The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[haurchefant]

Imagine unironically arguing that babies have full sentience lmao

I never said that they did:

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

As per usual, you are desperately moving goal posts when someone starts pointing out that your arguments are shit. You tried to argue that

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.

This is just farcically untrue. A two year old child is by their nature incredibly limited, they are only just learning about the world after all. But by the time they're two years old they're developing concepts like their own individuality, being a separate entity from their parents, all that stuff. That might not be full sentience but I never argued that they were.

You tried to insist that they don't think and that they don't have feelings, that two year old children are emotionless robots, and not only is that retarded and insane, it's absolutely not true. A two year old can talk, which is the biggest indicator of an independent intelligence.

Christ. Prolifers are dumb if they're really like this

 

[Eris!]

This is just farcically untrue. A two year old child is by their nature incredibly limited, they are only just learning about the world after all. But by the time they're two years old they're developing concepts like their own individuality, being a separate entity from their parents, all that stuff. That might not be full sentience but I never argued that they were.

A well known symptom of autism is an inability to read things like substext or rhetorical exaggeration and a frustration when literal interpretations turn out to not be correct.

A two year old is a bumbling retard who might, maybe, respond if you say its name. Or he'll bash his brain into a coffee table and fucking die. They are not conscious in any meaningful way, no more than an animal is. In fact, until they are about three or four, they are generally dumber than an adult dog is.

You tried to insist that they don't think and that they don't have feelings, that two year old children are emotionless robots, and not only is that retarded and insane, it's absolutely not true. A two year old can talk, which is the biggest indicator of an independent intelligence.

They absolutely don't think lmao. Most humans don't really figure that out until their 20s.

If you want to argue that rights are dependent on meaningful consciousness, then only well educated landowning white men should vote because everyone else is an NPC.

 

[ADHD]

A well known symptom of autism is an inability to read things like substext or rhetorical exaggeration and a frustration when literal interpretations turn out to not be correct.

Another symptom of autism is the inability to see nuance.

 

[Eris!]

Another symptom of autism is the inability to see nuance.

"Nuance" is just the god of the gaps to explain away your cognitive dissonance. It appears only from ignorance. Anything properly understood is simple.

Two year olds are not babies.

17 year olds are babies.

 

[haurchefant]

A well known symptom of autism is an inability to read things like substext or rhetorical exaggeration and a frustration when literal interpretations turn out to not be correct.

A two year old is a bumbling retard who might, maybe, respond if you say its name. Or he'll bash his brain into a coffee table and fucking die. They are not conscious in any meaningful way, no more than an animal is. In fact, until they are about three or four, they are generally dumber than an adult dog is.


They absolutely don't think lmao. Most humans don't really figure that out until their 20s.

Generally children that age only damage themselves through accidents and mishaps, and once they've hurt themselves once, they learn from the experience. That's just childhood in a nutshell though. Two year olds are old enough to remember their names and generally respond to them (though its not called the Terrible Twos for nothing, stubborness also sets in at that age. At two years old a child will start boundary testing for the first time.)

A two year old is a human person with a consciousness. Just because that consciousness is still in early development doesn't mean it isn't there. You can deny it all you like, but come on, if you're going to deny that two year old doesn't have a consciousness then you might as well be in favor of post-birth infanticide anyway.

You don't know jackshit about children and you clearly never spent much time around your relatives at that age.

"Nuance" is just the god of the gaps to explain away your cognitive dissonance. It appears only from ignorance. Anything properly understood is simple.

See? Retard.

17 year olds are babies.

And an inability to process developmental milestones and what they mean.

 

[Eris!]

Generally children that age only damage themselves through accidents and mishaps, and once they've hurt themselves once, they learn from the experience. That's just childhood in a nutshell though. Two year olds are old enough to remember their names and generally respond to them (though its not called the Terrible Twos for nothing, stubborness also sets in at that age. At two years old a child will start boundary testing for the first time.)

LOL

A two year old is a human person with a consciousness.

LOL

You can deny it all you like, but come on, if you're going to deny that two year old doesn't have a consciousness then you might as well be in favor of post-birth infanticide anyway.

Or I could recognize that consciousness is not relevant and that murdering the unconscious is just as evil.

And an inability to process developmental milestones and what they mean.

They mean nothing of any relevance to whether or not murder is immoral.
I could literally not know human beings develop AT ALL and it would not make me any less right, because it's not fucking relevant.

 

[haurchefant]

LOL

LOL

Or I could recognize that consciousness is not relevant and that murdering the unconscious is just as evil.

They mean nothing of any relevance to whether or not murder is immoral.
I could literally not know human beings develop AT ALL and it would not make me any less right, because it's not fucking relevant.

So you're unable to create any argument to support the idea that young children "don't have consciousness or feelings." Well at least you're consistent with the rest of your non-arguments

 

[Eris!]

So you're unable to create any argument to support the idea that young children "don't have consciousness or feelings." Well at least you're consistent with the rest of your non-arguments

They don't lmao

 

[Android raptor]

Whether fetuses are concious or not is irrelevant to the fact that they, and even actual born people, don't have the right to use someone else's body without permission. Women are in fact people and have the right to bodily autonomy, and that means they don't have to allow anyone or anything to use their body if they don't want it. You can't force someone to give up a kidney or blood for the same reason.

That said I know there are plenty of people who disagree with the idea of women being people deserving of bodily autonomy thing, and to ya'll I again encourage you to move to Yemen or some other Islamic extremist shithole since your views of women and girls are on that level.

 

[Muh Vagina]

Imagine unironically arguing that babies have full sentience lmao

They do. Both scientists and philosophers agree on this. Sentience is the ability to perceive or feel. Even the very youngest newborns have that ability. Ask any parent on this forum and they'll tell you that their babies had different cries for different situations. That's sentience, kiddo.

EDIT: here's an artist's rendering of Erischan and the other pro-life spergs: https://youtu.be/HlP7n9Amakw

Sorry, can't imbed for some reason

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

"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.

What I can't find common ground with you on is the definitions of the terms you're using, and I've already explained to you in detail the nature of our disagreement. What you're apparently unable to do is provide a persuasive argument for why my reasoning is mistaken.

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.

If you want a moral system which is defined by dogma rather than reason, then what you will ultimately end up with is one which increasingly positions itself against the needs of humanity, and ultimately, civilization itself.

There is no shortage of religious zealots who favor such an approach, and it tends to lead to edicts which call for things like execution for blasphemy and apostasy, stoning for adultary, cruelty directed towards misunderstood members of society, and the support of mob-based violence against anyone who dares to commit such a trivial indiscretion as drawing a cartoon or publishing a novel.

Would you seriously favor that over a secular, reasoned approach to morality? Because I certainly wouldn't, and if you're going to insist upon a non-secular approach to abortion, you're likely going to lose anyway, because the holy books of just about every major faith do not clearly condemn abortion.

I have thoroughly murdered this thread by blowing everyone the fuck out. Everyone gave up.

People are giving up on you because you're an ideologue who isn't capable of having a serious discussion, not because your arguments are impossible to refute.

Throughout my interactions with you, on my end, the discussion ranged from topics such as law, to the balancing of legal rights, to psychology, to embryology and fetal development, to bioethics, to epistemology, to ontology, to the impact on society, to human empathy, etc. On your end, the discussion has essentially just boiled down to "abortion is wrong because it's murder", with any compelling argument to the contrary being dismissed offhand.

It's a waste of time to try to debate with someone who either doesn't understand the contentions of the debate, or doesn't want to.

 

[Eris!]

What I can't find common ground with you on is the definitions of the terms you're using, and I've already explained to you in detail the nature of our disagreement. What you're apparently unable to do is provide a persuasive argument for why my reasoning is mistaken.

You fundamentally do not understand the world or the nature of truth at its most basic level if you are literally incapable of thinking without relativism or self-assigned values.
Why would I try to persuade you when my central thesis is that you already agree with me and are merely pretending otherwise?

If you want a moral system which is defined by dogma rather than reason, then what you will ultimately end up with is one which increasingly positions itself against the needs of humanity, and ultimately, civilization itself.

What I "want" is irrelevant. We have such a system already, it's called morality. It frequently positions itself against the needs of humanity and civilization, and it has every right to do so. Civilization would be a lot easier if we could murder, rape, and steal as we wished and there was nothing wrong with it. But there IS something wrong with it. Morality holds us back. That is not a reason to abandon morality. It is a reason to embrace restraint.

Morality is important in an objective sense. Humanity's wellbeing is not.

There is no shortage of religious zealots who favor such an approach, and it tends to lead to edicts which call for things like execution for blasphemy and apostasy, stoning for adultary, cruelty directed towards misunderstood members of society, and the support of mob-based violence against anyone who dares to commit such a trivial indiscretion as drawing a cartoon or publishing a novel.

Fedora tipping is not an argument.

Would you seriously favor that over a secular, reasoned approach to morality?

There is no such thing as a "secular, reasoned approach to morality." What you are describing is not morality, it is pragmatic interpersonal relationship management. What you are describing is trying to manipulate others into treating you well by treating others well. What I am describing is right and wrong. They are not the same thing. When you gain the skills and vocabulary needed to understand what morality is and discuss it, please let me know.

Because I certainly wouldn't, and if you're going to insist upon a non-secular approach to abortion, you're likely going to lose anyway, because the holy books of just about every major faith do not clearly condemn abortion.

I do.

People are giving up on you because you're an ideologue who isn't capable of having a serious discussion, not because your arguments are impossible to refute.

I am one of the only people in this thread having a serious discussion. The fact that you have no ideology or beliefs is a character flaw on your part.

Throughout my interactions with you, on my end, the discussion ranged from topics such as law, to the balancing of legal rights, to psychology, to embryology and fetal development, to bioethics, to epistemology, to ontology, to the impact on society, to human empathy, etc. On your end, the discussion has essentially just boiled down to "abortion is wrong because it's murder", with any compelling argument to the contrary being dismissed offhand.

Yes, my end stays focused on the singular issue at hand and your end desperately reaches for any irrelevancy it can find to cast nuance and doubt on the obvious: Murdering your infant in the womb is wrong.
No compelling argument to the contrary even exists to be dismissed. Your "arguments" are not compelling, they are irrelevant.

It's a waste of time to try to debate with someone who either doesn't understand the contentions of the debate, or doesn't want to.

I understand the contentions of the debate very clearly. You do not.

 

[Brahma]

I don't

Most pro-life people are evangelical fundies who don't give a shit about the fetus once it's born. They don't give a shit that it'd be given a life of suffering, poverty or poorness. They think forcing the woman to have a baby, even if that baby would live a horrible life, is good to punish her for daring to have sex. Then you have autists like @Erischan who want to take away the choice but then claim they aren't forcing the woman to have the baby because they're autistic and don't realize that taking away choices is indeed forcing things.

I don't give a fuck about some drug addled child murderer on death row either, bit I don't think he should be executed by the state. Do I have to promise to house him and give him a job and let him work out his sexual emergencies on my kids just to hold the position he shouldn't be murdered by the state?


How about afghani weddings? Is there a checklist of things I have to be willing to do in order to take the position they shouldn't be drone striked?


Now your argument is probably going to be that that involves "people" and it's different because reasons. What choicers seem to never be willing to acknowledge is that lifers think the unborn are people too.

 

[Muh Vagina]

Just leaving this here: https://www.the-sun.com/news/1703566/girl-dies-giving-birth-to-baby-rapist-attacked-nine/

 

[Lemmingwise]

Look at all these clumps of cells

don't have the right to use someone else's body without permission

I guess they forgot to ask permission and pay rent for their residence. Bunch of freeloading nogood clumps of cells.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Why would I try to persuade you when my central thesis is that you already agree with me and are merely pretending otherwise?

You wouldn't, but that's precisely what makes you incapable of having a serious or honest discussion. People who argue in good faith don't start from the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them must be being disingenuous.

What I "want" is irrelevant. We have such a system already, it's called morality. It frequently positions itself against the needs of humanity and civilization, and it has every right to do so. Civilization would be a lot easier if we could murder, rape, and steal as we wished and there was nothing wrong with it. But there IS something wrong with it. Morality holds us back. That is not a reason to abandon morality. It is a reason to embrace restraint.

A society which allowed murder, rape, and theft would never be capable of becoming a civilization, and that's precisely the point I was trying to get you to understand. Cultures can only progress when they give themselves enough room to innovate, and that always begins with being open to new ideas and evidence. Morality does not hold us back; on the contrary, morality is arguably the central quality of civilization. The crucial difference between my approach to morality and yours is that I start from the belief that morality ought to make sense, because morality serves a purpose; it does not exist for it's own sake.

Now, the question I would like you to ask yourself is this: when you look around at the world today, which societies are generally more civilized: those which outlaw abortion and deny women the right to terminate their pregnancy, or those which grant women the power to make decisions over their own body? Once you have come up with the answer to this question, consider the reasons why.

Fedora tipping is not an argument.

Neither is blind dismissiveness, and frankly, if your conception of religion does not extend beyond rigid fundamentalism, then your view of religiosity is arguably more negative than mine is. There is no shortage of theologians and religious thinkers throughout history who favor the kind of reasoned approach to morality which I have been advocating here: such as Thomas Aquinas, and Ibn Rushd; arguably two of the most important figures within their respective religious canons.

The fact remains that if you're going to try to defend the pro-life stance on the grounds of religious precedent, then you are going to lose the argument, because the scriptures do not clearly condemn abortion, and up until about the 19th century, neither did most religious scholars.

There is no such thing as a "secular, reasoned approach to morality." What you are describing is not morality, it is pragmatic interpersonal relationship management. What you are describing is trying to manipulate others into treating you well by treating others well. What I am describing is right and wrong. They are not the same thing. When you gain the skills and vocabulary needed to understand what morality is and discuss it, please let me know.

You haven't been describing right and wrong at all, you've been making bald assertions about right and wrong, and then hoping that people won't notice when you don't show your working. My argument is no less about right and wrong; the difference is that I have a solid grasp of the values which inform my definitions of the terms.

I am one of the only people in this thread having a serious discussion. The fact that you have no ideology or beliefs is a character flaw on your part.

I very clearly do have an ideology; the difference is that I'm not an ideologue, like you.

I understand the contentions of the debate very clearly. You do not.

You don't even understand the difference between a child and an embryo. You don't think children possess the will to live.

 

[Str8Bustah]

The fact remains that if you're going to try to defend the pro-life stance on the grounds of religious precedent, then you are going to lose the argument, because the scriptures do not clearly condemn abortion, and up until about the 19th century, neither did most religious scholars.

non-denominationals shouldn't be talking about the christian faith like they actually know anything about it at all lmao. you probably think that there's no fundamental difference between the anglican church and the roman catholic church.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

non-denominationals shouldn't be talking about the christian faith like they actually know anything about it at all lmao. you probably think that there's no fundamental difference between the anglican church and the roman catholic church.

On the contrary, I recognize the differences of opinion which exist between different Christian denominations on the subject of abortion. It's the pro-life camp who like to pretend that these differences don't matter and that Christianity as a whole takes a firm line on the subject; which it clearly doesn't, and hasn't historically.

 

[Str8Bustah]

On the contrary, I recognize the differences of opinion which exist between different Christian denominations on the subject of abortion. It's the pro-life camp who like to pretend that these differences don't matter and that Christianity as a whole takes a firm line on the subject; which it clearly doesn't, and hasn't historically.

ok lol

 

[ADHD]

Look at all these clumps of cells

What's the context to that video for people who don't want to click on something like that without an idea of what they'll see?