The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Lemmingwise]

I would not be willing to just accept a moral failing in myself. It's sad that you are.

It's not accurate to say "I just accept" it, but I agree that imperfections are sad.

You don't like how prostitutes have been used to justify access to abortion. (Seems 100% reasonable to me: I don't think Prostitutes should have kids)

I don't like how research has been falsified. Or are you saying that it is representative? That 45% of american women are prostitutes?

No I don't like falsified research. They didn't use prostitutes as justification for access to abortion. Kinsey and his team used prostitute stats and passed it of as a representative sample of american women.

The same way they used male prisoners that self-selected for wanting to participate in a sex study as a representative sample of "uneducated males".

I don't like obviously bad research. I don't like when that research becomes the basis of people's perceptions (americans on the whole still believe 1 in 5 men are gay when 1 or 2% is accurate, and americans still believe backalley abortions were common place and would be immediately as common place).

Also thanks for revealing how you just jump and make assumptions.

If you don't like assumptions, next time try "ah, does that mean you follow / believe qanon?" instead of "ah, I see you are into qanon".

I don't mind, but if you do, I suggest you don't do it yourself. I tend to treat people as they treat me.

It's nice to know you are somewhat in the know on pizzagate and such. I have no idea what you're saying/asking in your paragraph on satanic media / children. Are you asking me if adult prostitutes are an issue? Why? As extension of your point in the first paragraph or a seperatw point?

 

[Eris!]

The only innocent child in this situation is the 12 year old rape victim. But thanks for finally confirming that you like it when children suffer.

Actually there's another one, but it's in your blind spot.

And the rest of your arguments are too autistic to even waste oxygen over because they're so repetitive. I and many others have already argued with you over your tired points.

Actually, you haven't, which is why they keep coming up.

No such thing as 100% effective birth control.

Not having sex is 100% effective birth control.

It's not accurate to say "I just accept" it,

Why not? You do.
You could change your mind instantaneously. You don't.

If you don't like assumptions, next time try "ah, does that mean you follow / believe qanon?" instead of "ah, I see you are into qanon".

Exactly. This doofus is belligerent and unreasonable and projects it onto others.

Why? As extension of your point in the first paragraph or a seperatw point?

To deflect. You may have benefit of the doubt left to give to these people but I don't.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Why not? You do.
You could change your mind instantaneously. You don't.

I'm glad these things are so simple for you, but for me they're not.

You, with wanting to have journalists killed, even as you don't want babies killed should understand that there can be various different motives inside oneself in conflict with each other and not necessarily easy to resolve.

Exactly. This doofus is belligerent and unreasonable and projects it onto others.

You're no less belligerent.

 

[subwaymonkeyhour]

There is nothing moral about a forced pregnancy. It is cruel.

There is nothing moral about killing a defenseless unborn child.

 

[Eris!]

You, with wanting to have journalists killed, even as you don't want babies killed should understand that there can be various different motives inside oneself in conflict with each other and not necessarily easy to resolve.

I see no conflict between these things. The killing of enemy combatants in a war (j*urnalists) is fundamentally different from murdering a member of your own people whose rights remain unwaved. If I saw any conflict between any of my ideas, I would resolve them immediately or abandon one or both ideas.
If I saw a single argument in this thread that was convincing my mind would change in 0 seconds. I have not seen one.

You're no less belligerent.

A nun caning a child is not belligerent.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

what can i do to reassure my girlfriend that ACB is not going to strip all womens' rights away and make buying birth control punishable by death

You don't.

 

[Was]

Yes? Are you saying it isn't?

Adults are cognizant and responsible and if they fuck their lives up it's their fault.
I have no sympathy for whores. The fact that they fucked their own lives up isn't my problem.

So you're admitting it was a bad faith quip, mocking something you agree with? Why?

No.

They have rights.

It is immoral. Full stop.

That is a problem, but the fundamental problem is that they murdered someone. That's what they are reacting to.

I agree. It's beside the point. So why are you saying it and wasting our time?

That is immoral. You are an evil person.

Your take is shit and you probably don't even believe it.

wah wah boo hoo lil baby @Erischan found a big meanie head who doesn't submit to his kike overlords wah wah boo hoo

>They have rights.
Wrong. Rights are held only by those willing and able to seize them. An infant, much less any child cannot take such action or any action whatsoever. This changes over time, but it is why Parents are considered Legal Guardians, are held responsible for everything that happens to the child, and have complete governance over the child until it of if a legally recognized sufficient age to claim independence. There are even exceptions allowing the Parents to extend that governance in the case of the aforementioned retards and creatures.

>It is immoral.
>That is immoral.
>You are an evil person.
>You probably don't even believe it.
That which is done out of love is beyond good and evil, buddy.

 

[Eris!]

Wrong. Rights are held only by those willing and able to seize them

Incorrect. Rights do not need to be seized, you possess them intrinsically. You cannot seize what you already have.

An infant, much less any child cannot take such action or any action whatsoever. This changes over time, but it is why Parents are considered Legal Guardians, are held responsible for everything that happens to the child, and have complete governance over the child until it of if a legally recognized sufficient age to claim independence.

That's not why. Parents are legal guardians of their children because they are their children.

That which is done out of love is beyond good and evil, buddy.

No it isn't.

 

[Was]

Incorrect. Rights do not need to be seized, you possess them intrinsically. You cannot seize what you already have.

That's not why. Parents are legal guardians of their children because they are their children.

No it isn't.

No, you don't. Rights are a creation of Man, like cars and concrete. Rights do not exist in nature. They are not magically given to you as a special baby waby birthday gift by your faggot sky daddy. Now I'm not saying Rights aren't a critical value in a Man's arsenal, but you're wholly deluded if you believe that something given freely has any value.
If everyone has Rights, then Rights are as valuable as dirt. Which I'm sure you would agree isn't true. Therefore if Rights as a functioning Human Concept have any value there must be some form of condition for their possession. For example, the right to be heard is derived from the courage to speak. If you lack this willingness to speak, then you have no right to be heard. You should be gently hand-held and asked what your braindead fuckstart thoughts are.

Wrong again, you're ignoring the existence of step-parents, foster-parents and a million family court cases. It's not about Ownership of the Child, because if the thing was born to be functionally independent albeit not fully grown like a lizard we'd live in a completely different system.

Yes, it is. There is no sin too great. No crime too severe. No sacrifice too much. There is no upper limit to the amount of people hurt, bridges burned and lives ruined if it a means to get my son back.

 

[Vecr]

No, you don't. Rights are a creation of Man, like cars and concrete. Rights do not exist in nature. They are not magically given to you as a special baby waby birthday gift by your faggot sky daddy. Now I'm not saying Rights aren't a critical value in a Man's arsenal, but you're wholly deluded if you believe that something given freely has any value.
If everyone has Rights, then Rights are as valuable as dirt. Which I'm sure you would agree isn't true. Therefore if Rights as a functioning Human Concept have any value there must be some form of condition for their possession. For example, the right to be heard is derived from the courage to speak. If you lack this willingness to speak, then you have no right to be heard. You should be gently hand-held and asked what your braindead fuckstart thoughts are.

Wrong again, you're ignoring the existence of step-parents, foster-parents and a million family court cases. It's not about Ownership of the Child, because if the thing was born to be functionally independent albeit not fully grown like a lizard we'd live in a completely different system.

Yes, it is. There is no sin too great. No crime too severe. No sacrifice too much. There is no upper limit to the amount of people hurt, bridges burned and lives ruined if it a means to get my son back.

What? Take free speech for example, it's a "natural right", because if no one stops you, you can say whatever you like. It's nothing to do with religion, people evolved speech, so they have a natural right to speech.

 

[Eris!]

No, you don't. Rights are a creation of Man, like cars and concrete. Rights do not exist in nature.

Yes they do.

They are not magically given to you as a special baby waby birthday gift by your faggot sky daddy.

I don't recall mentioning a "sky daddy."

If everyone has Rights, then Rights are as valuable as dirt.

They're not meant to be "valuable." They are just moral facts. Their legal protection or practical nature is entirely separate from that.

Which I'm sure you would agree isn't true.

You're wrong. I completely agree. Rights are not valuable. They have no utility.

Therefore if Rights as a functioning Human Concept have any value there must be some form of condition for their possession. For example, the right to be heard is derived from the courage to speak. If you lack this willingness to speak, then you have no right to be heard. You should be gently hand-held and asked what your braindead fuckstart thoughts are.

Rights are not a 'functional human concept.' They are moral possession. You intrinsically possess your own body, your own life, your own speech, your own pursuit of what to do in life. It is wrong to take these things from you, as it is wrong to take a dollar out of your pocket. Rights are not laws, and they are not practical constructions of power. They are the fact that taking something from you is wrong. Whether or not that fact is useful to you isn't relevant.

What? Take free speech for example, it's a "natural right", because if no one stops you, you can say whatever you like. It's nothing to do with religion, people evolved speech, so they have a natural right to speech.

Speech is your right because you have a mouth and a mind. They naturally belong to you, and it is naturally wrong to use them or take them from you without your consent. That statement has no relation to whether or not you physically can take them or misuse them. That's an issue of politics, and politics is for cretins.

 

[ociden]

What pro-life means:
-Women are not allowed to choose to have an abortion. They are forced to carry them to term, even if they don't want to.

What pro-choice means:
-Women have the option to abort, if they want. They also have the option to carry them to term, if they so wish.

I have no idea how someone can be 'pro-life'. Are they scared women will learn the taste of power and come for their seats?

 

[Was]

What? Take free speech for example, it's a "natural right", because if no one stops you, you can say whatever you like. It's nothing to do with religion, people evolved speech, so they have a natural right to speech.

You're conflating Right with Ability. Two different words, King Nigger.

Yes they do.

I don't recall mentioning a "sky daddy."

They're not meant to be "valuable." They are just moral facts. Their legal protection or practical nature is entirely separate from that.

You're wrong. I completely agree. Rights are not valuable. They have no utility.

Rights are not a 'functional human concept.' They are moral possession. You intrinsically possess your own body, your own life, your own speech, your own pursuit of what to do in life. It is wrong to take these things from you, as it is wrong to take a dollar out of your pocket. Rights are not laws, and they are not practical constructions of power. They are the fact that taking something from you is wrong. Whether or not that fact is useful to you isn't relevant.

Speech is your right because you have a mouth and a mind. They naturally belong to you, and it is naturally wrong to use them or take them from you without your consent. That statement has no relation to whether or not you physically can take them or misuse them. That's an issue of politics, and politics is for cretins.

Yeah, you're obviously trolling. Good night.

 

[Eris!]

You're conflating Right with Ability. Two different words, King Nigger.

No actually, you are, and I'm explaining that you are.

 

[Vecr]

You're conflating Right with Ability. Two different words, King Nigger.


Yeah, you're obviously trolling. Good night.

I'm not conflating them, that's really how natural rights work. In the constitution of the United States (the "bill of rights" section), *some* natural rights are enumerated, and protected from government infringement. The government did not create those rights.

 

[Eris!]

What pro-life means:
-Women are not allowed to choose to have an abortion. They are forced to carry them to term, even if they don't want to.

What pro-choice means:
-Women have the option to abort, if they want. They also have the option to carry them to term, if they so wish.

I have no idea how someone can be 'pro-life'. Are they scared women will learn the taste of power and come for their seats?

What pro-life means: Murdering your infant child in the womb is immoral.
What pro-choice means: Murdering your infant child in the womb is not immoral and/or i don't care that it is.
I have no idea how someone can be 'pro-choice.' How can you be okay with infanticide?

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Incorrect. Rights do not need to be seized, you possess them intrinsically. You cannot seize what you already have.

The object of rights is to secure fundamental human welfare, or, if that human security is broken, to be in a position to fight for it with honour. When you look at those two things they are both human creations. A lighter is meant to create fire (heat, warmth etc.), and humans need heat to survive, but just because we need heat to survive does not necessitate that lighters are a natural creation of nature. Some things are created because they are convenient to us.

 

[JamusActimus]

Pro life vs Pro-murder

 

[Zero Day Defense]

What pro-life means:
-Women are not allowed to choose to have an abortion. They are forced to carry them to term, even if they don't want to.

What pro-choice means:
-Women have the option to abort, if they want. They also have the option to carry them to term, if they so wish.

I have no idea how someone can be 'pro-life'. Are they scared women will learn the taste of power and come for their seats?

You demonstrate a grave inability to accurately evaluate your ideological opponent.

 

[Eris!]

The object of rights is to secure fundamental human welfare, or, if that human security is broken, to be in a position to fight for it with honour.

Rights do not have an object. They are not a tool. They do not have a purpose, no more than the laws of physics do. They are neither means nor ends, but cold fact.

When you look at those two things they are both human creations.

Rights are not human creations. If you think they are we are talking about two totally different concepts when we both say the word "rights." No human made stealing wrong. Stealing is wrong. It has always been wrong. It will always be wrong. "Stealing this is wrong" is all a right is. Stealing my property is wrong. Stealing my speech is wrong. Stealing my life is wrong. The right to property, the right to free speech, the right to life.

Some things are created because they are convenient to us.

You're describing laws, not rights. Laws are what we construct to (ideally) protect our rights. And we repeal laws based on the fact that they violate rights. Abortion violates the rights of the fetus. You are stealing its life from it.

You demonstrate a grave inability to accurately evaluate your ideological opponent.

It's amazing to be honest. They're actually incapable of internalizing it. They might entertain for the briefest moment that we think it's murder, but they forget it immediately, and they absolutely can't analyze our views with that perspective in mind. They seem to think that calling it murder is just an attempt to insult them or be obscene or something. For people who accuse us of being unable to put other people's shoes on, they sure seem literally incapable of doing it, even if they want to.

Pro life vs Pro-murder

I hate the name "Pro-life." It leads to the inevitable argument that has happened several times in this thread, where people think you are literally "pro life," and must therefore support welfare and other shit. Nothing is more annoying than having to explain that you don't believe what some other idiot said or branded you as. It should be called anti-murder.