Abortion is good. - While bad for the family, it's ultimately positive for society.

Jive said:
t's not a valid opinion because the premise of my argument is centered around a situation where a baby is already expected. You can tell a pregnant woman she shouldn't have gotten pregnant but hind sight is 20/20, what next? I agree it should not be used as contraception though. Preferably, there wouldn't be unwanted pregnancies, but it just keeps happening so we have to discuss the issue honestly.
Click to expand...
Yeah unfortuneately there are some people who are so irresponsible that they shouldn't procreate PERIOD! if a guy is too irresponsible to wear a condom or their mother is too irresponsible to take a pill or take a needle, or get a little metal piece so they don't get pregnant, then how do they think they are going to fare with a screaming shit machine that they are responsible for 24/7?

Jive said:
Why should I have to pay for random women's unwanted children for a chance that they may grow out of their shit situation? Let the parent take responsibility for it's mistake and remove the social ill of an unwanted child.
Click to expand...
We pay for walking handjobs that parents still manage to fuck up and let loose on our society and fill up the prison system, and shitty paents filling up the foster system with their semen demons. people who DO want children and did have children. The only difference is that the parents who didn't want a child or realize they can't properly care for one are far more likely to put the kid up for adoption and put them in a home that can.
Jive said:
That's fair, to be honest. But regardless of the reason a child is unwanted it will grow up to be unloved. It's a major issue to allow a class of people with a chip on their shoulder for the hope they'll grow out of it. Even if the woman was irresponsible, if the alternative is to be left a single mother and fuck up the child, it's the responsible position to elect to abort it.
Click to expand...
That is untrue. just because a child is unwanted initially, it doesn't mean it will grow up unloved. i know people who were unwanted kids, and they grew up loved and with good parents just the same, and parents who wanted kids and fell out of love with their kids after having them and straight up abandoned them or ended up getting raised by their grandparents. Its not as black and white as it may seem, because that would imply that everybody has the same morals and character. there are also people who wanted to be parents that i wouldn't trust to take care of a pet rock, or just expect the state to take care of them. these are the parents i worry about the most, and guess what? hey aren't the ones who are getting abortions. as a matter of fact, some of them go out and have more kids.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Jive, SofondaCox and Dasjas Watanid Tabas
I genuinely do not understand how can you get so bent and spergy on abortion if you're not a woman or if you don't plan on having kids. IMO most people involved in debating abortion are retarded and should've been aborted.
That said:
1. No, abortion isn't murder, largely.
2. Some people should never be allowed to have kids.
3. Some should get sterilised.
4. If shit people procreate, take their kids away and have them raised by the state or by adoptive couples.
 
  • Dumb
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Toji Suzuhara, Space Police, Mad_Dog and 8 others
My dear departed mum, a lover of crack cocaine and 'Old Milwaukee' canned beer, had eight children. She did not
suffer from those choices, but we sure did, and now your society suffers from the choices, due to our criminality and
mental health issues. Because we're here, 'innocent' people have died untimely deaths, children have been traumatized,
and the breeding continues. What was allowed to occur was cruel, pointless, and wasteful. You wouldn't drop a puppy
in that situation. EIGHT people with untreated reactive attachment disorders, which means eight BPD and/or ASPD
adults. Very expensive and unpredictable situations blow up around these people from out of nothing all the time.

You'd worry about a goldfish in her care. Why, why, why, would you fight to propagate her genetics?

Help me understand. I'm not mad at anybody, but I don't understand how you can't see where your militant 'life at all cost'
stance leads. Entire prisons would close down if we stopped creating unwanted lives. We'd need half the social workers,
half the foster homes, half the probation officers, half the cops, half the section 8 housing, have you thought this through?
Don't you want a healthier, safer society? Don't you want the money wasted controlling people who refuse to control
themselves spent improving the educations and outcomes of people who have a chance at integrating into society? Think
of the waves of misery you prevent. Are you aware of the overrepresentation of adopted children in violent crime and
parricide? This is absolutely the result of attachment disorders.

(If you think this is a powerlevel eat my twat, it's old news, and it has no power)
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Janusz z Gliwic, Mr. 305, Dasjas Watanid Tabas and 6 others
Dasjas Watanid Tabas said:
I genuinely do not understand how can you get so bent and spergy on abortion if you're not a woman or if you don't plan on having kids. IMO most people involved in debating abortion are retarded and should've been aborted.
That said:
1. No, abortion isn't murder, largely.
2. Some people should never be allowed to have kids.
3. Some should get sterilised.
4. If shit people procreate, take their kids away and have them raised by the state or by adoptive couples.
Click to expand...
Why would you get bent if you are a victim ?
1. Murdering you isn't really a murder. You are classified as a chat bot.
2. Your parents weren't allowed to have you
3. You should get sterilized
4. Observe number 2
Are you upset?
 
  • Autistic
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Dasjas Watanid Tabas and 666NASTYFUCKINGFREAK666
Dasjas Watanid Tabas said:
I genuinely do not understand how can you get so bent and spergy on abortion if you're not a woman or if you don't plan on having kids. IMO most people involved in debating abortion are retarded and should've been aborted.
Click to expand...
Especially when abortions are elective. Its not like the people who don't like it are being forced into having abortions. If you don't agree with the practice then don't participate but the benefits of allowing them are obvious.

Frederica Bernkastel said:
Abortion is something that should be shunned and discouraged. Its fine to regulate it to consider the nuances of pregnancy.
Click to expand...
I agree. If my girl ever aborted my child (assuming its not a retard) then I'd break up with her. None of my friends or family ever had an abortion, and if they did, it would cause great controversy. It should be a shunned practice seen as the last option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Party Hat Wurmple
@QQQ Can't quote your post but I just wanna let you know that god doesn't exist, so all this about Moloch and such doesn't exist either. Hope this helps!
 
AFzmXlPduVz9j1H8.jpeg
 
Jive said:
A question I've never gotten a good answer for is, if abortion is not an option, what do we do with the unloved and unwanted children that will be born?
Click to expand...
That's what the foster care system is for. Anti-abortionists will gladly provide for them with their tax dollars, since they value the children's lives so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dasjas Watanid Tabas and Jive
Mukhrani said:
The people who say this shit have always lived the most sheltered, ridiculously easy lives. The vast majority of human beings for all of history have been 'destitute'. Hardship makes you stronger and makes it easier for you to bear your burdens. I've known kids who grew up in foster care, in abject poverty, in really shitty situations. It's driven them to survive, none of them mope around about the 'injustice of being born'. The only people I ever hear talk like this are bougie brats, brats who are so fixated on their own suffering that the mildest inconvenience grows to colossal proportions in their own mind.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between overcoming hardship and deliberately introducing someone into it, why don't women give birth in warzones following your logic?
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Toji Suzuhara, Dasjas Watanid Tabas, Fount of BadSpeak and 4 others
Internet Wizard said:
There's a difference between overcoming hardship and deliberately introducing someone into it, why don't women give birth in warzones following your logic?
Click to expand...
No, there isn't. Life is hardship. In most of the world, it's a lot harder for the people living there than it is today for even a very poor person in America. For most of America's past, life has been a lot harder than it is today. Millenia of human history have comprised the lives, suffering, procreation, and deaths of billions of people in a constant struggle for survival in the vast, vast majority of cases. Life is suffering.

I find the idea that now, in the modern era with all our technological conveniences, in one of the wealthiest countries on earth, we have people wringing their hands about the moral conundrum of bringing life into a world of suffering to be farcical. Are people this historically illiterate? Not even two centuries ago, it was normal in America to raise several children in a one or two room house with no modern technology. During the century of humiliation, some estimate that nearly 70% of China's population was addicted to opium. Their population kept increasing.

America hasn't been a warzone since the 1800s. Gaza has been off and on for as long as I've been alive, and you know what people have been doing there? Giving birth. Jesus Christ just think of whatever Cave Becky ancestor of yours labored in a mud hut, in the days when the Sahara was green, with no medicine, a good chance of dying, desperately chasing the herds across a savannah that was drying out more and more every year, and telling her that it's just too hard to have a kid in modern America, or God forbid to grow up even in the poorest of families.
 
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: Cthulus Nutsack and Internet Wizard
Mukhrani said:
Are people this historically illiterate? Not even two centuries ago, it was normal in America to raise several children in a one or two room house with no modern technology
Click to expand...
This is because of how many died before reaching 5.
Mukhrani said:
it's just too hard to have a kid in modern America, or God forbid to grow up even in the poorest of families.
Click to expand...
Tell someone living in the Great Depression they should've had more mouths to feed. Your point makes no sense morally
 
  • Agree
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Like
Reactions: Dasjas Watanid Tabas, Inside your walls, Jive and 1 other person
Internet Wizard said:
This is because of how many died before reaching 5.
Click to expand...
Just categorically untrue. People had larger families back then even among the children which survived. This should be common sense, populations would not have started to increase rapidly in the 1600s and continued to do so were this not the case.

Internet Wizard said:
Tell someone living in the Great Depression they should've had more mouths to feed. Your point makes no sense morally
Click to expand...
People in the Great Depression did have a lot of mouths to feed - 5 to 4 kid households were pretty common. And abortion wasn't. My grandmother lived through the great depression. I'm glad her mother didn't abort her - my entire family exists because a housewife living at the turn of the 20th century had far more fortitude and grit than you do.

Saying something 'makes no sense morally' is an information-free statement - according to whom? It probably makes no sense to your moral code. Maybe not to much of modern America's moral code. I'd argue that any morality that arrives to conclusions which produce lower-than-replacement birth rates is one that's doomed to vanish. America used to have a religious movement called 'Shakers' that was anti-natalist. There aren't any Shakers today because they relegated themselves and their society to extinction.

This current absurd moral framework that sees maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain as the highest good is doomed to that same fate. It's not new - it's called 'hedonism' and it has arisen hundreds of times in the past and withered away just as many times. A persistent society, culture, and therefore a persistent people requires an ethos of sacrifice, looking to the future, and prioritizing your descendants over yourself. If you don't have that, you'll join the countless other cultures that have winked out of existence due to selfishness, cowardice, and lack of vision.
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: Toji Suzuhara and Internet Wizard
Abortion is not good for society. Society's priority number one has to be, at all times, making the next generation that will comprise society. Societies that fail to succeed in this task don't get to be societies much longer than about 80 years after they start failing. They then cease to be. There may have been such failures in the ancient past, but you would never learn their names because they just stopped existin.

This is not some trivial problem. A society/civilization can appear to be gigantic. People will come up with half-assed theories liked "there are billions of people, nothing can be too wrong!"... but they fail to realize that those billions are all too old to actively participate in the task. Once you're over 40, you're out of the game basically. So if the people young enough to succeed at this task fail for more than a few years in a row, there is no generation younger than them to "try again". You don't get any do-overs.

Abortion has basically murdered our civilization. Or maybe "suicide" is more apt, we're doing it to ourselves after all.

There is this number that's sort of adjacent to "birth rate", called the "fertility rate". They're different, and it's important to understand the distinction. Birth rate is just however many babies are born in a given period of time. It doesn't tell you much... if women were always going to have two kids, and they decide to have their second one earlier than they would've otherwise, then it looks like the birth rate has went up. But it went up at the expense of it being even lower in the future.

The fertility rate though, is how many children women have over their entire lifetimes, on average. Because there are about as many males born as there are females born (50/50), each woman has to have two kids on average just to replace herself (and her mate). It even needs to be a little higher than two, because some children die young. Maybe every ten women needs to have 3 instead of 2. And if they do this, then population will never grow and never shrink.

The actual fertility rate is far lower than 2.1 today. Because of this, population is shrinking invisibly. The 19th century got things racing, they made so many people that even though those people started having fewer kids in the early 20th, the "few kids per women" multiplied times so many women ballooned our population. We're a world filled with over-40s. But each generation is having a lower fertility rate than the last. That means we're shrinking (invisibly) faster all the time. There is something about a sub-replacement fertility rate culture that causes even lower rates in the few children who are born. If your parents were at 1.85, then your generation will be at 1.80 for no other reason than that it will be a little lower than theirs. And your children's generation (if you even have any) will be at 1.75. Or lower still.

Extinction is our future.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Cthulus Nutsack, Mukhrani, Toji Suzuhara and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back