- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
I'm watching someone work themselves into an anal fixation before my very eyes.
This thread is fucking wild.
The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.
- Thread starter Sweetpeaa
- Start date
This thread is fucking wild.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
Can't lie, I was a bit of a fujo in my cringy middle school weeb days.
Those were dark times.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
Sriracha
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2020
So did Naruto keep Sasuke's ass-baby or did he abort it because they didn't want to bring the baby into a world full of ninja on ninja violence?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
Pretty convenient to use the psychosis excuse when you're basicly sitting here and planning the murder if you somehow forgot to abort.
Multiple reasons, but the reason I'm in threads like these is to organize my thoughts.
For example, I used to be pro choice until I realized all my arguments rested on convenience and irresponsibility due to talking about it on online forums. And I liked the 100 embryo vs 1 baby question, because it made me realize I don't quite consider them quite on the same level (even if I consider them more than "parasites).
I kinda like losing an argument. Each time it means I was building on shaky ground and I've learned something.
Besides, I wouldn't call anonymous forums to be "associating". It's just something to blow off steam and I like it.
Aww shit, does this mean the wedding is off?
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
Amazingly enough I was never a Naruto weeb, i was more into shit like Cowboy Bebop, UC Gundam, Trigun, Yami no Matsui, and Rurouni Kenshin. I never was into mpreg thank god, but I remember reading some particularly baffling examples for sheer WTF value.
I think the best I ever found was a fic on deviantART about mpreg Joseph Mengele having an anal miscarriage and angsting about it. And yes, the author intended for it to be a serious story.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
I'm about quarter in to reading the whole roe v. wade constitutional case.
One of the interesting things is that they delve into historical "ancient" perspective, including greek, roman and persian views on abortion.
Romans are depicted as mostly having a relaxed attitude toward abortion, and only in rare instance it being a problem (and then as a crime against the patriarch).
What I didn't know is that the hippocratic oath includes a defense against abortion. It can be translated as such:
Hippocrates was part of the pythagorean school of philosophy, which was, according to roe v. wade, more anti-abortion than the rest of greece. I wonder if that's true? Does anyone know more about this?
-----
It also goes into the history since. Taking from Arsitotlean view, babies were thought to "quicken" at 40 days for males and 80 for females. Early christians too believed this and Augustine concluded that we did not exactly know when the soul entered the human fetus, but it was probably at around that point. This idea remained uncontested, according to roe v. wade, until the 19th century. Any type of abortion before 40 days was considered a woman doing with her body as she wished.
I'm curious to hear from other pro-life folk if this changes anything about their views, if it causes them to think. I'm curious about anyone who's studied this in more depth, if these alleged facts about historic beliefs and social attitudes are accurate.
---
It's also interesting that it was a class action lawsuit, with the John and Jane Doe seemingly being repelled, because their case was altogether too hypothetical ("if contraception fails, if they get pregnant, if they don't have the means to take care of the child"). It kinda reminded me of someone in this thread, with the exception of there being regular heterosexual sex. It was also due to mental instability of the woman.
---
Finally I'd like to ask the pro-choicers in this thread: if the limit for abortion was set at 80 days, would you have a problem with that? Why?
One of the interesting things is that they delve into historical "ancient" perspective, including greek, roman and persian views on abortion.
Romans are depicted as mostly having a relaxed attitude toward abortion, and only in rare instance it being a problem (and then as a crime against the patriarch).
What I didn't know is that the hippocratic oath includes a defense against abortion. It can be translated as such:
Hippocrates was part of the pythagorean school of philosophy, which was, according to roe v. wade, more anti-abortion than the rest of greece. I wonder if that's true? Does anyone know more about this?
-----
It also goes into the history since. Taking from Arsitotlean view, babies were thought to "quicken" at 40 days for males and 80 for females. Early christians too believed this and Augustine concluded that we did not exactly know when the soul entered the human fetus, but it was probably at around that point. This idea remained uncontested, according to roe v. wade, until the 19th century. Any type of abortion before 40 days was considered a woman doing with her body as she wished.
I'm curious to hear from other pro-life folk if this changes anything about their views, if it causes them to think. I'm curious about anyone who's studied this in more depth, if these alleged facts about historic beliefs and social attitudes are accurate.
---
It's also interesting that it was a class action lawsuit, with the John and Jane Doe seemingly being repelled, because their case was altogether too hypothetical ("if contraception fails, if they get pregnant, if they don't have the means to take care of the child"). It kinda reminded me of someone in this thread, with the exception of there being regular heterosexual sex. It was also due to mental instability of the woman.
---
Finally I'd like to ask the pro-choicers in this thread: if the limit for abortion was set at 80 days, would you have a problem with that? Why?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2017
This is my first time hearing about it. That said, as for whether or not it changes my views, the answer is no. This whole "quickening" thing has no basis in scientific or biblical fact, so it means little to me.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
The Mosaic punishment for injuring a pregnant woman who miscarries anytime afterwards doesn't mention quickening. As for the early Christians, it's worth noting that referencing Augustine in isolation is improper.
Augustine is a great writer, theologian, and philosopher. His life is great inspiration for Christians and he is, as far as I can tell, rightfully canonized in both western and eastern Christianity. On the other hand, Augustine was not only a bishop in the western Church (which favored a practically juridicial flavor of rigidity, enumeration, and codification much more than the eastern Churches), he was a bishop in North Africa (which was especially fond of rigidity, to the point that it was embroiled in a struggle with those who were bold enough to assert that God would not forgive those who had a moment of weakness against the Empire and that any clergyman who had such a thing rendered the sacraments they administered powerless-- should be noted that he fought against this heresy). Of course, the distance from the major hubs of Christian thought made the western Church a good retainer of orthodox doctrine for a long while, but in conjunction with everything else I mentioned, it increased the production of arguably weird-- though not necessarily heretical-- theologies.
A great example of this is "original sin"-- Eastern churches have asserted that the guilt of sin was purely Adam's and what is inherited is a fallen human nature (should be noted that this is also what the Jews, seemingly regardless of sect, believed and continue to believe). In contrast, with Augustine being the most known proponent if not the progenitor of the codification of the concept, the western Church has asserted that man inherits the sin guilt of Adam and that is why we die.
Now, Augustine's teaching on original sin, despite it being different from the Eastern conception, wasn't ever considered something worth debate, let alone schism-- at least, outside the Pelagian controversy, where it was posed in response to the idea that man's nature is not tainted and he can achieve purification without divine grace. For all intents and purposes, therefore, one could consider the Eastern and Western views of original sin compatible and perhaps complimentary in their focuses. Augustine's doctrine on original sin was also upheld in multiple regional pre-schism councils (in the western Church, mind you), though there were elements (e.g. that the sin guilt of infants condemned them to hell, presumably without the cleansing of baptism) that were omitted by said councils.
This is all to say that, when examining the Church in history, rather than looking solely at a particular Church Father, you have to look at how dialogue that the subject has with the rest of the Church as well as how Church itself moves as a community-- i.e. in its councils and trends, because individual Church Fathers can be imprecise or flat out wrong and they presumably would have accepted being told that they were wrong. We don't hyperfocus on Athanasius or the Cappadocian Fathers or Maximus the Confessor in the way that we do Augustine, and anyone citing Gregory of Nyssa in defense of universalism deserves to be laughed at because he's just about the only Church Father who espoused the idea (unless you count the uncanonized and arguably unfairly posthumously condemned Origen, of whom Gregory of Nyssa-- and much of the Eastern Church in his time, really-- had great respect for).
The reason why Augustine is seen as the voice of the early Church in the West is because the West is overwhelmingly Protestant and Catholic, the Catholics are largely influenced and intellectually bound by Protestant activity despite their differences (see former Catholics talking about Catholicism as though it were another Protestant sect), and Protestant Reformers were massive nerds but distance and language barriers meant they didn't know a damn thing about the Eastern Church that the Western Church had drifted away from since about 500 years prior. That, and they were massive fans of Augustine, to begin with.
A great example of this is "original sin"-- Eastern churches have asserted that the guilt of sin was purely Adam's and what is inherited is a fallen human nature (should be noted that this is also what the Jews, seemingly regardless of sect, believed and continue to believe). In contrast, with Augustine being the most known proponent if not the progenitor of the codification of the concept, the western Church has asserted that man inherits the sin guilt of Adam and that is why we die.
Now, Augustine's teaching on original sin, despite it being different from the Eastern conception, wasn't ever considered something worth debate, let alone schism-- at least, outside the Pelagian controversy, where it was posed in response to the idea that man's nature is not tainted and he can achieve purification without divine grace. For all intents and purposes, therefore, one could consider the Eastern and Western views of original sin compatible and perhaps complimentary in their focuses. Augustine's doctrine on original sin was also upheld in multiple regional pre-schism councils (in the western Church, mind you), though there were elements (e.g. that the sin guilt of infants condemned them to hell, presumably without the cleansing of baptism) that were omitted by said councils.
This is all to say that, when examining the Church in history, rather than looking solely at a particular Church Father, you have to look at how dialogue that the subject has with the rest of the Church as well as how Church itself moves as a community-- i.e. in its councils and trends, because individual Church Fathers can be imprecise or flat out wrong and they presumably would have accepted being told that they were wrong. We don't hyperfocus on Athanasius or the Cappadocian Fathers or Maximus the Confessor in the way that we do Augustine, and anyone citing Gregory of Nyssa in defense of universalism deserves to be laughed at because he's just about the only Church Father who espoused the idea (unless you count the uncanonized and arguably unfairly posthumously condemned Origen, of whom Gregory of Nyssa-- and much of the Eastern Church in his time, really-- had great respect for).
The reason why Augustine is seen as the voice of the early Church in the West is because the West is overwhelmingly Protestant and Catholic, the Catholics are largely influenced and intellectually bound by Protestant activity despite their differences (see former Catholics talking about Catholicism as though it were another Protestant sect), and Protestant Reformers were massive nerds but distance and language barriers meant they didn't know a damn thing about the Eastern Church that the Western Church had drifted away from since about 500 years prior. That, and they were massive fans of Augustine, to begin with.
tl;dr there are several Church Fathers and the only reason the West is so keen on Augustine is because they're ignorant (and I mean that in the most neutral way) and don't know any other Church Father and also because the Reformers were ignorant (again, neutral) Augustine fanboys that effectively didn't know or care about about any other Church Father either
With that said, the Church itself had been united in its condemnation of abortion, while also taking in abandoned children and being moved to establish the first orphanages. The Didache squarely condemns it, as does the Epistle of Barnabas and a number of other apocryphal writings. Tertullian (an uncanonized Church Father) condemns it except in cases where active risk is posed to the mother due to its positioning, and other (canonized) Church Fathers such as Athenagoras and Basil of Caesarea condemn it flatly. In the Synod of Elvira (contentious for its condemnation of iconography, but otherwise accepted), they state that a woman who procures an abortion will only be given the Eucharist if they're dying, and an adjacent synod was more lax with what I believe was a 10-year penitentiary period (the point is that they regard the act worthy of excommunication in the first place). While Constantine relaxed laws condemning abortion out of consideration for the poor, it was outlawed in the Roman Empire after him. At the very best, among any prolific Christian writer, you may have it said that it's still evil even if it isn't technically murder.
Samson Pumpkin Jr.
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2020
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
There is a fair amount of study into the psychological effects on the mother of an abortion. It turns out it's a little bit difficult to get over killing your own child.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2018
Where did you get your information? Liberty University?
99% of women who choose abortion have zero regrets
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2020
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
>
>across 21 states
>no discussion about the distribution of results by state (despite mention of ethnic breakdown)
>"...29 percent felt either mixed or negative about their abortions within a week of ending their pregnancies."
>>according to the article this is supposedly because of how the community makes them feel about it
>>no mention of whether they have multiple motivations for what they feel, including societal pressure
>>no discussion of any relevant cultural markers (e.g. religion, urban/rural residence)
>the reporting on the emotional states is inconsistent (the categorical breakdown is "mostly positive", "few to no emotions"(???) and "mixed to negative"(???)
>"At the 5-year mark, 84 percent of women reported feeling positive or nothing whatsoever about their abortion decision."
>>in an article headlining with "99% of Women Say They Feel Relief, Not Regret, 5 Years After Having an Abortion"
>this article can't even keep its own story straight
>and you decided to cite it anyways
I'm curious about the studies @Nom Carver is referring to (though it's all drops in the bucket in the grandness of the topic), but I can't imagine they can be any worse than what you've put on the table.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
These two articles specifically come to mind. I remember reading through these about a year ago
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2018
This goes into more detail
The author of that first study is a Catholic anti-abortion activist. His work has been debunked by the American Psychological Association. Is this a joke?
And it's a wee bit hypocritical to tard rage about the sample size in the study I linked when the sample size for the Tehran study is 278 women. And how many of those abortions were the choice of the pregnant woman? It's fucking Iraq! Other studies have also shown that the small percentage of American women who do experience negative mental health issues after abortion are from communities where abortion is stigmatized. It's hugely stigmatized in the Muslim world.
Nice try.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
You're giving me a talk show segment that reports that the results from 1,000 (not 667) surveys across an undiscussed number of states demonstrate that 95% (not 99%, or 84%) of women report no regrets after 10 years (not 5). The talk show segment has even more deficiencies than the ones I brought up earlier in regards to the Healthline article and is somehow inconsistent with the details of said article (and the linked study) despite one of the authors of said study participating in the interview, so clearly you're not reading what you're linking to.
Meanwhile, you're crapping on the other guy for giving you a study from an anti-abortion activist that you claim was debunked by the same APA that legitimizes fucking up-- for a lack of a better term-- growing children's bodies with "puberty suppressors".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2019
I hate abortion. It's pure evil.
I have heard countless stories of sibling guilt and father who have tried over losing their children.
Women do suffer trauma after aborting their children, like it or not. You can't just rip the most primal human need out of you and expect to be fine. I have read blogs of women who have aborted their children and have reported that the guilt starts to consume them. I have read how one woman went mad and started to hear baby cries in her flat as the guilt rotted her from the inside and out.
I find it amusing that people who want to defend abortions will never likely have one themselves. It's not something you do for fun and you certainly would not suggest your love one to have one out of thrill seeking. Hell, even rape victims who fall pregnant are less likely to be suicidal when they keep their baby.
If you believe abortion is good or necessary, you have fallen for the meme. The meme that women would be much happier paying taxes and wasting their lives servicing an office and her CEO master than raising children
I have heard countless stories of sibling guilt and father who have tried over losing their children.
Women do suffer trauma after aborting their children, like it or not. You can't just rip the most primal human need out of you and expect to be fine. I have read blogs of women who have aborted their children and have reported that the guilt starts to consume them. I have read how one woman went mad and started to hear baby cries in her flat as the guilt rotted her from the inside and out.
I find it amusing that people who want to defend abortions will never likely have one themselves. It's not something you do for fun and you certainly would not suggest your love one to have one out of thrill seeking. Hell, even rape victims who fall pregnant are less likely to be suicidal when they keep their baby.
If you believe abortion is good or necessary, you have fallen for the meme. The meme that women would be much happier paying taxes and wasting their lives servicing an office and her CEO master than raising children
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
So if you were anesthetized or otherwise rendered unconscious it would be okay to kill you?
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2019
So do unborn children. The have been scans showing unborn children literally trying to get away from the utensils used to kill them.
The heart starts to beat at six weeks and the nerve system (the spine) is developing FOUR WEEKS after conception. They feel pain.