The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[gang weeder]

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.

having a child = indentured slavery? Is that your implication? Because this would imply that it's okay for Sally to smother her infant in order to get out of indentured slavery. Do you think that would be okay for her to do?

I'm going to ignore the race stuff because you appear to have used the term "systemic racism" unironically.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

having a child = indentured slavery? Is that your implication? Because this would imply that it's okay for Sally to smother her infant in order to get out of indentured slavery. Do you think that would be okay for her to do?

I'm going to ignore the race stuff because you appear to have used the term "systemic racism" unironically.

Ye, having a child against one's will and caring for them over years is tantamount to indentured slavery. Motherhood is one of the toughest occupations a woman can go through. It's a thankless job and often unrewarding, especially when the outcomes are failures like you. As for infanticide of course I'm against it. At the same time I expect others to help her rather than throw her under the bus like a deadbeat dad. If you insist on people having kids at least be responsible for it.

A textbook racist being ignorant? Imagine my shock.

 

[gang weeder]

Ye, having a child against one's will and caring for them over years is tantamount to indentured slavery. Motherhood is one of the toughest occupations a woman can go through. It's a thankless job and often unrewarding, especially when the outcomes are failures like you. As for infanticide of course I'm against it. At the same time I expect others to help her rather than throw her under the bus like a deadbeat dad. If you insist on people having kids at least be responsible for it.

A textbook racist being ignorant? Imagine my shock.

Okay, so you finally managed to admit out loud that lack of gibs does not justify infanticide, that's a good starting point. Now explain why it isn't okay to smother an infant due to lack of gibs but it is okay to poison/dismember a fetus.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

Okay, so you finally managed to admit out loud that lack of gibs does not justify infanticide, that's a good starting point. Now explain why it isn't okay to smother a fetus due to lack of gibs but it is okay to poison/dismember a fetus.

"Finally"? Brat, we just started talking. For months fetus is just a complex of cellular elements devoid of a baby's experiential properties. A mere blue-print. You're also being facetious because fetuses undergo different stages of development. Clumping them all together like a cell is dehumanising.

 

[gang weeder]

"Finally"? Brat, we just started talking. For months fetus is just a complex of cellular elements devoid of a baby's experiential properties. A mere blue-print. You're also being facetious because fetuses undergo different stages of development. Clumping them all together like a cell is dehumanising.

So you are saying that it is okay to kill fetuses but not infants due to biological differences between them. You are wrong, but now you see my point that your original narrative of "muh gibs" was retarded and a made-up excuse. When pressed you are forced to return to the core of the issue, the personhood of the fetus, rather than continuing to hide behind "but mommy doesn't have enough gibs." The actual reason you think abortion is okay is because you think fetuses aren't people, not because you think financial hardship or w/e might somehow justify killing a child.

>Clumping them all together like a cell is dehumanising.

Yes, "dehumanizing," says the person who thinks it is okay to dismember the person and throw them in the trash like offal based on the stage of development. That's some extremely impressive cognitive dissonance, typing a sentence like that with a straight face. Are you a woman perchance? Just taking a wild guess here.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

So you are saying that it is okay to kill fetuses but not infants due to biological differences between them. You are wrong, but now you see my point that your original narrative of "muh gibs" was retarded and a made-up excuse. When pressed you are forced to return to the core of the issue, the personhood of the fetus, rather than continuing to hide behind "but mommy doesn't have enough gibs." The actual reason you think abortion is okay is because you think fetuses aren't people, not because you think financial hardship or w/e might somehow justify killing a child.

>Clumping them all together like a cell is dehumanising.

Yes, "dehumanizing," says the person who thinks it is okay to dismember the person and throw them in the trash like offal based on the stage of development. That's some extremely impressive cognitive dissonance, typing a sentence like that with a straight face. Are you a woman perchance? Just taking a wild guess here.

There's no indiscretion cuz foetuses are fundamentally different from babies, especially during the early stages of development. You are the one that has forced the discussion to go back to its "core", where all I did was mock you for wanting to burden women while being a deadbeat. Infanticide wasn't part of it. And if it was I'd just mock you for giving a false equivalence.

It was tongue-in-cheek you dolt. I am a man.

 

[gang weeder]

There's no indiscretion cuz foetuses are fundamentally different from babies, especially during the early stages of development. You are the one that has forced the discussion to go back to its "core", where all I did was mock you for wanting to burden women while being a deadbeat. Infanticide wasn't part of it. And if it was I'd just mock you for giving a false equivalence.

It was tongue-in-cheek you dolt. I am a man.

And infants are fundamentally different from toddlers, who are fundamentally different from schoolchildren, and so on. Yet somehow you seem to know exactly where to draw an arbitrary line at which it is no longer acceptable to kill the person as he/she develops. How? "They're different" makes just as much sense as me claiming that it's okay to kill an infant but not a toddler because, y'know, "they're different."

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

And infants are fundamentally different from toddlers, who are fundamentally different from schoolchildren, and so on. Yet somehow you seem to know exactly where to draw an arbitrary line at which it is no longer acceptable to kill the person as he/she develops. How? "They're different" makes just as much sense as me claiming that it's okay to kill an infant but not a toddler because, y'know, "they're different."

Another false equivalence. What a joke. The differences between infants, toddlers and others are astronomically smaller than between all of them and a foetus. I don't claim to be the world's foremost expert of abortion but abortion is medically informed and I try basing my intuitions on correct knowledge, not feelings.

 

[Freya]

 

[gang weeder]

Another false equivalence. What a joke. The differences between infants, toddlers and others are astronomically smaller than between all of them and a foetus. I don't claim to be the world's foremost expert of abortion but abortion is medically informed and I try basing my intuitions on correct knowledge, not feelings.

By what measure are they "astronomically smaller," why are those measures the correct ones for determining personhood, and who has the authority to place the arbitrary lines where with respect to these hypothetical measures that you appear unable or unwilling to provide? "An expert said so" isn't an answer.

 

[Freya]

By what measure are they "astronomically smaller," why are those measures the correct ones for determining personhood, and who has the authority to place the arbitrary lines where with respect to these hypothetical measures that you appear unable or unwilling to provide? "An expert said so" isn't an answer.

Who cares?

 

[AngryItalianAmerican]

I don't know whether it is moral to abort children that are begotten due rape/incest. None of us have been raped, or begotten children that were fathered by a rapist.
If we lived in a Christian society, these tragedies be solved in accordance to the will of God. As we live in a secular society, the matter must be solved by public servant

I cannot, in good faith subject a woman to such misery for the sake of moral absolutism. As it stands, abortions in the case of rape/incest should be legal. Not because
it is always moral to abort a child in such circumstances, but because it may be immoral to prevent an abortion from taking place in such a situation.


As for the first part, some do think that. And that's wrong for them to think as such. Children are a gift from God,
and it is both a blessing to give life and to have life given to you. It is wrong to imply that children are mere burdens. It's blasphemy, truly.
My mother has sacrificed greatly for myself to have been born. She didn't kill me for the sake of her career, or her supposed freedom or her
finances or for fleeting satisfaction. Christ gives the hardest battles to his strongest soldiers, as they say.

I'm sorry that the opposite sex has treated you badly. We exist in a singular flock, and we ought to act as such. Do you think it is of
much use to regard the male sex as wimpy 'moids'? Aren't we all siblings in Christ? These are mostly trivial matters, and nothing is gained
from our fighting. We cannot change the laws regarding abortion beyond our voices and our votes.

In my opinion, if there was an omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving entity that genuinely cared for us. We'd be taken of.

Why the despair, why so many generations of humans are wasted in the clutches of poverty, bold-facedly lied to believe that to "make it" you have to "believe it" and "go get it." When so many children's lifes are predetermined by the last names, place of birth and happenstance. Yes, there are a few talented individuals that get their due recompense to their diligence, but for everyone of those, there are millions of starved people without the oportunity to show what they are worth (which in our reality is merely net worth).

Also, that disparity in worth dictates the mechanics of "morality". As rich teens just have abortions in other more "accomodating states" or overseas and circunvent any inconvenient laws. The issue arises when the states (thanks Planned Parenthood) get their grubby fingers on the issue and turn it public, practically advertising to poor teenagers that they will be auspiced in their irresponsible behavior.

So. Why'd "god" give an uphill battle to the creatures most ill-prepared to deal with life? I understand there are a lot of irresponsible adults, but attaching commitments to people that don't want them never ends well.

To me, life as a whole is very random, fleeting and pitiless, just like nature.

 

[snailslime]

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.

my "race" has accomplished more than your sad faggot ass ever will. also you haven't refuted one single point i've made lol.

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.


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.



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.

you sure vomit a lot of words when you're really saying nothing of substance, nor explaining how the topics of abortion and welfare aren't directly related.

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?

race and IQ are both flimsy labels that losers like to cling onto to make up for their lack of achievements. what does this even have to do with the thread lol.

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.

because lots of men typically don't understand women's struggles at all.

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.

what is wrong with those arguments?

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.

so would you have supported aborting the world's worst dictators?

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.

cool? so you're not 100% pro-life.

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.

the chances of the unborn baby becoming an extremely noble historical figure/pioneer of society are extremely low, much lower than the chances of them becoming a degenerate criminal.

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.

i don't think people are bad for being pro-life, but when you dig deeper into their reasoning for vehemently being against all abortion, you start to see through them and their ulterior motives.

most women aren't vehemently against abortion btw.

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

very nice pro-life stance, lol.

 

[snailslime]

oops, double post.

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).

i don't support slaughtering animals.

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

i bet you'd fight tooth and nail against gun control laws.

>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.

the right to own guns is legal, and a clump of cells isn't a person nor does it have a developed nervous system, brain or emotions.

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.

abortion isn't murder of a child unless the fetus is at least 22 weeks old.

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.

yes, i think too many non-qualified people have kids. there should be a screening process necessary to have your own children and adopt.

it's not eugenics because it has nothing to do with DNA.

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.

prove it.

 

[The Cunting Death]

Ngl the supposed Christian side here feels LARPy as fuck
At least be consistent with what the bible says or more accurately 'implies ' on this shit.

 

[Isaac]

Why'd "god" give an uphill battle to the creatures most ill-prepared to deal with life? I understand there are a lot of irresponsible adults, but attaching commitments to people that don't want them never ends well.

We have defied God, and we have become estranged from His touch. As a father must burden his child with toil and hardship,
God must cause us to suffer that we may become like Christ.

If it helps, imagine Life as one giant rehabilitative facility with a universal, life-spanning sentence for every ill person. The Trinity is the parole board,
and at the end of the sentence you are either deemed to be fit for society (The Kingdom of God) or remain in the facility forever.

"A faith that costs nothing, sacrifices nothing and gives nothing is worth nothing"

 

[snailslime]

Ngl the supposed Christian side here feels LARPy as fuck
At least be consistent with what the bible says or more accurately 'implies ' on this shit.

The Bible states that life begins when the first breath is drawn.

Genesis 2:7 and the scriptures after it literally say so.

 

[Niggaplease]

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.

but isn't lol social security a welfare state?
I have to work and pay into to something that probably when I am old an retiring age may never enjoy, and pay into something that pays disabled people a basic income to live on. a whole bunch of disabled people are on disablity ssdi, that would probably not be there if abortions werent so insanely hard to get a good 20 years ago. your anti child murder but lol much rather children starve because your so morally bankrupt that you don't want your taxes to go into welfare. its murder for a woman to abort a fetus that she can't afford, that will drive her more into poverty should she carry it to term, cost her time from work and earning an income, but its not murder to let a kid starve to death because of your desire to not have food stamps be paid with your taxes? starvation is a painful and slow and agonizing form of death. atleast with most abortions a life is ended before it even has a concept that it exists.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

my "race" has accomplished more than your sad faggot ass ever will. also you haven't refuted one single point i've made lol.

Your language betrays your jewishness. First you put your race in "quotes" as if it doesn't mean anything. Next you immediately exalt their so-called accomplishments like a good zionistic zuna. I have better things to do than argue with a duplicitous parasite.

We have defied God, and we have become estranged from His touch. As a father must burden his child with toil and hardship,
God must cause us to suffer that we may become like Christ.

If it helps, imagine Life as one giant rehabilitative prison with a universal, life-spanning sentence for every prisoner. The Trinity is the parole board,
and at the end of the sentence you are either deemed to be fit for society (The Kingdom of God) or unfit and cast back into the prison forever.

"A faith that costs nothing, sacrifices nothing and gives nothing is worth nothing"

I refuse to see life as a torture device. I also refuse to exalt suffering, or to assume that it was placed there for a higher cause. It is disturbing, cruel, unfair and thoroughly perverse.

It strikes me that the people who are pro-life are thoroughly divorced from reality. @gang weeder equates living, breathing people with a cluster of cells. He mocks the notion of money. He ignores what other people say and just talks in circles. These luxuries don't only mark his poor breeding, but also just how spoiled rotten he is.

 

[snailslime]

I have better things to do than argue with a duplicitous parasite.

go choke on a dick then lol

I refuse to see life as a torture device. I also refuse to exalt suffering, or to assume that it was placed there for a higher cause. It is disturbing, cruel, unfair and thoroughly perverse.

It strikes me that the people who are pro-choice are thoroughly divorced from reality. @gang weeder equates living, breathing people with a cluster of cells. He mocks the notion of money. He ignores other people say and just talks in circles. This luxury doesn't only mark his poor breeding, but also just how spoiled he is.

refute my points already, Mr. Genius.