the murder of a baby as being worse than rape to be weird, at least sane people don't.

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

This place is pretty fucked up to think being anti-child rape is unhinged.

.... You just showed your hand, dude.

Cuz there's two possibilities:

1 ) you were seriously confused as to what I was calling "unhinged."
2 ) you knew damn well what the problem element was and chose to misrepresent so as to not have to answer for it.

And I'm strongly suspecting its that second thing.

But... just on the off chance you really are just that retarded.... nobody is defending child rape. The stance that is "unhinged" is your repeated insistence that said child who was raped should not be allowed to abort the rape-baby.

SHE'S A RAPE VICTIM. SHE IS A CHILD. CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BABIES. PERIOD.

And let's not even pretend you're taking this extreme stance out of any genuine morals or ethic. For you its all about "owning the libs." If the libs suddenly decided they were anti-abortion, you would flip on a dime and be all like "they should've killed Peanut in the first month!"

 

[SSj_Ness]

The stance that is "unhinged" is your repeated insistence that said child who was raped should not be allowed to abort the rape-baby.

Yeah, a baby shouldn't be killed no matter how it was conceived unless it's medically necessary. I definitely showed my hand there, wanna see it again?

You showed yours too, thankfully, you conceded it's a baby and not a bullshit "clump of cells" or such. So you support killing babies.

SHE'S A RAPE VICTIM. SHE IS A CHILD.

That's terrible, yes, even if you didn't put it in caps I'd agree.

CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BABIES. PERIOD.

Yes, and babies should not be killed. Period.

And let's not even pretend you're taking this extreme stance out of any genuine morals or ethic.

Appeal to motive fallacy.

For you its all about "owning the libs."

That's not all it's about, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a huge factor. Like damn near half... Let's say it's 51% anti-infanticide & 49% owning the libs.

If the libs suddenly decided they were anti-abortion, you would flip on a dime and be all like "they should've killed Peanut in the first month!"

This was pretty funny, ngl

 

[fag0t v2]

Babies SSJ_Ness shuold be killed because it's a tax burden. Period.

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

I definitely showed my hand there, wanna see it again?

Judge! He has three Ace of Spades!

You showed yours too, thankfully, you conceded it's a baby and not a bullshit "clump of cells" or such. So you support killing babies.

Yeah I've never really had much to do with the whole "defining what constitutes life" aspect of the abortion debate.

I mean, I get it. Life is sacred, people are against killing and murder, etc. And they want to reconcile that with being fine with abortion.

I have no patience for such things.

If someone needs a moral justification, this case already presents one: there is such a thing as "mercy killing."

 

[Crimson Fucker]

There are plenty of people that are living reasons to have abortions like cyraxx. Wanting children to gave rape babies (regardless of how extreme or rare the example is) is just as bad a take as abortion fetishists, which is also rare and extreme. Those abortion fetishists started doing as a response to the first take to begin with to spite them and upset them which means their trolling was successful. The only way to react is to laugh and call them all pathetic. Spite culture has always been a thing. It's why the left is the way it is, to rebel against conservatives who think like that. These extreme views only make their just as extreme and having these views likey stems from the same reasons they have theirs. They want to out radicalize eachother in a contest to see who can have the most extreme and retarded takes.

 

[BurnerAccount333]

I am genuinely impressed we are actually debating @SSj_Ness on, and near, the subject of rape.

 

[SSj_Ness]

Yeah I've never really had much to do with the whole "defining what constitutes life" aspect of the abortion debate.

Luckily you needn't worry about that as it's settled, undisputed science. Instead libtards try to shift the goalposts from science to the philosophical notion of "personhood".

I mean, I get it. Life is sacred, people are against killing and murder, etc. And they want to reconcile that with being fine with abortion.

I have no patience for such things.

If someone needs a moral justification, this case already presents one: there is such a thing as "mercy killing."

Mercy killings could then be extended to whoever we want. The disabled or elderly are next in line for society's "mercy".

 

[BurnerAccount333]

@SSj_Ness I have some questions, I'm asking them to see how sacred you consider life is. I believe you are genuine, and this simply a case of you believing two wrongs don't make a right, but I am curious if your position is spite-based or actually based on the desire to protect life.

• Would you prefer to abandon children at an orphanage?
• Is that extreme care of life beyond the womb?
• You don't seem to like LGBT, I am assuming you have a lot biased-positions that lead you believe maybe a minority, maybe majority, of LGBT are bad people. So would you object if I adopted a child?
  • Would you prefer that child to have no parent than ever be raised by anyone gay?
• When does the care stop? 21? 18? 17? 16? If life is so sacred that it must be protected at conception when does life become no longer be so sacred you can wish death onto them?
  • Is it based on action? Rather when does the extreme desire to protect someone end?
  • If it is based on the fragile and helpless nature of someone: Do the extreme mentally ill also get that compassion?
• If someone was brutally raped, in an alley and everything, could you tell that person you want them to bear that child despite knowing they will likely hate that child and possibly abuse them too?
  • You did mention abusers tend to pass on their abuse.

 

[Crimson Fucker]

What if a child rapes a child and impregnated the child with a baby that was 100% going to die as soon as it is born and will 100% kill the child mother?

 

[Chrysler Building]

Pro lifers can start out respectable ("the USA has too many abortions and that's terrible") but they always loop around to "child rape is beautiful, 10 year olds having rapebabies is so based, God bless rape and rapists!" Always coming around to the Sargon of Akkad-esque stance of "it depends on the child."

It makes sense they were so willing to embrace that Milo guy, pedos recognize other pedos and do their best to support them. I only wonder when they'll start tying in pedophilia as a based way to raise white birth rates?

 

[nobodyworthwhile]

Mercy killings could then be extended to whoever we want. The disabled or elderly are next in line for society's "mercy".

Why does what you said remind me of this?

(The part at about a minute in)

Anyway, in my experience most people tend to not see mercy killing as an all-or-nothing proposition. Just last week my neighbors had to put down a dog that was in pain after getting hit by a car... doesn't mean they're now gonna shoot any dog that comes their way.

 

[fag0t v2]

I m not even 100% pro-choice but one thing I despise about pro'-lifers is that they should be "anti-abortion." Out of 10 people who are "pro-life" only one actually is willing to foot the bills and support the children once they are born.

 

[SSj_Ness]

@SSj_Ness I have some questions, I'm asking them to see how sacred you consider life is. I believe you are genuine, and this simply a case of you believing two wrongs don't make a right, but I am curious if your position is spite-based or actually based on the desire to protect life.

• Would you prefer to abandon children at an orphanage?

As opposed to abortion you mean? Certainly, though obviously it's not ideal.

• Is that extreme care of life beyond the womb?

Until natural death, assuming you're not an egregious criminal.

• You don't seem to like LGBT, I am assuming you have a lot biased-positions that lead you believe maybe a minority, maybe majority, of LGBT are bad people. So would you object if I adopted a child?

I'd absolutely object to that.

• Would you prefer that child to have no parent than ever be raised by anyone gay?

Yes.

• When does the care stop? 21? 18? 17? 16? If life is so sacred that it must be protected at conception when does life become no longer be so sacred you can wish death onto them?

As a Christian I think we shouldn't wish death upon anyone, but I've done it, and realistically I think it's understandable if people do so when someone is a murderer, pedophile, torturer, something along those lines.

• Is it based on action? Rather when does the extreme desire to protect someone end?
  • If it is based on the fragile and helpless nature of someone: Do the extreme mentally ill also get that compassion?

People should lose their protection when they violate others to a staggering degree. Yes, the mentally ill certainly get that compassion as long as they don't use their illness as an excuse to do bad things.

• If someone was brutally raped, in an alley and everything, could you tell that person you want them to bear that child despite knowing they will likely hate that child and possibly abuse them too?
  • You did mention abusers tend to pass on their abuse.

I think that's an appeal to emotion. No matter how much I empathize with the victim I can't tell them "vacuum that innocent life".

As for abusers passing on their abuse, I'm not sure what can be done about that in all cases without getting too into precrime territory.

Pro lifers can start out respectable ("the USA has too many abortions and that's terrible") but they always loop around to "child rape is beautiful, 10 year olds having rapebabies is so based, God bless rape and rapists!"

I'd say that's a strawman, but it'd be an insult to strawmen. Even accounting for hyperbole and playing your point up with macabre humor, that's not even remotely close to true.

It's very simple. Is an abortion medically necessary or not, is it used as a life-saving medical procedure? If so then it should be permissible, otherwise you're killing a human life when you don't need to.

That is the only consistent way to genuinely be pro-life, because if you can draw arbitrary lines then just allow unrestricted abortion, hell, throw post-birth abortions in there while you're at it.

 

[TheChattanoogaAshleyJank]

Who do I bill my therapy session to?

 

[BurnerAccount333]

Thanks for responding, and thank you for being honest.
It's refreshing to hear someone just say: "Yeah I don't think you should be allowed to adopt kids because you're gay."
Instead of going in circles avoiding the question, and what not.

I think that's an appeal to emotion. No matter how much I empathize with the victim I can't tell them "vacuum that innocent life".

It absolutely was, it was to test your resolve. I can respect that resolve, your beliefs do seem to be consistently genuine towards protecting life.
And thus my conclusion then is that your beliefs are absolutely based on pure ideological beliefs, and likely not spite based at all.
That's all I was curious about, have a great day.

 

[Chrysler Building]

As opposed to abortion you mean? Certainly, though obviously it's not ideal.


Until natural death, assuming you're not an egregious criminal.


I'd absolutely object to that.


Yes.


As a Christian I think we shouldn't wish death upon anyone, but I've done it, and realistically I think it's understandable if people do so when someone is a murderer, pedophile, torturer, something along those lines.


People should lose their protection when they violate others to a staggering degree. Yes, the mentally ill certainly get that compassion as long as they don't use their illness as an excuse to do bad things.


I think that's an appeal to emotion. No matter how much I empathize with the victim I can't tell them "vacuum that innocent life".

As for abusers passing on their abuse, I'm not sure what can be done about that in all cases without getting too into precrime territory.


I'd say that's a strawman, but it'd be an insult to strawmen. Even accounting for hyperbole and playing your point up with macabre humor, that's not even remotely close to true.

It's very simple. Is an abortion medically necessary or not, is it used as a life-saving medical procedure? If so then it should be permissible, otherwise you're killing a human life when you don't need to.

That is the only consistent way to genuinely be pro-life, because if you can draw arbitrary lines then just allow unrestricted abortion, hell, throw post-birth abortions in there while you're at it.

You want to rape women while they're sleeping, actively want to protect rapists from harsh punishments, and pitched a tantrum about how Japan is going "woke" for cracking down on sex crimes. The source of your opinions are all very clear as is the rest of the pro-rape movement.