The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[snailslime]

This nonsense is why women should get bred and kept off the internet.

no living woman will ever fuck you.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

no living woman will ever fuck you.

I sleep with men I don't care. Now get your belly round and roll off the site.

 

[Niggaplease]

I sleep with men I don't care. Now get your belly round and roll off the site.

how is babby formed?
how do girl get pragnante?

 

[snailslime]

I sleep with men I don't care. Now get your belly round and roll off the site.

most "pro-lifers" want to day of the rope you.

 

[Niggaplease]

I sleep with men I don't care. Now get your belly round and roll off the site.

if you don't engage in procreation then you should have fuck all to do with the aboriton debate. you can't impregnate a guys ass.

most "pro-lifers" want to day of the rope you.

lol.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

if you don't engage in procreation then you should have fuck all to do with the aboriton debate. you can't impregnate a guys ass.

I'm a sperm donor. You're the one not engaging in procreation, cat lady.

most "pro-lifers" want to day of the rope you.

I'd rather hang around them than jewish women.

 

[snailslime]

I'm a sperm donor. You're the not engaging in procreation, cat lady.

I'd rather hang around them than jewish women.

your sperm is probably disgusting lol.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

your sperm is probably disgusting lol.

Why? Are you a seasoned taster of bodily fluids?

 

[snailslime]

Why? Are you a seasoned taster of bodily fluids?

how is pragent formed?

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

I am done talking with a female from an inferior race. Making abortions illegal is impractical and oftentimes leads to poor upbringing, not to mention trauma and miscegenation. If the "pro-lifers" really want to undermine abortions they should focus on the institutions that encourage women to abort, namely the rampant consumer capitalism, lack of safety nets, new wave feminism, toxic masculinity among others. If the minds are less polluted and the conditions are favourable most will be having kids sooner than later, without any sociopathic state coercion. Whether foetuses qualify as human is irrelevant. What matters is that society remains stable and reasonably content. Otherwise you give birth to dead ends like @Niggaplease.

 

[gang weeder]

what does this have to do with anything?

What relevance does the ability to feel pain have? Animals can clearly feel pain and we slaughter them in countless numbers for their meat. Their ability to feel pain does not grant them personhood. This attempted qualification for personhood is completely arbitrary (as are all pro-abortion attempts at defining personhood).

think of it the same as gun control laws. people would still get their hands on a gun or in this case, an abortion.

And murders still occur despite the act being illegal. I suppose that means we should legalize murder.

i support her choice to get rid of them under certain conditions because making it illegal would be anti-american and people's medical problems shouldn't be political.

>making it illegal would be anti-american

By this logic making murder illegal is also "anti-American," presumably it "infringes on your freedom" to kill people who annoy you.

I think abortion should be a thing, I am tired of prolifers going off how life is sacred and bitch about paying taxes for wellfare.
life isn;t anymore sacred outside the womb than in, if life is sacred that we can't abort, then stfu about welfare queens.

Abortion is the murder of a child. Welfare is forced government transfer of wealth. I don't see what these two things have to do with each other. There is no apparent contradiction between the two beliefs people shouldn't be able to murder their own children and also that I shouldn't be forced at gunpoint to give my money to people who are complete strangers to me.

Speaking from experience, I think abortion should be legal, with one reason being the fact that there are plenty of idiots who believe they cannot get pregnant, and I simply do not want those idiots raising the next generation. It's not a well-thought out reason, I admit, but it's a reason. I will also admit that I have sympathy for pro-life people and can understand their arguments.

If you're doing the whole "muh good upbringing" metric, you'd have to favor abortions for all single mothers as a bare minimum starting point. You'd probably also want to ban people below a certain income threshold from having children, as well as convicted felons and people who have been to rehab, as some other good ways to filter out undesirable parents. Are those standards you're comfortable with advocating for? Because they pretty obviously make you a eugenicist. If you are unironically a eugenicist, then I mean, based I guess. But if not, quit hiding behind this shitty excuse.

This debate is utterly pointless, as there's no attempt to understand an argument, and instead it goes into a game of who's more hypocritical.

There is one position which cannot be assailed as hypocritical: That life begins at conception. It is not a coincidence that this also happens to be the correct position on the issue.

 

[Niggaplease]

Abortion is the murder of a child. Welfare is forced government transfer of wealth. I don't see what these two things have to do with each other. There is no apparent contradiction between the two beliefs people shouldn't be able to murder their own children and also that I shouldn't be forced at gunpoint to give my money to people who are complete strangers to me.

you can't be prolife but not pro support of single mothers and improvished children, an aboriton is cheaper than taxes and to be honest I'd much rather have people abort their kids than to raise them in poverty.
the government shouldn't force you at gun point to pay taxes for welfare services? fine, male lawmakers shouldn't force me to be an incubator for 9 months if I don't want to.. a fetus can't be viable to live outside the womb until a certain point of development, a clump of cells isnt the same as an actual baby. if you willing to accept the government dictating what you can or can't do to your own body, than accept the fact the government can rape your wallet and transfer said wealth to the babies that you prevented from being aborted.

 

[Eto]

again, nobody looks forward to getting an abortion like they look forward to getting a new shiny cool gun.

Never said they did. I don't expect any woman to be enthusiastic about it.

a woman? if you are, i think you can do much better.

What difference does it makes? Besides, I support your position and don't usually butt into these conversations. It's also a reason, not the reason.

like which ones?

The typical but mostly used ones, such as the clump of cells reasoning or some of your reasonings. One of the cogent arguments that solidifies my support is the hypothetical used for bodily autonomy. I wanted to throw my 2 cents into this to see if there are better arguments for abortion, so that my arguments can be better.

have sympathy for people who actually value all life but i don't think most "pro-lifers" do.

I actually find value in many lives and find it a bit unnerving to see celebration of death (I'm on record of finding it distasteful for even terrorists on this very forum), but I can be objective and not insert that view on others most of the time, as there is such a thing as an objectively good death.

if it's not a contradiction to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, why are you against the death penalty?

I find prison to be much more satisfying on a psychological level, as people live in a far more restrictive manner and the risks that are associated with being in prison. I find death to be much more of a reward for the worst of crimes, as you'll eventually die and not have to contemplate what you've done anymore. It's a matter of torture vs death for me.

i think you underestimate how difficult it is for a woman to carry a baby for 9 months. it's not a walk in the park. also, hypothetically the baby could grow up to be a total asshole or even a murderer.

I do not. I understand the struggles one may have for carrying a baby despite my limited view given all the symptoms of pregnancy and possible death. You're also playing hypotheticals, so let me play this: What if that person becomes someone who would play a pivotal role in society, or even your life? This point is moot because it plays on a hypothetical, either positive or negative. I'm arguing from a matter where choices have been made (murderer) compared to something we don't even know.

this is only because of bad faith actors.

I'm not going to disagree. I'm simply asserting my observations into the mix. I don't like the assertion of calling someone a baby killer because they support abortion, but I also don't like it when people assert that someone is an incel (useless term, thanks everyone) for being pro-life, and it's more ironic given that a good chunk of the pro-life movement is made of women.

If you're doing the whole "muh good upbringing" metric, you'd have to favor abortions for all single mothers as a bare minimum starting point. You'd probably also want to ban people below a certain income threshold from having children, as well as convicted felons and people who have been to rehab, as some other good ways to filter out undesirable parents. Are those standards you're comfortable with advocating for? Because they pretty obviously make you a eugenicist. If you are unironically a eugenicist, then I mean, based I guess. But if not, quit hiding behind this shitty excuse.

I find benefits to eugenics, so make of that as you will.

 

[gang weeder]

you can't be prolife but not pro support of single mothers and improvished children, an aboriton is cheaper than taxes and to be honest I'd much rather have people abort their kids than to raise them in poverty.
the government shouldn't force you at gun point to pay taxes for welfare services? fine, male lawmakers shouldn't force me to be an incubator for 9 months if I don't want to.. a fetus can't be viable to live outside the womb until a certain point of development, a clump of cells isnt the same as an actual baby.

Let's take a hypothetical woman. Let's call her Sally. Sally has a child out of wedlock. Sally is irresponsible and didn't use protection--or hell, maybe she was raped, even. It actually doesn't matter for the sake of this example. Sally has an infant. Sally lives on the other side of the country from me. I have never met her and will never meet her. I do not know that she exists.

I believe that it would be wrong for Sally to murder her infant out of financial convenience, or even because the child is a product of rape and she hates it as a result. If you came up to me, told me that Sally exists, and asked me whether I think it would be okay for her to murder her infant for any reason, I would tell you that no, it would not be.

Likewise, I have no obligation to give Sally money, and if you come up to my door randomly and tell me about her and then ask for me to give her money, I will politely decline.

These are not only not contradictory, but they are completely normal obvious viewpoints that every person holds implicitly. Now change Sally's infant into a fetus still in the womb and what has changed here? Fundamentally, nothing. As always, it simply comes back to the fundamental question of whether a fetus is a child, which as always, the answer is yes it is and no it's not okay to kill it nor does its existence obligate strangers to give you money.

 

[gang weeder]

I find benefits to eugenics, so make of that as you will.

What about racial eugenics? Surely you're aware of how widely IQ varies between races, not to mention a host of other life outcomes. Maybe only people with certain skin tones should be reproducing?

 

[Eto]

What about racial eugenics? Surely you're aware of how widely IQ varies between races, not to mention a host of other life outcomes. Maybe only people with certain skin tones should be reproducing?

I am aware of that; however, my understanding is basic. And no, I do not agree with that. Life is far more complex than to solely rely on genes, and I'm not playing this game of, "If you support this and not that, you're a hypocrite."

 

[Niggaplease]

Let's take a hypothetical woman. Let's call her Sally. Sally has a child out of wedlock. Sally is irresponsible and didn't use protection--or hell, maybe she was raped, even. It actually doesn't matter for the sake of this example. Sally has an infant. Sally lives on the other side of the country from me. I have never met her and will never meet her. I do not know that she exists.

I believe that it would be wrong for Sally to murder her infant out of financial convenience, or even because the child is a product of rape and she hates it as a result. If you came up to me, told me that Sally exists, and asked me whether I think it would be okay for her to murder her infant for any reason, I would tell you that no, it would not be.

Likewise, I have no obligation to give Sally money, and if you come up to my door randomly and tell me about her and then ask for me to give her money, I will politely decline.

These are not only not contradictory, but they are completely normal obvious viewpoints that every person holds implicitly. Now change Sally's infant into a fetus still in the womb and what has changed here? Fundamentally, nothing. As always, it simply comes back to the fundamental question of whether a fetus is a child, which as always, the answer is yes it is and no it's not okay to kill it nor does its existence obligate strangers to give you money.

by your logic we should stop paying taxes to things like roads, schools, social security for the old police firefighters, a fetus starts off as a clump of cells than develops into a child, women have to carry said fetus into development until the baby is birthed, until a baby is viable to live outside of the womb which is late to development, until that happens its dependent on the womans body to survive, call me crazy here, but I think during that period of time, a woman should have the ability to yeet said fetus.
if you want to cull welfare, abortions have to be accessible, otherwise, welfare will still exist, and you will still be paying into it. if you regard a clump a cells a fetus the same as a child, than that makes life just as sacred outside the womb as it is in, which means it should societies obligation to sustain said sacred life. I don't believe a fetus is a baby until a certain point, I know enough medically up till a certain point a fetus is dependant on the woman to survive, I think abortion should be a thing atleast during the period of time of where the fetus requires the mothers womb to survive.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

I am aware of that; however, my understanding is basic. And no, I do not agree with that. Life is far more complex than to solely rely on genes, and I'm not playing this game of, "If you support this and not that, you're a hypocrite."

Moral coward.

What about racial eugenics? Surely you're aware of how widely IQ varies between races, not to mention a host of other life outcomes. Maybe only people with certain skin tones should be reproducing?

There's far more variance in genetics within races than between them. Negros adopted and brought up in Germany score as well in IQ tests as the caucasoid.

Likewise, I have no obligation to give Sally money, and if you come up to my door randomly and tell me about her and then ask for me to give her money, I will politely decline.

Another moral coward.

 

[gang weeder]

I am aware of that; however, my understanding is basic. And no, I do not agree with that. Life is far more complex than to solely rely on genes, and I'm not playing this game of, "If you support this and not that, you're a hypocrite."

So, as I predicted, you chicken out of actually following through on what you claim to believe, revealing that it's just a made up excuse for you to take a socially comfortable position rather than the one which actually makes sense. Color me surprised.

by your logic we should stop paying taxes to things like roads, schools, social security for the old police firefighters, a fetus starts off as a clump of cells than develops into a child, women have to carry said fetus into development until the baby is birthed, until a baby is viable to live outside of the womb which is late to development, until that happens its dependent on the womans body to survive, call me crazy here, but I think during that period of time, a woman should have the ability to yeet said fetus.
if you want to cull welfare, abortions have to be accessible, otherwise, welfare will still exist, and you will still be paying into it. if you regard a clump a cells a fetus the same as a child, than that makes life just as sacred outside the womb as it is in, which means it should societies obligation to sustain said sacred life. I don't believe a fetus is a baby until a certain point, I know enough medically up till a certain point a fetus is dependant on the woman to survive, I think abortion should be a thing atleast during the period of time of where the fetus requires the mothers womb to survive.

No, my point was that welfare and abortion are fundamentally unrelated issues. It's true that I also oppose welfare and most forms of government spending, but welfare =/= roads and police. It's entirely conceivable and indeed a position held by many to support public spending for roads and police officers but not for direct gibs to layabouts and worthless people. But, where someone falls on that particular question actually has nothing at all to do with abortion. It makes just as much sense as trying to tie someone's opinion on tax rates to their opinion on whether or not murder should be legal. The attempt to connect the two is pure motivated reasoning, a poor attempt at a "gotcha" because there are no actual strong arguments in favor of abortion.

There's far more variance in genetics within races than between them. Negros adopted and brought up in Germany score as well in IQ tests

No there isn't, else we would see greater variance in outcomes within races than between them, which we do not.

Another moral coward.

Not feeling obligated to provide for every random child or family in existence = coward? You'll have to explain that one.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

No there isn't, else we would see greater variance in outcomes within races than between them, which we do not.


Not feeling obligated to provide for every random child or family in existence = coward? You'll have to explain that one.

We see a great variance of outcomes with integrated minorities in cultures insulated from the systemic racism that plagues the American shit-hole. And even if we don't account for the variety of outcomes my statement is fundamentally true. Read actual science and not Charles Murray's trite.

You feel obligated to subject a troubled woman to indentured slavery yet would refuse to provide even a penny for her and the child's wellbeing. You are a piece of shit.