^^^ lol

This is partially why people can't understand other perspectives. Not only do you justify plainly dumbfounding things based on a narrative that may or may not be correct, but you don't use evidence and when people contest it you leave the thread. I felt I was being pretty respectful and nice, and the same goes for other users. When I hear people say they're against homosexuality or abortion, I could get angry but I don't show it.

But you're afraid to continue replying in this thread because ... people were mean to you? Because your points are hard to understand? 

Whatever, lol. We did are part having a rational discussion.

What about people who were raped? Or using protection and being careful, but that didn't work?

It shouldn't even be an issue of deciding not to get pregnant. People should be allowed to decide what to do with their body in the first place, plain and simple.

Even that can fail, and some people might not have taken it if they already wore protection.

Because Babies can't decide shit, they are babies. This may be an "unpopular" opinion but honestly if I had a girlfriend(LOLOLOL) and she didn't want to have a kid i would only care about her opinion and not the outcome of some baby. Because she is someone that already exists in this world, whether or not you believe babies have souls, she is the soul that I could percieve at that time. 

Besides, your point is futile. Because fetus's IN GENERAL are not created by choice. As much as you could easily say "shouldn't the babies decide if they live or die?" you could also say "shouldn't the babies decide if the mother gets pregnant in the first place?" It doesn't make anly sense because in either scenario the baby can't make a decision. And if you believe that souls are born at the moment of conception, then logically the 2nd question would make as much sense as the first. 

And what if later in life the baby grows up and they want to commit suicide? Do you know how hard it is to go through with that, the responsibility you leave behind? There is no choice in life or death, at least not on a domestic level. That's the entire problem.

I totally understand the pro-life view. How is it much different from killing a baby?

Are you suggesting the morning after pill for rape victims? As in, they still could have chosen not to have a baby if they just could have taken the pill? Also, it is their body, the fetus cannot live without the mother, the fetus feeds off the mother, the fetus is in essence inseparable from the mother, so it is virtually part of the mother, so the mother should have a say in what happens to her body, especially considering the health risks of pregnancy.

I'm a fan of Contra's, but I think that while her free-speech video brings up valid points and clearly dissects the various ways in which speech might be limited, her characterization of her "oppositions" viewpoints are not nuanced enough. For example, much of the video is criticizing Christopher Hitchens, but it doesn't seem clear to me that Hitchens would have a problem with certain people deplatforming views they don't like in those contexts where they control the platform. His major criticism was about legal abridgements of free-speech in the United Kingdom. She did find that one contradiction in which Hitchens mentions that he is fine taking abuse, but we don't really know the nuances of Hitchens' position and what he'd say to this criticism. Heck, he might even had owned up to it being his fault, and nobody can truly live up to his ideal -- as we are human, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. 

Now her criticisms of Dave Rubin, and other center-liberals, is valid to some extent, but I think Rubin's criticism goes beyond this. Much of the abridgements to speech are induced by people using physical violence (or the threat thereof) against other people who want to speak with one another. There is no dichotomy here, as Contra tries to frame it. The right for conservatives to choose speakers of their desired paramters does not interfere with the right of leftists to choose their speakers, this is not a zero-sum game. Afterall, a conservative might find Communists and Anarchists threatening and therefore wish to deplatform the left's speeches. This is not to equate anarchism and fascism, but is to highlight the practical problems with just saying "oh well they're fascists anyway." This is the core of Dave Rubin and other center-liberal's criticism. The leftism of academia would be bearable if violence wasn't used by non-involved persons to restrict the speech of two groups unrelated to them. I also don't think most center-liberals would say "that's the internet, deal with it" when abuse prevents somebody from voicing their opinions. Most center-liberals are definitely in a camp where they argue against actual abuse. Now a large minority might say, "I can't control it" or "there is not much we can do about it" but that is different from "deal with it, this is the internet." 

This also highlights my problem with Contra's more recent videos as she moved more left (nothing wrong with that by the way.) She is right in that there are actual fascists using centrists to gain powerful positions, but she is also ignoring the broad interpretation of the word "fascist" used by many on the left to apply to perfectly mainstream conservatives and right-wing liberals. She is also ignoring the undercurrent of anti-capitalism in the anti-fascist movement. That isn't to say that anti-capitalism is wrong (I'm there), but don't frame such a movement as inclusive to liberals (who mostly support capitalism) if it's not. If anti-capitalism is a pre-requisite to ANTIFA membership, then ANTIFA should more rightly be called ANTIFA/ANTICA. I mean, I am anti-capitalist myself, but I think there are legitimate reasons why people are attached to capitalism and it is wrong to be explicitly against them for it. She thinks people are being naive when they can't recognize the fascists, but most people on the center-right (or even center-left) have been called or know somebody who has been called a fascist/white-supremacist/etc  wrongly, and therefore are no longer sensitive to the actual fascists in our midst. Because the popular media is complicit in this, to some extent, people can't really trust any information they see about someone based on second hand characterizations. Hence, you have people like Roaming Millenial -- who are obviously anti-fascist, interested in hearing the views of Richard Spencer from the source, because that is the only verifiable source. If she didn't see many people around (and including) her called, wrongly, alt-right and/or fascist, she probably wouldn't have even cared to interview Richard Spencer, an actual alt-righter. 

Having said that I love Contra because she makes you think about these things, and isn't outright dismissive of "right-wingers." She understands that the vast majority of people are not anarchists, communists, feminists or even socialists and therefore wishes to hold a conversation with them. She also knows when and for what reasons to criticize the left (and the left sure does need criticising, its ineffectiveness is why we are where we are.) 

So where should it stop?

That's one of the worst arguments trends that i've heard a lot recently. It's the same argument that conservatives use to stigmatize gay marriage, it's the same argument that people use for gun control laws, etc etc.

"Where should it stop" is just a version of the "you give them an inch they take a mile" mentality, which while useful in many debates, the former just feels like a stigmatization of such argument. It's always important to ask the question "If I support this nuanced position, will the people supporting such position take it to an extremity?" I get that. But at some point it becomes questionable whether such doubts are taken to the point of lunacy. 

To be clear i'm not employing guilt by association, i.e. saying that because other people have used it for ridiculous arguments it makes your argument ridiculous. I'm also not lumping in all conservatives together. But, I do think it's important to take into account how many times that mentality has been used recently to justify slippery slopes and arguments not based on solid foundation. 

No, nobody is going to support post-birth abortion just because they believe in opportunities for pre-birth abortion. There are too many variables that make the two scenarios different, and honestly Ka-pi, I know you're intelligent enough to get the huge difference between the two scenarios. So I honestly don't know why you're lumping them together.

An infant is entirely dependent also, so what is the difference if she decides to kill the born child?

At the point of birth, pretty much every possible issue with birth is already addressed, and alternatives are available to side step any issues with parenting.

The question of abortion for the sake of the mother's health? Already solved by the time of birth. Either the mother died, the mother is alive an had issues with birth, or the mother is fine.

The debate over whether there's a soul? Well, when a baby is born the perception of said human is already there. We can see it observe it's surroundings and truly live in an environment. If there is any question of whether or not a soul is inhabited in a fetus, that question is practically answered by the time of birth, making ethical arguments thrown out the window almost entirely by the time of birth. 

The baby is no longer physically attached to the mother so an adoption agency can be found , although honestly I don't know much about the mother's milk scenario. 

That's already pretty much the biggest three reasons why abortion is controversial, solved, just by the birth itself.

Now, read my second sentence again. In essence, you're agreeing that rape victims chose to get pregnant, and thus they shouldn't be able to abort. Talking about your second point, the baby doesn't have consciousness, so it'd essentially be the same as unplugging a brain-dead patient.