• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:21
CEST 16:21
KST 23:21
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week2[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation14$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced6Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China10Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL68
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Season 1 - Final Week Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL BW General Discussion Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [G] Progamer Settings
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET [Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Positive Thoughts on Setting Up a Dual-Caliber FX
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 638 users

Rape and Incest - justification for Abortion? - Page 8

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 6 7 8 9 10 58 Next
TerribleTrioJon
Profile Joined May 2012
United States57 Posts
June 15 2013 21:33 GMT
#141
I don't see these as suitable justification for the abortion or termination of an innocent human life. So, no... its not appropriate policy for children who are the product of rape or incest.




Suppose, following a rape, the victim became pregnant and had the baby. But then, a year or two later—or three or four years later—the mother comes to despise the child because the child’s very life and presence reminds her, horribly, daily, painfully, of the awful experience of the rape. Should we permit the woman to terminate the life of the two-year-old or four-year-old child?

And the follow-up question, is: exactly why should a four-year-old’s life, resulting from rape, not be terminated, if his or her life greatly distresses the mother, or, if one raises an objection, exactly why is the situation of abortion thought to be so decisively different?

So, in regards to trauma from a practical public policy perspective, would the sustained trauma and emotional harm to the mother and to the child provide adequate justification to "terminate" a toddler or adolescent who was a product of rape? If not, why to the human being in an earlier stage of development in the womb?

Rape is a horrible and tragic wrong in itself and a crime of great emotional harm, but is irrelevant to the morality/ethical issue of abortion. If the fetus or unborn child is an independent living human being, morally deserving to be treated as such, it should make no difference whether that fetus/unborn child was conceived by rape or incest.

Most abortion proponents agree that the fact of rape is irrelevant. Many are merely arguing the case of rape because they believe it puts anti-abortionists in a difficult spot. A question which decides whether or not this is the case is: Is it your view that whether or not abortion should be permitted should depend on the reasons for which the pregnant woman desires abortion? If the answer is no (as is probable and expected - committed pro-choice ideologues don't want to fall into the obvious trap of a “yes” answer), then, the point is made again and reinforced: the rape hypothetical and situation is really beside the point, isn't it?

If the answer is yes, that a woman’s reasons for abortion matter, I would ask if abortion should be permitted for purposes of sex-selection. What about abortion for purposes of spiting a boyfriend or a husband, or the pregnant woman’s parents? What about abortion because having a child would interfere with college studies or career ambitions? In my view, none of these reasons can supply a basis for restricting the right to abortion (and the U.S. Supreme Court in their previous rulings and precedent agree with me). Will the pro-choice advocate really embrace that extreme position?


I find that the case of rape can help produce clear-headed thinking. Most fair-minded people, if forced to think carefully - and if they are willing and able to do so - will realize that their position ultimately depends on whether a conceived, unborn child in the womb is morally worthy of protection of rights, regardless of how his or her life came to be.



What confuses the issue, for some, is unclear thinking about the period of pregnancy specifically. If the unborn child, conceived as a result of rape, magically could be removed from his or her mother’s womb - and live - surely no one would say that the trauma of rape should permit murdering the child. That would be exactly the same situation as killing the hypothetical four-year-old who was conceived by rape. Rather, it's the burden of being pregnant, and of having to bear a child conceived in that manner, that often drives the instinct to allow abortion in cases of rape.

What lies behind this instinctive reaction, I think, is the backwards notion and suggestion that pregnancy is some kind of “punishment” for sex (or rather "unprotected sex" for which pregnancy is some sort of disease).

The pro-choice crowd usually refers to the psychological torment of having to endure a rape-induced pregnancy and bear a child conceived in rape.

But that torment does not come from the fact of pregnancy itself. Pregnancy imposes burdens on mothers, in all situations. What distinguishes the case of rape is the unique psychological burden and humiliation owing to the circumstances that led to the pregnancy. That burden is real and undeniable. But that is exactly the type of psychic harm that we presumably would never allow to justify killing a born child simply because of the circumstances under which he or she was conceived. This returns the argument to the original set of questions. If we would not allow even real, serious psychological or emotional trauma to justify killing a toddler because of the circumstances under which he or she was conceived, we should not allow it to justify killing an unborn child for the same reason, unless the unborn child lacks equivalent moral status as a member of the human community. We would not allow killing for such a reason unless the living human fetus had no human “right” to continue to live in the first place.


That, in the end, is the point over which the debate needs to be conducted. If the human embryo is a mere irrelevant mass of cells, inconveniently present in a woman’s body, the pro-choice position is self-evidently correct. Abortion is no different from clipping a fingernail, and presents not the slightest moral question. One shouldn't appeal to the situation of rape, or possess any justification at all, in order to engage in an abortion. But if the human embryo is a separate, living human being - a living human organism distinct from the mother’s, even if a life that depends on the mother for survival, the anti-abortion/pro-life position is correct. The human fetus cannot be killed simply because he or she is unwanted, despised, regretted, or deeply upsetting. Short of the situation where pregnancy presents a true threat to the life of the mother, abortion is ethically unjustifiable. And even there, induced labor, premature birth and efforts to keep the baby alive seems preferable to an operation which intentionally and purposefully ends the child's life.


In closing, my last question to someone arguing for abortion of a child conceived of rape is "Why kill the innocent party without a trial?" Most people wouldn't believe in capital punishment, I would guess, for the guilty rapist. Why capital punishment for the baby?

The violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape, because both are done in a subjective and misguided sense of need, and both are done at the expense of an innocent person. A human organism in her various stages of development as embryo and fetus is a human being regardless of the circumstances of her conception. In matters of law, the point is not how she was conceived but that she was conceived.
Gjhc
Profile Joined January 2013
Portugal161 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-15 21:52:43
June 15 2013 21:36 GMT
#142
I have a hard time understanding how can someone on a civilized world find an excuse for an undesired pregnancy, aside rape. Come on, we are rational animals that understand the consequences of our acts. Abortion in general is just us trying to bypass our responsibilities and 'fix' something we did wrong. Is it ok to do wrong just because we can 'fix' it later? I don't think so, first of all because it really isn't a fix. Just because the living being isn't aware of his existence doesn't mean he hasn't the right of it. It's basically the same as murdering someone who no one else cares about in his sleep. So as a general rule I'm against abortion. That said I understand the implications of an undesired pregnancy and given that can understand and even accept the 16/20 week rule. After that no more excuses. Only in the case of rape and sequestration. 16 weeks already mean 4 months which is more than the necessary time to realize the pregnancy and do the abortion.
Now if after that time the fetus/baby is diagnosed with a very serious condition that will basically prevent him from living, I'm all in favor of abortion after that time limit, being it incest or not. Just because it was incest it doesn't mean the baby will have problems for sure, and well, you can't be absolute sure of anything in life, so why make it an exception when there's an incest situation?

So, even in rape or incest, no abortion after the 16/20 week limit, unless there's a diagnosed condition that will prevent the fetus/baby from living a life with dignity/happiness.


Edit: I forgot to add one thing, the abortion should only be legal if the male parent isn't willing to raise the child on his own, in my opinion. I can see some issues with this but as a principle I think it the male parent should be allowed to have his child even if the mother doesn't.
Mothra
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
United States1448 Posts
June 15 2013 21:39 GMT
#143
On June 16 2013 06:20 KwarK wrote:
On the one hand, this is true, the gender of the person making the argument has absolutely no impact on the validity of it. However if an issue is divided on gender lines with one gender predominantly favouring one action and the other gender favouring the other then the two explanations are that they are working from different data or that one gender is better at understanding the same data. The argument that men are making abortion laws is not that men are incapable of making a rational argument but rather that the fact that men will never have to deal with the reality of the laws, such as being forced to carry a foetus to term, is giving them different starting data. Imagine if a predominantly female legislative instituted a male only military draft, you might not doubt their intelligence nor their understanding of warfare and the need for the draft but you probably would wonder if they really understood what being shipped off to war while still a teenager would do to your life, your goals, your body and who you are as a person.


But to say the laws affect only adult women is to assume that a fetus is not a person, which is exactly what the debate is all about. It can be argued that men will never have to deal with the reality of the laws, but if a fetus is considered a human being, then for them, the reality of no law means death.
radscorpion9
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Canada2252 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-15 21:47:03
June 15 2013 21:41 GMT
#144
On June 16 2013 06:17 UdderChaos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 16 2013 05:27 Lord Lunga wrote:
The whole "abortion is wrong" is based on the faulty assumption that religion and religious values has any worth at all.

To further explain:
[image loading]

You say that, and its a nice silly picture and all, but i struggle to see how life doesn't start at conception. At the end on the day an abortion is an intervention, a human effort to cease the life of a foetus or whatever. Before that the eggs die in the process of a period and the sperm die, well, probably on a tissue. From then on all milestones, like the heart being developed, baby leaving the mother, ect are all just statements of its progress, none have an tangible reason to be called the starting process. I don't like the pro life movement but i do see their point. And it's all very well saying its the mothers choice, but the person that would otherwise survive, gets no say in this whatsoever. Unless its the case of rape i don't really think it should be encourage, and sits very uncomfortably with me.

I really want to be pro choice because i think the idea of at least birthing a baby you don't want even if you give it up for adoption is a huge thing to ask of a women. But can someone give me a strong reason why its not killing a human being essentially? because ive heard the debates before i don't see any rational explanation on how this is not just basically murder. Just because the foetus is not capable of standing up for itself doesn't mean it should be denied the right to live. There are plenty of people in comas and with mental illness that cannot possibility speak up for themselves yet they are still granted human rights.


I think one of the simplest explanations is that it doesn't matter whether something is "alive"; what matters is whether you can consider it as being conscious or not, whether its a self-aware human being or a simple clump of cells that is going through the mechanical (i.e. there is no intelligence) differentiation process. And while you still have an embryo, and later during the early stages of a fetus, the "entity" doesn't meet the basic requirements that would enable it to have consciousness, or its awareness is so primitive that for all practical purposes it isn't human yet.

Therefore, in that moment, you could say you have a differentiated clump of cells, or a body that is just starting to grow its limbs, but that's really all it is. For all intents and purposes, *in that moment*, it is no more human than an inanimate object, or a garden plant. And so preventing this clump of cells from continuing to differentiate is not murder any more than throwing out a petri dish of stem cells is.

Of course it can become a human; but in and of itself, this isn't a good enough reason to say that that the process must continue. You could make the argument that someone's desire to have a baby is really the beginning of the birthing process; and that their decision against having a baby anywhere after that point is stopping the process. Just because there is a biological component as opposed to a purely mental one is irrelevant; they are both processes that can be stopped before they lead to the eventual birthing of a self-conscious baby.

It just so happens that in one case there is a physical leftover - and it certainly sounds grotesque to put it this way, but you have to realize that for all intents and purposes it does not matter whether the baby grew from an embryo to a fetus and then died (because it was never self-aware) or whether it never existed in the first place, except as a thought in their potential parents' heads.

- - -

Also on the topic...I think there might be some room here for exceptions. If the child, even after 20 weeks, isn't fully aware yet...then yes it certainly would be wrong to kill it. But at the same time, if the result of birthing the child will likely lead to a very difficult and painful existence for the child and the mother, then overall I think the good outweighs the bad and an exception for abortion might be allowed. It really depends...but I think its a bit monstrous to think that once a baby is ready to be born, that there would be an exception to kill the child, because at that point its flat out murder. Society should guarantee resources for the mother at that point to help her raise the child.

Generally I agree with Plasmaball a while back...this situation *really* shouldn't happen, even for a distressed victim of rape. They should have plenty of time to decide what to do with their child
Ghostcom
Profile Joined March 2010
Denmark4782 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-15 21:48:23
June 15 2013 21:45 GMT
#145
EDIT: I actually don't want to put my hand in this hornet nest.
HallBregg
Profile Joined November 2010
134 Posts
June 15 2013 21:47 GMT
#146
The only justification needed is that the woman wants to abort.
proves and pilons
Stol
Profile Joined August 2010
Sweden185 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-15 21:58:25
June 15 2013 21:51 GMT
#147
On June 16 2013 06:17 UdderChaos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 16 2013 05:27 Lord Lunga wrote:
The whole "abortion is wrong" is based on the faulty assumption that religion and religious values has any worth at all.

To further explain:
[image loading]

You say that, and its a nice silly picture and all, but i struggle to see how life doesn't start at conception. At the end on the day an abortion is an intervention, a human effort to cease the life of a foetus or whatever. Before that the eggs die in the process of a period and the sperm die, well, probably on a tissue. From then on all milestones, like the heart being developed, baby leaving the mother, ect are all just statements of its progress, none have an tangible reason to be called the starting process. I don't like the pro life movement but i do see their point. And it's all very well saying its the mothers choice, but the person that would otherwise survive, gets no say in this whatsoever. Unless its the case of rape i don't really think it should be encourage, and sits very uncomfortably with me.

I really want to be pro choice because i think the idea of at least birthing a baby you don't want even if you give it up for adoption is a huge thing to ask of a women. But can someone give me a strong reason why its not killing a human being essentially? because ive heard the debates before i don't see any rational explanation on how this is not just basically murder. Just because the foetus is not capable of standing up for itself doesn't mean it should be denied the right to live. There are plenty of people in comas and with mental illness that cannot possibility speak up for themselves yet they are still granted human rights.


You bring up a more interesting point than most when arguing that you actually intervene to end a life and while conception is certainly the start of a process, personally I've never considered it to be the start of "life". The cells were alive before and skincells for example die off in massive numbers every day. The question rather comes down to when human life starts; how long does it take before a collection of cells resemble a human being closely enough to count as a human?
While people might have different opinions, regardless of what those might be its certainly not easy to say for sure.

Edit: To clarify on plasmaballs post, the bolded part in a quote, which I've seen many made special mentions about, were not bolded by him. They were only a part of a humble question which, if you read the rest of his post, I think he wants you to know.
UdderChaos
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United Kingdom707 Posts
June 15 2013 21:53 GMT
#148
On June 16 2013 06:41 radscorpion9 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 16 2013 06:17 UdderChaos wrote:
On June 16 2013 05:27 Lord Lunga wrote:
The whole "abortion is wrong" is based on the faulty assumption that religion and religious values has any worth at all.

To further explain:
[image loading]

You say that, and its a nice silly picture and all, but i struggle to see how life doesn't start at conception. At the end on the day an abortion is an intervention, a human effort to cease the life of a foetus or whatever. Before that the eggs die in the process of a period and the sperm die, well, probably on a tissue. From then on all milestones, like the heart being developed, baby leaving the mother, ect are all just statements of its progress, none have an tangible reason to be called the starting process. I don't like the pro life movement but i do see their point. And it's all very well saying its the mothers choice, but the person that would otherwise survive, gets no say in this whatsoever. Unless its the case of rape i don't really think it should be encourage, and sits very uncomfortably with me.

I really want to be pro choice because i think the idea of at least birthing a baby you don't want even if you give it up for adoption is a huge thing to ask of a women. But can someone give me a strong reason why its not killing a human being essentially? because ive heard the debates before i don't see any rational explanation on how this is not just basically murder. Just because the foetus is not capable of standing up for itself doesn't mean it should be denied the right to live. There are plenty of people in comas and with mental illness that cannot possibility speak up for themselves yet they are still granted human rights.


I think one of the simplest explanations is that it doesn't matter whether something is "alive"; what matters is whether you can consider it as being conscious or not, whether its a self-aware human being or a simple clump of cells that is going through the mechanical (i.e. there is no intelligence) differentiation process. And while you still have an embryo, and later during the early stages of a fetus, the "entity" doesn't meet the basic requirements that would enable it to have consciousness, or its awareness is so primitive that for all practical purposes it isn't human yet.

Therefore, in that moment, you could say you have a differentiated clump of cells, or a body that is just starting to grow its limbs, but that's really all it is. For all intents and purposes, *in that moment*, it is no more human than an inanimate object, or a garden plant. And so preventing this clump of cells from continuing to differentiate is not murder any more than throwing out a petri dish of stem cells is.

Of course it can become a human; but in and of itself, this isn't a good enough reason to say that that the process must continue. You could make the argument that someone's desire to have a baby is really the beginning of the birthing process; and that their decision against having a baby anywhere after that point is stopping the process. Just because there is a biological component as opposed to a purely mental one is irrelevant; they are both processes that can be stopped before they lead to the eventual birthing of a self-conscious baby.

It just so happens that in one case there is a physical leftover - and it certainly sounds grotesque to put it this way, but you have to realize that for all intents and purposes it does not matter whether the baby grew from an embryo to a fetus and then died (because it was never self-aware) or whether it never existed in the first place, except as a thought in their potential parents' heads.

But your definition of life is arbitrary. You claim because the foetus isn't concious it doesn't count as a human? Well im about to go to sleep in a few hours, and be unconscious for several, i hope i don't give up my rights for a human for that period. What about those in a coma or mentally ill? You also mention the unintelligent, well there are plenty of disparity in intelligence across our species, if that is a sign of life then does that mean that some of us are more alive than others? You fail to provide a convincing reasoning for a fetus not being a life or at least a human life in the making.
Nunquam iens addo vos sursum
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
June 15 2013 21:56 GMT
#149
On June 16 2013 06:20 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 16 2013 06:05 Shiori wrote:
On June 16 2013 06:00 Jormundr wrote:
On June 16 2013 05:50 Shiori wrote:
On June 16 2013 04:43 Rainbow Cuddles wrote:
There are many justifications for abortion, but I still can't help but giggle at the thought of a bunch of guys discussing if abortion is justified. Not sure what to think about all of this.


Luckily your giggles do not constitute reasoned argument. Whether or not someone has a uterus has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to engage in reasoned discussion about it. This idea that only women should be able to even discuss abortion is patently absurd, and is akin to saying that only people who have actually been raped should be able to conclude that rape is immoral. At its core, your argument is a conversation-stopper and an excuse not to think. It injures the abortion-rights movement more than it helps it, by the way, because if the reason abortion should be legal is something only women can comprehend, then it's not a logical reason but an emotional, esoteric one, and therefore is utterly detached from the impartiality required of the law.

The way it currently stands in our government, this issue, which only has direct implications for one gender, will be decided by 80% men and 20% women. Still not giggling yet? That's because it's not fucking funny.

Seems irrelevant to me. Whether or not men tend to have irrational opinions about abortion is not necessitated by their maleness i.e. the fact that one is male doesn't mean one can't be logical about abortion. Abortion has an obvious effect on the entirety of society, but even if it didn't, that still doesn't mean only some group should be able to talk about it. I have literally zero stake in whether Native Americans in Canada should be granted more land/funding, because I'm not Native American, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding the arguments for and against increasing their funding. By the same token, I am against capital punishment even though I have never encountered a murderer or been the victim of a murderer. I am a pacifist even though I've never been a soldier. I despise corruption in government even though I have never understood what it feels like to be a politician. Do you understand yet?

Similarly, do we throw out the emancipation proclamation because Abraham Lincoln and his entire Congress were white males? Of course not, because what they argued was true regardless of their skin colour. Slavery is bad because it infringes on liberty; this is true if a white person says it instead of a black person.

On the one hand, this is true, the gender of the person making the argument has absolutely no impact on the validity of it. However if an issue is divided on gender lines with one gender predominantly favouring one action and the other gender favouring the other then the two explanations are that they are working from different data or that one gender is better at understanding the same data. The argument that men are making abortion laws is not that men are incapable of making a rational argument but rather that the fact that men will never have to deal with the reality of the laws, such as being forced to carry a foetus to term, is giving them different starting data. Imagine if a predominantly female legislative instituted a male only military draft, you might not doubt their intelligence nor their understanding of warfare and the need for the draft but you probably would wonder if they really understood what being shipped off to war while still a teenager would do to your life, your goals, your body and who you are as a person.

While this kinda begs the question insofar as it presumes that a fetus/zygote/whatever isn't a person and therefore only the mother bears any consequences with regard to abortion, it still remains illogical to criticize a female legislature for instituting a male draft on the basis of it being comprised females. Sure, you could use that to contend that the legislature is biased, but bias doesn't mean that all arguments are automatically unsound or invalid. If that were the case, we'd have a hard time getting any science or philosophy done at all, since a great deal of research is funded by people or institutions which have a vested interest in some outcome. Does that make the outcome less true? Not at all. It might give one suspicion to investigate the arguments more closely, but any dismissal of a study or argument must be based on reason or counter-evidence, not on accusations of bias, unless that bias can be shown to have altered evidence or argument in a dishonest way.

Luckily, abortion is primarily a legalistic/philosophical dispute. Very little empirical measurement is required to discuss abortion because empirical data is more or less incidental/tangential to most abortion arguments. The two horns of the abortion problem are the personhood of the zygotic organism and the bodily autonomy of the carrier. Both of these things are abstractions with no real basis in empirical science beyond the obvious requirement that the abstraction cannot directly contradict the facts.

Let me construct a similarly absurd argument: suppose we have a predominantly male legislature in which a predominantly female bloc proposes a male-only draft. Suppose the men are against it, for the most part. Would it be a valid criticism for the female bloc to argue that, because they are men, the rest of the legislature is being blinded by their own emotions and bias, and therefore should be suspect when it comes to things in which they have a personal vested interest? I mean, this would be akin to letting the families of murder victims decide the sentence of the perpetrator. While the harm caused to these families should be considered, it is utterly moronic and completely undermines the entire concept of a legal system to grant primary or even secondary decision-making power to people on the basis of anything other than their competence.

Furthermore, it isn't even the case that one gender tends to favour abortion significantly more than the other. Gallup polls have generally established that there are an equivalent number of pro choice/life men and women. It doesn't ultimately matter, though, because the vast majority of people lack the legal or moral knowledge to have a particularly informed opinion to start with.
TheExile19
Profile Joined June 2011
513 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-15 22:01:19
June 15 2013 21:57 GMT
#150
On June 16 2013 06:36 Gjhc wrote:
I have a hard time understanding how can someone on a civilized world find an excuse for an undesired pregnancy, aside rape. Come on, we are rational animals that understand the consequences of our acts.


I don't have much desire to get too heavily into a thread where people are saying things like "violation of abortion parallels violation of rape", but this idea right here, that society is chock-full of totally rational actors, is demonstrably false. this is nothing new, but the amazing part is that you're actually going to try appealing to that standard when it comes to sex without pregnancy precautions, which could quite possibly be the best case of a biological drive overpowering any sense of basic, obvious rationality that you could find in a first-world society, or any society. so many people do not give two shits in the moment, and the amount of children born without supportive parents or a parent not in the picture at all destroys any concept of rational ownership of your sexual actions. reality does not bear it out.

briefly on topic, clearly aspects of embryo/fetus development should be taken into account i.e. you probably shouldn't abort incredibly late in gestation, but honestly I fall on the side of making an exception for that anyway. rape and incest are indeed no-brainers, and the idea of needing to justify an abortion is pretty goddamn silly to me anyway; if you're going to be saddled with a child that you don't want for decades of your life and which has an increased chance of congenial defects, it's the woman's body and her choice, hopefully with the father's consent and full disclosure.
Lord Lunga
Profile Joined November 2011
Sweden33 Posts
June 15 2013 22:02 GMT
#151
On June 16 2013 06:17 UdderChaos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 16 2013 05:27 Lord Lunga wrote:
The whole "abortion is wrong" is based on the faulty assumption that religion and religious values has any worth at all.

To further explain:
[image loading]

You say that, and its a nice silly picture and all, but i struggle to see how life doesn't start at conception. At the end on the day an abortion is an intervention, a human effort to cease the life of a foetus or whatever. Before that the eggs die in the process of a period and the sperm die, well, probably on a tissue. From then on all milestones, like the heart being developed, baby leaving the mother, ect are all just statements of its progress, none have an tangible reason to be called the starting process. I don't like the pro life movement but i do see their point. And it's all very well saying its the mothers choice, but the person that would otherwise survive, gets no say in this whatsoever. Unless its the case of rape i don't really think it should be encourage, and sits very uncomfortably with me.

I really want to be pro choice because i think the idea of at least birthing a baby you don't want even if you give it up for adoption is a huge thing to ask of a women. But can someone give me a strong reason why its not killing a human being essentially? because ive heard the debates before i don't see any rational explanation on how this is not just basically murder. Just because the foetus is not capable of standing up for itself doesn't mean it should be denied the right to live. There are plenty of people in comas and with mental illness that cannot possibility speak up for themselves yet they are still granted human rights.


1. "the person that would otherwise survive". Except he/she wouldn't, as demonstrated in this link, posted earlier in the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability. That should be mandatory reading for everyone in this thread, to eliminate any comparisons to murder. All that is left is, you guessed it, silly beliefs.

2. Trying to taint the abortion topic by associating it with euthanasia and eugenics is just bad. Shame on you.
"Winning is at least five to ten percent more fun than losing" - NovaWar
Leporello
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2845 Posts
June 15 2013 22:06 GMT
#152
Show me someone who opposes abortion but feels there should be exceptions, and I'll show you a person incapable of independent thinking. It's very literally a life or death issue. Abortion is either a killing of a human being, or it isn't -- how do so many people compromise on their belief that abortion is murder? Maybe because they don't really believe, on an intellectually-validated level, that abortion is really murder at all.

We're talking about the brutal dismantling of human embryotic flesh. If you think abortion is killing a baby (I don't, btw), why does it ever make it okay for the baby to be killed if the mother was raped or was impregnated by a family member? How is that the baby's fault, that it deserves to die, only because its mother was raped? Pro-Life's position is absolute -- the fetus is a human that deserves its own choices, the mother is merely a vessel.

I like these "exceptions" to abortion, as they show that Pro-Life is an unreasonable position. It's an absolutist position built on emotional appeal, that becomes ridiculous and non-absolute when you counter it with other emotional appeals.

Best thing to do is stop looking for ways to call pregnant women murderers, and let them make their own choice on the matter.
Big water
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-15 22:09:55
June 15 2013 22:08 GMT
#153
On June 16 2013 07:06 Leporello wrote:
Show me someone who opposes abortion but feels there should be exceptions, and I'll show you a person incapable of independent thinking. It's very literally a life or death issue. Abortion is either a killing of a human being, or it isn't -- how do so many people compromise on their belief that abortion is murder? Maybe because they don't really believe, on an intellectually-validated level, that abortion is really murder at all.

We're talking about the brutal dismantling of human embryotic flesh. If you think abortion is killing a baby (I don't, btw), why does it ever make it okay for the baby to be killed if the mother was raped or was impregnated by a family member? How is that the baby's fault, that it deserves to die, only because its mother was raped? Pro-Life's position is absolute -- the fetus is a human that deserves its own choices, the mother is merely a vessel.

I like these "exceptions" to abortion, as they show that Pro-Life is an unreasonable position. It's an absolutist position built on emotional appeal, that becomes ridiculous and non-absolute when you counter it with other emotional appeals.

Best thing to do is stop looking for ways to call pregnant women murderers, and let them make their own choice on the matter.

If one is raped, then abortion should certainly be permissible, because the pregnancy occurred from a non-consensual experience. Much in the same sense that you cannot kidnap someone and hook them up as a permanent blood-transfusion machine to a dying innocent adult, you cannot hold someone who was raped as in any way responsible for their pregnancy. This is not incompatible with the pro-life position. The personhood of the fetus is utterly irrelevant.
OuchyDathurts
Profile Joined September 2010
United States4588 Posts
June 15 2013 22:13 GMT
#154
I'll throw in my 2 cents. I'm very much pro choice. It's the woman's body, as far as I'm concerned its her right and choice what happens with it. If she wants to abort that's her decision and her's alone, regardless of circumstance. If the fetus were pulled out of the womb it would die, that's not a person yet. If you leave it in there it will eventually become one, but it's a bunch of cells living as nothing more than a parasite. People might not like it, but without the host the fetus dies. It is not its own entity yet.

That being said if I got a chick pregnant I'd never ask her to abort. If she didn't want it, I'd keep it. But again its her body, its her choice not mine. If you've got an extreme case like rape or incest then it's in everyone's best interest to abort. I'm sorry but we have enough unwanted, uncared for children in this world, we don't need to be adding more under any circumstances. Especially by rule of law from people who would impose their belief on a mother to have this child, then turn the other way once she's forced to have it. Only to later bitch about the child if it grows up neglected, unwanted, unloved, and a drain on society because of it.
LiquidDota Staff
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42559 Posts
June 15 2013 22:15 GMT
#155
On June 16 2013 07:08 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 16 2013 07:06 Leporello wrote:
Show me someone who opposes abortion but feels there should be exceptions, and I'll show you a person incapable of independent thinking. It's very literally a life or death issue. Abortion is either a killing of a human being, or it isn't -- how do so many people compromise on their belief that abortion is murder? Maybe because they don't really believe, on an intellectually-validated level, that abortion is really murder at all.

We're talking about the brutal dismantling of human embryotic flesh. If you think abortion is killing a baby (I don't, btw), why does it ever make it okay for the baby to be killed if the mother was raped or was impregnated by a family member? How is that the baby's fault, that it deserves to die, only because its mother was raped? Pro-Life's position is absolute -- the fetus is a human that deserves its own choices, the mother is merely a vessel.

I like these "exceptions" to abortion, as they show that Pro-Life is an unreasonable position. It's an absolutist position built on emotional appeal, that becomes ridiculous and non-absolute when you counter it with other emotional appeals.

Best thing to do is stop looking for ways to call pregnant women murderers, and let them make their own choice on the matter.

If one is raped, then abortion should certainly be permissible, because the pregnancy occurred from a non-consensual experience. Much in the same sense that you cannot kidnap someone and hook them up as a permanent blood-transfusion machine to a dying innocent adult, you cannot hold someone who was raped as in any way responsible for their pregnancy. This is not incompatible with the pro-life position. The personhood of the fetus is utterly irrelevant.

This is nonsensical. It ignores that the murder of the child (if one holds abortion to be that) is a greater crime than the enslavement of the mother for 9 months and is built upon sex blame, the principle that if you have sex you deserve to suffer any possible avoidable unwanted consequences from that choice. If we legally forced everyone to endure any possible avoidable unwanted consequences from any decision they freely made then the world would be a really, really shitty place. But we don't, outside of abortion that argument doesn't really come up.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Staboteur
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Canada1873 Posts
June 15 2013 22:15 GMT
#156
On June 16 2013 06:33 TerribleTrioJon wrote:
I don't see these as suitable justification for the abortion or termination of an innocent human life. So, no... its not appropriate policy for children who are the product of rape or incest.




Suppose, following a rape, the victim became pregnant and had the baby. But then, a year or two later—or three or four years later—the mother comes to despise the child because the child’s very life and presence reminds her, horribly, daily, painfully, of the awful experience of the rape. Should we permit the woman to terminate the life of the two-year-old or four-year-old child?

And the follow-up question, is: exactly why should a four-year-old’s life, resulting from rape, not be terminated, if his or her life greatly distresses the mother, or, if one raises an objection, exactly why is the situation of abortion thought to be so decisively different?

So, in regards to trauma from a practical public policy perspective, would the sustained trauma and emotional harm to the mother and to the child provide adequate justification to "terminate" a toddler or adolescent who was a product of rape? If not, why to the human being in an earlier stage of development in the womb?

Rape is a horrible and tragic wrong in itself and a crime of great emotional harm, but is irrelevant to the morality/ethical issue of abortion. If the fetus or unborn child is an independent living human being, morally deserving to be treated as such, it should make no difference whether that fetus/unborn child was conceived by rape or incest.

Most abortion proponents agree that the fact of rape is irrelevant. Many are merely arguing the case of rape because they believe it puts anti-abortionists in a difficult spot. A question which decides whether or not this is the case is: Is it your view that whether or not abortion should be permitted should depend on the reasons for which the pregnant woman desires abortion? If the answer is no (as is probable and expected - committed pro-choice ideologues don't want to fall into the obvious trap of a “yes” answer), then, the point is made again and reinforced: the rape hypothetical and situation is really beside the point, isn't it?

If the answer is yes, that a woman’s reasons for abortion matter, I would ask if abortion should be permitted for purposes of sex-selection. What about abortion for purposes of spiting a boyfriend or a husband, or the pregnant woman’s parents? What about abortion because having a child would interfere with college studies or career ambitions? In my view, none of these reasons can supply a basis for restricting the right to abortion (and the U.S. Supreme Court in their previous rulings and precedent agree with me). Will the pro-choice advocate really embrace that extreme position?


I find that the case of rape can help produce clear-headed thinking. Most fair-minded people, if forced to think carefully - and if they are willing and able to do so - will realize that their position ultimately depends on whether a conceived, unborn child in the womb is morally worthy of protection of rights, regardless of how his or her life came to be.



What confuses the issue, for some, is unclear thinking about the period of pregnancy specifically. If the unborn child, conceived as a result of rape, magically could be removed from his or her mother’s womb - and live - surely no one would say that the trauma of rape should permit murdering the child. That would be exactly the same situation as killing the hypothetical four-year-old who was conceived by rape. Rather, it's the burden of being pregnant, and of having to bear a child conceived in that manner, that often drives the instinct to allow abortion in cases of rape.

What lies behind this instinctive reaction, I think, is the backwards notion and suggestion that pregnancy is some kind of “punishment” for sex (or rather "unprotected sex" for which pregnancy is some sort of disease).

The pro-choice crowd usually refers to the psychological torment of having to endure a rape-induced pregnancy and bear a child conceived in rape.

But that torment does not come from the fact of pregnancy itself. Pregnancy imposes burdens on mothers, in all situations. What distinguishes the case of rape is the unique psychological burden and humiliation owing to the circumstances that led to the pregnancy. That burden is real and undeniable. But that is exactly the type of psychic harm that we presumably would never allow to justify killing a born child simply because of the circumstances under which he or she was conceived. This returns the argument to the original set of questions. If we would not allow even real, serious psychological or emotional trauma to justify killing a toddler because of the circumstances under which he or she was conceived, we should not allow it to justify killing an unborn child for the same reason, unless the unborn child lacks equivalent moral status as a member of the human community. We would not allow killing for such a reason unless the living human fetus had no human “right” to continue to live in the first place.


That, in the end, is the point over which the debate needs to be conducted. If the human embryo is a mere irrelevant mass of cells, inconveniently present in a woman’s body, the pro-choice position is self-evidently correct. Abortion is no different from clipping a fingernail, and presents not the slightest moral question. One shouldn't appeal to the situation of rape, or possess any justification at all, in order to engage in an abortion. But if the human embryo is a separate, living human being - a living human organism distinct from the mother’s, even if a life that depends on the mother for survival, the anti-abortion/pro-life position is correct. The human fetus cannot be killed simply because he or she is unwanted, despised, regretted, or deeply upsetting. Short of the situation where pregnancy presents a true threat to the life of the mother, abortion is ethically unjustifiable. And even there, induced labor, premature birth and efforts to keep the baby alive seems preferable to an operation which intentionally and purposefully ends the child's life.


In closing, my last question to someone arguing for abortion of a child conceived of rape is "Why kill the innocent party without a trial?" Most people wouldn't believe in capital punishment, I would guess, for the guilty rapist. Why capital punishment for the baby?

The violence of abortion parallels the violence of rape, because both are done in a subjective and misguided sense of need, and both are done at the expense of an innocent person. A human organism in her various stages of development as embryo and fetus is a human being regardless of the circumstances of her conception. In matters of law, the point is not how she was conceived but that she was conceived.


I feel like you're trying to make a logical chain of questions, but it seems unfair. Allow me to explain.

Should we permit the woman to terminate the life of the two-year-old or four-year-old child?

- No. From what I've heard, rape leaves victims feeling powerless. If the mother chose after the rape to keep the child, that was her conscious choice made in her own power, and that choice -must- be respected. It would be as abhorrent to force the decision to abort the child on her as it would be to refuse her the choice to not carry the child of a man she wanted nothing to do with.

That said, if she, when she came to know of her pregnancy, chose to keep and raise the child, she should not then be allowed to reconsider whether or not the child should be allowed to continue to live. So no, we should not permit the woman to terminate a toddler.

exactly why should a four-year-old’s life, resulting from rape, not be terminated, if his or her life greatly distresses the mother, or, if one raises an objection, exactly why is the situation of abortion thought to be so decisively different?

- Answered above. The mother chose the path that led to her distress, and it was not forced upon her (assuming she had the choice to abort). It can be regarded as her mistake, and no other being should be made suffer for her mistake.

If not, why to the human being in an earlier stage of development in the womb?

- Answered above (again). If we allow that a human in any stage of development should be considered a human of equal value to any other, we must still allow the woman the choice to abort (it is her body and her life, and she is to be respected equally to any other human) and in the case of pregnancy charge the rapist with murder as well as rape, because it was his choices alone that led to the pregnancy, and the woman should not be made to suffer more purely because she was an object in someone else's choice.

In closing, rape is absolutely an exception to the rule because the woman was impregnated through no choice of her own. Pregnancy is physically more impactful and of longer duration than any disease (for the same of comparison I mention diseases, not because I want to imply pregnancy is one, but because they're things that have relatable physical impacts on our body, for those of us not actually able to carry children) and to submit that a woman should have to suffer through that even though she would choose not to is absurd, and I believe shows improper consideration for the humanity of the woman.
I'm actually Fleetfeet D:
Hitch-22
Profile Blog Joined February 2013
Canada753 Posts
June 15 2013 22:17 GMT
#157
On June 16 2013 05:32 Kleinmuuhg wrote:
^ If you thought about this topic more than the usual 5 seconds you would find that it is not that easy.

Never saw someone from Vanuata lol
"We all let our sword do the talking for us once in awhile I guess" - Bregor, the legendary critical striker and critical misser who triple crits 2 horses with 1 arrow but lands 3 1's in a row
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-06-15 22:24:40
June 15 2013 22:20 GMT
#158
On June 16 2013 07:15 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 16 2013 07:08 Shiori wrote:
On June 16 2013 07:06 Leporello wrote:
Show me someone who opposes abortion but feels there should be exceptions, and I'll show you a person incapable of independent thinking. It's very literally a life or death issue. Abortion is either a killing of a human being, or it isn't -- how do so many people compromise on their belief that abortion is murder? Maybe because they don't really believe, on an intellectually-validated level, that abortion is really murder at all.

We're talking about the brutal dismantling of human embryotic flesh. If you think abortion is killing a baby (I don't, btw), why does it ever make it okay for the baby to be killed if the mother was raped or was impregnated by a family member? How is that the baby's fault, that it deserves to die, only because its mother was raped? Pro-Life's position is absolute -- the fetus is a human that deserves its own choices, the mother is merely a vessel.

I like these "exceptions" to abortion, as they show that Pro-Life is an unreasonable position. It's an absolutist position built on emotional appeal, that becomes ridiculous and non-absolute when you counter it with other emotional appeals.

Best thing to do is stop looking for ways to call pregnant women murderers, and let them make their own choice on the matter.

If one is raped, then abortion should certainly be permissible, because the pregnancy occurred from a non-consensual experience. Much in the same sense that you cannot kidnap someone and hook them up as a permanent blood-transfusion machine to a dying innocent adult, you cannot hold someone who was raped as in any way responsible for their pregnancy. This is not incompatible with the pro-life position. The personhood of the fetus is utterly irrelevant.

This is nonsensical. It ignores that the murder of the child (if one holds abortion to be that) is a greater crime than the enslavement of the mother for 9 months and is built upon sex blame, the principle that if you have sex you deserve to suffer any possible avoidable unwanted consequences from that choice. If we legally forced everyone to endure any possible avoidable unwanted consequences from any decision they freely made then the world would be a really, really shitty place. But we don't, outside of abortion that argument doesn't really come up.

Sex blame? This is why I don't have abortion debates. I was merely responding to Leporello's (incorrect) assertion about the compatibility of abortion-in-the-case-of-rape with general opposition to abortion. I have no interest in debating something which evidently is an emotional issue, given your immediate deference to loaded and misleading terms like "enslavement" and "sex blame." I have no interest in such discourse.

Please do not presume to know the foundation of what I believe about consensual sex viz. pregnancy when all you have observed is a sideways expression of the inverse situation, which doesn't even give you enough to say what I hold, let alone assert that I subscribe to some caricature of "sex blame."

Besides, your comparison between enslavement vs. murder is actually just incorrect. If I kidnapped you and connected you to a dying adult as a form of life support for 9 months, you would be fully within your rights to get up and leave, since you didn't consent to being put in that situation to begin with; in fact, you were coerced against your will into that situation. The criminal in this case would be me, not you.

But all of this is essentially beside the point. Most people who are pro-life oppose abortion in all cases, and many people who are pro-choice permit abortion in all cases. People like me, who permit it after non-consensual intercourse or when the pregnancy is a threat to the mother, aren't particularly common, so it's rather pointless to argue with me as I'm a sort of outlier from the main debate. Because of that, I won't be arguing about the actual legality/morality of abortion. I only ever entered this thread to attempt to clear up incidental misunderstandings .
Promises
Profile Joined February 2004
Netherlands1821 Posts
June 15 2013 22:27 GMT
#159
I recall Doug Stanhope making a fairly valid point about the morality of this: if you are against abortion because of the "it's a human being" argument, it doesnt make sense to make an excuse for rape cases; just because the kid's dad's an asshole doesn't make it any less of a human being.

That said, personally I don't believe the whole argument for it being a conscious (human) being any more then a genital wart is, so for me the argument is quite simple ^^
I'm a man of my word, and that word is "unreliable".
Roe
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Canada6002 Posts
June 15 2013 22:29 GMT
#160
I always found that George Carlin joke a little too facetious. They don't use fertilized chicken eggs for commercial use do they?
Prev 1 6 7 8 9 10 58 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
13:00
King of the Hill #217
davetesta56
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Reynor 489
Lowko401
SC2Nice 75
trigger 27
StarCraft: Brood War
Jaedong 1336
EffOrt 960
firebathero 624
Stork 465
Mini 457
Nal_rA 308
Snow 220
hero 161
ToSsGirL 142
Rush 134
[ Show more ]
Backho 133
Pusan 131
Zeus 125
Mind 125
Hyun 74
Sea.KH 61
sSak 59
Sharp 56
soO 50
JYJ48
sas.Sziky 47
HiyA 38
JulyZerg 35
Shinee 30
Aegong 27
sorry 26
yabsab 23
ajuk12(nOOB) 15
zelot 13
Movie 12
IntoTheRainbow 10
Terrorterran 6
Hm[arnc] 5
SilentControl 4
Rock 4
Dota 2
Gorgc9235
qojqva1973
syndereN327
XcaliburYe270
febbydoto8
Counter-Strike
flusha380
Foxcn157
markeloff104
chrisJcsgo46
Heroes of the Storm
XaKoH 188
Khaldor179
Other Games
tarik_tv26379
B2W.Neo1653
shahzam679
crisheroes644
DeMusliM514
Fuzer 313
RotterdaM190
Pyrionflax169
Hui .118
ArmadaUGS70
QueenE47
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick36919
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 7
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 21
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2997
League of Legends
• Nemesis5942
• TFBlade670
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
9h 39m
RSL Revival
19h 39m
Classic vs Cure
FEL
1d 1h
OSC
1d 5h
RSL Revival
1d 19h
SHIN vs Clem
FEL
1d 21h
FEL
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
2 days
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
NC Random Cup

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.