The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Kiyoshi's Wristbrace]

Why are you so scared of even trying?

I have better things to do; unlike you, apparently.

 

[Eris!]

I have better things to do; unlike you, apparently.

Imagine posting in a debate thread to say you have better things to do than debate.
Sad!

 

[Kiyoshi's Wristbrace]

Imagine posting in a debate thread to say you have better things to do than debate.
Sad!

Real debates are done with people, not mortar bricks with no capability for rational thought. Thanks, but I'll pass.

 

[Eris!]

Real debates are done with people, not mortar bricks with no capability for rational thought. Thanks, but I'll pass.

I'm perfectly capable of rational thought.
You choose to pretend I'm not because it gives you an excuse to avoid getting owned.

 

[Sweetpeaa]

Why do you do this? Why do you just soapbox post in the middle of a CONVERSATION, ignoring all the participants and just talking to the void?

Because you repeat your arguments. You keep mentioning ''murder'' and ''whore deserves pregnancy as consequence'' but not really anything else. I think you've already said all you can if that's all you can come up with.

 

[Eris!]

Because you repeat your arguments.

Because you repeat yours, and never respond to their rebuttals. If you make the same argument twice my counterargument is going to be identical both times.
If you choose never to engage in point counterpoint the conversation will just loop between step 1 and step 2 forever, never proceeding beyond.
Respond. To. Counterarguments. If. You. Want. A. Productive. Argument.

You keep mentioning ''murder'' and ''whore deserves pregnancy as consequence'' but not really anything else.

Why would I make a second argument when you've ignored the first one?
I'm still waiting for a response.

I think you've already said all you can if that's all you can come up with.

I've said all I can because you give me absolutely nothing to work with.
A one-sided conversation can only go so far.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

My view on abortion is pretty simple: if the baby has grown to be an aware person in the womb, abortion is wrong unless it's a life-threatening emergency. Possibly not a popular view in 2020.

 

[Eris!]

if the baby has grown to be conscious in the womb, then abortion is wrong

Why is consciousness the deciding factor?
Is it okay to murder sleeping people?

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Why is consciousness the deciding factor?

I fixed that post a bit.

I meant if the embryo is at the person stage.

 

[Eris!]

I meant if the embryo is at the person stage.

What does that even mean?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Even if you can legally and morally define killing a severely deformed non-viable fetus as murder

"Viability" is a worthless argumentative ground because it's a shifting metric (if you could even call it that) that largely changes according to medical advancement. Deformity, similarly, is irrelevant when discussing whether abortion constitutes murder-- the only relevant condition for determining whether an act is murder is whether the subject is human (in this case, they are) and the termination of life was unjustifiable.

It is also just an opinion that it is murder. I don't believe that it is, and many people don't believe that it is. So why do we have to live according to your opinion? You aren't the authority on morality.

Actually piss off. It's not an "opinion" that it's murder. I'm not telling you that I think that's murder, or that I believe that it's murder. I'm asserting that it is murder. I'm making a statement of fact.

If you only value your position as an opinion, then you have no right to have this discussion in the first place, none of what you say matters, and you're outright stating so. It's especially ironic that you lambaste me for allegedly only caring about quantity of life over its quality when your entire approach to this discussion is inherently academic.

Which seems to be why you care absolutely nothing about the outcomes or circumstances surrounded pregnancies and why you don't care about the condition of the fetus, or the mother, or the economic circumstances it is born into or how society as a whole is supposed to deal with a glut of unwanted or possibly disabled children, or how you are actually going enforce criminalization of abortion.

Not one of you are willing to lay out how you are going to organize a society with criminalized abortion.

You should do more research into what my arguments are as presented in this thread.

If you are anti-abortion you must be for the expansion of the state.

The state wouldn't really be expanded any more than it already is. That, and... sure? I mean, the issue isn't with "expanding state" as much as it is "not paying attention to state expansion to the point of putting the state in a position to trample over civil rights".

"Well they just need to keep their legs shut!!!!!!! Their just sluts!!!!" Yeah, well, good luck stopping Shaniqua and Methhead Mandy from fucking a bunch of men and getting knocked up over and over. How are you going to do that without expanding the state and violating privacy laws?

And no, making abortion illegal isn't going to make people start living some Leave it to Beaver 1950s surburban America life that you all want so badly. Shaniqua will still be Shaniqua. Methhead Mandy will still be sucking dick for meth.

What the hell are you rambling about?

 

[Parallel Moon]

"Viability" is a worthless argumentative ground because it's a shifting metric (if you could even call it that) that largely changes according to medical advancement. Deformity, similarly, is irrelevant when discussing whether abortion constitutes murder-- the only relevant condition for determining whether an act is murder is whether the subject is human (in this case, they are) and the termination of life was unjustifiable.


Actually piss off. It's not an "opinion" that it's murder. I'm not telling you that I think that's murder, or that I believe that it's murder. I'm asserting that it is murder. I'm making a statement of fact.

If you only value your position as an opinion, then you have no right to have this discussion in the first place, none of what you say matters, and you're outright stating so. It's especially ironic that you lambaste me for allegedly only caring about quantity of life over its quality when your entire approach to this discussion is inherently academic.


You should do more research into what my arguments are as presented in this thread.


The state wouldn't really be expanded any more than it already is. That, and... sure? I mean, the issue isn't with "expanding state" as much as it is "not paying attention to state expansion to the point of putting the state in a position to trample over civil rights".


What the hell are you rambling about?

I suppose you are against euthanasia? If it is alright to take a braindead person off of life support then why is it wrong to abort a baby that develops without a brain? Why is it so important for it to come out of the birth canal only to immediately die? To me this is just euthanasia which I have zero moral issue with.

If someone has a child that is dying of cancer, is it wrong to you to allow the doctor to shoot them up with morphine to stop their suffering? Why is suffering preferable to an easy death?

And I am asserting that killing a non-viable fetus is not murder, nor is killing a fetus with zero brain development. We can assert just about anything. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't mean that you can force me to not abort a deformed baby.

And you would have to inherently trample over the civil rights of women who are of childbearing age in order to stop abortion. You can't stop women from traveling to California or Canada and having one unless you enforce pregnancy tests at state and national borders, which of course would be a violation of privacy.

And I'm babbling about the fact that people are not going to stop having sex. Especially the types that are definitely undesirables to the right wingers. You will be paying taxes to support thirteen of Shaniqua's kids instead of four. You will pay higher taxes for medical care when Mandy births her meth-addicted infant. Mandy isn't going to get pregnant then suddenly become a tradcath June Cleaver.

Any woman who isn't ghetto or trailer trash will just travel for an abortion. Unless you create some totalitarian surveillance state.

Also there are abortion pills that can just be sent by mail.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

The monotony of this slapfight has gotten too annoying, so I'm just gonna throw this out here.

What would happen if men could also get pregnant? Would the pro-life vs pro-choice debate being even more autistic, or would it be less?

 

[haurchefant]

The monotony of this slapfight has gotten too annoying, so I'm just gonna throw this out here.

What would happen if men could also get pregnant? Would the pro-life vs pro-choice debate being even more autistic, or would it be less?

 

[Last seen: A moment ago]

The pro-lifers will have to see a ''Romania style'' abortion outlawing disaster before they learn. And Romania did learn from what they did, abortion is currently legal there now. It looks like the U.S may have to lean again.

Romania? That's a perfect example of "correlation is not causation".

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/overplanned_parenthood.htm

a plan to increase Romania's population from 23 million to 30 million by the year 2000. He began his campaign in 1966 with a decree that virtually made pregnancy a state policy.
But poor nutrition and inadequate prenatal care endangered many pregnant women.
Ceausescu made mockery of family planning. He forbade sex education. With contraception banned, Romanians had to smuggle in condoms and birth-control pills.
A pregnant woman who failed to "produce" a baby at the proper time could expect to be summoned for questioning.

Women who did not have children, even if they could not, paid a "celibacy tax" of up to 10 percent of their monthly salaries.

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/economic_legacy.htm

Eventually, in 1989 as GNP fell by 10%, shortages became more pronounced and unemployment began to rise, Ceausescu was deposed. The economy was in a shambles. The entire information base for planning had been eroded and physical infrastructure was severely run down - despite high government investment rates. The actual physical well-being of the population had deteriorated through malnutrition, pollution and the decline in the health sector. Furthermore, the fall in investment in education had been so severe that the numbers enrolled in University education had actually fallen despite the increases in the size of the 18-22 age bracket.
Thus, Ceausescu left Romania with an ineffective, underproductive industrial base, a highly weakened, unmotivated agricultural sector and an unhealthy, unproductive population

 

[haurchefant]

The Romanian situation was a horror shitshow. It's the source of all the stories about Eastern European orphanages and was probably the country that had the most trafficked children at the time. Families were so poor under communism that they abandoned their kids to the orphanages or just to the streets to let Darwinism take its course. Babies were routinely abandoned to caregivers and then died because there were too many of them to be taken care of properly. That was when it was discovered that a baby can die in their crib because they aren't getting skin to skin contact with another human being and aren't being held enough. Their heads were also flattened on the bottom because they spent so much time on their backs.

Ceausescu's insistence that women have as many children as possible certainly did result in a glut of kids and a population boom in Romania but it also resulted in thousands, maybe millions, of children being trafficked into slavery all across the world. Personally I think a lot of those Romanian children must have ended up as victims in the 90s child rape rings in the Netherlands, they were easy pickings and their parents never looked for them. This horrific treatment of women and children in Romania was one of the contributing factors to deposing and executing that rat Ceausescu.

Romania overthrew the communist government and now you can get an abortion in Romania up to 14 weeks into the pregnancy iirc. There was a token attempt at banning it in 2012 but it went no where fast. They learned their lesson.

The issue of abortion aside, I do wonder what prolifers would do or say if the abandonment and overpopulation of children in the US went to those levels. Romanians were so overwhelmed that their country completely broke under the weight of so many children and being so poor. In that kind of situation welfare programs are out of the question because the government has no money and everyone is on the dole, receiving nothing and unable to exist even at subsistence level. Romanians had to make very difficult choices in order to survive.

In a way its a privileged position to be able to argue about abortion. No one in the US is starving to the point that they have to kill or exile their own children in order to survive another day. Of course abandoning your child to an uncertain future in an orphanage where they'll be sex trafficked to rich pedos in the west, or just kicking them out onto the streets to be killed by local police, is just as good as murder. So I wonder what prolifers would say or think or do once all of their high minded ideals got thrown out the window in such a fashion.

A trend I've noticed in online commentary is that many people were antiabortion until they needed an abortion. Makes you think.

More on topic to the thread now that this is the Erischan sperging thread, maybe KF should crowdfund a late term abortion for Erischan, I hear hitmen on the web can be gotten for very good prices these days.

 

[Eris!]

Actually piss off. It's not an "opinion" that it's murder. I'm not telling you that I think that's murder, or that I believe that it's murder. I'm asserting that it is murder. I'm making a statement of fact.

If you only value your position as an opinion, then you have no right to have this discussion in the first place, none of what you say matters, and you're outright stating so. It's especially ironic that you lambaste me for allegedly only caring about quantity of life over its quality when your entire approach to this discussion is inherently academic.

This. If you don't think your position is true why are you even arguing?

suppose you are against euthanasia? If it is alright to take a braindead person off of life support then why is it wrong to abort a baby that develops without a brain? Why is it so important for it to come out of the birth canal only to immediately die? To me this is just euthanasia which I have zero moral issue with.

Why do you people make your arguments by stating a position you presume we have (which we don't) and then arguing with that?
Why can't you argue with what we actually say?

If someone has a child that is dying of cancer, is it wrong to you to allow the doctor to shoot them up with morphine to stop their suffering? Why is suffering preferable to an easy death?

Because it is morally impermissible for a human being to kill another without justification. Ever.
Because impermissible means it's not an option.
I don't know why you need us to repeat this to you for 26 pages.

And I am asserting that killing a non-viable fetus is not murder, nor is killing a fetus with zero brain development. We can assert just about anything. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't mean that you can force me to not abort a deformed baby.

We're waiting for a reasonable argument as to why it's not murder. We haven't heard one yet.

And you would have to inherently trample over the civil rights of women who are of childbearing age in order to stop abortion.

No you wouldn't.

You can't stop women from traveling to California or Canada and having one unless you enforce pregnancy tests at state and national borders, which of course would be a violation of privacy.

California shouldn't be permitted to legalize infanticide, and we can prosecute abortion-tourism just like we prosecute pedophilic sex tourism.

And I'm babbling about the fact that people are not going to stop having sex

Why not? Raise your daughter properly and she won't have sex. It's not impossible. Why do you all insist that it is? Why are you insane?

Especially the types that are definitely undesirables to the right wingers.

So you want us to be in favor of eugenics? You're mad that we aren't?
Bruh.

You will be paying taxes to support thirteen of Shaniqua's kids instead of four.

I don't pay taxes unless I absolutely have to. Taxation is theft.
Like I've already said 15 times, the solution to this is to lower or abolish taxes, and to restore social support structures, not to murder the people who would draw benefits.
The solution is for Shaniqua to get a free fucking boat ticket to Liberia.

You will pay higher taxes for medical care when Mandy births her meth-addicted infant.

Cool, abolish medicare and medicaid.
Problem solved, now I don't pay higher taxes. Now I pay lower taxes.

Mandy isn't going to get pregnant then suddenly become a tradcath June Cleaver.

No but luckily Mandy's parents don't have to do it suddenly, they get to start when she's born and do this thing called parenting.

Any woman who isn't ghetto or trailer trash will just travel for an abortion. Unless you create some totalitarian surveillance state.

I see literally no distinction between this argument and "Any pedophile who isn't ghetto or trailer trash will just travel for an 8 year old. Unless you create some totalitarian surveillance state."

What would happen if men could also get pregnant? Would the pro-life vs pro-choice debate being even more autistic, or would it be less?

There would be fewer people who support infanticide only because muh womyn. There probably would be little or no debate about it at all. Everyone would be on board that it's murder.

The issue of abortion aside, I do wonder what prolifers would do or say if the abandonment and overpopulation of children in the US went to those levels. Romanians were so overwhelmed that their country completely broke under the weight of so many children and being so poor. In that kind of situation welfare programs are out of the question because the government has no money and everyone is on the dole, receiving nothing and unable to exist even at subsistence level. Romanians had to make very difficult choices in order to survive.

I'd say precisely what I'm saying now without changing a word.

In a way its a privileged position to be able to argue about abortion. No one in the US is starving to the point that they have to kill or exile their own children in order to survive another day. Of course abandoning your child to an uncertain future in an orphanage where they'll be sex trafficked to rich pedos in the west, or just kicking them out onto the streets to be killed by local police, is just as good as murder. So I wonder what prolifers would say or think or do once all of their high minded ideals got thrown out the window in such a fashion.

The exact opposite. The man who needs to steal bread is biased in a way that makes him incapable of seeing that stealing bread is wrong. The "privileged" position, detached from a personal stake that corrupts ones morals, is the more correct position. The people who see a reason they need to kill their baby are the people you should absolutely NOT listen to about the morality of killing babies.

Why would my ideals be thrown out? Why would I abandon my child? Your hypothetical is silly. It's just "If you were evil too, you'd be evil too."

 

[Syaoran Li]

Why do you keep asking the question I've already laughed in your face about?
You asking it is a declaration of bad faith. Why do you care who I am? Anything is true out of any mouth. I am anon.

And this is why you people always bring up "and what if she was raped?" So you can change the discussion.
We're talking about a 16 year old whore who made bad choices. Try to keep track of the conversation. Your diversions are noticed and refused.

Incorrect answer. Would you like to try answering again?

The discussion of who supports the child is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not murder is wrong, which is the discussion we're having. It is, by the way.

Why do you repeatedly make arguments to the same people who just rebutted them to you?
Do you think we forget ?
Do you just cycle between arguments hoping we forget the last one so you can use it again?

A regular sex life is getting married, having children with your wife or husband, and raising those children so that they can do the same.

Don't have sex except with your husband, whore.

You talk like a redneck and your shit's all retarded.

I don't give a flying fuck if abortion is murder. Traditionalism is cancer, just like atheism is.

Before you play strawman card, I want to make it clear that I'm not a nihilist and I'm also not an atheist either

 

[Eris!]

I don't give a flying fuck if abortion is murder.

Then why should I give a flying fuck that killing you is murder?

Before you play strawman card, I want to make it clear that I'm not a nihilist and I'm also not an atheist either

You sure seem to be.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Then why should I give a flying fuck that killing you is murder?

You sure seem to be.

1. Go ahead. It's not your place to give a flying fuck if someone murders me.

2. I'm not an atheist or a nihilist. I dunk on the atheists every bit as much as I do the traditionalists (seriously, check out the Euphoric Atheists thread) and I fucking hate atheists worse than fundies/traditionalists since at least some of them are sincere and not pseudo-intellectual dorks

3. Legalize Murder