- Joined
- May 5, 2020
can this thread get the plagued tag pls?
The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.
- Thread starter Sweetpeaa
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
Well you're losing so if I'm not good you must be terrible.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
Yes, people who are losers tend to not try because they're afraid of losing.
ChikN10der
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2020
"If you don't support every social welfare program ever suggested you're a baby murderer." Lol
Even if that were true (it's definitely not) how does that have any bearing on abortion?
Are you for or against killing hobos? Are you a hippocrite for not wanting them murdered, but also not wanting to pay for their life?
There are better arguments in favor of abortion than what's being presented here. Pro abortion people are so used to their opinion being the default they cannot argue it to save their lives.
Instead, they say you hate women and call you an incel.
Even if that were true (it's definitely not) how does that have any bearing on abortion?
Are you for or against killing hobos? Are you a hippocrite for not wanting them murdered, but also not wanting to pay for their life?
There are better arguments in favor of abortion than what's being presented here. Pro abortion people are so used to their opinion being the default they cannot argue it to save their lives.
Instead, they say you hate women and call you an incel.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
Nice low effort bait!
No the words I used were that he's not good at arguing and being self-masturbatory, read the thread.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
The first half this post is good information (which doesn't change jackshit nor makes me want to change my mind at all. Even if you are in pain during a c-section (which I fucking doubt but hey I'm not a doctor),you aren't dead for one and it's the same pain you'd feel in labor or having your vagina vaccumed out while killing your child. So what difference does it make? The other half is one part the rambling of a salty retard and the other part is bullshit. There's really nothing you are arguing other than the fact that you have the intellectual acumen of a fucking plank of wood.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
He's making more of an argument than pretty much any of the pro-abortion people, who 9 times out of 10, resort to insults. It says a lot about you that you go into a gun fight with a knife. Even a very prominent pro-abortion ethicist, Peter Singer, at least argues out his positions in a logical manner and is willing to debate and expand his position on the issue. So even as despicable as I find the position, it is in some sense logically defensible (although pretty much everything is logically defensible. That doesn't mean it is a good or even moral thing necessarily). All you faggots have been doing is making juvenile non-arguments for your position on the issue, which leads me to think that you aren't accustomed to dealing with pro-life people who don't argue like Christian fundamentalists.
Also, you do realize that that social welfare literally makes a some women give birth to more children explicitly to get benefits right? That's why they are very much different and unrelated issues: some women abort their children even if they get welfare benefits while others literally game the broken bureaucracy by having more kids and getting more welfare money.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
I came in to this thread being pro-abortion due to the fact that it had always been that way in my country in my lifetime and the fact that I had never really seen a decent discussion on the subject, but Erischan's steadfastness has given me a respect for the opposing position I had never truly understood in the past. The gap in willingness to discuss between one side and the other is staggering, and while my viewpoint has not changed I have lost faith in the conventional reasons for holding the position.
- Joined
- May 20, 2019
Being right on the internet: murder is wrong but don't care if a baby is killed, lol
He condemns abortions as murder (which is fair) but then complains that he doesn't give a shit about babies outside the womb being murdered, he typed that out himself. Even without the religion he epitomizes the fundie pro-lifer, being pro-birth at all costs but refusing to take part in any community participation of raising and protecting children because "muh tax dollars." Even when it was pointed out that he has it within his private means with no coercion to help others he still whined that he didn't care. It's just sad.
IMO having abortion legal means that we should defund most, if not all welfare programs for families anyway as mothers should be expected to get abortions for children they can't afford. (That's where I differ from people like Hollywood Hulk Hogan, if women have the choice to terminate their pregnancies then they don't get federal bux just to crap their spawn out.) It isn't murder to take welfare checks away from people, if you put a regular human being between a rock and a hard place then they will find it within themselves to find jobs and take responsibility for their decisions. It's like magic really, and that's why it's always a good thing when entitlement programs shrink.
The thing about abortion is that it's the perfect reason to finally shrink those welfare programs and in fact is an excellent reason to do so.
If women don't want to have abortions that is of course perfectly fine. It is natural and normal for people to want families. But I think the option should be there, especially when you get cases like this:
'cause man, fuck that lmao. Those kids btw? They're dead. They lived painful, ugly lives of uncertain sentience and most certain suffering.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
If welfare makes women keep their babies isn't that what you want? Oh no, some of them will have babies because they get welfare this is terrible, if only they'd not have sex and society was perfect! tell me, what alterative do you have? Be realistic.
@haurchefant is also completely correct. You guys can ignore my argument on this for the last several pages, but seriously, who want abortion illegal while welfare is also illegal, how does that make sense to prevent babies being aborted? You want no abortion but also don't like welfare? How is that going to work?
How about the deformed babies? They're a pretty big fucking drain on social-security-disability but if you're against abortion, they have to stay alive. We should keep abortion legal.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
That's actually kind of hypocritical then.
I'm not even going to pretend it is feasible to stop people from doing things that are morally wrong if their heart is dead set on it. That's why I don't think making abortion illegal will actually work: women will still seek them out and still get them. Roe v. Wade only makes it so that it is legal on a federal level and not the state level, which really is more appropriate since this is a states' rights issue in terms of US jurisprudence. There is no right to abortion and never was before '72 and the federal government should not be in the business of policing morality (more for practical reasons rather than ethical ones). Nor do I not understand why some women get them for economic reasons. That still really doesn't make it right though. That's the heart of the issue though and why I can only support the termination of a pregnancy in a case where the mother's life is actually at risk from it (and even then only in an indirect manner where the objective is to save the mother's life rather than kill the child): because it is taking a life and human life has worth (I'd go a bit farther than that and say all life has some worth but that's not important here), regardless of how shitty it is. It really has nothing to do with sentience or the levels of suffering either, because suffering is a part of life and some people live horrid shite lives (either of their own volition (or lack thereof) or just by cruel fate). Those people at the end of the day are still human beings and I feel we have a duty to recognize their worth even if they themselves don't. Even if those two sisters had a pretty shitty existence, they still are worth about as much as you or me really just by virtue of the fact that we are human beings. I think the real issue here is that we come to our conclusions about abortion from different standpoints: you focus more on the practical and economic side of things and I focus more on everyone's worth and dignity as human beings and while these usually coincide, they come to a head on the issue of abortion and irreconcilably so.Even without the religion he epitomizes the fundie pro-lifer, being pro-birth at all costs but refusing to take part in any community participation of raising and protecting children because "muh tax dollars." Even when it was pointed out that he has it within his private means with no coercion to help others he still whined that he didn't care. It's just sad.
IMO having abortion legal means that we should defund most, if not all welfare programs for families anyway as mothers should be expected to get abortions for children they can't afford. (That's where I differ from people like Hollywood Hulk Hogan, if women have the choice to terminate their pregnancies then they don't get federal bux just to crap their spawn out.) It isn't murder to take welfare checks away from people, if you put a regular human being between a rock and a hard place then they will find it within themselves to find jobs and take responsibility for their decisions. It's like magic really, and that's why it's always a good thing when entitlement programs shrink.
The thing about abortion is that it's the perfect reason to finally shrink those welfare programs and in fact is an excellent reason to do so.
If women don't want to have abortions that is of course perfectly fine. It is natural and normal for people to want families. But I think the option should be there, especially when you get cases like this:
'cause man, fuck that lmao. Those kids btw? They're dead. They lived painful, ugly lives of uncertain sentience and most certain suffering.
I'm gonna be honest though, I can't really judge a woman who does get an abortion due to difficult circumstances or prenatal deformities. It's sad for everyone involved. A child dies and a mother loses her child and possibly makes it hard to make another one. The only people that I do judge are those that have no sense of what has been lost and call the child a parasite in order to dehumanize it. I think that's borderline sociopathic behavior.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2017
The Law doesn't exist to stop people from doing things that are morally wrong (rape being illegal isn't going to stop a rapist from raping), only to punish those who break it, and describe how those punishments are to be carried. We don't judge laws by the crimes they prevent because they can't prevent any.
I think what this guy is trying to say (and what is kind of getting lost here) is that he opposes abortion as morally wrong because he sees it as murder, and he believes it should be illegal just like any murder. But he feels no inherent need to care about the child other than that. Just like a person can oppose murdering homeless people, but not give a damn about them otherwise; we oppose murdering homeless people because we see it as morally reprehensible, but that does not automatically mean we feel a personal need to care about their well being beyond that. We may not feel compelled to give them money, or put clothes on their back, but if someone is trying to beat their head in with a bat, we will feel compelled to step in out of righteous indignation to prevent the active wrong being committed. That's what Erischan is saying; if a child dies due to disease or malnutrition, that's sad, but ultimately a circumstance of life. Death is part of life and it would be foolish to try to do away with all death. But we should always oppose morally reprehensible actions like murder and punish them.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
Not bait. What's the contradiction.
Yes.
I literally never said that.
I think it's extremely narcissistic to think that me not caring about you is "sad."
Thank you. This should be obvious to everyone but Hogan is a retard. At least you're slightly less retarded.
Robust moral argument.
Not having sex when you don't want babies, or raising the babies you end up with.
We haven't ignored it. You have just offered no coherent argument as to how these contradict each other. I can't respond with arguments to a non-argument. Please actually explain what the contradiction is so I can respond, because I don't see one. I don't want people murdered, I also feel no responsibility to personally feed the people not murdered. What's the contradiction?
No one you're arguing with right now is using the drain-on-taxes argument. Try arguing against the arguments actually before you in this thread, rather than arguing with the pro-lifers in your head or the arguments you anticipate you will hear.
I'm honestly baffled that this requires explanation.
This is exactly why I argue the way I do.
My goal is not to present good faith arguments. It's to show that the other side can't.
This displays not that I am right, and not that the other side is wrong, but that there are no two sides. It shows that one side isn't a real side with real opinions at all.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
Bringing this back on topic: I want abortion rates to go down, and the fact is that welfare is what makes abortion rates go down.
If a single woman keeps her child, and tries to raise it alone (for example) the child's life is arguably going to get massively better if the mom has access to WIC, food welfare benefits, etc.
Poverty and also being a single woman are two of the driving factors in abortions. Abortions have actually gone DOWN quite a bit because of access to benefits such as WIC. This is statistical, concrete fact. Abortions fall in tandem to increased welfare spending.
Abortion is highest amongst the poor.
Additionally, abortion rates have been falling because the general birth rate has been falling. PEOPLE ARE HAVING LESS SEX THAN EVER! And using more birth control.
www.guttmacher.org
Hey, and I know if you have welfare, some may abuse the system, but overall social welfare for the poorest people helps a majority to escape it... as long as you don't go to extremes like California where they've become the hobo-bum magnet of the country due to TOO MUCH free shit.
We can argue with reality all we want, but you're too idealistic. In an ideal world? Yes, people don't fuck irresponsibly, you're right people shouldn't be total idiots with sex. But I have an issue with the whole "women just need to not fuck and not be whores" argument because it just is too idealistic and doesn't reflect reality. That argument basically just doesn't change anything.
Poor people have the most kids, and if you want to end abortion, then give incentives to keep the "happy accident" pregnancies. Otherwise it seems your argument just boils down to "people are 100% obligated to birth a child and then whatever happens happens" and also implying "The mother MUST BE FORCED to keep the child even though she's clearly an irresponsible person!" ...whatever you say, it still logically comes down to that with everything you're implying. There is no other outcome in that struggle.
The fact is that if women do keep the babies, welfare helps and makes this whole situation better for everyone involved. Yes, yes, yes, I know wealth redistribution is wrong, I don't agree with taxation either because taxation is theft. But again: YOU ARE ARGUING WITH BASIC REALITY. Abortion rates have been plummeting for decades thanks to welfare. Again, a fact, not an opinion. Want abortion to go away? Welfare. Want people to stop fucking? Good luck with that. Let me know how that battle turns out.
If a single woman keeps her child, and tries to raise it alone (for example) the child's life is arguably going to get massively better if the mom has access to WIC, food welfare benefits, etc.
Poverty and also being a single woman are two of the driving factors in abortions. Abortions have actually gone DOWN quite a bit because of access to benefits such as WIC. This is statistical, concrete fact. Abortions fall in tandem to increased welfare spending.
Abortion is highest amongst the poor.
Additionally, abortion rates have been falling because the general birth rate has been falling. PEOPLE ARE HAVING LESS SEX THAN EVER! And using more birth control.
The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver
Between 2011 and 2017, the U.S. abortion landscape changed significantly. As documented by the Guttmacher Institute’s periodic abortion provider census, all the main measures of abortion declined, including the number of abortions, the abortion rate and the abortion ratio.1,2 The declines are...
Agreed.
This is ironically another example where welfare can actually improve the life of the person being "saved."
Hey, and I know if you have welfare, some may abuse the system, but overall social welfare for the poorest people helps a majority to escape it... as long as you don't go to extremes like California where they've become the hobo-bum magnet of the country due to TOO MUCH free shit.Eris, I appreciate what you're saying but I can't change reality!
We can argue with reality all we want, but you're too idealistic. In an ideal world? Yes, people don't fuck irresponsibly, you're right people shouldn't be total idiots with sex. But I have an issue with the whole "women just need to not fuck and not be whores" argument because it just is too idealistic and doesn't reflect reality. That argument basically just doesn't change anything.
Poor people have the most kids, and if you want to end abortion, then give incentives to keep the "happy accident" pregnancies. Otherwise it seems your argument just boils down to "people are 100% obligated to birth a child and then whatever happens happens" and also implying "The mother MUST BE FORCED to keep the child even though she's clearly an irresponsible person!" ...whatever you say, it still logically comes down to that with everything you're implying. There is no other outcome in that struggle.
The fact is that if women do keep the babies, welfare helps and makes this whole situation better for everyone involved. Yes, yes, yes, I know wealth redistribution is wrong, I don't agree with taxation either because taxation is theft. But again: YOU ARE ARGUING WITH BASIC REALITY. Abortion rates have been plummeting for decades thanks to welfare. Again, a fact, not an opinion. Want abortion to go away? Welfare. Want people to stop fucking? Good luck with that. Let me know how that battle turns out.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
I don't care. I don't want to make her life better. Why would I?
We are not utilitarians trying to manipulate circumstances to acquire a desired outcome. We are principle-oriented thinkers not doing impermissible acts, and acting based on our values.
Yes, obviously getting free shit makes your life better.
It's not supposed to affect reality. It's a statement of fact. If you ask what they SHOULD do, that's the answer. If they don't do what they SHOULD do, they will face consequences they didn't want, and it will be their own fault. I do not care about controlling their behavior. I am not a leftist. I do not view the government as a thing that exists to control people's behavior. The law exists to punish evil, not to shape people. You have no right to shape people other than your children.Eris, I appreciate what you're saying but I can't change reality!
We can argue with reality all we want, but you're too idealistic. In an ideal world? Yes, people don't fuck irresponsibly, you're right people shouldn't be total idiots with sex. But I have an issue with the whole "women just need to not fuck and not be whores" argument because it just is too idealistic and doesn't reflect reality. That argument basically just doesn't change anything.
Again, I am not a utilitarian. I don't want to end anything.
My argument is "Murder is evil and impermissible."
I have been extremely clear about this. We are 50 pages deep and you're still making wrong guesses about what my argument even is despite me explicitly telling you over and over and over and over.
Outcome is irrelevant.
I have no obligation to help strangers I will never meet and have no connection to.
Then it is morally impermissible and we may not consider it as an option.
No.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
>argue with someone for 50 pages, constantly telling them explicitly what you believe
>bro what do you believe?