The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Puff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

So you're admitting your fictional scenario has never happened in the US and total documented occurrences are low enough that they can get a wikipedia list. Youngest American birth mother is 9.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

i thought life was sacred bro why are you using such a dehumanizing racial slur

You're the one defending the wholesale murder for profit of disproportionately black babies at the hands of an intentionally racist eugenics industry..tell me more about assmad and hypocrisy, darlin'

Are you saying the life of people who are pro-abortion is worthless? Bro...

Hmmm...lemme think about that...

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150419163646-fast-facts-eric-robert-rudolph-super-169.jpg

 

[Freya]

i don't think the people in A&N that hate on blacks, people on welfare, lower class people, realize what the US would look like without abortion.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

i don't think the people in A&N that hate on blacks, people on welfare, lower class people, realize what the US would look like without abortion.

I couldn't give a shit. I only care what my homogenous rural community looks like.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

i don't think the people in A&N that hate on blacks, people on welfare, lower class people, realize what the US would look like without abortion.

Babies deserve a chance to live. Currently there's a 2 year backlog for adoption of infants. If Shaniqua gets pregnant, it's literally as simple as volunteering to relinquish the baby on birth. They also pay healthcare costs, expenses, etc. Killing a baby because you want to get back to hoeing is a genuinely evil thing and while there are legitimate cases for abortion, the fact remains that more black babies are aborted every year in NYC than are born. Instead of killing them, give them to people who actually want the babies and make some cash doing so.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

I couldn't give a shit. I only care what my homogenous rural community looks like.

Good. Stay contained in there, please. The country doesn't need any more allah akhbar bombings of peace.

Babies deserve a chance to live. Currently there's a 2 year backlog for adoption of infants. If Shaniqua gets pregnant, it's literally as simple as volunteering to relinquish the baby on birth. They also pay healthcare costs, expenses, etc. Killing a baby because you want to get back to hoeing is a genuinely evil thing and while there are legitimate cases for abortion, the fact remains that more black babies are aborted every year in NYC than are born. Instead of killing them, give them to people who actually want the babies and make some cash doing so.

Nobody adopts black babies. They usually grow up in the foster care system.

Blacks also commit a disproportionate amount of crime, so I really don't think you'd want more Black men from bad backgrounds around your area.

And does anyone actually get abortions to get back to hoeing? There's a ton of hoes who keep their fifty gorillion kids and do a terrible job raising them.

 

[stuffandthings]

Nobody adopts black babies. They usually grow up in the foster care system.

Blacks also commit a disproportionate amount of crime, so I really don't think you'd want more Black men from bad backgrounds around your area.

Naw. The kids that grow up in foster care are the kids who Shaniqua tried to raise like a parakeet in a cage for a couple years, then got bored with when a new baby daddy came to town with some crystal meth and jail time.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

No such responsibility exists. There is no reluctance about it, only refusal.

I don't accept that. I think if a woman is going to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, the people who have decided to force that decision upon her are clearly making themselves partly responsible for any unwanted children who end up being born as a result. If you're going to proclaim the virtue of your conviction that women must be prevented from terminating their pregnancy, the very least you can do is own up to the inevitable consequences of that conviction; refusing to do so is simply moral cowardice.

We aren't. It is not a potential human, it is a human.
A human being is not a thing that exists at a single point in time. A human being is a caterpillar, stretching from the where and when of its conception to the where and when of its death. It is a process, which stretches across time. It exists at all points along that timeline, from beginning to end, and it is itself at all points as well. There is nothing "potential" about it.

You still haven't offered any clarification on why you believe conception should be defined as the beginning. From a legal and social standpoint, it certainly doesn't seem to be: our birth certificates make no reference to an approximate date of conception, and we measure a person's age from their date of birth. We don't consider somebody to be 100 years old until 100 years have passed since they were born.

Bunch of nonsense.

It isn't. You just don't want to understand it because it threatens your blinkered view of the world.

But she's almost certainly brought in another person to perform the abortion. What about the self governance of the doctor? Forget the fetus-- you can't talk self governance when there's at bare minimum two parties involved and one of them is actually performing the abortion. If we're worried about "self-governance", we can strictly legalize DIY abortions and that'll be the end of that.

The doctor's autonomy is hardly relevant to the conversation. They're there to provide a medical service, and the fact that they've chosen to train and work as an abortion doctor should be evidence enough that their autonomy is not being violated. It's the woman's decision to ultimately go through with the procedure, and my conviction is that it ought to be that way.

But they're nonetheless distinct existences from the parents because of their DNA, and thus cannot be considered mere extensions of the mother. The fact that they have human DNA, and are generally capable of growth into a more mature human being, substantiates their humanity.

A human embryo being genetically distinct isn't enough to distinguish it as a human being: sperm cells are genetically distinct from one another, yet they are not people. Like embryos, they have the ability to grow into human beings in the right context; take them out of that context, however, and their personhood is merely a potential.

If, perchance, someone had undergone a massive genetic mutation that changed the DNA in every cell, they would be a different person. Actually, this thought experiment is undercooked-- what do you imagine the consequences of changing the DNA in every cell of a single person would be on their body, psyche, and the developmental trajectories of the aforementioned?

Unless the mutation was to significantly alter the person's conscious perception, or somehow disrupt their notion of self-continuity, they would fundamentally be the same person.

Actually, their potential has yet to be realized since they have yet to reach maturity. You speak elsewhere of children being less cognitively developed than adults, but the developmental difference is global-- they're less developed in every single capacity. Given that assertion of yours, the blind spot of this assertion, and your belief that "conscious experience and identity" (rather than biology and ontology, with or without "conscious experience and identity") leads me to believe that you take a rather "mentalized" approach is evaluating human life.

Human life can encompass lots of things; the crucial issue here is personhood, and I take the view that our conscious experience is absolutely central to that. Without an ability to appreciate life, our lives would have no meaning to us, and something without meaning has no moral value.

 

[Freya]

I couldn't give a shit. I only care what my homogenous rural community looks like.

why virtue signal about the sanctity of life then?

 

[Eris!]

I think if a woman is going to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will,

Where's the force?
No force, no responsibility.

the people who have decided to force that decision upon her

That list of people is three names long:
1. Herself
2. The father
3. Nature
My name aint on it.

If you're going to proclaim the virtue of your conviction that women must be prevented from terminating their pregnancy, the very least you can do is own up to the inevitable consequences of that conviction; refusing to do so is simply moral cowardice.

I have zero responsibility to feed your child. The fact that you may not murder it does not somehow imbue me with one. You are silly.

You still haven't offered any clarification on why you believe conception should be defined as the beginning.

They are literal synonyms. The beginning is the beginning.

From a legal and social standpoint,

Do... do you think those are important standpoints? Do you think we should be considering these? I don't.

The doctor's autonomy is hardly relevant to the conversation. They're there to provide a medical service

Communist mindset.
They are there to make money, not to provide a service. Providing a service is their means, not their ends.

A human embryo being genetically distinct isn't enough to distinguish it as a human being: sperm cells are genetically distinct from one another, yet they are not people. Like embryos, they have the ability to grow into human beings in the right context; take them out of that context, however, and their personhood is merely a potential.

What is a human?

Human life can encompass lots of things; the crucial issue here is personhood, and I take the view that our conscious experience is absolutely central to that.

Existence is absolutely central to that, not conscious experience. The deciding factor is an objective reality, not a subjective experience.

Hmmm...lemme think about that...

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150419163646-fast-facts-eric-robert-rudolph-super-169.jpg

Eric Robert Rudolph did nothing wrong.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

Good. Stay contained in there, please. The country doesn't need any more allah akhbar bombings of peace.


Nobody adopts black babies. They usually grow up in the foster care system.

Blacks also commit a disproportionate amount of crime, so I really don't think you'd want more Black men from bad backgrounds around your area.

And does anyone actually get abortions to get back to hoeing? There's a ton of hoes who keep their fifty gorillion kids and do a terrible job raising them.

Ya know who adopts black babies??? Justice Amy Coney Barrett does. 2 of them. So far. Also the Duck Dynasty Christians. Pro-lifepeople do. because they aren't hypocrites.

 

[Vince McMahon]

Those 16 year old girls who end up having to support kids are then living in poverty for life.. You shouldn't be forced to live in poverty for life because you used a condom wrong when you were 16.

It's funny how you always assume that the responsibility should always be for males, while females should get all the perks and no responsibilities. No, your parents failed you and you have failed if you decided to fuck before you even had a job, let alone an education. At least in the modern world. It was a necessity to give birth earlier and plenty in a bygone era because that was your ticket for a safe old ager. Not anymore.

Were you always this castrated? Or has the age taken the toll and your nagging harpy of a wife emasculated you completely?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

It's funny how you always assume that the responsibility should always be for males, while females should get all the perks and no responsibilities. No, your parents failed you and you have failed if you decided to fuck before you even had a job, let alone an education. At least in the modern world. It was a necessity to give birth earlier and plenty in a bygone era because that was your ticket for a safe old ager. Not anymore.

Were you always this castrated? Or has the age taken the toll and your nagging harpy of a wife emasculated you completely?

What? The responsibility is on both.

 

[Vince McMahon]

What? The responsibility is on both.

You sure don't make it sound like it.

It's always about "poor girl", "poor woman", "women", "women", "women". Not to mention the way how you use "incels" every time you're out of arguments.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Where's the force?
No force, no responsibility.

You're clearly not advocating for women to be politely asked not to have abortions; my understanding of your position is that you want them to be legally prevented from doing so. That involves force.

I have zero responsibility to feed your child.

I never said you did; I simply want you to own up to the consequences of what you advocate. If you're unwilling to address the plight of the unwanted children who would almost certainly be born as a result of the policy you advocate, I think that reflects very poorly upon the virtue of the motives which inform your position.

They are literal synonyms. The beginning is the beginning.

But the beginning of what? The beginning of a person, or the beginning of the process which results in a person? I can throw a bunch of raw ingredients together in order to make a cake, but it's not actually a cake until it comes out of the oven. I think a very similar argument can be made with regard to embryonic development.

Communist mindset.

I'm not the one here who's trying to seize the means of reproduction.

What is a human?

Human is anything which relates to humanity; a human being is a human with personhood.

Humanity and personhood are closely linked and by no means mutually exclusive, but they are nevertheless different things, and it is the latter which rights apply to. A human skin cell is human but it is not a person, whereas a hypothetical alien from another planet could qualify as a person, even though they would not be human.

Existence is absolutely central to that, not conscious experience. The deciding factor is an objective reality, not a subjective experience.

Our conscious experience might be subjective, but the existence of consciousness itself is not, nor is the fact that values are entirely dependent upon consciousness. A human being has the capacity to value their life; an embryo does not.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

You're clearly not advocating for women to be politely asked not to have abortions; my understanding of your position is that you want them to be legally prevented from doing so. That involves force.

I never said you did; I simply want you to own up to the consequences of what you advocate. If you're unwilling to address the plight of the unwanted children who would almost certainly be born as a result of the policy you advocate, I think that reflects very poorly upon the virtue of the motives which inform your position.

But the beginning of what? The beginning of a person, or the beginning of the process which results in a person? I can throw a bunch of raw ingredients together in order to make a cake, but it's not actually a cake until it comes out of the oven. I think a very similar argument can be made with regard to embryonic development.

I'm not the one here who's trying to seize the means of reproduction.

Human is anything which relates to humanity; a human being is a human with personhood.

Humanity and personhood are closely linked and by no means mutually exclusive, but there are nevertheless different things, and it is the latter which rights apply to. A human skin cell is human but it is not a person, whereas a hypothetical alien from another planet could qualify as a person, even though they would not be human.

Our conscious experience might be subjective, but the existence of consciousness itself is not, nor is the fact that values are entirely dependent upon consciousness. A human being has the capacity to value their life; an embryo does not.

So if unwanted babies are expendable, then it stands to reason unwanted adults are too. So lets kill all the cripples, niggers, and welfare scrouts, right? WRONG. Murder is wrong.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

So if unwanted babies are expendable, then it stands to reason unwanted adults are too. So lets kill all the cripples, niggers, and welfare scrouts, right? WRONG. Murder is wrong.

No human being is expendable. The point your reasoning misses is that a fetus is not a human being, and thus, abortion cannot be murder.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

No human being is expendable. The point your reasoning misses is that a fetus is not a human being, and thus, abortion cannot be murder.

It is indeed a human being. Lie all you want,itdoesn't changethe act a fetus is a human being. If a fetus is "a mere clump of cells" so are you.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

It is indeed a human being. Lie all you want,itdoesn't changethe act a fetus is a human being. If a fetus is "a mere clump of cells" so are you.

To my knowledge, I've never used the phrase "clump of cells" in this thread. My contention entirely centers around the subject of personhood, which is clearly essential in defining what it means to be a human being. It's not an issue of complexity for me, since complexity alone is no mark of personhood: the amoeba has a far larger genome than humans do, but it is obviously not a person.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

To my knowledge, I've never used the phrase "clump of cells" in this thread. My contention entirely centers around the subject of personhood, which is clearly essential in defining what it means to be a human being. It's not an issue of complexity for me, since complexity alone is no mark of personhood: the amoeba has a far larger genome than humans do, but it is obviously not a person.

SO how is an infant a person then? It too is completely dependant, and has little more "life experience" than when it was a fetus in the womb.