The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[ChikN10der]

First, you pulled the 99% figure out of thin air. It's more like 10% of abortions. Second: Not really. A lot of women are forced to carry such pregnancies to term. Banning abortions outright often blanket bans birth defect abortions, too. Third, in countries where it's considered "murder" it just leads to this barbaric practice of women being jailed for having miscarriages.

That and, you claim you still wouldn't support welfare for single moms. Are you nuts? The most common reason for abortion is poverty, the obvious solution is to provide welfare. Statistics and facts support the evidence that this has roundly reduced abortion rates. Why be skeptical? Do you care more about money, or babies lives? What the fuck? You think this is some noble crusade, only to be miserly?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miscarriages-abortion-jail-el-salvador/

View attachment 1649597

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/09/11/sc-mothers-doctors-blast-abortion-ban-doesnt-exempt-birth-defects/2287131001/

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/20-week-bans/personal-stories-reveal-how-20-week-abortion-bans-would-hurt-wom

Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital

The husband of a pregnant woman who died in an Irish hospital says he has no doubt she would be alive if she had been allowed an abortion.

www.bbc.com

View attachment 1649571



Sad.

I care about murder not being permitted in my society. Being for or against welfare is completely separate from that.
I'm sure there are ways we could pay gang members not to murder one another. And I'd prefer they don't murder one another. Yet I'm 100 percent against paying gang members not to murder each other. This doesn't make me pro murder.
99 percent of abortions are for convenience, not medical necessity or due to birth defects.
Just under 1 percent of abortions are due to rape.
Less than 0.1 percent for incest.
Approx 0.36 percent for life or health of the mother.

Where are you getting 10 percent?

 

[haurchefant]

Thanks. I wasn't trying to engage with Mr. "Pretends to be a cute Loli avatar on The Internet" but he decided to stalk me for some reason. I honestly don't know what his goal was. I'm not going to "argue" or "debate" someone who is spamming me.

I'm sure someone will "dumb" or "MOTI" rate me for this, but his point was genuinely really confusing to me and he got upset way too hard which didn't help. Other people were trying to be nice and articulate it out, and he'd say NO THAT'S WRONG and then claim I'm wrong, but then not explain his point in a way that was nice and made sense. Apparently "Abortion is bad" is somehow not his point... I don't know, I really don't.

Anyway, the main piece I want to add was and still is that welfare is most likely to reduce abortion rates. If the goal is to reduce abortions, this is a good solution.

He was partially trollbaiting but his primary objective in this thread just seems to be screeching ABORTION IS MURDER REEEEEEE WOMEN BAD /npc

He didn't give you a proper response because he didn't have one. Very few people have had a proper response to things like infants born with encephaly.

Another example of non-sequitor responses.

This is why women shouldn't be allowed to discuss abortion.

It's funny how it always comes back to this.

"Women risk their lives and permanently change and even destroy their bodies getting pregnant and delivering children. They should not discuss abortions because they might say hurtful things when supporting their viewpoints out loud."

It's almost as if being anti-abortion was actually about hating women and wanting to women to suffer. It's useful to also ignore every single person who's written out their opinion and pretend it's been nothing but insults. But I'm sure this is all a big coincidence and there's nothing actively malicious going on

 

[ChikN10der]

He was partially trollbaiting but his primary objective in this thread just seems to be screeching ABORTION IS MURDER REEEEEEE WOMEN BAD /npc

He didn't give you a proper response because he didn't have one. Very few people have had a proper response to things like infants born with encephaly.



It's funny how it always comes back to this.

"Women risk their lives and permanently change and even destroy their bodies getting pregnant and delivering children. They should not discuss abortions because they might say hurtful things when supporting their viewpoints out loud."

It's almost as if being anti-abortion was actually about hating women and wanting to women to suffer. It's useful to also ignore every single person who's written out their opinion and pretend it's been nothing but insults. But I'm sure this is all a big coincidence and there's nothing actively malicious going on

Lol you just skipped over a bunch of posts and wrote them off as stupid women hating nonsense you retard.

I don't want women to suffer. That's one of many reasons I'm against murder and assault. I'm not against only male babies being killed.

 

[haurchefant]

Lol you just skipped over a bunch of posts and wrote them off as stupid women hating nonsense you retard.

I don't want women to suffer. That's one of many reasons I'm against murder and assault. I'm not against only male babies being killed.

I looked at the rest of his post but honestly I didn't want to deal with it once I read the child rape fantasy he put in the end. I can only imagine he was trying to reference Cuties or maybe some pedo doctor I don't know. Besides that, the rest of his post isn't interesting because it's already been addressed in previous posts in this thread.

Y'all can pretend to be against murder and that's fine but once someone tells women (the only ones capable of actually bearing children) that they absolutely cannot be involved in the discussion regarding the life threatening medical status they put themselves into... well that's gonna garner you some ridicule lol

 

[ChikN10der]

I looked at the rest of his post but honestly I didn't want to deal with it once I read the child rape fantasy he put in the end. I can only imagine he was trying to reference Cuties or maybe some pedo doctor I don't know. Besides that, the rest of his post isn't interesting because it's already been addressed in previous posts in this thread.

Y'all can pretend to be against murder and that's fine but once someone tells women (the only ones capable of actually bearing children) that they absolutely cannot be involved in the discussion regarding the life threatening medical status they put themselves into... well that's gonna garner you some ridicule lol

Ok fine but he's one dude, you wrote off the entire pro life side. I don't think you want me to claim you're the same as hhh do you?

You claimed nobody on the other side of the issue had any arguments, but you're cherry picking the most ridiculous arguments from one person.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

Another example of non-sequitor responses.

This is why women shouldn't be allowed to discuss abortion. Never really contribute to discussion. Only attempts at mockery and reputation destruction. Never willing to answer questions or clarify what they say.

Yeah, why should be people be allowed to talk about things only they can experience, and go through?

Man, that is stupid even for this thread.

 

[haurchefant]

Ok fine but he's one dude, you wrote off the entire pro life side. I don't think you want me to claim you're the same as hhh do you?

You claimed nobody on the other side of the issue had any arguments, but you're cherry picking the most ridiculous arguments from one person.

I guess I wouldn't want to be compared to HHH but does it really matter that much if I was?

And I actually think there have been plenty of good arguments on the prolife side, like this guy's response to me:

That's actually kind of hypocritical then.

I'm not even going to pretend it is feasible to stop people from doing things that are morally wrong if their heart is dead set on it. That's why I don't think making abortion illegal will actually work: women will still seek them out and still get them. Roe v. Wade only makes it so that it is legal on a federal level and not the state level, which really is more appropriate since this is a states' rights issue in terms of US jurisprudence. There is no right to abortion and never was before '72 and the federal government should not be in the business of policing morality (more for practical reasons rather than ethical ones). Nor do I not understand why some women get them for economic reasons. That still really doesn't make it right though. That's the heart of the issue though and why I can only support the termination of a pregnancy in a case where the mother's life is actually at risk from it (and even then only in an indirect manner where the objective is to save the mother's life rather than kill the child): because it is taking a life and human life has worth (I'd go a bit farther than that and say all life has some worth but that's not important here), regardless of how shitty it is. It really has nothing to do with sentience or the levels of suffering either, because suffering is a part of life and some people live horrid shite lives (either of their own volition (or lack thereof) or just by cruel fate). Those people at the end of the day are still human beings and I feel we have a duty to recognize their worth even if they themselves don't. Even if those two sisters had a pretty shitty existence, they still are worth about as much as you or me really just by virtue of the fact that we are human beings. I think the real issue here is that we come to our conclusions about abortion from different standpoints: you focus more on the practical and economic side of things and I focus more on everyone's worth and dignity as human beings and while these usually coincide, they come to a head on the issue of abortion and irreconcilably so.

I'm gonna be honest though, I can't really judge a woman who does get an abortion due to difficult circumstances or prenatal deformities. It's sad for everyone involved. A child dies and a mother loses her child and possibly makes it hard to make another one. The only people that I do judge are those that have no sense of what has been lost and call the child a parasite in order to dehumanize it. I think that's borderline sociopathic behavior.

Like this response is one of more well thought out ones in this thread, he correctly pointed out that there is no legal right to abortion, and that there irreconcilable differences between those who are prolife and those are actually prochoice (as opposed to the wanton baby murderers who want to have birth-abortions etc.) He also made the point that he believes all life has value to it which is a genuinely noble position to have.

There are a couple of prolife people who have made cogent arguments in this thread without getting overly concerned about decorum and they deserve respect. Somewhere in this thread there's a really great post about how prolife people before the Obama years did themselves in by failing to appeal to the common people and how this has severely weakened the case for prolife activists over the years. I'm kicking myself for not bookmarking it, I'll have to go through and find it again.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Y'all can pretend to be against murder and that's fine but once someone tells women (the only ones capable of actually bearing children) that they absolutely cannot be involved in the discussion regarding the life threatening medical status they put themselves into... well that's gonna garner you some ridicule lol

Yeah, why should be people be allowed to talk about things only they can experience, and go through?

It's funny how it always comes back to this

It's just funny to say women should have no say after 40 of pages that men should have no say. And you get triggered enough that you quotepost it in other threads too.

I don't think women shouldn't have a say, but the level of discourse is below that of what it was with @Erischan and that is saying a lot.

You have to pretty dumb to think that only white people could have a say about anti white racism, even though they would be the only ones who can experience it, because everybody can do the research, read the research, relate experience, think about the moral implications.

We've been through this before. It isn't just robbers that get to decide laws on breaking and entering.

 

[haurchefant]

.

It's just funny to say women should have no say after 40 of pages that men should have no say. And you get triggered enough that you quotepost it in other threads too.

I don't think women shouldn't have a say, but the level of discourse is below that of what it was with @Erischan and that is saying a lot.

Men are going to have a say in it regardless of "should" since men also have reproductive rights. The only reason a man shouldn't have a say in abortions is if he's the rapist that impregnated the victim, in which case he'll just get 6 months of community service or something and not have to deal with it anymore. Whining that the level of discourse isn't up to your standards is pretty lulzy though as the only thing Erischan contributed was hysterics. Do you care to fill his role now that our princess has fallen?

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Men are going to have a say in it regardless of "should" since men also have reproductive rights. The only reason a man shouldn't have a say in abortions is if he's the rapist that impregnated the victim, in which case he'll just get 6 months of community service or something and not have to deal with it anymore.

I wish that was the case. But, in America at least, and probably most other western countries, men have no say in whether or not the woman gets to have an abortion. Even if he wants to care for the kid directly himself, without her help, he can't stop her from aborting his child. And if a woman rapes a young boy or teenager (whether its just statutorily or with actual force), and decides not abort the baby, the boy or teenager is on the hook for child support payments to his rapist. Men actually have precious few reproductive rights. A woman has the right to kill her child in the womb, but the father does not have the right to walk away and wash his hands of the ordeal.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Men are going to have a say in it regardless of "should" since men also have reproductive rights. The only reason a man shouldn't have a say in abortions is if he's the rapist that impregnated the victim, in which case he'll just get 6 months of community service or something and not have to deal with it anymore. Whining that the level of discourse isn't up to your standards is pretty lulzy though as the only thing Erischan contributed was hysterics. Do you care to fill his role now that our princess has fallen?

But men have no legal say in it. At all.

If a woman wants an abortion she can get one. She doesn't have to tell him she is pregnant. He has no say even if she does. It sounds like you think men should have a say. But they don't.

And you can see that people also try to argue that men shouldn't have a say about it at all in a general sense. You can find a post about it every page of this thread.

@Erischan for all the autism, stated his convictions, explained his positions, answered questions about them. Many of my questions to the prochoicers have gone unanswered. Many of my posts have gone unread if you think I was serious about women not having a say. You are so involved with this caricature of what prolifers believe that you need people like @Erischan to drone and drone and drone on, because when serious questions get asked or serious points get made, they just get ignored and people resort to attempts at ridicule.

I'm not on autist tranny so no, I won't act in the same way. But at least when I asked him to explain what he meant by something or ehy he had a conviction he just explained.

This victim act of "oh they just hate women!" when it's been mostly talking in circles, evasion and rarely a straight answer (some exceptions of course), then yes, at least some could learn intellectual honesty.

 

[haurchefant]

I wish that was the case. But, in America at least, and probably most other western countries, men have no say in whether or not the woman gets to have an abortion. Even if he wants to care for the kid directly himself, without her help, he can't stop her from aborting his child. And if a woman rapes a young boy or teenager (whether its just statutorily or with actual force), and decides not to abort the baby, the boy or teenager is on the hook for child support payments to his rapist. Men actually have precious few reproductive rights. A woman has the right to kill her child in the womb, but the father does not have the right to walk away and wash his hands of the ordeal.

Yes, I already know all of this and have chronicled it extensively in this thread, simply backread my posts to see. Whether those rights are being respected or not, potential fathers still have them. That's why it's civil rights violations to tread on them. At least IMO. The only recourse is to protect reproductive rights for men.

"WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MEAN FEMINIST SJWS WON'T LET MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

and decades ago it was believed that abortion would never be legal. The store of Roe v Wade is a story of hope: your dreams don't have to be memes.

My tone is jocular but I'm actually quite serious. Protecting reproductive rights for men is a very important issue and just because it gets ignored doesn't make it any less so. Change is the answer.

It raises a more contentious question: does one legislate relationships where the father wants the baby but the mother doesn't? What exactly is to be done in that situation?

But men have no legal say in it. At all.

If a woman wants an abortion she can get one. She doesn't have to tell him she is pregnant. He has no say even if she does. It sounds like you think men should have a say. But they don't.

And you can see that people also try to argue that men shouldn't have a say about it at all in a general sense. You can find a post about it every page of this thread.

@Erischan for all the autism, stated his convictions, explained his positions, answered questions about them. Many of my questions to the prochoicers have gone unanswered. Many of my posts have gone unread if you think I was serious about women not having a say. You are so involved with this caricature of what prolifers believe that you need people like @Erischan to drone and drone and drone on, because when serious questions get asked or serious points get made, they just get ignored and people resort to attempts at ridicule.

I'm not on autist tranny so no, I won't act in the same way. But at least when I asked him to explain what he meant by something or ehy he had a conviction he just explained.

This victim act of "oh they just hate women!" when it's been mostly talking in circles, evasion and rarely a straight answer (some exceptions of course), then yes, at least some could learn intellectual honesty.

See above for my response re: men's reproductive rights. I also don't really care what other people say about what men should or should not do regarding abortion. They don't speak for me, only I speak for me. And after all, if some random thinks that men shouldn't have an opinion on abortion well...that is an opinion in of itself. It doesn't impact me therefore it doesn't matter to me.

You haven't asked any questions that I recall, you've mostly just sperged about how mean the prochoicers are and how you're being bullied, especially since you apparently mistook being made fun of for being taken seriously. If you have questions then just ask them without whining about how mean everyone is.

OH and one more thing: LEAVE THE CHILD PORN RAPE FANTASIES OUT OF YOUR RESPONSE. Don't post like a pedo child rapist, thanks.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

and decades ago it was believed that abortion would never be legal. The store of Roe v Wade is a story of hope: your dreams don't have to be memes.

I wish it was that simple. But society's upper crust have wholeheartedly drank the feminist Kool-Aid, and anyone who argues in favor of men's reproductive rights in any scenario is called a "MGTOW" or "Men's Rights Activist" and written off as an incel extremist. On the other hand, you have people un-ironically arguing that men shouldn't have a say in the abortion discussion because "it does't effect them". Much of the abortion debate seems predicated on the idea that men only exist to contribute sperm and money and nothing else.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

I do think men should have more reproductive rights. I just wish having a discussion about it didn't result in an autistic slapfight every time.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I wish it was that simple. But society's upper crust have wholeheartedly drank the feminist Kool-Aid, and anyone who argues in favor of men's reproductive rights in any scenario is called a "MGTOW" or "Men's Rights Activist" and written off as an incel extremist. On the other hand, you have people un-ironically arguing that men shouldn't have a say in the abortion discussion because "it does't effect them". Much of the abortion debate seems predicated on the idea that men only exist to contribute sperm and money and nothing else.

A couple of pages back I suggested pretty close to how @haurchefant suggested things should be. I was told that apparently making some points is "repeating 2011 mgtow talking points", though mgtow didn't even exist back then, if I'm not mistaken.

I asked if they had come up with any counter to the arguments in those 9 years and it has just been silence. After a couple of pages of no attempts to answer or serious discussion, then yes, THAT becomes the topic of discussion.

Haur calling it "whining" isn't an argument either.

And I don't think half the people here regard roe v wade as story of hope anymore than they consider requiem for a dream a story of hope.

 

[haurchefant]

I wish it was that simple. But society's upper crust have wholeheartedly drank the feminist Kool-Aid, and anyone who argues in favor of men's reproductive rights in any scenario is called a "MGTOW" or "Men's Rights Activist" and written off as an incel extremist. On the other hand, you have people un-ironically arguing that men shouldn't have a say in the abortion discussion because "it does't effect them". Much of the abortion debate seems predicated on the idea that men only exist to contribute sperm and money and nothing else.

A couple of pages back I suggested pretty close to how @haurchefant suggested things should be. I was told that apparently making some points is "repeating 2011 mgtow talking points", though mgtow didn't even exist back then, if I'm not mistaken.

I asked if they had come up with any counter to the arguments in those 9 years and it has just been silence. After a couple of pages of no attempts to answer or serious discussion, then yes, THAT becomes the topic of discussion.

Haur calling it "whining" isn't an argument either.

And I don't think half the people here regard roe v wade as story of hope anymore than they consider requiem for a dream a story of hope.

Nothing is simple. Blacks protecting their voting rights as American citizens took years of work and eventually it got MLK assassinated. Roe v Wade still has the country in a rift. Nothing worthwhile is going to be easy and frankly I think this defeatist attitude does nothing to help you.

But its also no skin off my nose, I'm not in a relationship and it's doubtful I'd have children with a lady anyway for many reasons.

I'll drop in again when this thread becomes interesting. Our star poster is gone and those are some pretty big shoes to fill.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Nothing is simple. Blacks protecting their voting rights as American citizens took years of work and eventually it got MLK assassinated. Roe v Wade still has the country in a rift.

Most americans do want more restrictive laws on abortion than currently:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/313094/americans-abortion-views-steady-past-year.aspx

There have also been previous polls that shows 60%+ of americans believe it should be a state decision rather than supreme court.

It's not going to happen though. This is one of those subjects that is too important to control a population.

 

[LargeChoonger]

I'd gladly live in a country with a complete ban on abortion. Putting non-functionals out of their misery, however, is something I'm okay with. And as far as the rape thing, financial support and don't make the woman keep the baby. There's no avoiding the fact that it's a problem unique to women and I value life over emotion

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

Fuck the government overreach, by the way

I'd gladly live in a country with a complete ban on abortion. Putting non-functionals out of their misery, however, is something I'm okay with. And as far as the rape thing, financial support and don't make the woman keep the baby. There's no avoiding the fact that it's a problem unique to women and I value life over emotion

On a moral level I agree "no abortion at all" would be great. But it's way too idealistic. Waaaaay too idealistic. Logically, without certain other measures in place to prevent unwanted pregnancies from being an issue, it's still going to happen and be a problem.

The problem with making something "illegal" is it doesn't actually prevent people from trying to do it, it just makes it a bit harder. Even if we made abortion 100% illegal except when medically necessary, all that would happen is we go back to the old ways of back alley abortions. People would try to find loopholes to get abortions by making themselves sick. Banning abortion would be as effective as trying to ban guns in the US, or trying to ban knives in the UK. Or trying to ban drugs. None of those worked. It doesn't work. Banning stuff doesn't make it go away, it just drives it underground.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Everyone screeches at women to keep their legs closed, but no one ever seems to screech at men to stop putting their dicks into anything everything that has a pulse.

Maybe you should perk your ears and eyes up.

They're not people. They have never existed in society nor had a life. You want to save them? Go become a medical engineer, figure out how to make artificial wombs so no fetus is ever killed.

How is that supposed to stop people from aborting children?

Poor people have the most kids, and if you want to end abortion, then give incentives to keep the "happy accident" pregnancies. Otherwise it seems your argument just boils down to "people are 100% obligated to birth a child and then whatever happens happens" and also implying "The mother MUST BE FORCED to keep the child even though she's clearly an irresponsible person!"

Maybe we should encourage people to be more responsible instead of solely covering for their irresponsibility. I'm not even saying "cut welfare", but talking about beefing welfare in order to encourage people to not kill their children is best discussed when we're already making responsible sexuality the norm (we do not-- we commodify sex, shame people for not having had it, build a shallow, self-centered, hedonistic mythos around the deed alien to its reality, and consequently encourage people to effectively use each other as masturbation tools).

@ChikN10der
Facts don't care about your feelings.

You're as bad as the pro-life rank-and-file that uses pictures of stillborn children in order to advance their agenda. You're not making a worthwhile argument because you're not anywhere near engaging with your opposing arguments.

Piss off.

Savita Halappanavar[3][4] (née Savita Andanappa Yalagi; 9 September 1981 – 28 October 2012) was an Indian woman, living in Ireland, whose death led to the passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.[5] Medical staff at University Hospital Galway denied her request for an abortion following an incomplete miscarriage on the grounds that granting her request would be illegal under Irish law, ultimately resulting in her death from septic miscarriage.[6] Her death served as a rallying cry for efforts to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, which prohibited abortion in most instances.[3]

On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway, after complaining of back pain, but was ultimately discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling "something coming down," and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[9]:22–26[9]:29[10]

This seems just about cut and dry. The child was going to be miscarried. Similarly, in an ectopic pregnancy, the child would never be able to be carried to term.

You can't seem to keep from giving me cases of "the mother's life is in mortal danger" when you want to make the case that my position doesn't account for edge cases where... the mother's life is in danger...? Why didn't they do it, then? Well, based on the investigation they did:

O&G Consultant 1 stated that the patient and her husband were advised of Irish law in relation to this. At interview the consultant stated “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart”. The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection “we can’t predict who is going to get an infection”.

So, they made a fatal error and for some reason couldn't have imagined that a miscarriage that eventually resulted the water breaking without releasing the fetus wouldn't cause some kind of infection even when you remove a miscarried fetus in order to prevent exactly that.

Furthermore, even as they were aware of the risk of sepsis from doing what they wanted to do, they weren't getting her vitals as they were supposed to-- vitals that would have communicated sepsis were never relayed to the OB. Vitals that the OB said, had they been received, would have been promptly acted upon. Furthermore, in the first place, the OB did not verify with the hospital's legal team to determine if her understanding of the law as stated to Halappanavar was correct-- and it wasn't, because the ruling allowing for abortion to be performed without penalty under certain circumstances is broad enough to apply to the mother being at risk for suicide.