The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Android raptor]

This is an abortion debate, when did it get into your autistic skull that I have a problem with having children? Better yet, when did it get into your head that I don't like sex? I don't think it should be treated like a necessity, or should be a priority in a relationship (because it shouldn't), but there's nothing wrong with it. My problem is when people start to let it take over and destroy their lives, and when they start bringing the killing of unborn children in so they can perpetuate their degenerative addiction. Especially when those same people turn around and ask "why am I so unhappy?" when their entire life is a bunch of material bullshit that does nothing to fulfill them in the end.

Plenty of women who have no problems with having children get abortions. The pregnancy might have happened at the time when they can't care for a kid, the fetus could've been diagnosed with something horrible, they might already have kids and be unable to care for any more (most women don't want to act like breeder dogs at a puppy mill ala Michele Duggar), the pregnancy might have happened shortly after giving birth, there are tons of reasons. Very few are sex addicts either.

That is if you can find a woman willing to have sex with you in the first place.

 

[Nom Carver]

Plenty of women who have no problems with having children get abortions. The pregnancy might have happened at the time when they can't care for a kid, the fetus could've been diagnosed with something horrible, they might already have kids and be unable to care for any more (most women don't want to act like breeder dogs at a puppy mill ala Michele Duggar), the pregnancy might have happened shortly after giving birth, there are tons of reasons. Very few are sex addicts either.

That is if you can find a woman willing to have sex with you in the first place.

Nice sperging over an argument I didn't make. All I said was that there's nothing wrong with having children, or having sex in healthy moderation, it's abortion I have a problem with.

 

[Android raptor]

Nice sperging over an argument I didn't make. All I said was that there's nothing wrong with having children, or having sex in healthy moderation, it's abortion I have a problem with.

If you have sex at all, abortion might happen. Plenty of things can make it less likely, but it can still happen.

 

[Nom Carver]

If you have sex at all, abortion might happen. Plenty of things can make it less likely, but it can still happen.

*Pregnancy, pregnancy might happen. And it needs to be considered when having sex. It just so happens that many people are too stupid or don't have enough accountability for their own actions that they hardly even think about the possibility.

 

[Lemmingwise]

when did it get into your autistic skull that I have a problem with having children? Better yet, when did it get into your head that I don't like sex

When you disagreed on the holy rules of feminism, you became open season as target of lies and slander.

 

[Android raptor]

*Pregnancy, pregnancy might happen. And it needs to be considered when having sex. It just so happens that many people are too stupid or don't have enough accountability for their own actions that they hardly even think about the possibility.

Any time you get pregnancy, you get the potential for abortion. Even if it's a wanted pregnancy. Shit like ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency and requires being aborted or the woman will die. There's also other conditions like limb body wall complex that might not be dangerous to the mother, but are incompatible with life for the fetus and most women choose abortion to spare it suffering unnecessarily.

Anything can go wrong, especially with something as complex and risky as pregnancy.

 

[Nom Carver]

Any time you get pregnancy, you get the potential for abortion. Even if it's a wanted pregnancy. Shit like ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency and requires being aborted or the woman will die. There's also other conditions like limb body wall complex that might not be dangerous to the mother, but are incompatible with life for the fetus and most women choose abortion to spare it suffering unnecessarily.

Anything can go wrong, especially with something as complex and risky as pregnancy.

Yeah it can. Those are complications though. They're fundamentally different than yeeting a child because of some autistic shitty reason like "I want to have sex but I don't want to face the consequences of my actions.".

 

[Android raptor]

Yeah it can. Those are complications though. They're fundamentally different than yeeting a child because of some autistic shitty reason like "I want to have sex but I don't want to face the consequences of my actions.".

Having to pay for an abortion is a consequence

 

[Nom Carver]

Having to pay for an abortion is a consequence

As if having to pay for it makes up for how it's literally prematurely ending a human life.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

As if having to pay for it makes up for how it's literally prematurely ending a human life.

"A new life? That's worth about a fitty."

 

[Thotticus]

Can you actually give a specific time here or do doctors just play it by ear. Fetuses can respond to stimuli in the first trimester so it's very likely any criteria you use to define "higher brain function" that would include a newly born infant would also include first trimester pregnancies. It's the same issue for people who say you need to have consciousness to be a person.

Around 26 weeks the structures of the brain that endow human consciousness are both present and active.

Those same structures do not begin development until between 12 and 16 weeks, in the second trimester.
And btw, single celled organisms respond to stimuli. That isn't a measure of human consciousness by any stretch. People who literally don't have brains will respond to stimuli. That's what a fucking reflex is.

 

[Nom Carver]

Around 26 weeks the structures of the brain that endow human consciousness are both present and active.

Those same structures do not begin development until between 12 and 16 weeks, in the second trimester.
And btw, single celled organisms respond to stimuli. That isn't a measure of human consciousness by any stretch. People who literally don't have brains will respond to stimuli. That's what a fucking reflex is.

This is a little bit derailing from what you two were talking about, but personally for me what I find so abhorrent about abortion at all is that the fetus would have developed into a human being if the decision and conscious action was not taken by the parents to stop that from happening, regardless of if they possess higher functions in the present. If no action was taken to intervene, they would have developed. It's why I have no problem with sexual barriers and birth control that prevents fertilization from happening in the first place.

 

[Thotticus]

This is a little bit derailing from what you two were talking about, but personally for me what I find so abhorrent about abortion at all is that the fetus would have developed into a human being if the decision and conscious action was not taken by the parents to stop that from happening, regardless of if they possess higher functions in the present. If no action was taken to intervene, they would have developed. It's why I have no problem with sexual barriers and birth control that prevents fertilization from happening in the first place.

Why set the line at fertilisation? Wasting gametes is preventing a human life from developing

 

[Zarael]

Around 26 weeks the structures of the brain that endow human consciousness are both present and active.

Is that your metric, that specific sections of the brain must be present in order to confer personhood on a human? Again, I need to re-emphasize that you're trying to draw the line between "Ok to kill" and "Not ok to kill" along some extremely murky lines since I'm sure that you can't even properly define what consciousness is despite your confidence you know which specific parts of the brain give rise to it.

And btw, single celled organisms respond to stimuli. That isn't a measure of human consciousness by any stretch.

It's the only measure you have available. If something doesn't react to stimuli how would you know it has consciousness? You can't access someone's first person subjective experience of the world so your only gauge of whether a being is conscious is how it reacts to its surroundings. This directly refutes your original point. The very fact the p-zombie problem exists means you cannot tie human value to "consciousness". You can't detect it, you can't measure it, it's simply a matter of convenience that in every day life we assume that other people experience the world in the same way we do because they're the same type of being we are. This wouldn't hold in beings that behaved the same way but are not the same type as us, like Artificial Intelligence. If a computer behaved exactly like a human would you be sure it had an internal subjective experience of the world? Of course not.

This is a little bit derailing from what you two were talking about, but personally for me what I find so abhorrent about abortion at all is that the fetus would have developed into a human being if the decision and conscious action was not taken by the parents to stop that from happening, regardless of if they possess higher functions in the present.

This is also completely true and makes it even harder to justify abortion even if you have the best, most airtight argument about why a human at X weeks isn't worth moral consideration. Without intervention it would have by its own biological processes become a person. The future impact of your current actions are very relevant.

 

[Nom Carver]

Why set the line at fertilisation? Wasting gametes is preventing a human life from developing

Because it takes action from the parents to fertilize the egg and kick off development of a fetus. If they don't do anything, nothing develops. Once the egg is fertilized and they have to take action to prematurely end the fetus's development is when I find it reprehensible.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Is it really a generalization when it's what I've personally witnessed?

Yes. Yes it is. Your personal anecdote means little in the grand scheme of things. Its merely what you witnessed, assuming you did indeed witness it. It says no great thing about pro-life people, just like me witnessing a pro-choice person prevent their own daughter from having an abortion wouldn't reflect one way or another on their movement. Ideas must rise or fall on their own merits, not on the merits of individuals, and in large camps like pro-life or pro-choice, you will get all kinds of people, including hypocrites and the like. I've met plenty of young women who oppose abortion. I've met non-Christians and even non-religious people who oppose abortion. And the fact of the matter is, everyone has "skeletons" in their closets, things they don't want anyone else to know, including you. Its irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Besides, is it any worse than the generalization that the only women who get abortions are thots having constant unprotected sex and cheating on their boyfriends/husbands?

No, but I'm not actually arguing that generalization and I don't see anyone else here doing it at this point. We've already acknowledged that people get abortions for rape or to protect the mother's life, so we've clearly acknowledged that people get abortions for things outside their control. Cheating and promiscuity were referenced, yes, we've also acknowledged the fact that a married couple can also get pregnant through lack of precaution. And if anyone was making that generalization, making a generalization back is not how you answer that. You pick apart their generalization, like I'm doing now. Otherwise, you've really accomplished nothing.

 

[Android raptor]

Yes. Yes it is. Your personal anecdote means little in the grand scheme of things. Its merely what you witnessed, assuming you did indeed witness it. It says no great thing about pro-life people, just like me witnessing a pro-choice person prevent their own daughter from having an abortion wouldn't reflect one way or another on their movement. Ideas must rise or fall on their own merits, not on the merits of individuals, and in large camps like pro-life or pro-choice, you will get all kinds of people, including hypocrites and the like. I've met plenty of young women who oppose abortion. I've met non-Christians and even non-religious people who oppose abortion. And the fact of the matter is, everyone has "skeletons" in their closets, things they don't want anyone else to know, including you. Its irrelevant to the topic at hand.


No, but I'm not actually arguing that generalization and I don't see anyone else here doing it at this point. We've already acknowledged that people get abortions for rape or to protect the mother's life, so we've clearly acknowledged that people get abortions for things outside their control. Cheating and promiscuity were referenced, yes, we've also acknowledged the fact that a married couple can also get pregnant through lack of precaution. And if anyone was making that generalization, making a generalization back is not how you answer that. You pick apart their generalization, like I'm doing now. Otherwise, you've really accomplished nothing.

Married couple can get pregnant if they have sex. Precautions reduce the chance, but it's not a sure thing.

Show me some prolife women who aren't fundies. I'm sure there are a few out there, but by and large women who don't think anyone should have the right to a safe, legal abortion do so because they think jesus doesn't like it or some shit.

 

[Thotticus]

It's the only measure you have available. If something doesn't react to stimuli how

You know we have the ability to actually test brain activity right? And that there are various other signs of cognitive function that aren't reflexive (do you understand what the difference is?)

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Married couple can get pregnant if they have sex. Precautions reduce the chance, but it's not a sure thing.

Pretty sure that's what I said. Of course I've also pointed out precautions that reduce that chance to zero, like getting one's tubes tied.

how me some prolife women who aren't fundies. I'm sure there are a few out there, but by and large women who don't think anyone should have the right to a safe, legal abortion do so because they think jesus doesn't like it or some shit.

And that is your ill-informed opinion. In any case, its besides the larger point. Ideas rise and fall on their own merits. It doesn't matter who argues the point, as long as the point is sound, it stands.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Show me some prolife women who aren't fundies.

What would be the point? You'd automatically consider them outliers in the grand scheme of the movement-- that's how all these questions go when we're asking for examples out of a group that can overcrowd a small room.

The only thing that's been indicated is your lack of experience.