- Joined
- May 3, 2015
So you're saying that we need abortion as a societal crutch for the fact ghetto culture promotes rape and unsafe sex? Sorry, but I prefer prevention over a 'cure' that just causes more deaths.
The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.
- Thread starter Sweetpeaa
- Start date
So you're saying that we need abortion as a societal crutch for the fact ghetto culture promotes rape and unsafe sex? Sorry, but I prefer prevention over a 'cure' that just causes more deaths.
WhimsicalTrolli
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
Isn't that the same slippery slopethat the right used about weed being a gateway drug? And it's not a ban on abortion. Most states would allow abortion before 20 weeks.
NoTimeToLose
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2020
Why Murder... Why not Condoms??? 
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
I mean I don’t believe in condoms either but they’re better than murder tbhWhy Murder... Why not Condoms???
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2015
Obviously moved from the Keffals thread to here because it's off topic.
Your reasoning of tard babies being aborted is a very small statistic, and sure, we make fun of all types of retards here but not every retard turns out to be a lolcow. Being a tard baby doesn't give people the right to kill a human life just because they may be born with a mental illness.
Also the life of the mother being threatened is a very rare thing too.
Yes these are things that happen, but the logic of letting things happen because of some fringe reason has proven time and time again to degrade society into further degeneracy. The fringe reasoning argument is why we are having trans women competing in biological women's sports.
So maybe instead of assuming I don't know what I'm talking about and making an ass out of yourself, how about you read the room and see that I didn't want to derail the thread that far down into political sperging because it was off topic.
I only brought up my POV in the first place because user RangerBoo was sperging out and saying that it has dark consequences for women to not be able to kill their babies. Her slut opinion wasn't necessary in a thread talking about tranny retardation.
I was going to stop on this conversation till you said that smug ass response at the end of your reasoning. I know what I'm talking about retard but statistically, most abortions are by irresponsible slut women who don't want to accept consequence of being a whore who sleeps around.
Your reasoning of tard babies being aborted is a very small statistic, and sure, we make fun of all types of retards here but not every retard turns out to be a lolcow. Being a tard baby doesn't give people the right to kill a human life just because they may be born with a mental illness.
Also the life of the mother being threatened is a very rare thing too.
Yes these are things that happen, but the logic of letting things happen because of some fringe reason has proven time and time again to degrade society into further degeneracy. The fringe reasoning argument is why we are having trans women competing in biological women's sports.
So maybe instead of assuming I don't know what I'm talking about and making an ass out of yourself, how about you read the room and see that I didn't want to derail the thread that far down into political sperging because it was off topic.
I only brought up my POV in the first place because user RangerBoo was sperging out and saying that it has dark consequences for women to not be able to kill their babies. Her slut opinion wasn't necessary in a thread talking about tranny retardation.
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
What would you say to people who believe banning/restricting abortion is a slippery slope to banning/restricting contraceptives?
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
Well I don’t believe in those either anyway. So that would be a positive. However I’d be more than willing to compromise and go no further than banning abortion.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2016
I can't really see it. Hormonal contraceptives are prescribed first line for basically any kind of period issues along with acne, PCOS, anemia, menstrual migraines, and probably more I'm forgetting. Knowing full well how many religious people seem to make an exception for themselves when professing what they believe with regard to this sort of thing, I bet plenty would support a ban while still insist on being allowed to take them because of "the health benefits".
Believing abortion=murder is one thing but I think trying to argue spilling your seed or having non-reproductive sex with contraception in place is an equivalent sin is a harder sell. Surely someone who is so repulsed by the idea of foeticide would rather see people use contraceptives to prevent it? Even if they consider it a sin to do so, at that point they can't say defending an innocent human life gives them a reason to intervene, so they should probably mind their fuckin business at that point yeah?
I don't think barrier contraception could ever really be properly banned either, but that is more for reasons of sheer practicality. It's difficult and potentially dangerous to try and get hold of illicit pharmaceuticals and distribute them without proper prescriptions or manufacturing standards, but the same can't be said for stuff like sponges or condoms which cost a few cents and are trivial to produce. Most importantly there is the public health angle, it's hard to argue against cheap and easy prophylaxis against venereal disease, and if it goes against someone's religion tough titty. Even the Pope ceded that condoms were okay for Africans if it was to reduce the spread of AIDS (though I guess enough old school Catholics consider him a heretic anyway that I don't suppose it matters).
NoTimeToLose
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2020
And they're wrongly prescribed, a competent Endocrinologist can have a field day with Gynecologist over this issue. And there are other ways to treat female hormonal issues that don't need to go to Contraceptives. It's pure retardation and this is an issue not talked about. I know not related to the topic at hand, but you made me want to throw it out there.
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
Only lightly related to abortion in that this includes women and doctors;
In my experience with women in my life, doctors instantly want to dismiss just about everything with menstruation. Body aches? Must be PMS. Sharp, stabbing pains in the abdomen? Just your period. Debilitating pain and numbness during some periods? Well let's just prescribe you some birth control and stop your periods from happening at all. What do you mean something might be seriously wrong? We stopped your normal bodily functions and you're fine now so get out. I'll dismiss SJWs and feminists all day long but this happens to be very true where medicine is socialized. Doctors want you in and out as quick as possible, and their first line of attack with women is "it's probably your period, come back if it still hurts."
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
If we illegalize murder, people will do it anyway in unsafe ways!!!
That's how you sound right now to the people you're trying to persuade. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers fundamentally do not speak the same language on this issue--they simply do not use the same definitions. Hence endless circular argument autism like the past 345 pages of this thread.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2021
This shit wouldn't be a problem if somebody would hurry up and make sex bots. Then nobody would be fucking women
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2020
yes. no more tardbabies or giant swollen water-filled head babies, please
they look miserable
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2021
It gets a worse, incompetent prescription causes knock-on effects for women. The list of side-effects are huge and can often be contradicting. The shrinking of the hypothalamus is a very real issue and birth control is cited as a reason that marriages crumble.
A woman can walk into a doctor's office, reveal she is on hormonal birth control and have doctors dismiss symptoms as being related to the birth control and not something that should be followed up. This can lead to infertility or in extreme cases can be fatal. I've heard anecdotal horror stories from those with IUDs and those who take hormonal birth control.
It is part of a slipperly slope if you believe the idea that banning abortion is being used to force millennials and gen z into having kids. Then there's those who believe that contraception goes against their religion. It's very possible. Restriction of contraception could come in many forms.
Have acne? Go to a dermatologist/wear make up. Anemia? Take iron supplements. Menstural migraines? Take pain killers. PCOS? Surgery. If a woman cannot risk getting pregnant for medical reasons, time to get her tubes tied, lining burnt out or uterus removed!
There are very few medical conditions where hormonal birth control is the only course of medical intervention. Those who are religious might cite the "health benefits" but others can cite the alternatives to birth control with treating medical issues.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2018
It's a draft, you tard. It's not set in stone yet.
But if Roe is overturned, I hope that you're prepared to adopt all of the surplus brown babies and potatoes from the retard states. Put your money where your mouth is.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2018
Abortion good because of dead nigger babies is a new one.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
"If slavery is overturned, I hope that you're prepared to adopt all of the black people in the country. Put your money where your mouth is."
"If murder is outlawed, I hope that you're prepared to adopt all of the people in the country. Put your money where your mouth is."
"If we stop the holocaust, I hope you're prepared to adopt the Jewish race. Put your money where your mouth is."
- Joined
- May 3, 2015
Oh wow. I never thought you'd be willing to go that far. Lol. So much for 'liberal values'. You're just openly racist.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2020
the fact that you don't know that abortion has literally no effect on a nigress' ability to pump out shitskins speaks volumes about the content you post on this website lmao.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2017
Why do you think "ghetto" culture exists in the first place? When children are born to people without the resources to take care of them, they're way more likely to commit crimes as adults. Poor sex ed and lack of access to family planning tools are what perpetuate the cycle of kids born without fathers or to teenage mothers.
One of the most common reasons women cite for having abortions is the need to care for children they already have. It's kind of bizarre to me that a lot of the same people who complain about welfare queens are the ones that encourage women to have more children than they have the means to care for. If you force women to have these kids they can't afford, guess who's gonna end up subsidizing their needs? Taxpayers.
This is one way in which opposition to abortion does not jibe with fiscal conservatism. Children cost the state money, especially at-risk, impoverished, disabled, and orphaned ones. The need for the foster system, welfare, public schools, and food stamps increases dramatically when more unplanned children are born. This is to say nothing of the increased risk of criminality children born to teenage mothers of in poverty exhibit; taxpayers also subsidize public defenders, the court system, juvenile hall, and the prison system. Long story short, lack of access to abortion translates to a greater need for large government, so it doesn't make sense to oppose abortion and support small government.
The actual question at the heart of this discussion is not whether a fetus is a person, it's whether it's better to be born into a life of suffering or not at all. There's no objective answer to that-- it's philosophical. However, the issue of public finance lends it more objectivity. When you factor in the suffering these unwanted children create for others, the question is now, "is it better to be born into a life that creates suffering, or not at all?" My answer to that would obviously be the latter.
This is a great example of the philosophical thing I touched on. There is no objective answer to when a zygote becomes a "person." The more relevant question here is what the entity arbitrating this issue (in this case the U.S. government) defines as a person. The answer to that one is pretty easy-- the government doesn't give you a social security number or any official documentation of your existence until you're born.
It's worth mentioning as well that under no other circumstance is a person required to donate their body for the sake of saving another person's. You're not required to be an organ donor or join the military, even though it's noble to sacrifice your life for others. Women are the only exception to that. If abortion was outlawed, we would be required by law to give our blood, our own safety, and potentially our lives to protect another's. That's not logically consistent with the other laws dictating bodily autonomy in our country.