The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

1. Birth control, as in actual contraception, is fine.
2. Child murder is still wrong regardless of whether you're a Christian.
3. Only rapists want to force women to have children. If the woman doesn't want the child, give it up for adoption immediately after birth. There are more than enough families looking to adopt newborns.
4. You didn't actually answer the question. Is the implication that not being in favor of infinite gibs proportional to amount of children = "not giving a fuck about the fetus after it's born?"

1. Then why are you evangelical retards trying to outlaw birth control in certain areas?
2. Good thing a fetus isn't a child.
3. You are still trying to force the woman to give up her body autonomy and have the child, all because Fox News and Tucker Carlson told you that abortion is bad.
4. What? Very, very, very few women are going to have children just to get more welfare. Again, if you are so HUMAN LIFE IS PRECIOUS why are you anti-welfare? I bet you are anti-mask and anti-vax, too, because you aren't actually pro-life, you just want to punish women and are a good little Republican so you parrot what Tucker Carlson tells you to

 

[Hotter Shoeonhead.]

@gang weeder

when people are so poor they can’t afford kids they usually End up killing their babies

REAL babies not fetuses who can’t feel pain or comprehend things.
This is what happened before welfare benefits and abortion and still happens in third world countries.
Not saying it is right but it was normalized back then and treated essentially as a family planning method.

You want to make abortion illegal and also cut welfare spending well the alternative is real babies being burtually murdered like in African countries where abortion and birth control are very illegal and more then 1 in 5 women who are in prison are there for infanticide.

 

[snailslime]

So you're mentally ill. We could guess that much already. It is pretty funny to run the "muh uterus" line when yours will objectively never see use. How are you different from an incel again?

Oh no, the permavirgin called me mentally ill.

What's wrong with killing a baby to maintain your lifestyle of hedonism, you mean?

It's not killing a baby. How many times till you get that through your retarded head?

So your solution is to simply kill the child so they don't risk being abused?

See ^

Why would we want murder to be "safe, legal, and rare?" How insane is that.

It's not murder.

So if the woman has an infant and decides she won't be able to provide for them, she should be able to smother the infant, right? Since, you know, the logic here is that the woman's economic comfort is the paramount concern, and the life of the child is either a lesser concern or no concern at all.

No, she chose to have the child so it's her responsibility to provide for it. We went over this already.

Why is one a person and the other not?

I said why 100 times.

This is what you are defending.

View attachment 3140518

I don't care about plebbit.

Nothing "simple or harmless" about it. Especially not for the dead child literally flushed down the toilet like an expired gplebiscite.

"Dead child" try again.

So, out of curiosity, is your position that women should get infinite gibs from random strangers proportional to however many kids they have?

If their husbands are deadbeats then the government should help them out, yes.

What sucks the most is that your mom didn't get an abortion lol

Don't forget to swallow.

keep going

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

keep going

Why? Does it turn you on or some shit?

 

[Hotter Shoeonhead.]

What sucks the most is that your mom didn't get an abortion lol

Don't forget to swallow.

The virgin you vs the chad @Hollywood Hulk Hogan

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Why? Does it turn you on or some shit?

I think I know you're always so MATI. If I was a permavirgin who was such a retard that I simped for the people who invaded my country 80 years ago and had zero prospects of getting laid, I'd be upset at women, too

 

[gang weeder]

Human beings aren't reducible to a clump of cells. Foetuses are just that.

Why? Objectively, both are "a clump of cells." One just has more cells than the other. It would be equally as arbitrary for me to claim that Wingsofredemption is more of a human being than Narcissa Wright because, objectively, his body has many more cells than "hers" does.

If their husbands are deadbeats then the government should help them out, yes.

So your belief is that whores who go on Tinder and get knocked up for fun should be rewarded financially for doing so. Ever heard the term "welfare queen?" You're advocating to make that a solid career choice for any woman out there. If a woman is worthless and can't do anything else, well by God, at least she can shit out a few fatherless kids and use the government gun to extract gibs from random strangers!

when people are so poor they can’t afford kids they usually End up killing their babies

Yeah no shit. That's my point. People are willing to kill their kids for financial convenience, and that's wrong.

REAL babies not fetuses who can’t feel pain or comprehend things.

Man it's so tiresome to go over the "feel pain" thing eleventy billion times. This would make infanticide fine so long as it's done in a painless fashion.

This is what happened before welfare benefits and abortion and still happens in third world countries.
Not saying it is right but it was normalized back then and treated essentially as a family planning method.

If you admit it's not right then why are you engaging in all of these apologetics for it? If you actually believe baby-killing is justified if you're poor, then come on out and say it. It'd be a more intellectually honest position than this absurd pretense that a child is somehow magically conferred personhood only when it is pushed out of the vagina.

You want to make abortion illegal and also cut welfare spending well the alternative is real babies being burtually murdered like in African countries where abortion and birth control are very illegal and more then 1 in 5 women who are in prison are there for infanticide.

>African countries

Kek. Blacks also utilize abortion here in the US at the highest rates, as I'm sure you're aware. Is your belief that we should funnel Free Shit to black people as long as they can shit out a few kids to earn it?

what's worse, these unwanted children will likely grow up with issues as a result of the instability in their lives. would it not be better to spare these children such a life by not having them in the first place?

You mean would it be better to murder them because they weren't born into ideal circumstances? Yes, that would obviously be wrong.

1. Then why are you evangelical retards trying to outlaw birth control in certain areas?
2. Good thing a fetus isn't a child.
3. You are still trying to force the woman to give up her body autonomy and have the child, all because Fox News and Tucker Carlson told you that abortion is bad.
4. What? Very, very, very few women are going to have children just to get more welfare. Again, if you are so HUMAN LIFE IS PRECIOUS why are you anti-welfare? I bet you are anti-mask and anti-vax, too, because you aren't actually pro-life, you just want to punish women and are a good little Republican so you parrot what Tucker Carlson tells you to

1. I'm not in favor of outlawing contraception, so I can't speak for people that are.
3. By this logic not allowing infanticide is also "forcing the woman to have the child."
4. You still didn't answer the question the question lol. Is the implication that not being in favor of infinite gibs proportional to amount of children = "not giving a fuck about the fetus after it's born?" You have to be in favor of infinite gibs forever to be pro-life, and if you think welfare is stupid, you also have to be in favor of murdering kids so that the welfare system isn't burdened by them?

2. Really this is the most important thing. "A fetus isn't a child." So you recognize that if we were talking about a child, all your other talking points about muh welfare this and muh body autonomy that would instantly be irrelevant because not killing children supersedes all that bullshit. Good. This reveals that the core issue is simply whether a fetus is a person or not, and everything else you are saying is copes and deflection.

 

[gang weeder]

did you know that adoption is actually quite expensive when adopting from within the US? if you consider the economic situation many people are in, it would be impossible for many people to adopt, leaving these kids in the care of the foster system. which isn't that great.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

I think I know you're always so MATI. If I was a permavirgin who was such a retard that I simped for the people who invaded my country 80 years ago and had zero prospects of getting laid, I'd be upset at women, too

Looking at you, I'm not even that mad lol

The virgin you vs the chad @Hollywood Hulk Hogan

You must be the said hologram lol

 

[Lurker]

@gang weeder uh, your attachment doesn't work? ah you fixed it. so you think that a woman should still be forced to give birth because "people want babies". what about the MOTHER?

as children grow up in the unstable foster system, they often end up having emotional problems that make them less likely to be adopted. shit, it's already hard for older kids to be adopted because most people want babies. so you'd subject them to such a life where they know they are unwanted and when they're 18 they'll be thrown on the street and told to fend for themselves, and you think that this is alright? well, that's your opinion, i suppose.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

I ROUTINELY CALL THEM SLUTS AND WHORES AND DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY

Bro don't kink shame me.

@gang weeder

Yeah no shit. That's my point. People are willing to kill their kids for financial convenience, and that's wrong.

Calling unable to afford having a kid financial convenience is pretty dumb. Having 1 too many kids can cost the rest of your kids the ability to have a decent life.

Man it's so tiresome to go over the "feel pain" thing eleventy billion times. This would make infanticide fine so long as it's done in a painless fashion.

Except you conveniently ignored the comprehend part of the argument.

If you admit it's not right then why are you engaging in all of these apologetics for it? If you actually believe baby-killing is justified if you're poor, then come on out and say it. It'd be a more intellectually honest position than this absurd pretense that a child is somehow magically conferred personhood only when it is pushed out of the vagina.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? There is a difference between sympathizing and saying something is morally permissible.

You mean would it be better to murder them because they weren't born into ideal circumstances? Yes, that would obviously be wrong.

Again, just being obtuse or stupid? There is a huge difference between non ideal and circumstances worth living.

 

[gang weeder]

@gang weeder uh, your attachment doesn't work? ah you fixed it. so you think that a woman should still be forced to give birth because "people want babies". what about the MOTHER?

The point here is to remove the "but mommy can't afford a kid" argument. That would actually be a valid concern in a place like Africa where there might actually be a question of how you are going to provide for the child. Here in America where you have 36 couples looking to adopt per 1 child actually offered up, it's not. Of course, it still wouldn't justify simply offing the kid, but it adds an additional reason why this talking point is retarded.

as children grow up in the unstable foster system, they often end up having emotional problems that make them less likely to be adopted. shit, it's already hard for older kids to be adopted because most people want babies.

You are right that it's hard for older kids to be adopted, but we are talking about abortion in this thread, i.e. a case where the mother decided pre-birth that she does not want a child. Hence, if she were to carry the child to term and still feel that way, she could and would instantly put them up for adoption as a newborn.

so you'd subject them to such a life where they know they are unwanted and when they're 18 they'll be thrown on the street and told to fend for themselves, and you think that this is alright? well, that's your opinion, i suppose.

Do you think killing the kid is a better alternative?

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

Why? Objectively, both are "a clump of cells." One just has more cells than the other. It would be equally as arbitrary for me to claim that Wingsofredemption is more of a human being than Narcissa Wright because, objectively, his body has many more cells than "hers" does.

Read about reductio ad absurdum, emotion, abuse a substance once or twice and get yourself a one-night stand.

 

[gang weeder]

Calling unable to afford having a kid financial convenience is pretty dumb. Having 1 too many kids can cost the rest of your kids the ability to have a decent life.

So the solution is to murder one of the children so that you'll be reduced back down to an "affordable" number?

Except you conveniently ignored the comprehend part of the argument.

Yes because it's even more retarded. It is true that infants can at least feel pain, but there is no evidence that they can "comprehend" anything any more than an animal does.

Again, just being obtuse or stupid? There is a huge difference between non ideal and circumstances worth living.

So you are suggesting that it's okay to kill a child to spare it from hypothetical suffering if its birth circumstances are "bad enough," however you want to define that? I am curious how you would define that, by the way. What would be the objective measure of when someone's potential childhood is "bad enough" that it becomes acceptable for the parents to simply murder the child in order to spare them all the suffering?

 

[Kermit Jizz]

Yes because it's even more retarded. It is true that infants can at least feel pain, but there is no evidence that they can "comprehend" anything any more than an animal does.

Nigger what? This has to be some 4D trolling tactic.

 

[Lurker]

The point here is to remove the "but mommy can't afford a kid" argument. That would actually be a valid concern in a place like Africa where there might actually be a question of how you are going to provide for the child. Here in America where you have 36 couples looking to adopt per 1 child actually offered up, it's not. Of course, it still wouldn't justify simply offing the kid, but it adds an additional reason why this talking point is retarded.



You are right that it's hard for older kids to be adopted, but we are talking about abortion in this thread, i.e. a case where the mother decided pre-birth that she does not want a child. Hence, if she were to carry the child to term and still feel that way, she could and would instantly put them up for adoption as a newborn.



Do you think killing the kid is a better alternative?

and yet that doesn't address that you're still forcing a woman to give birth against her will. did you not say that that was wrong? https://kiwifarms.net/threads/the-abortion-debate-containment-thread.76613/page-292#post-11562463 are you a rapist?

usually a woman who doesn't want a child doesn't carry the child to term. that's... kind of the point of abortions?

you're removing a clump of cells, in most cases. maybe you conflate a clump of cells with a living child, but i do not.

 

[snailslime]

Why? Objectively, both are "a clump of cells." One just has more cells than the other. It would be equally as arbitrary for me to claim that Wingsofredemption is more of a human being than Narcissa Wright because, objectively, his body has many more cells than "hers" does.

Because one is sentient and the other isn't.

So your belief is that whores who go on Tinder and get knocked up for fun should be rewarded financially for doing so.

You sound totally healthy and not unhinged. What would you propose, since you're so against abortion?

Ever heard the term "welfare queen?" You're advocating to make that a solid career choice for any woman out there. If a woman is worthless and can't do anything else, well by God, at least she can shit out a few fatherless kids and use the government gun to extract gibs from random strangers!

It's quite hypocritical of you to vehemently oppose abortion so much while calling single moms "welfare queens" and putting all the responsibility of providing for the child onto the mother. You don't think the men should have to provide.

Thanks for taking off the mask.

Yeah no shit. That's my point. People are willing to kill their kids for financial convenience, and that's wrong.

I'll say it louder for the sped kid in the back: abortion isn't murder.

Man it's so tiresome to go over the "feel pain" thing eleventy billion times. This would make infanticide fine so long as it's done in a painless fashion.

You eat plants and meat. You're one to talk.

If you admit it's not right then why are you engaging in all of these apologetics for it? If you actually believe baby-killing is justified if you're poor, then come on out and say it. It'd be a more intellectually honest position than this absurd pretense that a child is somehow magically conferred personhood only when it is pushed out of the vagina.

Abortion isn't baby-killing.

>African countries

Kek. Blacks also utilize abortion here in the US at the highest rates, as I'm sure you're aware. Is your belief that we should funnel Free Shit to black people as long as they can shit out a few kids to earn it?

Nobody should have kids they can't take care of. It's Responsibility 101.

You mean would it be better to murder them because they weren't born into ideal circumstances? Yes, that would obviously be wrong.

It's not murder.

1. I'm not in favor of outlawing contraception, so I can't speak for people that are.
3. By this logic not allowing infanticide is also "forcing the woman to have the child."

It's not infanticide.

4. You still didn't answer the question the question lol. Is the implication that not being in favor of infinite gibs proportional to amount of children = "not giving a fuck about the fetus after it's born?" You have to be in favor of infinite gibs forever to be pro-life, and if you think welfare is stupid, you also have to be in favor of murdering kids so that the welfare system isn't burdened by them?

You obviously don't give a flying fuck about a kid after it's born, otherwise you'd be in favor of welfare and you wouldn't absolve men of their part in the pregnancy.

2. Really this is the most important thing. "A fetus isn't a child." So you recognize that if we were talking about a child, all your other talking points about muh welfare this and muh body autonomy that would instantly be irrelevant because not killing children supersedes all that bullshit. Good. This reveals that the core issue is simply whether a fetus is a person or not, and everything else you are saying is copes and deflection.

What? Once a child is born, does their life suddenly not matter to you anymore? Why don't you want them to have happy healthy lives?

 

[Hotter Shoeonhead.]

@gang weeder
Please read the article I linked

https://aeon.co/essays/the-roots-of-infanticide-run-deep-and-begin-with-poverty

An infant and a fetus (most abortions take place when it’s basically still an embryo) are different

It’s not just ability to pain one is actually a human being

You are gross if you think killing this


Is equal to aborting this

I think baby killing is wrong ofc but a fetus isn’t a baby.

Like stated in the article people only stopped killing babies (in the west,it still happens outside the developed world) when we stopped having too many of them welfare and abortion stop real honest to god baby murder.

Make abortion, contraception and welfare illegal and see infancide return like in Romania during the abortion ban.

 

[Kiwi & Cow]

Because one is sentient and the other isn't.

You meant sapient right?

Animals, plants, even fetuses are sentient, but none of them are sapient. Hell even cells and bacterias are sentient.

Compare them to viruses and rocks which are not sentient.

 

[snailslime]

You meant sapient right?

Animals, plants, even fetuses are sentient, but none of them are sapient. Hell even cells and bacterias are sentient.

Compare them to viruses and rocks which are not sentient.

Sentient - "able to feel or perceive things".