The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

This is literally just retarded cope. You're using your ignorance as an argument. That's really dumb.

It seems more like you're coping because you have no argument. Again: if someone is in a coma, a state where they clearly are not conscious, and you know for a fact they will wake up and be conscious in a few months, is it okay to kill that person?
 
1649016221311.png
 
It seems more like you're coping because you have no argument. Again: if someone is in a coma, a state where they clearly are not conscious, and you know for a fact they will wake up and be conscious in a few months, is it okay to kill that person?
If my dick is in your ass but I haven't cum yet, are you still a faggot?

Your analogy is and always has been retarded because it invokes logic you won't follow to it's inevitably retarded conclusions.
 
It seems more like you're coping because you have no argument. Again: if someone is in a coma, a state where they clearly are not conscious, and you know for a fact they will wake up and be conscious in a few months, is it okay to kill that person?
i know my dog would be devastated if i tried to physically hurt him, he is definitely self aware.

i do not support killing someone who is comatose because they have been alive for a while, they're their own person and they are sentient enough to consent (or not consent) to such things. i wouldn't want my doctor killing me while i was under anesthesia.

a fetus is not aware enough to detect its own existence until about 22 weeks. it is not alive enough to be scared of dying in the first place.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Eto and Lurker
Your dog is not, however, a person. If a dog is self-aware, this is clearly not a sufficient qualifier for personhood.
my dog isn't a human but he is a sentient, living creature with the ability to feel love, sadness, pain and pleasure.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Lurker
Literally shit like this:
i do not support killing someone who is comatose because they have been alive for a while, they're their own person and they are sentient enough to consent (or not consent) to such things. i wouldn't want my doctor killing me while i was under anesthesia.
You're using bizarre twisted logic that you wouldn't apply any other time to try to create a gotcha. That's really gay
 
Literally shit like this:

You're using bizarre twisted logic that you wouldn't apply any other time to try to create a gotcha. That's really gay
I don't think it would be okay to kill a person in a coma if I knew that they would wake up and become conscious after a few months. Likewise, I don't think it would be okay to kill a fetus just because they are not yet conscious, knowing that given enough time they certainly will be. This is entirely consistent. What would require bizarre twisted logic would be to think only one of these is unacceptable but the other is somehow okay.
 
I don't think it would be okay to kill a person in a coma if I knew that they would wake up and become conscious after a few months. Likewise, I don't think it would be okay to kill a fetus just because they are not yet conscious, knowing that given enough time they certainly will be. This is entirely consistent. What would require bizarre twisted logic would be to think only one of these is unacceptable but the other is somehow okay.
a comatose person was conscious before falling into the coma.

a fetus was never conscious to begin with.
 
"okay according to your internal moral compass" clearly does not pass the sniff pass. Plenty of people have an "internal moral compass" which tells them it is okay to do all kinds of horrific things. We typically prevent them from committing those acts anyways, when we can. Is this really the best you can come up with? "Muh internal moral compass says it's okay" is just a fancier way of saying "because it just is/because I said so."
Did I said something about people doing horrific things? Some kind of reductio ad hitlerum? If we are talking here about abortion all thesis I am implying here are according to that not to argumentum ad baculum.
If I am not against people aborting kids according to their internal compass I am surely supporting people doing horrfic things because they also follow their compasses.

Why are you trying to blur everything into one thing? Having sex doesn't imply that people involved in act are doing it consensually. You see what I mean? Talking about one doesn't mean that we can extrapolate thesis to other things in life.

But, if you like such things, let's proceed...
If mother miscarries fetus does it mean her body commited a murder despite her will?
 
I don't think it would be okay to kill a person in a coma if I knew that they would wake up and become conscious after a few months. Likewise, I don't think it would be okay to kill a fetus just because they are not yet conscious, knowing that given enough time they certainly will be. This is entirely consistent. What would require bizarre twisted logic would be to think only one of these is unacceptable but the other is somehow okay.
And now all of the sudden you're using sentience as a qualifier, except you want a couple months of pad time instead of a week or so. It's literally the same reasoning people are saying abortion is ok up to X months except you have this arbitrary "several months" buffer you haven't quantified nor justified.
 
And now all of the sudden you're using sentience as a qualifier, except you want a couple months of pad time instead of a week or so. It's literally the same reasoning people are saying abortion is ok up to X months except you have this arbitrary "several months" buffer you haven't quantified nor justified.

No, I'm not. I'm showing you why sentience is an insufficient qualifier. Or trying to, at least.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Narutard
Did I said something about people doing horrific things? Some kind of reductio ad hitlerum? If we are talking here about abortion all thesis I am implying here are according to that not to argumentum ad baculum.

Okay. Let us posit that according to my internal moral compass, it is okay to rape my wife if she doesn't want to have sex with me. This is certainly not an uncommon belief historically, and held in some parts of the world still. Should I be able to do that?
 
No, I'm not. I'm showing you why sentience is an insufficient qualifier. Or trying to, at least.
you haven't shown us anything
Okay. Let us posit that according to my internal moral compass, it is okay to rape my wife if she doesn't want to have sex with me. This is certainly not an uncommon belief historically, and held in some parts of the world still. Should I be able to do that?
do you expect any of us to say yes?
 
Okay. Let us posit that according to my internal moral compass, it is okay to rape my wife if she doesn't want to have sex with me. This is certainly not an uncommon belief historically, and held in some parts of the world still. Should I be able to do that?
The fuck?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eto
Okay. Let us posit that according to my internal moral compass, it is okay to rape my wife if she doesn't want to have sex with me. This is certainly not an uncommon belief historically, and held in some parts of the world still. Should I be able to do that?
Da fuck are you reffering to here? Rape involves 2 people having inconsensual sex. It may be unlawful in some countries, in some countries not prosecuted but most of people consider this as wrong. I doubt you find a rally in any part of the world supporting rape.

If a teenager kills themself because they didn't want to be born in 1st place is it a cause to sue parents for having sex 15 years ago? This is your twisted logic here.
 
Literally shit like this:

You're using bizarre twisted logic that you wouldn't apply any other time to try to create a gotcha. That's really gay
Not to mention how you literally can’t know if others are conscious/sentient. I know I am, but are you? You might say you are, but where’s the proof?

Anyway, if I wanted to argue with retards I’d be discussing ethics with philosophy students, not on KF discussing abortion with an ignorant double poster.
 
the answer to every one of your questions is "i literally do not care about the mental or physical health of women because as a man i don't ever have to deal with shitty politicians trying to police my bodily autonomy
Shut the fuck up.

You have zero comprehension of what laws are if you're going to cry about your "bodily autonomy" being policed, and you have zero idea of what bodily autonomy even is if you're suggesting that not being able to procure someone else's services because said services are banned independent of you is some violation of your bodily autonomy-- as if it were the state's job to prevent you from killing yourself with a coathanger out of desperation. You probably don't even know what Roe's verdict was.

The people that can't bear the weight of contemplating that they're cheering on snuffing out the most innocent of human lives have to do their damnedest to distract themselves from the reality. They claim that the people who oppose them hate women and want them punished-- meanwhile, at least half of aborted fetuses are girls. They claim that human life has no human dignity if it's super small and still inside a uterus, and then they-- without fail-- paper over the horrifying applicability of such an argument by arbitrarily claiming some cutoff that only exists for their comfort. They use outlier cases (whether they talk about rape cases or maternal mortality) to justify an institution virtually completely powered by the seeking of convenience. They sniffle at the idea of suffering a little, as if they're the only ones to ever suffer. They distort systematic medical/legal incompetence cases in a country where abortion laws were already lax in order to make the case for greater abortion access instead. They diffuse the responsibility of women by bringing up-- apropos of nothing-- the responsibility of men, as if somehow they've justified themselves with the rhetorical equivalent of "and you are lynching Negroes" instead of having tacitly accepted the charge against them. Worst of all, they project their moral bankruptcy and surrepetitiousness onto their opposition-- "No, they don't actually care about children, they all just want them alive so they can molest them! They just don't want to pay taxes for abortion! See, WE'RE the good ones! We want to kill them before they can get molested!"

Then you wonder why you can't stop hearing about kids being groomed, molested and raped in public schools. Then you wonder why children are being taught to be confused about their sex, or outright hate themselves for it. Then you wonder why those same children are then convinced that the only way they can be happy is if they mutilate themselves and abort their puberty. Soon enough, you'll end up wondering why the same people who said this was okay are now saying that they should be able to consent to sex with their adult """lovers."""

All of it is at the hands of people who hate children but have the gall to invent morality where there isn't any.
 
Back