The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Sweetpeaa]

I wanted to mention that the U.S has an obesity issue. And no it's not a dig but a fact. It's estimated that one hundred million people in the United States are overweight to obese.

This is where it gets complicated for women who are over weight. If you're over 175 pounds the chance of the ''pill'' failing is substantial. Not only that but the morning after pill has a high failure for women over that specific weight as well as the abortion pill. Obese women looking for abortion are often told by providers to get the surgical procedure over the abortion pill as it typically doesn't work when you're obese.

Not only that but obese women tend to skip periods as quite a few have hormonal problems. They find out they're pregnant much later than thin women and their chance of pregnancy complications as well as their own mortality is quite high.

As many fat jokes get thrown around on this site I have to say I really fear for the lives of these obese women after this upcoming supreme court ruling. As I mentioned pregnancy prevention methods for them are much, much less effective. This is now the time to get healthy more than ever before.

 

[Michael Pemulis]

I think no one has a good answer to the question of when a person becomes a person. I think the idea that you are entirely human at conception is a ridiculous fiction, but so is the idea that you are 0% human one second before birth. No one seems to really take these to heart, they're a simplified narrative to make it easier to accept a position. That's why you hear pro-choicers say abortion should be "safe, legal, and *rare*", they know there is still some moral weight to it and isn't just like taking out the garbage. You also don't hear pro-lifers cry their eyes out over millions of miscarriages that happen in early pregnancy.

So what I'm asking is for people here to try to explain how they see the moral weight of abortion if it's somewhere between "zero percent murder" and "one hundred percent murder".

The (admittedly sloppy) answer I came up with is that I would put aborting a semi-developed fetus at a similar moral weight to euthanizing a newborn puppy. It has mammalian characteristics, it could likely grow up to be something cute and valuable, it can feel some pain, but it has very low sentience and doesn't have any 'quests' or relationships that you are cutting off early.

The reason we are sad when someone's beloved dog dies is not that there is one less dog in the world (we are making more all the time), it's that the dog had made an impact on the world and the world will actually be somewhat different without that particular dog. Putting down a newborn puppy is sad but certainly wouldn't be sad in the way that killing a household dog in its prime would be, and an adult human dying is of course sadder still because it has a much more substantial impact. By the same token, it is much more sad for a 30 year old father to die than a newborn human, and sadder for a newborn human to die than a fetus (which no one has even seen). Living beings that haven't started 'writing their story' are entirely replaceable and the sadness of them dying is sort of 'generic', more of a general awareness of death and pain than sorrow about that particular being. Have another baby, have another puppy. The uniqueness hasn't taken effect yet, you'd never know the difference between it and another one taking its place and getting to live.

Euthanasia is murder and should not be allowed. People can go without eating if they want to die, but a doctor should have no part in it.

I really think this is an awful thing to say. My father has told me that he would want to end his life a bit early if he reaches a certain point of pain and inability to operate, and I do not want to watch him miserably starve to death. I would much rather he could sign a paper and have the doctors get him very high on narcotics and put him down in his sleep.

 

[Lurker]

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”

― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

just leaving this here again

 

[DeadwastePrime]

Euthanasia is murder and should not be allowed. People can go without eating if they want to die, but a doctor should have no part in it.

nigga have you tried not eating for several days. its not some painless thing

 

[Str8Bustah]

A right is a claim recognized by law. The reason that the law does not recognize children as having certain rights is because they are not recognized as being deserving of them (invariably, due to a diminished capacity for responsibility). It's not a matter of something being "worth less" than something else; it's a recognition that children and adults are qualitatively different due to children not yet having the mental capacity of an adult.

By the same token, a fetus and a child are also qualitatively different, and if the right to life applies only to those with the capacity for consciousness (hence, why it is legal to switch off a life support machine for those with no hope of recovery), then we can logically say that a fetus has no right to life, can we not?

Of course, the other problem for the pro-life lobby, irrespective of whether or not a fetus has a right to life, is that they've yet to explain how legal precedent would support the conclusion that the right to life of a fetus should come before a woman's right to bodily integrity, but I've already gone into detail about that earlier in the thread. Suffice to say, the pro-life camp really doesn't have a leg to stand on.

of course the satanist is in favour of snuff by trying to use technicalities as wiggle room

 

[Don't Tread on Me]

nigga have you tried not eating for several days. its not some painless thing

That doesn't matter. Pain is irrelevant. If it's your choice, you endure it.

 

[gang weeder]

A right is a claim recognized by law. The reason that the law does not recognize children as having certain rights is because they are not recognized as being deserving of them (invariably, due to a diminished capacity for responsibility). It's not a matter of something being "worth less" than something else; it's a recognition that children and adults are qualitatively different due to children not yet having the mental capacity of an adult.

This is the same logic that justified slavery.

By the same token, a fetus and a child are also qualitatively different, and if the right to life applies only to those with the capacity for consciousness (hence, why it is legal to switch off a life support machine for those with no hope of recovery), then we can logically say that a fetus has no right to life, can we not?

For the five billionth time: "right to life applies only to those with consciousness" precludes infants. I'm not aware of "consciousness" being used as some kind of qualifier anywhere in any actual laws, since you are trying (very poorly) to go for some sort of legal angle.

Of course, the other problem for the pro-life lobby, irrespective of whether or not a fetus has a right to life, is that they've yet to explain how legal precedent would support the conclusion that the right to life of a fetus should come before a woman's right to bodily integrity, but I've already gone into detail about that earlier in the thread. Suffice to say, the pro-life camp really doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There is no legal precedent for a right to abortion. Other than Roe v Wade I guess, which is going to go bye-bye any day now.

The (admittedly sloppy) answer I came up with is that I would put aborting a semi-developed fetus at a similar moral weight to euthanizing a newborn puppy. It has mammalian characteristics, it could likely grow up to be something cute and valuable, it can feel some pain, but it has very low sentience and doesn't have any 'quests' or relationships that you are cutting off early.

Again: This logic justifies infanticide. How many times does this bear repeating?

And no, it's not some super complicated moral quandary where you need to find some retarded "sloppy" solution that will inevitably produce absurd implications such as justification for killing infants. Life begins at conception. It's very simple. You feel the need to engage in untold mental gymnastics because the implications of this truth make you uncomfortable, but the core issue itself is extremely straightforward.

 

[Str8Bustah]

I wanted to mention that the U.S has an obesity issue. And no it's not a dig but a fact. It's estimated that one hundred million people in the United States are overweight to obese.

This is where it gets complicated for women who are over weight. If you're over 175 pounds the chance of the ''pill'' failing is substantial. Not only that but the morning after pill has a high failure for women over that specific weight as well as the abortion pill. Obese women looking for abortion are often told by providers to get the surgical procedure over the abortion pill as it typically doesn't work when you're obese.

Not only that but obese women tend to skip periods as quite a few have hormonal problems. They find out they're pregnant much later than thin women and their chance of pregnancy complications as well as their own mortality is quite high.

As many fat jokes get thrown around on this site I have to say I really fear for the lives of these obese women after this upcoming supreme court ruling. As I mentioned pregnancy prevention methods for them are much, much less effective. This is now the time to get healthy more than ever before.

Have you considered that maybe just not having sex is an option if you don't want to risk unwanted childbirth? I know fat people lack self-control but the last thing you should be doing is enabling that problem in every other aspect of their lives.

 

[gang weeder]

Have you considered that maybe just not having sex is an option if you don't want to risk unwanted childbirth? I know fat people lack self-control but the last thing you should be doing is enabling that problem in every other aspect of their lives.

Oy vey, are you telling women not to be whores?! What are you, some kind of conservative Christian! You want the Handmaid's Tale don't you! I bet you voted for Donald Blumpft too. SCREEEEEEEEEEEE

 

[Str8Bustah]

― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

just leaving this here again

Yet more proof that biblical literalism is practised only by heretics. Friendly reminder to do what Jesus would do and go into every methodist church you can find and flip all the tables over.

 

[Don't Tread on Me]

I really think this is an awful thing to say. My father has told me that he would want to end his life a bit early if he reaches a certain point of pain and inability to operate, and I do not want to watch him miserably starve to death. I would much rather he could sign a paper and have the doctors get him very high on narcotics and put him down in his sleep.

So do you think that I should be able to kill you and then not be charged with a crime just because I showed a document that had some scribble on it and claimed it was your signature?

 

[Sanshain]

― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

just leaving this here again

just leaving this here again

 

[Lurker]

View attachment 3257577

just leaving this here again

lol this nigga did a "no u"

 

[Sweetpeaa]

Have you considered that maybe just not having sex is an option if you don't want to risk unwanted childbirth? I know fat people lack self-control but the last thing you should be doing is enabling that problem in every other aspect of their lives.

No one can police people's sexual behavior. People are going to 'do it' no matter what.

 

[Lurker]

No one can police people's sexual behavior. People are going to 'do it' no matter what.

no, see, that's the problem. people are gonna 'do it', and that upsets him and people like him because they themselves can't 'do it'

 

[Michael Pemulis]

So do you think that I should be able to kill you and then not be charged with a crime just because I showed a document that had some scribble on it and claimed it was your signature?

It could be very well proven that he meant it. This is 2022, we have video recording. If that's not enough, we could have him meet with a government official behind closed doors so he could have the chance to say he was being forced, if that was the case. Several times, if that's what you need. The places that currently have legal assisted suicide or euthanasia (technically different things, doesn't really matter) generally have serious safeguards in place, waiting periods and so on.

I really don't think you would apply this logic to anything else, we sign serious contracts all the time.

 

[Str8Bustah]

No one can police people's sexual behavior. People are going to 'do it' no matter what.

Well then, I guess they'd better learn to live with the consequences of their actions instead of crying about it all day.

 

[Michael Pemulis]

Again: This logic justifies infanticide. How many times does this bear repeating?

And no, it's not some super complicated moral quandary where you need to find some retarded "sloppy" solution that will inevitably produce absurd implications such as justification for killing infants. Life begins at conception. It's very simple. You feel the need to engage in untold mental gymnastics because the implications of this truth make you uncomfortable, but the core issue itself is extremely straightforward.

All life is not the same. Cells are alive, they do not get the same consideration as adult humans.

I am not categorically opposed to infanticide either, I think there are some rare situations where it is warranted. See the tard baby general, there are some babies who basically have no capacity for doing anything other than suffer. They should be painlessly put down, not doing so is cruel and vain. Their living and suffering serves no purpose for anyone other than their narcissistic parents, who get to virtue signal about it on facebook.

 

[Michael Pemulis]

View attachment 3257577

just leaving this here again

That's really not relevant, he's offering a general argument that just happens to come from a pastor. It's not "look here the bible says this!"

But I still want to say about this meme (when it is used in the correct context): you're basically asking us not to take your beliefs seriously. Is that what you want? You want me to assume that when you quote a bible verse it's just hot air that you're going to reject as soon as it becomes inconvenient?

 

[gang weeder]

All life is not the same. Cells are alive, they do not get the same consideration as adult humans.

"All life is not the same. Infants are alive, they do not get the same consideration as adult humans. It is therefore permissible for a mother to smother her infant in the crib if she decides that she doesn't want it after all."

That's really not relevant, he's offering a general argument that just happens to come from a pastor. It's not "look here the bible says this!"

But I still want to say about this meme (when it is used in the correct context): you're basically asking us not to take your beliefs seriously. Is that what you want? You want me to assume that when you quote a bible verse it's just hot air that you're going to reject as soon as it becomes inconvenient?

In my opinion, it is not worthwhile to discuss Christianity with atheists who hate Christianity and only ever speak about it in bad faith. This is one reason why I have not once referenced Christianity, faith, scripture, or anything else religious to support any of my arguments in this thread.