The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[gang weeder]

Personally I think we should have a government watch list for all trannies to stop the rampant grooming going on

If the government was anti-trans enough to do that, the problem would solve itself. 99% of these people wouldn't do it anymore if it ceased to be part of the Current Thing.

I don't have an issue with it. Some regressive boomers do, though.


Almost all abortion should be allowed.


it takes two to tango, incel. tag me again when men have to deal with the burden of pregnancy for being mansluts.

Uhm, schweatie, don't you know men can get pregnant too? Yikes. Such transphobia.

 

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

Even aside from abortion that is just untrue. If things go unopposed, or worse, supported by public opinion, then that can, has, and does include terrible things. Example, transing minors; enough people support that evil shit and so it's allowed.

Those who think abortion is necessary are facilitating it, though. If public opinion was 95+% that abortion was wrong, it would be illegal. Yes, they do think it is an issue of "women's rights" and that the child has none, but they are simply wrong. Just like slave owners thought the Emancipation Proclamation denied them their right to property. That was their genuine belief and yet we still outlawed slavery.

You both make fair points. And a change of mind would be ideal. Though I've sometimes wondered how quickly or effectively one might change a given population's view on something? Do a few decades of permitting abortions make most people regard them as necessary or otherwise good? I suppose if half of the women in the West are pro-life, then simply making something legal doesn't change the majority of people's hearts and minds over time. But it does do so for a fair portion, clearly.

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

Pro-choicers love to drag out stories of horrifically deformed babies to defend late-term abortion in particular. Anencephaly is a fave- it's fatal, it's easily diagnosed with ultrasound (after about mid-pregnancy), and howwwww can you maaaaaake a pooooor wahmen carry a MONSTER like that to term only for it to die a miserable death?

But they never answer for me why abortion (killing the baby before birth then inducing contractions to facilitate delivery) is better for the woman than enrolling her in something like perinatal hospice, where counselors and nurses help make sure that both the physical and psychological pain are addressed in the hospital.

Late term abortion procedure described here.

1. Cervical dilation starts a couple days before the procedure. (Painful.)
2. "Most patients will be provided NSAIDs for pain management." (Ibuprofen)
3. "The rate of mortality following legal procedures in the US is 0.62 legal induced abortion-related deaths per 100,000 reported legal abortions. The strongest risk factor for mortality following abortion is increasing gestational age." (Not any safer than normal labor and delivery.)

The woman goes to the clinic and gets the dilating materials put in her cervix, then goes home. She comes back for the procedure and is discharged later that day to home, where she bleeds and has milk come in exactly like after a normal birth. They recommend stuffing cabbage leaves in the bra and binding the chest to stop the milk coming in.

Meanwhile the birth plans for perinatal hospice talks about getting narcotics for pain relief and sedation to help sleep. It talks about what family you want present, and having a chaplain and counselor available for emotional and spiritual support. You experience the whole thing in a hospital where someone can monitor your bleeding and vital signs and provide IV pain relief. Counselors help with funeral arrangements.

How is this not more compassionate to a woman/couple experiencing such a loss, compared to throw back an ibuprofen and hold onto the rails so we can suck the baby's brains out and throw it in a bag?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Almost all abortion should be allowed.

What's the exception then, and why?

it takes two to tango, incel.

Literally every person who disagrees with you is instantly a boomer incel, those terms are becoming meaningless like Nazi. Maybe instead of labeling everyone else as being boomer Nazi incel retards, you should do some introspection.

The real implied argument feels like "people need to be punished for sex, it cannot be a part of healthy adult's relationships for the sole sake of pleasure."

Facts don't care about your feelings, first of all. But feelings are the core issue here. You "feel" punished, but literally nobody cares if you fuck yourself to absolute death as long as you simply use contraceptives. They're cheap or free and readily available, and the myth of their failure is bullshit because proper usage makes that risk literally negligible.

What's funny is we hear from the same people who refuse to use contraceptives that sex ed is important, but what the fuck is the point if you're just going to discard everything taught anyway? I'm sure you support sex ed so I'd love to hear how you can argue both ways, like this:

not all men like condoms

 

[Second-Hand Boat Supplies]

Facts don't care about your feelings, first of all. But feelings are the core issue here. You "feel" punished, but literally nobody cares if you fuck yourself to absolute death as long as you simply use contraceptives. They're cheap or free and readily available, and the myth of their failure is bullshit because proper usage makes that risk literally negligible.

What's funny is we hear from the same people who refuse to use contraceptives that sex ed is important, but what the fuck is the point if you're just going to discard everything taught anyway? I'm sure you support sex ed so I'd love to hear how you can argue both ways, like this:

Fair point. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing or creating a strawman, although I'll argue that's necessary to some extent when taking about a political view as a whole. I'm thinking of a particular subset who would also favor abstinence only sex-ed and prefer less access to contraceptives, like those who sued against the obamacare mandate that insurance must cover birth control. These people definitely exist, but I concede that I don't know how much of the pro-life crowd they represent.

I think your stance represents one of the possible compromise positions on the issue though.

 

[gang weeder]

You both make fair points. And a change of mind would be ideal. Though I've sometimes wonder how quickly or effectively one might change a given population's view on something? Do a few decades of permitting abortions make most people regard them as necessary or otherwise good? I suppose if half of the women in the West are pro-life, then simply making something legal doesn't change the majority of people's hearts and minds over time. But it does do so for a fair portion, clearly.

It does and it doesn't. Public opinion is obviously a complex topic with many, many, many variables. One thing Roe showed us though, was that policy does not necessarily align to public opinion, and that sizeable portions of the population can simply be forced to go along to get along. Indeed, on nearly any issue with any significant degree of disagreement, some substantial portion of people will have to simply put up with not getting their way. In the same way, if abortion is outlawed, the vast majority of pro-abortion people will simply go along to get along, and the few who do any more than that will do nothing more than write histrionic Twitter rants and perhaps march around in pussy hats a few times.

Fair point. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing or creating a strawman, although I'll argue that's necessary to some extent when taking about a political view as a whole. I'm thinking of a particular subset who would also favor abstinence only sex-ed and prefer less access to contraceptives, like those who sued against the obamacare mandate that insurance must cover birth control. These people definitely exist, but I concede that I don't know how much of the pro-life crowd they represent.

I think your stance represents one of the possible compromise positions on the issue though.

The overwhelming majority of pro-life people have no issue with contraceptives (as in, measures that actually prevent conception). I'm not sure that I've ever met anyone who wanted to ban condoms, online or off. There are probably some religious nuts if you looked hard enough, but such an attitude is clearly disconnected from the topic of abortion (i.e. it wouldn't make any more sense for me to claim that all pro-abortion people are bad because some tiny proportion of them believe that infanticide is also okay).

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Fair point. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing or creating a strawman, although I'll argue that's necessary to some extent when taking about a political view as a whole. I'm thinking of a particular subset who would also favor abstinence only sex-ed and prefer less access to contraceptives, like those who sued against the obamacare mandate that insurance must cover birth control. These people definitely exist, but I concede that I don't know how much of the pro-life crowd they represent.

I think your stance represents one of the possible compromise positions on the issue though.

I agree that generalizing is necessary when making broad points, but that argument is an all too common dismissal rooted in what is truly just ad hominem (not in your case, as you seem quite reasonable).

Abstinence should be encouraged, but idealism is naive, so nobody should actually expect teaching that to solve the issue. It isn't even presented as an option or even suggested at all though, which I find to be an egregious error.

As for insurance covering contraceptives, there should be religious exemptions for sincerely held beliefs. If I were in a position where I had to directly support someone else's immoral behavior, I think that'd be unfair. I can't stop them but shouldn't be forced to participate either, similar to how a baker shouldn't be forced to bake gay wedding cakes.

 

[Chandelier]

I was going to stop on this conversation till you said that smug ass response at the end of your reasoning. I know what I'm talking about retard but statistically, most abortions are by irresponsible slut women who don't want to accept consequence of being a whore who sleeps around.

Your reasoning of tard babies being aborted is a very small statistic, and sure, we make fun of all types of retards here but not every retard turns out to be a lolcow. Being a tard baby doesn't give people the right to kill a human life just because they may be born with a mental illness.

Also the life of the mother being threatened is a very rare thing too.

Yes these are things that happen, but the logic of letting things happen because of some fringe reason has proven time and time again to degrade society into further degeneracy. The fringe reasoning argument is why we are having trans women competing in biological women's sports.

In the 1920s, when America was all about traditional values and the International Jew was published, abortion and the eugenics movement were very intertwined. It's how Margaret Sanger managed to get free of Comstock Laws, the laws that banned any discussion of sex or birth control.

Now, the slut thing. All sluts need to take a dick. The men who impregnate them and who toss them around like meat aren't nearly as punished for their role in creating an unwanted or poverty-stricken child. It's a pump and dump manner. And, if Guttmacher is correct, at least a third of good Catholic girls get abortions.

It isn't about tards being lolcows, it's tard babies having conditions that severely impact their quality of life. Tards that cannot eat, drink, or think on their own and who stare aimlessly into space. You expect the mother to deprive her life taking care of that child, to forgo other potential or existing healthier children, so there can be dignity in that life.

With the development of CRISPR and other genetic screening technologies, aborting defective embryos or fetuses is easier than ever. According to some, this is 'ableist'; the willful elimination of the unfit.

Once upon a time everyone had a unspoken agreement that it was the most merciful thing to do.

The 'murder' debate always relies on personhood. We may joke about spergs, welfare and how much things cost but we don't really like to talk about how severe these conditions are or how much it costs to keep them alive. Everyone has a price tag over their heads.

It interesting to compare the extremes of pro-abortion and anti-abortion, first with this George Carlin monologue.

And this quote attributed/misattributed to Ronald Reagan.
View attachment 3248238

And then, we laugh of this like El Risitas.

Btw in Canada, Justin Trudeau said he stands for pro-abortion. I wonder if Justin will do a Pikachu surprising face if we said right to him "Too bad then your mom didn't aborted, we wouldn't got a lousy little runt as a prime minister now"?

What's hilarious is that when Reagan was governor, he liberalized California's abortion laws. He later said he was firmly anti abortion but that didn't stop the fact he did the one thing Repubs view as mass murder. It can be argued he did whatever he could to reverse that legacy - and the Right did become more mobilized on abortion in that decade.

This logic--the implication that killing people is good if it's for the purpose of reducing "ghetto culture"--means we should just kill all black people entirely and be done with it. Boom no more ghetto culture problem solved. Simply allowing them to abort clearly wasn't getting the trick done on its own.



Eugenics straight up. Rather than half assing it by encouraging abortion, this implies that we should simply sterilize "stupid people" and be done with it. Again, boom problem solved.

You people really don't think this stuff through, do you? Come on. You can do better.

The underlying issue here is undoubtedly race and IQ, and how both impact socioeconomic status. Naturally, ghetto culture won't be erased by abortion because it still lives in those who have many children with more than one mother. Ultimately that's a cultural issue. I wager Sanger had to confront these issues when she set up her clinics in black communities.

The harder you push liberals on abortion, the faster they reveal themselves to be eugenicists. It's amazing really. All those claims of 'my body my choice' and underneath it all they're just like 'well we can't let the nigs breed'. How accepting, how progressive.

This is in response to both replies above: abortion is, and always will be, eugenics. Around 36% of those who get them are low SES women from minority backgrounds, be they black or Hispanic, and for the former the out-of-wedlock birthrate is quite large.
Therapeutic abortion is absolutely eugenics, especially through CRISPR, and the elimination of Down Syndrome babies in Scandinavia and Europe is eugenics.

Abortion rates have declined thanks to birth control, better sex ed and family planning, but there will be a contingent that will always be based in eugenics.

I don't get one thing. If the left aborts all their tardbabies, there won't be anyone left to vote Democrat. Just proves yet again they don't understand consequences.

Don't be silly. They'll import their voters. 1.2 million illegals were caught (that we know of) just last year - that is where they're coming from.

There are no moral or ethical arguments in favor of abortion. There are bad ones, I guess you could say. Like all these people saying "well if you don't kill the children in the womb they won't have a good life." But there are no legitimate ones. There is no legitimate moral or ethical argument for why murdering a child is okay.

Again, we're going back to what is considered murder here. Is the zygote a person? Is it murder throughout all stages of development or during certain stages?

There are ethical ones via therapeutic abortion, where the quality of life is severely impacted, as well as the family's finances.

@gang weeder

The overwhelming majority of pro-life people have no issue with contraceptives (as in, measures that actually prevent conception). I'm not sure that I've ever met anyone who wanted to ban condoms, online or off. There are probably some religious nuts if you looked hard enough, but such an attitude is clearly disconnected from the topic of abortion (i.e. it wouldn't make any more sense for me to claim that all pro-abortion people are bad because some tiny proportion of them believe that infanticide is also okay).

They do now. Many years ago they were firmly against it as they still viewed BC as an abortifacient. Certain aspects of the Catholic community continue to view contraception as a form of murder. Once BC started working personally for them did it become fashionable, albeit they didn't want federal coverage for it.

 

[Neurotypical Mantis]

Spoiler: sperg

most people are terrible parents and will likely raise a kid that will grow up to be a sociopath, schizo, etc. neurological conditions usually stem from early childhood. a parent who wanted to abort their kid likely won't be a good parent.
there's too many people in the world and most of them are retarded. you know this, i know this, we all know that more tard babies being born is a waste of space.
sometimes birth kills the mother. then the kid has to grow up without a mother or ALSO die.
sometimes rape happens. then you should take plan b. that goes for most of the others too. unless you couldn't get away from the abuser to actually purchase and take said plan b.
everyone else should be less retarded and actually take responsibility. wear a fucking condom.
also if you HAVE to abort do it as early as possible for both your health and for less horrific shit

tl;dr there are exceptions but for most of you just be responsible for once in your trash whore life. morning after and birth control pills exist for a reason.

 

[Sealbaby]

Metal

 

[Sanshain]

@Chandler Quotes not working. But nice to see an actually sane person here for a change.

I'm staunchly anti-abortion for the most part, but I believe some exceptions are reasonable. If there is undeniable proof a child is hideously deformed and incompatible with life, or won't even be born with basic sentience, then you can fairly argue that abortion is just an extension of a miscarriage - a natural biological safeguard against such pregnancies that nonetheless sometimes fails to work properly.

The issue with this and all other similar exceptions is the lack of certainty. I personally know at least one woman who was very strongly advised to get an abortion because multiple medical professionals sincerely believed her baby would be born with severe mental and physical defects. She was pressured quite heavily, but ultimately chose to carry to term. Her daughter came out perfectly healthy with no abnormalities whatsoever. The doctors were all completely wrong, and she was never even given an explanation of why they were so convinced that abortion was the best option. In a similar case, another woman became pregnant in her mid-40's and was advised to abort based on the elevated risk of neurological disorders due to her age. Once again, she had a perfectly healthy baby with no defects.

In criminal law it's often said that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man. I believe the same thing applies to abortions. If there is any reasonable degree of uncertainty, the risk of destroying a perfectly viable human life is simply not morally acceptable. Even if a defect is certain, the degree it affects the newborn is as much a societal issue as it is a biological issue. Even children born with Downs Syndrome can lead productive, happy lives. Eugenics inherently cheapens the value of human life and puts humanity on a slippery slope, and abortion is eugenics, no matter how you look at it.

You can claim that publicly available abortion has good outcomes, and I won't entirely disagree. But saying that it creates an overall net positive is like saying that a mass shooter with a body count of ten people had a positive impact on society because one of his victims was a terrorist who was planning to blow up a fully-loaded commercial airliner later that day. Even the numbers that have been repeatedly cited in this thread agree; the overwhelming majority of abortions are purely elective, not the result of rape, incest or dangerous fetal abnormality. This sets a genuinely nightmarish societal precedent. It is purely something used for convenience now, not for any objective benefit to humanity as a whole.

We got rid of CFC's when it was proven they destroyed the atmosphere.

We got rid of leaded fuel when it was proven it lowered IQ and caused dangerous air pollution.

We got rid of arsenic in, well, fucking everything when it was proven a lethal poison.

Multiple times throughout history, humans have collectively come together and said 'we reject the usage of this extremely convenient thing that everyone has come to rely on, because the death toll is inexcusable, and we cannot justify the health costs of keeping it'.

Yet abortion has killed more people than all the examples above, put together. 99% or more of those people were killed for no reason other than convenience, because their parents had been lazy and not taken proper precautions. But uniquely, we still pretend this is in any way acceptable.

This is a black stain on the human conscience.

 

[gang weeder]

Now, the slut thing. All sluts need to take a dick. The men who impregnate them and who toss them around like meat aren't nearly as punished for their role in creating an unwanted or poverty-stricken child. It's a pump and dump manner. And, if Guttmacher is correct, at least a third of good Catholic girls get abortions.

At the same time, if a man gets a woman pregnant and decides he would like to have the child, he gets no say in the matter. The decision to kill the child rests solely with the woman. So I would argue this is wholly appropriate within the current regime. No agency means no responsibility. Of course, you are ignoring the fact that the legal system will force men to pay child support even if the woman never allows him to see their child.

It isn't about tards being lolcows, it's tard babies having conditions that severely impact their quality of life. Tards that cannot eat, drink, or think on their own and who stare aimlessly into space. You expect the mother to deprive her life taking care of that child, to forgo other potential or existing healthier children, so there can be dignity in that life.

Not necessarily. I don't often see the topic of what to do with "tard babies" discussed, but that's because the argument can never move past the immorality of abortion in the first place. I wouldn't be opposed to having some form of state care for such people. We certainly hand out untold trillions in welfare for far less worthy reasons. But again, we would have to agree that abortion is wrong first before this talking point would merit any serious consideration.

The 'murder' debate always relies on personhood. We may joke about spergs, welfare and how much things cost but we don't really like to talk about how severe these conditions are or how much it costs to keep them alive. Everyone has a price tag over their heads.

Again: If "having a price tag" over someone's head justifies killing them, we should just kill off the black population and be done with it. I don't know why you people have such a difficult time with this one, no amount of repetition ever seems to break through the programming on it.

Again, we're going back to what is considered murder here. Is the zygote a person? Is it murder throughout all stages of development or during certain stages?

A zygote is a human being, so yes, willfully terminating them is murder. There is no justification for picking a particular stage of development at which a human being is arbitrarily conferred personhood.

There are ethical ones via therapeutic abortion, where the quality of life is severely impacted, as well as the family's finances.

All of these so-called "ethical arguments" also justify infanticide. I have yet to find anyone who is willing to seriously claim that infanticide is okay due to "quality of life" or "financial" concerns. Maybe you'll be the first?

They do now. Many years ago they were firmly against it as they still viewed BC as an abortifacient. Certain aspects of the Catholic community continue to view contraception as a form of murder. Once BC started working personally for them did it become fashionable, albeit they didn't want federal coverage for it.

My understanding of the so-called "birth control" pill is that it is in fact an abortifacient, as a zygote forms and is then unable to implant into the lining of the uterus. By definition, a contraceptive must stop conception from occurring, such as a condom. An intervention which allows conception to occur then terminates the child is not contraception.

 

[Sanshain]

A zygote is a human being, so yes, willfully terminating them is murder. There is no justification for picking a particular stage of development at which a human being is arbitrarily conferred personhood.

It doesn't even matter whether or not it is a human being. The fact is that once insemination has occurred, an inevitable chain of events has begun which will always (biological factors being favorable of course) result in the creation of a sapient being. It's a constant process, with no interruptions or suspensions. It's not like a bird egg, where fertilization requires additional external factors to produce viable cellular growth, it begins the instant egg and sperm meet, with no way to stop or reverse the process without extinguishing a life.

This is, once again, a slippery slope, as demonstrated by the deranged ramblings of certain posters here. Once you accept that you can terminate a life 'before it becomes alive', you open up a massive can of existential worms and end up questioning the very nature of human cognizance itself. It goes right back down that eugenics path again, and implies that murder isn't a matter of results, but a matter of timing.

 

[gang weeder]

It doesn't even matter whether or not it is a human being. The fact is that once insemination has occurred, an inevitable chain of events has begun which will always (biological factors being favorable of course) result in the creation of a sapient being. It's a constant process, with no interruptions or suspensions. It's not like a bird egg, where fertilization requires additional external factors to produce viable cellular growth, it begins the instant egg and sperm meet, with no way to stop or reverse the process without extinguishing a life.

This is, once again, a slippery slope, as demonstrated by the deranged ramblings of certain posters here. Once you accept that you can terminate a life 'before it becomes alive', you open up a massive can of existential worms and end up questioning the very nature of human cognizance itself. It goes right back down that eugenics path again, and implies that murder isn't a matter of results, but a matter of timing.

Well yes, this is why I commonly pose to anti-lifers the hypothetical of a person in a coma who you know for a fact will wake up in 9 months. Can you kill them? Obviously not. This situation is equivalent to that of a fetus (or a zygote, for that matter). But I do find it important to still emphasize that a zygote is a person. A person at the earliest possible stage of development, no doubt, but the formation of a zygote is the clear point at which we can identify that a new individual member of the species has come into existence.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

Spoiler: sperg

most people are terrible parents and will likely raise a kid that will grow up to be a sociopath, schizo, etc. neurological conditions usually stem from early childhood. a parent who wanted to abort their kid likely won't be a good parent.
there's too many people in the world and most of them are retarded. you know this, i know this, we all know that more tard babies being born is a waste of space.
sometimes birth kills the mother. then the kid has to grow up without a mother or ALSO die.
sometimes rape happens. then you should take plan b. that goes for most of the others too. unless you couldn't get away from the abuser to actually purchase and take said plan b.
everyone else should be less retarded and actually take responsibility. wear a fucking condom.
also if you HAVE to abort do it as early as possible for both your health and for less horrific shit

tl;dr there are exceptions but for most of you just be responsible for once in your trash whore life. morning after and birth control pills exist for a reason.

That is one hitch I always find though, is that there are a lot of cases where people who are the most concerned over their fitness as a parent actually would be fairly good parents.

The trashy women can't be bothered, they'll just pop out a kid and let it be society's problem. They're too airheaded and self centered to actually think that far into the future. Getting an abortion is inconvenient, so they probably won't do it.
It's people like Lindsay Ellis who are getting abortions, and I'm of the mind that she'd be 1/3 of the malicious harpy she is today had she not gotten that abortion.

Spoiler: Birth Control Rant

And anyways, a little OT but what woman these days don't just get an IUD? It blows my mind that that's still a thing.

Even back in 2015 like 42% of female gynecologists used one and that number has gone even higher in recent years, every single woman I know in the current day who actually gets laid has one, you go to your gynecologist one time to get the thing in, some women say it's uncomfortable others don't have any problem at all, but then you're good for 3 to 12 years. If you want to to have a kid in that time, ya go back and get it taken out. They're >99% effective.

I realize it got a bad name years back because they did something dumb with how they designed the threading that hung down out of the cervix (it was braided thread which allowed bacteria to wick up into the uterus) which led to severe intrauterine infections, but that's not a problem anymore and hasn't been for a long time.

I don't understand why any woman would rely on something as dodgy as the pill, and condoms should more so be for STD prevention. Every unintentional pregnancy in someone I've known personally in the past has, in every single case, resulted from the failure of birth control pills.

Outside of other uses like to deal with heavy periods I cannot understand what would possess anyone to use the pill anymore with how inconsistent and inconvenient it is, but I never know, there's so much bizarre stuff involved with having a uterus that at this point if they told me they had to use chants and rituals to keep their vaginas from consuming them during the night I'd believe them.

PS: I hope your ducks are doing well

It doesn't even matter whether or not it is a human being. The fact is that once insemination has occurred, an inevitable chain of events has begun which will always (biological factors being favorable of course) result in the creation of a sapient being. It's a constant process, with no interruptions or suspensions. It's not like a bird egg, where fertilization requires additional external factors to produce viable cellular growth, it begins the instant egg and sperm meet, with no way to stop or reverse the process without extinguishing a life.

This is, once again, a slippery slope, as demonstrated by the deranged ramblings of certain posters here. Once you accept that you can terminate a life 'before it becomes alive', you open up a massive can of existential worms and end up questioning the very nature of human cognizance itself. It goes right back down that eugenics path again, and implies that murder isn't a matter of results, but a matter of timing.

There is no slippery slope: human life has no inherent meaning. Sapience is an illusion. You are what you do, if you do nothing you are nothing.

People who live in regular big boy world and not fantasy Sanshain land don't have a lot of patience for the twitter "Oh, the value and rights of human life!" garbage. Does your kid do anything for me? No? Then I can advise you and I would like for you to have good outcomes, but ultimately I couldn't give less of a fuck what you do, I have not the slightest interest in even thinking about it or lending any resources to it, kill all your children, the babies and the regular ones, kill your whole family, kill yourself, so long as it isn't in my state or my town I could not care less at the end of the day, I have my own already struggling people to worry about and there are a lot who'd be happy to use whatever space you free up.

Oh, but I'm sure it's all about some contrived "degradation of the moral fiber of society" and how it's the cause of all our problems; they're definitely not caused by the countless useless incompetent retards who can't do a fucking thing for themselves and thus are totally reliant on the increasingly centralized elite. No, that's what we really have a shortage of, arrogant self-important ideologues. Worry more about becoming self sufficient so it matters less what other people think...oh, that's actually challenging. Sorry, I forgot the goal here was to avoid genuine self improvement at all costs.

Go get an orchiectomy and start taking HRT, because only especially dim witted women struggle this badly to think objectively and are this desperate to stick their nose in other people's business.

 

[Neurotypical Mantis]

(can't reply but i haven't visited the ducks in a while. last time i did most of them forgot me and i haven't seen muscovy at all )

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

It doesn't even matter whether or not it is a human being. The fact is that once insemination has occurred, an inevitable chain of events has begun which will always (biological factors being favorable of course) result in the creation of a sapient being. It's a constant process, with no interruptions or suspensions. It's not like a bird egg, where fertilization requires additional external factors to produce viable cellular growth, it begins the instant egg and sperm meet, with no way to stop or reverse the process without extinguishing a life.

This is, once again, a slippery slope, as demonstrated by the deranged ramblings of certain posters here. Once you accept that you can terminate a life 'before it becomes alive', you open up a massive can of existential worms and end up questioning the very nature of human cognizance itself. It goes right back down that eugenics path again, and implies that murder isn't a matter of results, but a matter of timing.

Circumstances being favorable, a child will inevitably grow into an adult, but that doesn't mean that they have the same legal rights as an adult. Do you disagree with this, or do you only consider timing irrelevant in the case of abortion?

Additional question: if life begins at conception, why is a person's age defined as the time since their birth?

 

[Hotter Shoeonhead.]

A bad faith argument means intellectual dishonesty. Example of an actual exchange I had with someone:

"We can't build a border wall because it costs too much money."

"What if it could somehow be built for 0 dollars?"

"Well, we still shouldn't build it."

The initial argument that it costs too much money was thus exposed as dishonest. Another common example:

"We have to protect the right to abortion because of cases of rape and fetal abnormalities."

"What about the 95+% of abortions where those are not factors?"

"Well, we have to allow those too."

It gets bought up because of laws like this getting passed women are cornered about abortion laws when we see shit like this.
https://www.today.com/today/amp/rcna20581
From what I can tell late term abortions are even rarer and after Dr George Tiller was murdered there are only like two doctors left who actively perform them and mostly only for medical reasons like abnormalities or threat to mother’s life I am not talking Down syndrome babies here either But horrifying and painful shit like this yet you people still can’t stop screeching about something that is incredibly rare and usually only done for medical reasons either.

 

[Zwarbo]

Dear Christians... what is it with you and the sissy diaper babies being aborted? The answer to that question is in the Bible...

Abortions are mentioned in several places in the Bible (even though some Christians will argue otherwise) and it’s in Romans where this issue is addressed:

“It is clearly not welcome for a woman to marry a man more than one month older, but the husband should get along with his wife’s father or mother; thus have the two in mind, for this is pleasing to God. Because of these benefits, therefore, a man should have married one with which to begin life, for a woman now is not suited for the man of tomorrow, since she is a woman of the past. A young man should get along with a woman who is not too young, but as for those who are more than two years older, this is not right.” Romans chapter 7,

But the point here isn’t about this; instead, it’s about the fact that sissy boys don’t exist.

You see, sissy boys, while they would be perfectly acceptable as a second or third wife for a man who has no ‘first wife’, as a ‘first wife’ themselves, you would have a first wife’s husband, and that would be unacceptable. The Bible says that it is wrong for a man to have multiple wives because it puts him in a position of being more powerful than the woman whom he married to. It also says that one cannot have a ‘third’ wife, but if a man has two wives, and this ‘second’ wife is pregnant or if she has had a child by another man, the ‘second’ wife can also serve as a ‘third’ wife for her husband, as long as her husband has not had a child by her.

As it is in the world, therefore, you would have two wives. And as there are no ‘third’ women for you in this scenario, you have the choice to either divorce the wife who is pregnant, or to raise the child as your own.

This means, of course, that there is no choice for you: you must get rid of the unborn child. Abortion is the logical conclusion in this situation.

Which brings us to what would be acceptable as the ‘other’ option:

“If they divorce, they must not go back to their father’s house for three days.

And when they come back to the house of their father, the father must not put his sandal on his foot, because on this day the son of the Sabbath will be held as holy, as a Nazirite. The woman is to wait outside until the day is over.”

And that, of course, is the reason you see so many sissy boys being aborted. They are the ones who ‘have to be killed’.

The sissy child, of course, would be allowed to live: “If this child has one or both parents living, they are to be included among the children. But if they are being killed, he is to be killed with them. The rest of the descendants are to be put to the test and to the ban”

“So then, my friends, you also must be perfect, as I am.”

You must live right, for the Lord wants it. If you live a life of sin, you have made no choice. You live in the world. You do not choose to be here; so the choice to live as the Lord commands, is yours. The rest, you just follow their example.

Jesus says, “If you are the Christ, you must be baptized by them in the name of your Father. For if you are Jesus’s son, you are part of his team; you must also obey the instructions that he gives.”

In many ways, this explains the whole sissy issue.

Sissy boys are just boys born into the body of a woman. They were chosen to be born by the Almighty; their sex and gender were decided by the Almighty. They were chosen to be born, and because they are ‘born into sin’, they cannot choose to die.

What they must do is follow the path that Jesus set for us; they must follow God’s path; they must be baptized, and they must follow the instructions of their Father. And because they are sinners, they are born into a world that has been created to be ‘anti-life’: things that do not need to be here. And this is their choice; it is part of their sin.

It is, in fact, this sin that is the basis for all of the ‘evils’ of the world that our Christian brothers and sisters love so much to be against. They believe that the world is a place that is anti-life; a place that does not need to be here; a place that is created to be an ‘anti-life machine’. They believe that God created the world in such a way that his laws, for example, are always being broken, and so they must destroy this world if they are ever going to win.

They’re wrong, of course. Life does need to be here, as much as any of us need to breathe and need to eat. It was given to us by the Almighty to keep us alive, so that we might do good works, and bring glory to God.

“If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

No, a sissy boy is not my son; he is not my servant. I do not have a son; Jesus does not have a servant. A sissy boy is born in sin and has no choice but to go and serve in sin. But if he is the Christ, he is a servant, chosen by God to be God’s servant. He has no choice in that.

He has no choice. But if he is like me, the God who is God, he has choice.

So Jesus says, “My friends, you must choose to live a life that is free. You must choose to live as God says. If you do, you will be free, as we shall see.”

“And if you are a disciple of mine and you live in my name and my Father gives you his word, abide by it! You shall never go beyond your Lord, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

This explains a lot of things.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

you people still can’t stop screeching about something that is incredibly rare

"R a P e"