16 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-11-08 1720 +StevenCrowder

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-11-08 1720 +StevenCrowder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCSZYJywQPM&lc=UgzPSq8Q1rkpL4xFsM54AaABAg
https://pastebin.com/cfXrzcdD
__

At the end of this video we were invited to leave criticism: *Steven Crowder lives in a fantasy world where all women would stop having abortions if only abortion were illegal.* The reality is that abortions will continue regardless of their legality and irrespective of Mr Crowder's moral outrage.

The *unavoidable consequence* of denying women a pathway to safe and legal abortion is that *dangerous and illegal "backyard abortions" occur.*

Globally, it is estimated that *20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually* which result in some *69,000 deaths* and millions of injuries. The figure for the US is negligible. Why? _Because there is access to safe and legal abortion._

But Mr Crowder does not talk about that. Instead he prefers to talk about "convenience". Do you really think "convenience" is the driving force for women when they are literally risking their life?

Mr Crowder likes to talk about "degrees of evilness". He says that, _"an evil act should not be met with an even greater evil"_ (in this video @30m:39s and 31m:41s). Sounds good! So, in terms of evilness, is murdering an unborn baby more evil, less evil, or equally evil to that of murdering an adult?

Is murdering an unborn black baby more, less, or equal to that of murdering an unborn white baby? Come now, Mr Crowder - can you be honest?

_Which "scale of evilness" chart is Mr Crowder referencing?_ *Citation needed!*

Apparently, performing an equally evil act (such as murder) can be celebrated: just a day ago Mr Crowder praised the gentleman who sought out and endeavoured to terminate the life of that Texas church gunman. *Obviously Mr Crowder is okay with murder, _but by golly it has to be on his terms!_*

As for those "rare" cases of r4pe: why not charge the r4pist with r4pe *and* murder if the woman becomes pregnant and decides she doesn't want to carry the r4pist's baby? Why in crikey's good name would Mr Crowder absolve the r4pist of additional responsibility for any consequences *resulting from his actions* that are beyond his control?

_Oh, the f_kcing irony of it!_

Instead, Mr Crowder wishes to pin the responsibility and moral burden onto what should be a *blameless* r4pe victim. But hey, Mr Crowder is quick to tell us the r4pe scenario doesn't happen all that often. What does he mean by that? Apparently, "r4pe conception happens between *25,000 and 32,000 times each year* in the US".

Go ahead Mr Crowder, put on a "Change My Mind" sign and address a stadium of 25,000 newly pregnant victims of r4pe and "debate" them that they are all moral trash if they don't want to carry their r4pist's baby to term as you *feel* they should. Make it an annual event and let's see how it goes.

Thank crikey we live in a world where your *insane, barbaric, outdated, and flawed* views on abortion are not the status quo.

If you have learned how to "debate" from "Stefan Molyneux", then demand a refund. That charlatan can only teach you how to be an ineffective sophist. Mr Molyneux blocked me the first time I left him criticism, let's hope you won't be just as weak.




__________
2017-11-08 1915

+Ihsahn Åkerfeldt __ Mr Crowder is okay with murder when it's on his terms. Murder itself isn't the problem, rather it's the murder of the *innocent.* So if you and he are against the murder of the innocent, then be consistent: *did the gentleman who shot the Texas church gunman actually see anyone get shot before he engaged him?*

And which do you imagine is the greater evil: murder of an unborn baby, or murder of an innocent adult?




__________
2017-11-08 1925

+sinnders97 __ Your caricature of a part of my comment shows that you did not understand any of it.




__________
2017-11-08 2020

+Zachary Moore __ Yes, anyone who disagrees with Mr Crowder is a troll. LOL





__________
2017-11-08 2135

+John Unterzuber __ 1) In countries where abortion is illegal, women significantly risk their lives by seeking out "backyard/unsafe abortions". By comparison, this is not an issue for women in the US *because having an abortion is legal and can be done safely.*

If you make abortion illegal in the US, then abortions won't magically stop. Instead, you can expect negative outcomes like those I have outlined *because* women will seek out "backyard/unsafe abortions". Do you understand my point now?

2) "Two wrongs don't make a right" - Okay, and what does that have to do with the real world? Life does not have to be fair and often it downright sucks. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but no one gets out of this alive. Neither me, nor you, nor any baby that will ever be born. The "gift of life" _itself_ is a death sentence.

Whether a woman brings about an end to her unborn baby's life - or Nature in old age cruelly does - the final outcome remains the same. No exceptions.

If murder is "morally wrong", then let *all* murder be morally wrong. But you are okay with *some* murder, just so long as it's on *your* terms. And that's what the problem is: you don't like the the idea of a woman having ultimate control over her body.

But the moment an inconvenient situation arises (such as a suspected gunman) you will intervene and take another's life. Even though you don't have the legal authority to take his life and don't know for sure he's actually guilty. That doesn't matter because murder is okay when it's on your terms.

You'll get a pat on the back and be called a hero, when it's on your terms. But a woman will be spat at and called moral trash when it's not. Just because her terms for murder differ from yours.

If you make abortions illegal, *they will not stop.* Women will seek out unsafe abortions where the unborn baby you care so much about will still perish, more traumatically, and perhaps also the woman. Maybe you think that's justice?

Just admit you don't want women to be able to dictate *any* of the terms for murder that differ from yours.




__________
2017-11-08 2210

+unnamedminus __ We would not make abortion legal because women will risk their lives by having them anyway. Rather, we would make abortion legal because we can accept that women are capable of dictating *some* of the terms for murder where they ought not to be punished.

If you want to stop abortion, then making it illegal isn't the solution since we know it will happen anyway. Any solution must address the reasons why abortion occurs in the first place. Remove a woman's want for abortion and there will be no more abortions, even if it's legal.

Mr Crowder says most women have abortions for "convenience" and implies it's a minor decision that isn't taken seriously. Women are not having abortions because they are fun and positive! And so morally shaming women for wanting an abortion is a weak and worthless solution.

In the real world there are not always solutions that are quick, easy, and ideal. Not everyone will be happy so long as women are having abortions. But that's too bad. There are a lot of things I wish were not the case in life. At least the women who do have them are being harmed less when abortion occurs in countries where it's legal and safe.

I can live with that, and I suggest Mr Crowder learns to live with it, too.





__________
2017-11-08 2220

+4browsing __ I am writing it as "r4pe" because I do not know if there is a filter on this channel and Google may decide to categorise it as a "bad word" and hide comments that contain it. Would you like to complain about anything else you worthless little b!tch?






________
2017-11-08 2235

+Spartan0941 __ Oh, okay. Please direct me to the part of the interview where Mr Willeford said he witnessed the gunman shooting people and therefore knew for a fact he was guilty of what he had been told was happening.

Keep in mind he didn't even have time to put on his shoes, yet somehow he had time to verify what was happening and knew that this was the shooter and not merely an accomplice?

I'm going to tell you something and you don't have to believe me because it is something that happens from time to time anyway: I knew a guy who went to jail for murder because a woman went up to him and pointed to a guy and said he had just r4ped her. The guy and his friends confronted the man and then savagely beat him to death.

In court it turned out the woman had lied. The guy she had pointed out was gay and she hated gays. All she got was a suspended sentence.

But I take it you would still advocate for the murder of others by way of vigilante justice? Because people you think and feel are guilty need to be stopped!




__________
2017-11-08 2300

+Joshua Manthei __ I am not trying to be pedantic so please understand that the following words are intended to be factual: While Mr Willeford may have felt confident he had located the shooter, he could still have been mistaken. It could have been an accomplice, etc.

Furthermore, had the gunman *not* been wearing a tactical suit we don't know if Mr Willeford would have still assumed him to be the shooter. In that situation it could have been another person with a gun also trying to stop the shooting. So, it is lucky the gunman wore a tactical suit as that would have helped to prevent an innocent person being mistaken for the shooter - but wearing the tactical suit could have contributed to false confidence had it been an accomplice (i.e., both shooter and accomplice wore tactical suits).

We also do not know if the gunman shot at Mr Willeford first. He may have, but he may also have returned fire after being shot at by Mr Willeford. In the absence of some kind of footage we are forced to take the word of someone who may have every reason to lie. Of course, no one is going to challenge or doubt the testimony of Mr Willeford since he is regarded as a hero.

Again, I am not trying to be pedantic or technical. I am trying to point out that there is a tremendous difference between witnessing a shooting and then using your gun to stop it, and hearing a shooting in the distance and then rushing towards the scene ready to start shooting at anyone who may be the perpetrator.



__________
2017-11-08 2315

+stug hauser __ You foolishly wrote: _"lets just make murder legal since murderers will kill anyway"_ - Just like the other guy your attempt to caricature a part of what I wrote only shows that you have misunderstood its entirety. No one is suggesting that murder should be legal you dummy. Though, you have overlooked that governments reserve the right to covertly assassinate anyone deemed adequately inconvenient. Or do you think that never happens because it's "illegal"? LOL




__________
2017-11-08 2315

+S H __ ::sigh:: Failure to understand what I am saying is not an argument against it. No one suggests that everything should be legal because people will do things anyway. Good grief, the stupidity that this channel attracts!





__________
2017-11-08 2325

+Joshua Manthei __ I never said that abortions would stop if they were made illegal. Do you realise that if the mother dies during an unsafe/backyard abortion, then the precious unborn baby you care so much about _still_ dies?

I thought the whole point of denying women legal and safe abortion options, effectively forcing them to have backyard abortions (for "convenience", right? LOL), was because an unborn baby's life is so damn precious! But now karma is a way to feel good about any harm that happens? Well, how about this: a woman can have a safe abortion and you can blame "karma" for the unborn baby's demise. LOL!

Perhaps the unborn baby was Hitler or a murderer in its former life?! Could be, because karma!

*Wow, the stupidity this channel attracts!*





__________
2017-11-09 0040

+L Mortar __ Please don't misunderstand. We should not make p3dophilia, r4pe, m0lestation, etc. legal just because they happen. Besides, if you made them legal it would not reduce the harm done to the victims: _making those things legal would only *increase the harm* done to victims!_

But that isn't the "reasoning" behind what I am saying.

All murder is morally wrong, but not all murder is punished. Sometimes it is praised. I am saying that women are capable of determining some of the situations when murder of an innocent life that's still in their womb ought not to be punished. That doesn't mean abortion should be praised or celebrated!

It doesn't mean I like it. It doesn't mean I wish for it to happen. It just means that in this flawed and often cruel world, I can accept it is the lesser of two evils. (That if an evil act should not be met with an even greater evil, then I suggest that denying abortion is on the whole a greater evil than permitting it, even for unnecessary purposes.)

As a consequence, women who go ahead with legal and safe abortions are not harmed nearly as much as they are from unsafe/backyard abortions. By making abortion legal and safe it definitely reduces harm, _unlike those other awful things you mentioned._

It also means that women have one less worry, one less pressure. And that could lead some to end up not murdering that unborn baby squatting out in their womb. It gives all of us time to address the causes for abortion, rather than forbidding it and shaming women for finding themselves into an undesirable situation.

If abortion were perceived as fun and positive by women, then you might consider shaming them! But I really don't think that's the case.




__________
2017-11-09 0125

+Jordan Tresser __ I watched the interview and did not hear Mr Willford say he saw the gunman shoot anyone. Therefore, however slim the odds may have been he could still have been mistaken. I'm not trying to be pedantic, in matters of life and death: _near enough just isn't good enough._

I have explained this in more detail above, and I also gave a personal anecdote where a man was bashed to death by someone I knew (and his friends) because a woman had told him she had just been r4ped by the man. In court, it turned out the woman had lied. The man who got savagely bashed to death was gay and the woman hated gays.

What *feels* certain in the moment may turn out to be a catastrophic mistake. In matters of life and death there are no second chances. Imagine living the rest of your life with _that_ kind of guilt?

Had Mr Willford witnessed the church shooting, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you. _But he didn't, so he literally cannot be 100% certain._

Do you recall the recent incident where Michael Bennett of the Seattle Seahawks ran from officers in a Las Vegas Strip casino when they were looking for an active shooter? According to Mr Bennett he was stopped, handcuffed, and threatened at gunpoint by police.

From an article on the incident: _"The 6-foot-4 defensive end says he was handcuffed face-down on the ground *after one officer held a gun to his head saying he would blow his head off if he moved."*_

It certainly sounds like the police officers believed, if only for a little while, that Mr Bennett could have been the active shooter. Just imagine how disastrous that incident could have been had Mr Willford been there instead and shot him to prevent further deaths.

All because he believed him to be the shooter, because just like the officers he did not have eyes on the shooter. Would you defend such an outcome? I wouldn't, and I hope you wouldn't, either.

You can say the gunman shot at Mr Willford first and that's what confirmed he was the shooter. But then again, you don't know for certain that's how it went down. You are forced to trust someone who may have every reason to lie about who fired the first shot. (I've covered that aspect above.)


____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.