The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Android raptor]

there's a reason they're trying to simultaneously get rid of benefits and abortion. the end game is women not being able to have lives outside of the home

Yeah, prolifers ultimately just want to use forced pregnancy and childbirth to punish women for percieved sexual sins. They think women are baby ovens instead of people, and some will openly admit this. They don't actually give a fuck about protecting children, if they did they'd want to make sure they get basic necessities like food and aren't forced to risk their lives giving birth to rape babies and shit. Or suffer unnecessarily from a terminal condition like trisomy or limb body wall complex.

Then there's the incels like the A&N crowd that are probably mad about abortion because it's proof women are having sex with men that aren't them.

 

[Eris!]

Do I really need to bring up identical twins, again? I think we both know that if an embryo or fetus hypothetically had identical DNA to the woman who was carrying it, your opposition to abortion would be unaffected.

Because there are many other ways to demonstrate that it is ontologically not the mother. DNA is just the simplest and most straightforward.
You're missing the forest for the trees. The DNA point is not actually about DNA.

It's not about feelings, it's about values. I value the welfare of human beings, which is why I have compassion for them. You obviously do not share this compassion, which is why you are indifferent to the human consequences of the positions you advocate.

Correct, and this is why compassion and empathy are terrible things to base your morality around. You are willing to abandon a moral principle the second it has negative consequences on someone's life. I am not. I am not willing to abandon a moral principle under any circumstances, no matter what effects it has on anything. If the entire human race went extinct from not murdering I would still not murder, and I would feel zero guilt about their deaths.

f you have no compassion for human life, why is murder wrong? What is your opposition to murder based upon if not compassion?

Human rights. Destroying someone's life is not wrong because I value their life. That's absurd. If I stop valuing their life does murder stop being wrong? Murder is wrong because you are taking and destroying what does not belong to you. Murder is wrong for the exact same reason robbery is wrong.

Why don't you find me a psychologist who agrees with you that infants do not possess a conscious ego?

I've seen it with my eyes, and you're being silly if you suggest they meaningfully do. Have you ever had a coherent conversation with a baby?

It would seem that you have never matured beyond this stage yourself.

I deliberately try to reason without a point of view at all. Or from the objective point of view of god. Points of view are bad. Anything they add is corruptive. You should purge them as much as possible. I deliberately, consciously make the effort not to put myself in other people's shoes, or even in my own.

As for "neither" voting or marriage being rights: I'd be interested to see you argue that standpoint from legal precedent. Are you going to be dropping a manifesto at some point, by any chance?

How fucked is our education system that no one knows what rights are anymore?
If you aren't born with it it's not a fucking right. A commodity is not a fucking right. A religious ritual is not a fucking right.

The extent to which consciousness lies dormant when we are asleep does not negate it's existence. A sleeping person is still a person, and they have a moral claim to their life which affords them certain rights. I have yet to be convinced that the same can be said for the unborn, especially when weighted against the rights of the mother who is carrying them.

You're trying to weasel out of it. A sleeping person is not conscious. You said only conscious people are human. You are allowing me to murder people who are asleep.

 

[Freya]

Yeah, prolifers ultimately just want to use forced pregnancy and childbirth to punish women for percieved sexual sins. They think women are baby ovens instead of people, and some will openly admit this. They don't actually give a fuck about protecting children, if they did they'd want to make sure they get basic necessities like food and aren't forced to risk their lives giving birth to rape babies and shit. Or suffer unnecessarily from a terminal condition like trisomy or limb body wall complex.

not the best example, but i've been in a lot of forums, discord servers popuated by primarily right wingers that will talk about how abortion is baby killing one second and then make edgy rape jokes the next and talk about how benefits need to be slashed

Then there's the incels like the A&N crowd that are probably mad about abortion because it's proof women are having sex with men that aren't them.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Because there are many other ways to demonstrate that it is ontologically not the mother. DNA is just the simplest and most straightforward.
You're missing the forest for the trees. The DNA point is not actually about DNA.

I'm glad to see you finally concede that DNA is insufficient to define what it means to be a human being. Now would you please explain these "other" factors that you allude to? What distinguishes a fetus as a person in your estimation, now that we've dispelled with DNA?

Correct, and this is why compassion and empathy are terrible things to base your morality around. You are willing to abandon a moral principle the second it has negative consequences on someone's life. I am not. I am not willing to abandon a moral principle under any circumstances, no matter what effects it has on anything. If the entire human race went extinct from not murdering I would still not murder, and I would feel zero guilt about their deaths.

But you haven't explained the basis of your moral principles. If compassion and empathy is a bad standard to hold yourself to, then what is the ideal standard? You cannot separate a moral proposition from the values which precede it, and I have not seen you clarify what informs your values.

Human rights. Destroying someone's life is not wrong because I value their life. That's absurd. If I stop valuing their life does murder stop being wrong? Murder is wrong because you are taking and destroying what does not belong to you. Murder is wrong for the exact same reason robbery is wrong.

To those of us who value living in a law-governed society where every person has a right to life: yes, murder would still be wrong. In a broader sense, it is simply not possible to define right and wrong independent of values.

I've seen it with my eyes, and you're being silly if you suggest they meaningfully do. Have you ever had a coherent conversation with a baby?

I haven't, but I don't need to in order to clearly discern that an infant has a will to live; it's actions and behaviors are enough to tell me that. The same is not clearly true for the unborn.

I deliberately try to reason without a point of view at all. Or from the objective point of view of god. Points of view are bad. Anything they add is corruptive. You should purge them as much as possible. I deliberately, consciously make the effort not to put myself in other people's shoes, or even in my own.

Everyone has a point of view when it comes to moral questions, and to pretend otherwise is either dishonest, or deeply naïve. Morality is not something which can be unearthed by science, it is something which develops from earnest convictions. You and I obviously have different convictions, but I think I have a better grasp of what mine are.

How fucked is our education system that no one knows what rights are anymore?
If you aren't born with it it's not a fucking right. A commodity is not a fucking right. A religious ritual is not a fucking right.

The fact that you're apparently unaware of the distinction between positive and negative rights is potentially a very damning indictment of your education system, I agree.

You're trying to weasel out of it. A sleeping person is not conscious. You said only conscious people are human. You are allowing me to murder people who are asleep.

I said that our conscious experience is central to defining who we are as people, and a person's consciousness doesn't suddenly disappear when they fall asleep; it merely lays dormant. If you want to talk about brain death, then that's a different argument entirely.

 

[Eris!]

I'm glad to see you finally concede that DNA is insufficient to define what it means to be a human being. Now would you please explain these "other" factors that you allude to? What distinguishes a fetus as a person in your estimation, now that we've dispelled with DNA?

Being a human.

To those of us who value living in a law-governed society where every person has a right to life: yes, murder would still be wrong. In a broader sense, it is simply not possible to define right and wrong independent of values.

Of course it is possible. Right and wrong are not opinions, they are facts.

Morality is not something which can be unearthed by science, it is something which develops from earnest convictions.

In your logic, are those the only two possibilities? If nerds in a lab can't prove it it must be totally nonreal and subjective? No alternative to those two?

I haven't, but I don't need to in order to clearly discern that an infant has a will to live;

LMAO

The fact that you're apparently unaware of the distinction between positive and negative rights is potentially a very damning indictment of your education system, I agree.

The distinction is exactly what I'm explaining to you.

and a person's consciousness doesn't suddenly disappear when they fall asleep;

A sleeping person is not conscious. They are unconscious. They lack consciousness.

 

[Android raptor]

Spoiler: What precious miracles with their own DNA that no one should even think about aborting

Remember, according to people that want to ban abortion even for fetal abnormality (like the government of Poland), women should have no choice but to carry this shit to term.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Being a human.

Toenail clippings can be described as human; that doesn't make them a human being in their own right.

Of course it is possible. Right and wrong are not opinions, they are facts.

This simply isn't true. Facts are expressed as positive statements, whereas values are expressed as normative statements. Notions of right and wrong are normative concepts, and as such, they are fundamentally contingent upon values, not facts. There is no way to bridge the gap between facts and values without resolving the is-ought problem, and the fact that you don't seem to be aware of this problem would lead me to suspect that your knowledge of epistemology must be pretty tenuous.

In your logic, are those the only two possibilities? If nerds in a lab can't prove it it must be totally nonreal and subjective? No alternative to those two?

Morality is both subjective and objective, because while the values which morality depends upon are ultimately subjective, the conclusions which logically follow on from those values are not. The point I was making was that any moral argument you want to put forward always begins with values, and as such, it is beyond the scope of science; which only deals in facts. It is not possible to remain objective on matters of morality in the way that you can on matters of science.

The distinction is exactly what I'm explaining to you.

What needs to be explained? It appears to me that you flat out reject the idea that there can be such a thing as positive rights, and if that is indeed your position, we are very much in disagreement.

A sleeping person is not conscious. They are unconscious. They lack consciousness.

But a person's conscious identity doesn't go away when they fall asleep; it merely lies dormant. When a person wakes up the next morning, they are still the same person that they were the night before. That alone is proof that the existence of consciousness is not negated by sleep.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Spoiler: What precious miracles with their own DNA that no one should even think about aborting

View attachment 1694105
View attachment 1694108
View attachment 1694116
View attachment 1694121

Remember, according to people that want to ban abortion even for fetal abnormality (like the government of Poland), women should have no choice but to carry this shit to term.

A lot of A&Hers are incels that can't get laid and they want to punish women for having sex with men that aren't them. A lot also unironically want to ban birth control.

 

[Android raptor]

A lot of A&Hers are incels that can't get laid and they want to punish women for having sex with men that aren't them. A lot also unironically want to ban birth control.

Yeah I know a lot of the fundie brand of prolifers are the same way. The Catholic church makes no secret about how they also don't like birth control, and various brands of evangelical and Baptist and whatnot don't like it either. Some of my friends who were raised by crazy fundie parents have told me that they were told that taking birth control was the exact same thing as abortion, which is totally killing a baby. So if you took birth control you were also an evil baby killer.

I keep saying prolifers need to move to Yemen or some other country where women are treated like objects. Their views are more in line with that shit than any secular country.

 

[Eris!]

Toenail clippings can be described as human; that doesn't make them a human being in their own right.

Which human are they?

This simply isn't true. Facts are expressed as positive statements, whereas values are expressed as normative statements. Notions of right and wrong are normative concepts, and as such, they are fundamentally contingent upon values, not facts. There is no way to bridge the gap between facts and values without resolving the is-ought problem, and the fact that you don't seem to be aware of this problem would lead me to suspect that your knowledge of epistemology must be pretty tenuous.

"It is morally wrong to commit murder," is a fact. If every human believed it were false, it would still be true. It is no different from any other fact.
You abortionists literally cannot even find common ground with us on murder being wrong.

Morality is both subjective and objective, because while the values which morality depends upon are ultimately subjective, the conclusions which logically follow on from those values are not. The point I was making was that any moral argument you want to put forward always begins with values, and as such, it is beyond the scope of science; which only deals in facts. It is not possible to remain objective on matters of morality in the way that you can on matters of science.

This right here is why secular "morality" isn't morality. You have become so disconnected from dogma, so utterly poisoned by "BELIEVING YOU ARE RIGHT IS WRONG! EVERYTHING YOU SAY MUST BE RELATIVE, MUST HAVE 10 CAVEATS, AND CAN NEVER BE A DIFINITIVE STATEMENT! ALWAYS SAY IN MY OPINION!" liberalism, that you cannot even muster the rhetorical tools needed to say that murder is, in fact, wrong.

In the demented secular worldview, "right and wrong," are impossible to conceive concepts. Only an approximation of them is possible, "I want that to happen, I don't want that to happen." And worst of all, most people cannot tell that there is a difference. They will actually use morality to describe their preferences, with zero conception of what the word actually means. That is what you are doing right now.

It appears to me that you flat out reject the idea that there can be such a thing as positive rights,

If positive rights exist at all, (they don't) then a child most certainly has a positive right to his mother's womb.

A lot of A&Hers are incels that can't get laid and they want to punish women for having sex with men that aren't them. A lot also unironically want to ban birth control.

The only person who seems to view it as a punishment is you.

 

[haurchefant]

Bro have you ever met an infant? No they fuckin don't.

A two year old does not value its life. It does not value anything. It does not think, and can barely be described to meaningfully feel anything. It is not finished developing. It has no idea what the fuck is going on.

It occurs to me that maybe prolifers don't interact with children at all. Babies and two year olds are little people, they have personalities and preferences and sapient minds even if they're in the process of developing as the kids grow up. Trying to say that they don't value their own lives is absurd, and the idea that they can't think or feel is pants on head retarded. They learn to speak and walk and all that other mental development stuff specifically by thinking and they definitely have feelings.

But this is also the guy that's too retarded to understand the concept of devil's advocate.

@ other prolifers in the thread, I don't know what kind of positions you guys take, is it normal for y'all to think that babies and little children are incapable of valuing life and that they don't think or feel?

not the best example, but i've been in a lot of forums, discord servers popuated by primarily right wingers that will talk about how abortion is baby killing one second and then make edgy rape jokes the next and talk about how benefits need to be slashed

View attachment 1692807

Fun fact about rape apologist Rafal Gan Ganowicz, he sent a death threat to the mod Cosmos while he was getting assblasted in the MGTOW thread. He also tried to lodge fake domestic violence accusations at random users in that thread because he couldn't handle being owned for several pages in a row. Dipping into rape apologia is extremely on brand for incels and MGTOWs lol.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Just to set the record straight; I am fully in favour of a welfare state, however the state needs to go to great lengths to summarily execute at least the lowest 1% of the population every decade to secure the welfare indefinitely. Abortion should be made illegal with the mechanisms in place not only to take of the child, but the mother too. Children need fathers and mothers, but the state is the second best parent.

Fun fact about rape apologist Rafal Gan Ganowicz, he sent a death threat to the mod Cosmos while he was getting assblasted in the MGTOW thread. He also tried to lodge fake domestic violence accusations at random users in that thread because he couldn't handle being owned for several pages in a row. Dipping into rape apologia is extremely on brand for incels and MGTOWs lol.

lol, dumb bitch. This is the funniest thing I've read all day, and it's funny because it's true

 

[Eris!]

It occurs to me that maybe prolifers don't interact with children at all. Babies and two year olds are little people, they have personalities and preferences and sapient minds even if they're in the process of developing as the kids grow up. Trying to say that they don't value their own lives is absurd, and the idea that they can't think or feel is pants on head retarded. They learn to speak and walk and all that other mental development stuff specifically by thinking and they definitely have feelings.

I have two nephews. Until they were like four they were about as intelligent as a gerbil. If you waved a big thing in front of them they might look at it, they might not. As for survival instincts, lol, babies try to kill themselves every second of every day. You need to constantly watch them just to make sure they don't fucking shove a fork in a socket or slam their face into a sharp corner.

not the best example, but i've been in a lot of forums, discord servers popuated by primarily right wingers that will talk about how abortion is baby killing one second and then make edgy rape jokes the next and talk about how benefits need to be slashed

not the best example, but i've been in a lot of forums, discord servers popuated by primarily right wingers that will talk about how abortion is baby killing one second and then make edgy rape jokes the next and talk about how benefits need to be slashed

not the best example, but i've been in a lot of forums, discord servers popuated by primarily right wingers that will talk about how abortion is baby killing one second and then make edgy rape jokes the next and talk about how benefits need to be slashed

You are literally scraping the barrel at this point. You're even running out of bad faith arguments to try.

I have thoroughly murdered this thread by blowing everyone the fuck out. Everyone gave up.
I win. Abortion is murder, and none of you could even try to change my mind about it.
You literally could not make me doubt it even slightly. Not with all your blustering, all your bad arguments, not with anything. You could not make me feel one drop of cognitive dissonance. I know of no better proof that I am right than that you were unable to do this.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

I have thoroughly murdered this thread by blowing everyone the fuck out. Everyone gave up.
I win. Abortion is murder, and none of you could even try to change my mind about it.

Das rite

 

[Eris!]

Das rite

VICTORY TASTES SWEET
COME, BROTHER, BATHE WITH ME IN THE BLOOD OF OUR ENEMIES
AND LET US DISCUSS A CHURCH AND FAMILY BASED SOCIAL SAFETY NET THAT IS NOT CONSTRUCTED THROUGH NONCONSENSUAL TAXATION

 

[haurchefant]

I have two nephews. Until they were like four they were about as intelligent as a gerbil. If you waved a big thing in front of them they might look at it, they might not. As for survival instincts, lol, babies try to kill themselves every second of every day. You need to constantly watch them just to make sure they don't fucking shove a fork in a socket or slam their face into a sharp corner.


You are literally scraping the barrel at this point. You're even running out of bad faith arguments to try.

I have thoroughly murdered this thread by blowing everyone the fuck out. Everyone gave up.
I win. Abortion is murder, and none of you could even try to change my mind about it.
You literally could not make me doubt it even slightly. Not with all your blustering, all your bad arguments, not with anything. You could not make me feel one drop of cognitive dissonance. I know of no better proof that I am right than that you were unable to do this.

You are a retard, dude. You have two nephews but you're so out of touch with them that you didn't understand that they were expressing feelings and thoughts and preferences. By the time they are two years old they start having preferences about food, they've learned how to say "mama" and "papa" or whatever, they can pick and choose what toys to play with and even what books they want others to read to them.

They're not very smart but that's not the thesis. You said:

A two year old does not value its life. It does not value anything. It does not think, and can barely be described to meaningfully feel anything.

Anyone that has had contact with a two year old knows that this isn't true. Two years are balls of emotion, and they are in the process of learning how emotional regulation works, they're pulling information from the world and learning from it. They're old enough to pick and choose what they like, within their limited scope.

You are a retard and you have murdered nothing except yourself. You are so out of touch with your own family members that you don't know that your nephews knew the difference between the red and blue cars by the time they were two years old. When I crushed you on it, you panicked and moved the goal posts.

@ other prolifers, please tell me this retardation isn't normal in the prolife camp, there has to be some basic understanding of child development on your side if you're this desperate for children

 

[Eris!]

You are a retard, dude. You have two nephews but you're so out of touch with them that you didn't understand that they were expressing feelings and thoughts and preferences. By the time they are two years old they start having preferences about food, they've learned how to say "mama" and "papa" or whatever, they can pick and choose what toys to play with and even what books they want others to read to them.

My fucking dog can do that. Emotions are not consciousness.

Anyone that has had contact with a two year old knows that this isn't true. Two years are balls of emotion, and they are in the process of learning how emotional regulation works, they're pulling information from the world and learning from it. They're old enough to pick and choose what they like, within their limited scope.

No lmao

 

[haurchefant]

My fucking dog can do that. Emotions are not consciousness.


No lmao

this is what prolifers really think of small children? even I'm not that cold lol

 

[Eris!]

this is what prolifers really think of small children? even I'm not that cold lol

Imagine unironically arguing that babies have full sentience lmao

 

[ADHD]

Imagine unironically arguing that babies have full sentience lmao

Two year olds are not babies.