The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Tomboy Respecter]

I'd rather it not be a living person than a potential person.

Literally everybody involved (woman and child) is a person. The only potential people are people that actually don't exist but could (as in they haven't been, aren't and never will be conceived but they had at least the potential to be conceived at some point). A fetus is an ACTUAL human being. Sure, not a fully grown human being, but it's still a human being.

 

[Eris!]

Literally everybody involved (woman and child) is a person. The only potential people are people that actually don't exist but could (as in they haven't been, aren't and never will be conceived but they had at least the potential to be conceived at some point). A fetus is an ACTUAL human being. Sure, not a fully grown human being, but it's still a human being.

A sperm cell is a potential human being. A fetus is an actual human being. An adult is a fully developed human being. A corpse is a dead human being.
All of the above except sperm cells are human beings.

 

[haurchefant]

I'm well aware of man love Thursday. I still would prefer that than western globohomo

I don't think you would, those societies are heavily stratified and caste based. You still wouldn't get a wife because the local shiekh buys up all the women and imports more 4 year old girls as sex slaves for his harem. You can't get women if they've all been taken up by territorial husbands. And if you tried to poach he would happily kill you.

Sniveling "Islam is right about women" is just the same as "Islam is right about being pro-child rape" or "Islam is right about being pro-bachi bazi." Islam is an entire package in of itself: the oppression of women goes hand in hand with societal approval of mass child rape and child brides. Approving of one means you approve of the other, you can't be a lunch tray Muslim and approve of enslaving, selling, and violently oppressing women while not approving of enslaving and raping children. In fact the violent oppression of women is exactly how you get the enslavement and mass rape of their children that Islam practices. Under ordinary circumstances women will act to protect their kids, it's their biological function after all. In order to gang rape children on the scale Islam has, you need to oppress their mothers first.

That's why it's such a big deal that Muslims commit all the child rape in Rotherham and Telford, because Islam is based in pedophilia. If you want to do something muh globohomo then do something about Islam and stop them from spreading their sick degeneracy about how children exist to be gangraped and turned into prostitutes. Any approval of Islam is an approval pedophilia. It's interesting to me how easy people find it to be enthusiastic for that.

No one thinks about why Islam is so popular with the Hollywood class even though we know that industry is infested with pedos and Islamic society is a religion of pedos. Maybe a closer look should be taken at that. But maybe that doesn't fight globohomo enough lol. In my mind I'm perfectly happy to label Islam-supporters as pedophiles, they're closely linked to the pedophilia that infects other male-oriented groups like MGTOW (as chronicled in the MGTOW thread here on KF.)

Anyway, abortion is still necessary and those who want to throw it under the rug are in denial about the realities of pregnancy, the realities of race, and the misery of having to care for a severely disabled child. IMO the current Romanian model of available abortion up to 14 weeks is the most optimal choice. It gives women time for genetic screening but you don't get these McDonald's drive in types that just get abortions for no reason.

 

[Eris!]

I don't think you would, those societies are heavily stratified and caste based. You still wouldn't get a wife because the local shiekh buys up all the women and imports more 4 year old girls as sex slaves for his harem. You can't get women if they've all been taken up by territorial husbands. And if you tried to poach he would happily kill you.

That would still be significantly better than what we have now.

the oppression of women goes hand in hand with societal approval of mass child rape and child brides.

No lmao.

Approving of one means you approve of the other,

No lmao.

you can't be a lunch tray Muslim and approve of enslaving, selling, and violently oppressing women while not approving of enslaving and raping children.

You literally can.

That's why it's such a big deal that Muslims commit all the child rape in Rotherham and Telford, because Islam is based in pedophilia. If you want to do something muh globohomo then do something about Islam and stop them from spreading their sick degeneracy about how children exist to be gangraped and turned into prostitutes. Any approval of Islam is an approval pedophilia. It's interesting to me how easy people find it to be enthusiastic for that.

If you think Hitler building the autobahn was good you must also think the holocaust was good i am very smart.
Judging things discretely? What's that?

No one thinks about why Islam is so popular with the Hollywood class even though we know that industry is infested with pedos and Islamic society is a religion of pedos.

Because they want to subvert and destroy our society.

In my mind I'm perfectly happy to label Islam-supporters as pedophiles, they're closely linked to the pedophilia that infects other male-oriented groups like MGTOW (as chronicled in the MGTOW thread here on KF.)

It's weird how one statement of how Islam is right about one thing in particular, which was not phrased as an endorsement of Islam in general, got this long winded rant from you. But the actual topic and hand can't wrangle a single paragraph of coherence out of you. Fascinating.

Anyway, abortion is still necessary

Necessity does not excuse evil. If living the life you want necessitates doing something evil, you don't get to live the life you want.

those who want to throw it under the rug are in denial about the realities of pregnancy, the realities of race, and the misery of having to care for a severely disabled child.

We're not in denial about them, it's just that none of them are relevant to the morality of the act.

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

I don't think you would, those societies are heavily stratified and caste based. You still wouldn't get a wife because the local shiekh buys up all the women and imports more 4 year old girls as sex slaves for his harem. You can't get women if they've all been taken up by territorial husbands. And if you tried to poach he would happily kill you.

Sniveling "Islam is right about women" is just the same as "Islam is right about being pro-child rape" or "Islam is right about being pro-bachi bazi." Islam is an entire package in of itself: the oppression of women goes hand in hand with societal approval of mass child rape and child brides. Approving of one means you approve of the other, you can't be a lunch tray Muslim and approve of enslaving, selling, and violently oppressing women while not approving of enslaving and raping children. In fact the violent oppression of women is exactly how you get the enslavement and mass rape of their children that Islam practices. Under ordinary circumstances women will act to protect their kids, it's their biological function after all. In order to gang rape children on the scale Islam has, you need to oppress their mothers first.

That's why it's such a big deal that Muslims commit all the child rape in Rotherham and Telford, because Islam is based in pedophilia. If you want to do something muh globohomo then do something about Islam and stop them from spreading their sick degeneracy about how children exist to be gangraped and turned into prostitutes. Any approval of Islam is an approval pedophilia. It's interesting to me how easy people find it to be enthusiastic for that.

No one thinks about why Islam is so popular with the Hollywood class even though we know that industry is infested with pedos and Islamic society is a religion of pedos. Maybe a closer look should be taken at that. But maybe that doesn't fight globohomo enough lol. In my mind I'm perfectly happy to label Islam-supporters as pedophiles, they're closely linked to the pedophilia that infects other male-oriented groups like MGTOW (as chronicled in the MGTOW thread here on KF.)

Anyway, abortion is still necessary and those who want to throw it under the rug are in denial about the realities of pregnancy, the realities of race, and the misery of having to care for a severely disabled child. IMO the current Romanian model of available abortion up to 14 weeks is the most optimal choice. It gives women time for genetic screening but you don't get these McDonald's drive in types that just get abortions for no reason.

What I don't get is why you rightfully shit on Islam for being barbaric towards women and children yet think that abortion isn't similar in as far as it takes advantage of the weakest in society and makes their very existence beholden to people that don't recognize their dignity as human beings. In both cases, the stronger individual is benefited to the detriment of the weaker one. A Muslim could just as well argue using your logic that raping children and women is necessary for the functioning of society.

 

[haurchefant]

That would still be significantly better than what we have now.


No lmao.


No lmao.


You literally can.


If you think Hitler building the autobahn was good you must also think the holocaust was good i am very smart.
Judging things discretely? What's that?


Because they want to subvert and destroy our society.


It's weird how one statement of how Islam is right about one thing in particular, which was not phrased as an endorsement of Islam in general, got this long winded rant from you. But the actual topic and hand can't wrangle a single paragraph of coherence out of you. Fascinating.

Islamists are pedophiles and Islamist supporters are supporting pedophilic rape which goes hand in hand with the oppression of women. You cannot have one without the other.

I've also already written several paragraphs on abortion in this thread so even this retarded accusation falls flat on its face. I included rebutting your farcical suggestion that a rapist's family is capable of being responsible for the child the rapist helped conceive through rape (therefore aborting a baby conceived through rape is terribad because obvs the grandparents of the rapist could take care of it.) When I posted just one interesting paper about how sexual abusers are produced by their environment and how childhood sexual abuse is a strong indicator for the victim to become a sexual abuser themselves, you mysteriously disappeared from the conversation.

It must have been tough read. It was certainly tough for me to read through it. It was also very on topic since pregnancy by rape is still a valid reason for an abortion unless you're a violent zealot.

Necessity does not excuse evil. If living the life you want necessitates doing something evil, you don't get to live the life you want.

Reality shows that this is not true.

We're not in denial about them, it's just that none of them are relevant to the morality of the act.

They are extremely morally relevant if an abortion is done in self defense as per something like an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Eris!]

What I don't get is why you rightfully shit on Islam for being barbaric towards women and children yet think that abortion isn't similar in as far as it takes advantage of the weakest in society and makes their very existence beholden to people that don't recognize their dignity as human beings. In both cases, the stronger individual is benefited to the detriment of the weaker one.

In the liberal mindset any frustration of the will is evil. Laws and ethics to them are necessary evils, embraced for practical reasons. This man views a law forbidding you from murdering your baby as oppression. Since he sees no practical reason to validate that, he opposes it. The moral side of things is one he can't even see.

you mysteriously disappeared from the conversation.

I responded directly to that post and never left the conversation. You did. Lmao.

They are extremely morally relevant if an abortion is done in self defense as per something like an ectopic pregnancy.

What about in the 99%+ of other abortions where that isn't the case?

 

[Bland Crumbs]

I know I am late to this but the abortion debate had pretty much died down until the left started pushing for some insane shit. If you read what was being attempted in Virginia it was extremely gruesome. Incredibly late term abortions for virtually no reason at all. The suggested bill was originally pretty grim but required two doctors to say that the mother's life was in danger or would be severely impacted by the birth of the child. It was then changed to one doctor and essentially moderate inconvenience to the mother.

If the child survived the bill originally called for care but was changed to care being optional.

That attempted bill which was just as bad as everyone said it was is what started the furor up again.

That and the fact that Roe v Wade is extreme overreach by SCOTUS but they have been doing that shit since day one and will never stop no matter how many constitutionalists they get on board.

The answer really is to cut down the power of SCOTUS but that is not going to happen either.

I do find it funny that when this shit peaked in the 90's the left always said No woman would use abortions as contraception! That is ridiculous propaganda.

Guess we are kind of looking up that slope are we not?

 

[Eris!]

The answer really is to cut down the power of SCOTUS but that is not going to happen either.

The single purpose for which SCOTUS was constructed, shooting down unconstitutional laws, is not being performed. They are, in fact, doing the opposite.
Because SCOTUS is not fulfilling its purpose, there is literally no downside in just unilaterally abolishing it. Nothing of value would be lost.

 

[ChikN10der]

They are extremely morally relevant if an abortion is done in self defense as per something like an ectopic pregnancy.

Nobody here is opposed to abortion to save the mothers life and the left isn't pushing for that to be the deciding factor. If that's the limit of abortion you support then you ain't pro choice.

 

[haurchefant]

What I don't get is why you rightfully shit on Islam for being barbaric towards women and children yet think that abortion isn't similar in as far as it takes advantage of the weakest in society and makes their very existence beholden to people that don't recognize their dignity as human beings. In both cases, the stronger individual is benefited to the detriment of the weaker one. A Muslim could just as well argue using your logic that raping children and women is necessary for the functioning of society.

This thread has a lot of pages so I guess I don't blame you for not reading through them. However I have already stated that I believe all abortions are murder. Murder is taking the life of another human being, therefore, all abortions are killing a helpless person. A pregnancy includes a human being from the start, even if that human being isn't fully formed yet. 'A clump of cells' is actually a person even if they don't have limbs or organs.

So yeah, I actually think all abortions are murder. However, I am still not willing to ban abortions. My family has their experiences with malformed pregnancies and abortions, I have a relative that had an abortion decades ago because she had an ectopic pregnancy, the Fallopian tube burst or something. Her life was threatened, she had to go to the hospital and crap, apparently it was really dramatic for my mother at the time because they were really close.

Under a total abortion ban, she would have died because it would be illegal for her to be saved from a life threatening unsustainable pregnancy. I bet that a lot of people know someone with a similar experience or had that experience themselves. So I couldn't support a total abortion ban, because at least someone in my family would have died as a result of one. Ectopic pregnancies are life threatening, they do not result in a child being born that could be saved by a hospital NICU.

I also think that it's reasonable for a woman to have genetic testing to screen for a child with severe deformities, particularly a baby bor with encephalitis or any other deformities that would result in the child dying soon after birth.

Nobody here is opposed to abortion to save the mothers life and the left isn't pushing for that to be the deciding factor. If that's the limit of abortion you support then you ain't pro choice.

Erischan has posted a lot of propaganda that states any woman that has an abortion for any reason is a murderer and that she should be forced to have the baby anyway. I'm not really arguing with the pro-life crowd in this case, I'm more arguing with an Islamist-pedo supporting sped that wants women suffering life threatening pregnancies to die just so they can birth a child.

I responded directly to that post and never left the conversation. You did. Lmao.


What about in the 99%+ of other abortions where that isn't the case?

Link me then because I can't find it.

In the case of other abortions where there isn't a medical justification then it's the usual thing: rape and incest are reasons to abort (despite your assertions to the contrary). Like I've stated previously in my posts, 14 weeks is a reasonable limit for those circumstances.

 

[Eris!]

This thread has a lot of pages so I guess I don't blame you for not reading through them. However I have already stated that I believe all abortions are murder. Murder is taking the life of another human being, therefore, all abortions are killing a helpless person. A pregnancy includes a human being from the start, even if that human being isn't fully formed yet. 'A clump of cells' is actually a person even if they don't have limbs or organs.

You can't say. "It's murder, I don't care that it's murder," and expect anyone to take you seriously.
We presumed you were reasonable. Thanks for clarifying that you aren't.

Murder is taking the life of another human being,

Incorrect. That's killing. Why do none of you people understand this?

So yeah, I actually think all abortions are murder. However, I am still not willing to ban abortions.

Insane.

I bet that a lot of people know someone with a similar experience or had that experience themselves.

I'll take that bet. 99% of abortions are wholly elective procedures where the only life in danger is the fetus.

So I couldn't support a total abortion ban, because at least someone in my family would have died as a result of one.

Everyone in your family will die. Not everyone will be murdered.
The former is natural and inevitable. The latter is unnatural and impermissible.

Erischan has posted a lot of propaganda that states any woman that has an abortion for any reason is a murderer

You literally just said you agree with this.

that she should be forced to have the baby anyway.

"Forcing someone to have a baby" would be forcibly impregnating them. No one is FORCING anyone to have a baby by preventing them from murdering it. The only force applied to the mother is being applied by nature, not by me.

I'm not really arguing with the pro-life crowd in this case, I'm more arguing with an Islamist-pedo supporting sped that wants women suffering life threatening pregnancies to die just so they can birth a child.

...Who are you talking about?
Literally no one in this thread likes Islam. You sperged out because we said a single positive thing about a discrete stance it has.

Link me then because I can't find it.

Literally 100% of posts you have made have replies from me. There are zero exceptions.

rape and incest are reasons to abort

Those are included in the <1% of abortions that are non-elective.
What about the 99% of abortions that are purely for convenience? Why do none of you ever want to talk about those?

 

[haurchefant]

You can't say. "It's murder, I don't care that it's murder," and expect anyone to take you seriously.
We presumed you were reasonable. Thanks for clarifying that you aren't.

I don't care if people take me seriously or not, this is the internet. Very little that takes place on the internet is serious or reasonable.

Incorrect. That's killing. Why do none of you people understand this?

All killing is murder whether it's justified or not. The patter about "justification" is legal kikery. Sometimes murder is justified, doesn't mean it isn't murder.

Insane.

Ad hominem.

I'll take that bet. 99% of abortions are wholly elective procedures where the only life in danger is the fetus.

I doubt its 99% but yeah, I agree that most procedures aren't medically justified.

Everyone in your family will die. Not everyone will be murdered.
The former is natural and inevitable. The latter is unnatural and impermissible.

Ectopic pregnancies are unnatural and impermissable, they happen anyway.

You literally just said you agree with this.

Yeah. That doesn't mean murder isn't sometimes required to save the life of another human being. Just look at Second Amendment laws and any incident where someone has to use a gun to protect themselves or their family. If abortions go anywhere its not under privacy laws - they're under self defense laws. Actually I think that would help clear up a lot of issues because it would include the understanding that the mother's life is worth saving.

"

Forcing someone to have a baby" would be forcibly impregnating them. No one is FORCING anyone to have a baby by preventing them from murdering it. The only force applied to the mother is being applied by nature, not by me.

This is a fancy way of saying "women need to give birth to their rapist's baby" which is pretty chuckleworthy.

...Who are you talking about?
Literally no one in this thread likes Islam. You sperged out because we said a single positive thing about a discrete stance it has.

You claimed that it's possible to be in favor of oppressing women without being in favor of raping their children, which is a common stance for people who support Islam. Being blind to the sexual abuse of living growing children is inherent to Islam and its supporters. In my eyes that makes you as-good-as.

Literally 100% of posts you have made have replies from me. There are zero exceptions.

Then go back to the one where you replied to my post and link me to it, I'm too lazy to find it myself.

Those are included in the <1% of abortions that are elective.
What about the 99% of abortions that are purely for convenience? Why do none of you ever want to talk about those?

I've already talked about those at length. You're ignoring my words on it, that's not my fault.

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

So yeah, I actually think all abortions are murder. However, I am still not willing to ban abortions. My family has their experiences with malformed pregnancies and abortions, I have a relative that had an abortion decades ago because she had an ectopic pregnancy, the Fallopian tube burst or something. Her life was threatened, she had to go to the hospital and crap, apparently it was really dramatic for my mother at the time because they were really close.

That's the kicker though. You can terminate an ectopic pregnancy without committing murder. You will kill the child, but the point wasn't to kill it. It was to save the mother, since those typically are fatal if not treated. It's like how killing a man breaking into your house isn't murder, it's a justified killing (although I wouldn't go that far since that would imply the fetus intentionally implanted itself in the uterine tissue of the fallopian tube). Plus, I really don't think it's feasible nor prudent to actively prosecute and arrest all people that give or get abortions, because frankly people do immoral shit all the time and making it illegal only really helps if it's something blatant. I think it's better if it becomes a state's rights issue for one and we focus on it from a more cultural avenue and don't glorify it along with having a more healthy outlook on sexuality that neither indulges in it hedonistically nor shames it puritanically. Sorry about your aunt and your mom though.

 

[haurchefant]

That's the kicker though. You can terminate an ectopic pregnancy without committing murder. You will kill the child, but the point wasn't to kill it. It was to save the mother, since those typically are fatal if not treated. It's like how killing a man breaking into your house isn't murder, it's a justified killing (although I wouldn't go that far since that would imply the fetus intentionally implanted itself in the uterine tissue of the fallopian tube). Plus, I really don't think it's feasible nor prudent to actively prosecute and arrest all people that give or get abortions, because frankly people do immoral shit all the time and making it illegal only really helps if it's something blatant. I think it's better if it becomes a state's rights issue for one and we focus on it from a more cultural avenue and don't glorify it along with having a more healthy outlook on sexuality that neither indulges in it hedonistically nor shames it puritanically. Sorry about your aunt and your mom though.

FWIW I agree with you especially about the prosecution stuff. However it's my personal belief that taking the life any person no matter what the reasoning is, is murder. It's just that sometimes murder is needed in order to protect the life of someone else. Hence my belief that abortions should be filed under Self Defense, not this dumbassery about medical privacy that Roe v Wade came up with. It's something that I notice diverges with the thread's opinion a lot - it seems to be a common belief that a justified killing is not a stain on the soul. IMO it absolutely is. Even you said in this post that terminating an ectopic pregnancy involves killing a child, is that not murder?

You're absolutely right that it should be a state's rights issue. If California approves of abortion up to birth, which they will if they haven't already (just like they effectively decriminalized gay people infecting each other with HIV, lmao) then women like Lena Dunham should go there for their late term abortions if those late terms are outside medical justification. Otherwise states can be trusted to be challenged if their abortion laws are truly unreasonable.

It's just typical lefty authoritarianism to try to do a top-down enforcement regarding abortion but hey, we knew that already.

My aunt eventually survived the whole thing though she was effectively shoved out of her religious community and she lived alone for the rest of her life. The ectopic pregnancy destroyed her. She passed away a while ago, I hope she's in a better place now. At least she isn't suffering from the fallout anymore.

 

[Eris!]

Very little that takes place on the internet is serious or reasonable.

I'm both. I expect the same.

All killing is murder whether it's justified or not.

This is literally not true. Do you know what the word literally means?
It means you are using the word wrong. No, all killing is not "murder whether it's justified or not." That's literally an absurd nonsense sentence. Murder is justified killing.

The patter about "justification" is legal kikery.

It's a fundamentally relevant distinction.

Sometimes murder is justified, doesn't mean it isn't murder.

It literally does.

Ectopic pregnancies are unnatural and impermissable,

No, they're just tragic and ideally avoidable.
If your sister dies it's personally sad, because you care about her, but it's not wrong in an objective sense. Murder is.

I doubt its 99%

Planned Parenthood says so.

Yeah. That doesn't mean murder isn't sometimes required to save the life of another human being. Just look at Second Amendment laws and any incident where someone has to use a gun to protect themselves or their family.

That's literally not murder. I don't know why this is incomprehensible to you. This should not be a topic of discussion in a thread, it should be basic shit you learned when you were like six.

Actually I think that would help clear up a lot of issues because it would include the understanding that the mother's life is worth saving.

Saving from whom? Who is aggressing against her in a way that makes them morally culpable and self-relinquishes their right to life, such that she can kill them justifiably? Who?

This is a fancy way of saying "women need to give birth to their rapist's baby"

It's very much not. It's fascinating the leaps of logic and conflation you'll make. It shows where your blindspots are and what distinctions you can't see.

You claimed that it's possible to be in favor of oppressing women without being in favor of raping their children,

It literally is.

Being blind to the sexual abuse of living growing children is inherent to Islam and its supporters. In my eyes that makes you as-good-as.

This is incoherent gibberish with no logical thread.

go back to the one where you replied to my post and link me to it, I'm too lazy to find it myself.

lmao eat a dick

I've already talked about those at length. You're ignoring my words on it, that's not my fault.

You have not. You exclusively talk about the 1% of cases. Muh ectopic pregnancy. Muh rape.

You will kill the child, but the point wasn't to kill it.

That doesn't matter. You're still consciously causing it.

t's like how killing a man breaking into your house isn't murder, it's a justified killing (although I wouldn't go that far since that would imply the fetus intentionally implanted itself in the uterine tissue of the fallopian tube).

Your parentheses explain the exact distinction here. The child has not done anything. It is innocent. You have no moral justification that permits you to kill it.

because frankly people do immoral shit all the time and making it illegal only really helps if it's something blatant.

idk how murder isn't blatant

However it's my personal belief that taking the life any person no matter what the reasoning is, is murder.

That is not a personal belief. It is a factually incorrect use of a word, and a fundamental failure to understand a basic concept.
I assume you mean to say that killing any person no matter what the reasoning is, is murder. That would be coherent. It would be wrong, but it would be coherent.

Hence my belief that abortions should be filed under Self Defense

You can't claim self defense against someone who has taken no actions against you. You put the baby in yourself, he didn't invade you.

it seems to be a common belief that a justified killing is not a stain on the soul. IMO it absolutely is.

Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong. It was morally good to kill those three people trying to kill him.
You are a fucking dumbass and a faggot if you disagree.

If California approves of abortion up to birth, which they will if they haven't already (just like they effectively decriminalized gay people infecting each other with HIV, lmao) then women like Lena Dunham should go there for their late term abortions if those late terms are outside medical justification.

If California does that we should fucking firebomb it because they have collectively announced their irredeemability as people.

My aunt eventually survived the whole thing though she was effectively shoved out of her religious community and she lived alone for the rest of her life.

Good.

I hope she's in a better place now.

She is in the worst place imaginable now.

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

FWIW I agree with you especially about the prosecution stuff. However it's my personal belief that taking the life any person no matter what the reasoning is, is murder. It's just that sometimes murder is needed in order to protect the life of someone else. Hence my belief that abortions should be filed under Self Defense, not this dumbassery about medical privacy that Roe v Wade came up with. It's something that I notice diverges with the thread's opinion a lot - it seems to be a common belief that a justified killing is not a stain on the soul. IMO it absolutely is. Even you said in this post that terminating an ectopic pregnancy involves killing a child, is that not murder?

It’s not really murder. With murder, you intend to kill someone in an unjustifiable manner. When you kill a child as a consequence of an ectopic pregnancy, it’s not really the intent to kill the child, but to prevent the death of the mother. It’s unfortunate and not anything that anyone should want, but it is a necessary evil in that instance. You would hardly be called a murderer if you did it compared to if you have a normal pregnancy and then abort the child (which is unquestionably murder). It’s like having to kill a violent intruder doesn’t make you a murderer but killing someone for a less justified and more selfish reason does. At the same time, rare cases like that have their own ethical status. Pretty much every other case of abortion (i.e. the general principle governing the moral status of abortion) falls into the “it’s murder camp”.

 

[haurchefant]

I'm both. I expect the same.


This is literally not true. Do you know what the word literally means?
It means you are using the word wrong. No, all killing is not "murder whether it's justified or not." That's literally an absurd nonsense sentence. Murder is justified killing.


It's a fundamentally relevant distinction.


It literally does.


No, they're just tragic and ideally avoidable.
If your sister dies it's personally sad, because you care about her, but it's not wrong in an objective sense. Murder is.


Planned Parenthood says so.


That's literally not murder. I don't know why this is incomprehensible to you. This should not be a topic of discussion in a thread, it should be basic shit you learned when you were like six.


Saving from whom? Who is aggressing against her in a way that makes them morally culpable and self-relinquishes their right to life, such that she can kill them justifiably? Who?


It's very much not. It's fascinating the leaps of logic and conflation you'll make. It shows where your blindspots are and what distinctions you can't see.


It literally is.


This is incoherent gibberish with no logical thread.


lmao eat a dick


You have not. You exclusively talk about the 1% of cases. Muh ectopic pregnancy. Muh rape.


That doesn't matter. You're still consciously causing it.


Your parentheses explain the exact distinction here. The child has not done anything. It is innocent. You have no moral justification that permits you to kill it.


idk how murder isn't blatant


That is not a personal belief. It is a factually incorrect use of a word, and a fundamental failure to understand a basic concept.
I assume you mean to say that killing any person no matter what the reasoning is, is murder. That would be coherent. It would be wrong, but it would be coherent.


You can't claim self defense against someone who has taken no actions against you. You put the baby in yourself, he didn't invade you.


Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong. It was morally good to kill those three people trying to kill him.
You are a fucking dumbass and a faggot if you disagree.


If California does that we should fucking firebomb it because they have collectively announced their irredeemability as people.


Good.


She is in the worst place imaginable now.

I want pro-lifers to read this and make sure they take it in. This guy wants women to die if they have ectopic pregnancies, etc. This is a big problem in the pro-life movement in general I think, because people like this have taken over the face of the movement which means when you try to talk to normal people...they just see a rambling idiot who can't wrap his head around the fact that ectopic pregnancies literally kill people. IMO these caricatures are a big reason why the pro-life movement has such a big problem in the United States. (That and harassing people outside of Planned Parenthoods was always a retarded move.)

It’s not really murder. With murder, you intend to kill someone in an unjustifiable manner. When you kill a child as a consequence of an ectopic pregnancy, it’s not really the intent to kill the child, but to prevent the death of the mother. It’s unfortunate and not anything that anyone should want, but it is a necessary evil in that instance. You would hardly be called a murderer if you did it compared to if you have a normal pregnancy and then abort the child (which is unquestionably murder). It’s like having to kill a violent intruder doesn’t make you a murderer but killing someone for a less justified and more selfish reason does. At the same time, rare cases like that have their own ethical status. Pretty much every other case of abortion (i.e. the general principle governing the moral status of abortion) falls into the “it’s murder camp”.

Well that's the rub isn't it? You're still killing a kid regardless. And there are plenty of real life people that will happily call women murderers if they get ectopic pregnancies aborted.

I'm more curious about stuff like genetic screening and aborting kids with Down syndrome now. Disabilities are an absolute crapshoot imo, they can be handled or they can cripple families, it seems like there's always a horror story of parents divorcing over the stress of taking care of their disabled kid. And then the poor kid ends up being shunted into a group home maintained by the state as soon as Mom dies and no one else will take the kid in. So my question is, would abortions be acceptable if it means that the state and families are no longer weighed down by disabled people?

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

I want pro-lifers to read this and make sure they take it in. This guy wants women to die if they have ectopic pregnancies, etc. This is a big problem in the pro-life movement in general I think, because people like this have taken over the face of the movement which means when you try to talk to normal people...they just see a rambling idiot who can't wrap his head around the fact that ectopic pregnancies literally kill people. IMO these caricatures are a big reason why the pro-life movement has such a big problem in the United States. (That and harassing people outside of Planned Parenthoods was always a retarded move.)



Well that's the rub isn't it? You're still killing a kid regardless. And there are plenty of real life people that will happily call women murderers if they get ectopic pregnancies aborted.

I'm more curious about stuff like genetic screening and aborting kids with Down syndrome now. Disabilities are an absolute crapshoot imo, they can be handled or they can cripple families, it seems like there's always a horror story of parents divorcing over the stress of taking care of their disabled kid. And then the poor kid ends up being shunted into a group home maintained by the state as soon as Mom dies and no one else will take the kid in. So my question is, would abortions be acceptable if it means that the state and families are no longer weighed down by disabled people?

Honestly, having disabled kids is really a good reason to have a strong community to back you up and help you raise them imo. I don’t think they deserve to die but at the same time I understand they aren’t easy to raise by yourself and the state of state-run adoption agencies is abyssmal. If I had a disabled child, I’d literally just ask for help from other family to raise them because sometimes it literally does take a village to raise a child.

 

[Eris!]

who can't wrap his head around the fact that ectopic pregnancies literally kill people.

I can absolutely wrap my head around it.

This guy wants women to die if they have ectopic pregnancies, etc.

Once again you fail to understand basic rhetorical differences like actively wanting something vs passively not caring if it happens.
I don't give a shit about your aunt, dude. You can give a shit about her if you want.

And there are plenty of real life people that will happily call women murderers if they get ectopic pregnancies aborted.

Like me.

I'm more curious about stuff like genetic screening and aborting kids with Down syndrome now. Disabilities are an absolute crapshoot imo, they can be handled or they can cripple families, it seems like there's always a horror story of parents divorcing over the stress of taking care of their disabled kid. And then the poor kid ends up being shunted into a group home maintained by the state as soon as Mom dies and no one else will take the kid in. So my question is, would abortions be acceptable if it means that the state and families are no longer weighed down by disabled people?

No. Why would that make murder acceptable? Murder is not acceptable just because it helps you avoid a negative life situation. That's why most people commit murder.

Honestly, having disabled kids is really a good reason to have a strong community to back you up and help you raise them imo. I don’t think they deserve to die but at the same time I understand they aren’t easy to raise by yourself and the state of state-run adoption agencies is abyssmal. If I had a disabled child, I’d literally just ask for help from other family to raise them because sometimes it literally does take a village to raise a child.

If you follow this argument to its roots, the argument is that life itself is an evil and we shouldn't impose it on people. "But they will suffer the indignity of being alive, wouldn't being dead be better?" No, no it wouldn't. And even if it would, that's not justification for murder. And if it was, it would be justification for geocoding our species, not doing it piecemeal.

When you kill a child as a consequence of an ectopic pregnancy, it’s not really the intent to kill the child, but to prevent the death of the mother.

That's still murder. If the death is incidental, but still something you consciously and knowingly caused, it's still murder. In fact, even if you didn't consciously and knowingly cause it, it might still be manslaughter if you directly caused it. The doctor is consciously choosing to end the child's life. Why he does that is not relevant.

It’s unfortunate and not anything that anyone should want, but it is a necessary evil in that instance.

I categorically reject the notion of necessary evils. Necessity is not justification.

You would hardly be called a murderer if you did it compared to if you have a normal pregnancy and then abort the child (which is unquestionably murder).

I see no relevant difference between the two scenarios. Both people are murderers.

It’s like having to kill a violent intruder doesn’t make you a murderer but killing someone for a less justified and more selfish reason does.

Killing an intruder is not justified by necessity. It is justified by the fact that the Intruder violating your own rights is a declaration that he waves his own. He gave you implicit permission to kill him. In contrast, if it is necessary for you to rob and kill someone to buy bread for you to eat and survive, that is immoral. Necessity is not justification. Necessary evils are still evil.

At the same time, rare cases like that have their own ethical status.

No they don't.

Pretty much every other case of abortion (i.e. the general principle governing the moral status of abortion) falls into the “it’s murder camp”.

The only circumstance in which I don't think abortion would be murder would be if a sperm cell sitting on a toilet literally invaded your pussy of its own volition and raped you itself, or something insane like that which creates direct responsibility on the part of the fetus.