The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Zero Day Defense]

Sorry, I was trying to genuinely get into this with you but I can't take it seriously anymore after this one. Tools are defined by how we use them.

At best, you could argue that a tool is partly defined by how it's used, but a tool is designed with a specific form and mechanisms in order to accomplish a particular task and is primarily defined in that way. You don't use a hammer to wash your bathtub because there's nothing about the hammer that helps you wash your bathtub. Such a scenario would lead one to come up with a more efficient way to wash a bathtub by creating something at least better suited for the task versus a hammer.

I already accounted for this in describing reproduction as the primary purpose of sex rather than its sole purpose, relegating everything else to secondary importance.

If the vast majority of us use sex more often for pleasure than children

Which evidently isn't the case.

You might not feel the same way as everyone else but you should stand by that instead of trying to rewrite history.

Who is this "everyone else"? When did I attempt to rewrite history when I didn't even dispute your claim on the anciency of birth control? If you want to bow out of the conversation, you can do so without sounding like a salty, flailing kid.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

That may have been your intent, but that's not what's actually happening. You appealed to the law as it was to make your case. When provided with cases where the principle that you defended with legal precedent did not apply despite a clear contradiction, you marginalized them as outliers and gave a moral statement. Rather than arguing "legal philosophy", you've been vacillating between arguing from legality and from morality.

My intent was to show you that the debate surrounding abortion is a debate about two conflicting rights, and I provided examples to demonstrate to you what the prevailing precedent is when these two rights are forced to come into conflict. I think I have done enough by this point to establish that laws against abortion go against the prevailing precedent, and I haven't seen you offer a convincing rebuttal in this regard. The examples you gave were red herrings, since they involve no such conflict (taxation doesn't violate anyone's right to life).

You never asked, and it's unnecessary to make my original point ("'bodily autonomy' is a principle that's only legally applied when women want to kill their kids, and it's not even consistently applied there").

I gave plenty of scenarios to demonstrate that the principle doesn't just apply to women and abortion, and I can back it up with case law too. See: McFall v. Shimp.

 

[Muh Vagina]

So you didn't read the story after all.

I did and the fact that you actually believe it is laughable. Nobody gets an abortion at eight months. It's obvious that Crowder staged this entire scenario.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

There may be a few atheist pro-lifers, but the majority of the push in America is from fundie evangelicals and catholic

Even if there was no opposition to abortion from people who aren't religious, that wouldn't discount the opposition in any way. Happening to be religious doesn't necessarily require one's view to be wholly formed by religious influence. I and most others never argue from a position of religion, so your point is merely a hollow attack on your opposition, pure ad hominem.

If you disagree with the points people make, then articulate your arguments against them. All you scream is "incel" and "muh catholics". It's weak.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I did and the fact that you actually believe it is laughable. Nobody gets an abortion at eight months. It's obvious that Crowder staged this entire scenario.

These are the same people who went all-in on a career conman, so yeah, they're pretty easily conned. Marks gonna mark

Even if there was no opposition to abortion from people who aren't religious, that wouldn't discount the opposition in any way. Happening to be religious doesn't necessarily require one's view to be wholly formed by religious influence. I and most others never argue from a position of religion, so your point is merely a hollow attack on your opposition, pure ad hominem.

If you disagree with the points people make, then articulate your arguments against them. All you scream is "incel" and "muh catholics". It's weak.

I have, but you guys just keep parroting "ITS INFANTICIDE!" or "ITS MURDER!" and when I explain how it's not, you totally ignore it. So you're calling the kettle black here, son

You want to remove women's body autonomy. Why do you want to remove women's body autonomy instead of mandating that men must get vasectomies at birth? That'd eliminate almost all abortion, even more than outlawing abortion, yet I don't see you pea-brains advocating for that. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Yes. And I know that it's bullshit because nobody up and decides to get an abortion when they're eight months pregnant.

Nobody? Gonna need a source on that one.

I have, but you guys just keep parroting "ITS INFANTICIDE!" or "ITS MURDER!" and when I explain how it's not, you totally ignore it. So you're calling the kettle black here, son

You want to remove women's body autonomy. Why do you want to remove women's body autonomy instead of mandating that men must get vasectomies at birth? That'd eliminate almost all abortion, even more than outlawing abortion, yet I don't see you pea-brains advocating for that. Gee, I wonder why?

Okay, so you're hung up on terms and technicalities, so I'll try to be more precise.

Explain why it's okay to needlessly (being broke or simply not wanting your offspring is not a "need") end an innocent human life one has purposefully, knowingly conceived (which means personal responsibility) merely because birth has not yet occurred.

If you're going to say because it's a blob of cells, so are you.

If you're going to say it's not able to live on its own, neither are millions on machines such as ventilators.

If you're going to say it's not conscious, neither are people in comas.

If you're going to say that the brain isn't developed, it's not at birth either--not even close, as the brain grows into adulthood.

If you're going to say it can't feel pain, neither can people with CIPA.

If you're going to say it's better off dead because you think the foster care system is inadequate, that's not a good enough justification and is merely your opinion (which many orphans and virtually all abortion survivors would disagree with).

Each excuse to justify the killing (not murder, I'm being precise in my language here) that you've made and which I've seen others make don't actually stand up to scrutiny, so please make an argument which doesn't get knocked over by a stiff breeze like China Joe.

Womens' bodily autonomy shouldn't trump the unborn's just because you think so, and certainly impeding one's bodily autonomy shouldn't justify killing them at any rate.

Mandating that innocent males get vasectomies--an invasive and disabling surgery--is not equal to holding females responsible for their decisions. Also, some of the men will be homosexual so you're needlessly blanket punishing people who not only haven't done anything to warrant such an extreme and permanent violation against them, but also harming gay people who have no reason to be dragged into the matter.

That is a stupid false equivalence which also includes punishing unintended individuals, surely you're man enough to admit that you said something retarded.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Mandating that innocent males get vasectomies--an invasive and disabling surgery--is not equal to holding females responsible for their decisions. Also, some of the men will be homosexual so you're needlessly blanket punishing people who not only haven't done anything to warrant such an extreme and permanent violation against them, but also harming gay people who have no reason to be dragged into the matter.

So you don't actually want to stop abortions. You want to just punish women who have sex. Thanks for confirming it.

That is a stupid false equivalence which also includes punishing unintended individuals, surely you're man enough to admit that you said something retarded.

It's a very valid comparison, but nice try with the "false equivalence", feetloaf. You want to remove women's body autonomy to try and stop abortions, but you don't want to remove men's body autonomy to eliminate abortions much more effectively.

You are fine forcing women to have babies in a failed attempt to stop abortions (people will still have back alley abortions), but heaven forbid we make men get vasectomies to eliminate abortions (vasectomies would virtually eliminate it)

 

[Michael Janke]

You want to just punish women who have sex. Thanks for confirming it.

since when did being pregnant and giving birth become synonymous with punishment for having sex? its literally how we have propagated the species for all time.
if i stabbed a woman for having sex that would be punishment for having sex.
what you're saying is the equivalent to someone wanting their stomach pumped because they ate food.
"you're punishing me for eating if you refuse to pump my stomach."
if we continue on the line punishment for having sex thing
would a woman who gives birth willingly be punishing herself?
would a woman who gives birth to triplets be a masochist? she's triply punishing herself?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

So you don't actually want to stop abortions. You want to just punish women who have sex. Thanks for confirming it.


It's a very valid comparison, but nice try with the "false equivalence", feetloaf. You want to remove women's body autonomy to try and stop abortions, but you don't want to remove men's body autonomy to eliminate abortions much more effectively.

You are fine forcing women to have babies in a failed attempt to stop abortions (people will still have back alley abortions), but heaven forbid we make men get vasectomies to eliminate abortions (vasectomies would virtually eliminate it)

I knew I forgot one of your talking points! Catholics, incels, and punishing women for sex. That's all you have. Ad hominem and assigning negative intent, that's literally the meat of your posts. Probably should never show yourself around here again, for the good of your fellow pro-abortionists, because those are embarrassingly inept debate tactics.

You completely ignored my points about your false equivalence which would result in punishing people who have done literally nothing at all, and homosexuals who never would impregnate women.

You also fail to justify why a woman's bodily autonomy supersedes her own offspring's she willing conceived, to the detriment of its life. You merely screech your talking point, "women's bodily autonomy" like a magic incantation lmao

You're clearly unable to argue in good faith and engage the ideas of others. You're a juvenile, morally bankrupt idiot, and have been thoroughly defeated. You can't refute anything I say, and everyone can see it.

 

[Almighty MoeBro Nation]

I knew I forgot one of your talking points! Catholics, incels, and punishing women for sex. That's all you have. Ad hominem and assigning negative intent, that's literally the meat of your posts. Probably should never show yourself around here again, for the good of your fellow pro-abortionists, because those are embarrassingly inept debate tactics.

You completely ignored my points about your false equivalence which would result in punishing people who have done literally nothing at all, and homosexuals who never would impregnate women.

You also fail to justify why a woman's bodily autonomy supersedes her own offspring's she willing conceived, to the detriment of its life. You merely screech your talking point, "women's bodily autonomy" like a magic incantation lmao

You're clearly unable to argue in good faith and engage the ideas of others. You're a juvenile, morally bankrupt idiot, and have been thoroughly defeated. You can't refute anything I say, and everyone can see it.

HHH is right. Most anti abortion people have no arguments outside of their religious beliefs. Eight months in is debatable but a clump of cells and fat should never take presidence over a living breathing human. That's just retarded.

One thing they'll harp on about is potentiality (this baby could have cured cancer, solved homelessness, become president etc) but as I pointed out earlier abortions are typically done by poorer women who can't properly take care of children. Yeah, they COULD have been the next Einstein but it's 100x more likely they'll just join a gang or be crushed under poverty

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

HHH is right. Most anti abortion people have no arguments outside of their religious beliefs. Eight months in is debatable but a clump of cells and fat should never take presidence over a living breathing human. That's just retarded.

One thing they'll harp on about is potentiality (this baby could have cured cancer, solved homelessness, become president etc) but as I pointed out earlier abortions are typically done by poorer women who can't properly take care of children. Yeah, they COULD have been the next Einstein but it's 100x more likely they'll just join a gang or be crushed under poverty

How is 8 months even debatable? You guys are anti-science or something? I can't believe half the shit you guys say, so I don't think you do either.

 

[Almighty MoeBro Nation]

How is 8 months even debatable? You guys are anti-science or something? I can't believe half the shit you guys say, so I don't think you do either.

Nigger is that seriously what you're harping on? I'm agreeing with you ffs. Late term abortions are pretty hard to justify but banning them outright is stupid. Personally I think the line should be drawn at whenever the baby can realistically survive outside the mothers womb (around 7-8 months)

You can't look at pic related and tell me it has the same rights as you or me

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Nigger is that seriously what you're harping on? I'm agreeing with you ffs. Late term abortions are pretty hard to justify but banning them outright is stupid. Personally I think the line should be drawn at whenever the baby can realistically survive outside the mothers womb (around 7-8 months)

You can't look at pic related and tell me it has the same rights as you or me

View attachment 2547343

Seeing as that was you and I, yes, I can. It's merely another stage of life. Simply because it's early on and doesn't yet visually resemble a developed human body is irrelevant even by your own standards; a "fetus" looks just like an "infant" prior to your 7 month cut-off, so appearance apparently doesn't save offspring from being killed but can damn them

 

[Almighty MoeBro Nation]

Seeing as that was you and I, yes, I can. It's merely another stage of life. Simply because it's early on and doesn't yet visually resemble a developed human body is irrelevant even by your own standards; a "fetus" looks just like an "infant" prior to your 7 month cut-off, so appearance apparently doesn't save offspring from being killed but can damn them

Just lmao. Do you remember anything inside your mother's womb? Do you think fetuses are conscious?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Just lmao. Do you remember anything inside your mother's womb? Do you think fetuses are conscious?

Do you remember the moment of your birth? Are coma patients conscious, or even just people who are asleep? It's irrelevant what state (gestation is temporary, mind you) a human is in. The question is, when is it okay to kill, and why?

To me, self-defense against an imminent threat such as a murderer is one of the very few instances in which it should be permissible. I'm sure there's other scenarios but "hm nah don't want a kid" isn't one.

 

[hamsters are cool]

Nigger is that seriously what you're harping on? I'm agreeing with you ffs. Late term abortions are pretty hard to justify but banning them outright is stupid. Personally I think the line should be drawn at whenever the baby can realistically survive outside the mothers womb (around 7-8 months)

You can't look at pic related and tell me it has the same rights as you or me

View attachment 2547343

Surely using hand sanitiser can be called murder as well. Those little bacteria swimming around in your skin are alive and probably want to live.

Anyway, I do agree that there comes a point where a fetus is a person and shouldn't be aborted unless absolutely necessary. But to say life begins at conception and should be protected at all costs is just taking a simple, black-and-white view of abortion.

 

[Michael Janke]

Do you remember the moment of your birth?

to add on to that point. do you remeber anything from the first 2ish years of your life?
memory or lack of is an irrelevant argument.

 

[Almighty MoeBro Nation]

Do you remember the moment of your birth? Are coma patients conscious, or even just people who are asleep? It's irrelevant what state (gestation is temporary, mind you) a human is in. The question is, when is it okay to kill, and why?

To me, self-defense against an imminent threat such as a murderer is one of the very few instances in which it should be permissible. I'm sure there's other scenarios but "hm nah don't want a kid" isn't one.

The difference is that a fetus was never "living" in the first place

Because crippling our violent crime rate isn't considered permissible apparently

 

[Marika]

My mistake for not being clear in my earlier post. I'm interested to hear any hypothetical solutions you guys have for the abortion debate in general. To use my own (horrible) example, I've toyed with the idea that abortion should require a total hysterectomy. This would come across as punishing women to many people, but I don't think all women would see it this way, especially if they truly never want to have kids. I used a bad example, but I'm genuinely curious what you all think a decent solution would be.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

My intent was to show you that the debate surrounding abortion is a debate about two conflicting rights, and I provided examples to demonstrate to you what the prevailing precedent is when these two rights are forced to come into conflict.

The rhetorical arena you've established is unnecessary-- one can evaluate the value the enforcers of law have for either right when the application of those rights are called into question in any context, against anything else. Accordingly, it was never on me to to provide counter-examples specifically involving this rights conflict. but even then, the very precedents that protect the practice of abortion by virtue of what can be understood as bodily autonomy also limit it in the interest of "protecting prenatal life". Despite what you said about not being able to have it both ways, SCOTUS definitely tried and continues to maintain that such is possible-- even if we both don't believe that to be the case, ourselves.

The examples you gave were red herrings, since they involve no such conflict (taxation doesn't violate anyone's right to life).

Prior to now, your issue with the conscription example was that you disagreed with the concept of conscription and considered it inconsistent and worthy of abolition (regardless of whether it has been repeatedly upheld without fail since WWI).

Now, it's that it doesn't demonstrate the conflict you're looking for, for some reason? Or are you just glossing over that example, here? As well as the mention of drug possession/use?