The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

CivilianOfTheFandomWars said:
How about only for rape and incest, a compromise perhaps?
Click to expand...
that could work, but we have to abolish abortion as a permanent function and institution first.
lets say, today, abortion was abolished except for rape and incest.
the amount of accusation of rape and incest would just go way up and abortions wouldnt go down a whole lot.
abolish the insitution first and only have limited abortion facilities on an as needed basis. in this case, needed because of rape and incest.
one more compromise is an obvious one. complications that could kill the mother. essentially a self defense abortion. but thats it.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed) and Kiwi & Cow
Michael Janke said:
that could work, but we have to abolish abortion as a permanent function and institution first.
lets say, today, abortion was abolished except for rape and incest.
the amount of accusation of rape and incest would just go way up and abortions wouldnt go down a whole lot.
abolish the insitution first and only have limited abortion facilities on an as needed basis. in this case, needed because of rape and incest.
one more compromise is an obvious one. complications that could kill the mother. essentially a self defense abortion. but thats it.
Click to expand...
Protecting the life of the mother is the only valid reason, especially since in most of those cases, the child will not survive anyways (ectopic pregnancy etc.). As you correctly deduced, allowing the incest/rape exception will just lead women to accuse their partners of rape whenever they want an abortion. This would be reason enough to disqualify it without considering the fact that you're still, y'know, murdering a child. I've yet to find anyone who would defend the idea of a woman smothering her infant because it was a product of rape and she decided she didn't want it anymore.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Zero Day Defense, SSj_Ness (Yiffed) and Kiwi & Cow
gang weeder said:
Protecting the life of the mother is the only valid reason, especially since in most of those cases, the child will not survive anyways (ectopic pregnancy etc.). As you correctly deduced, allowing the incest/rape exception will just lead women to accuse their partners of rape whenever they want an abortion. This would be reason enough to disqualify it without considering the fact that you're still, y'know, murdering a child. I've yet to find anyone who would defend the idea of a woman smothering her infant because it was a product of rape and she decided she didn't want it anymore.
Click to expand...
But that's different, because 2 seconds have passed since it left the mother's sacred body and killing it is now bad.

Oh wait, the cord was still attached, she's safe!
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Extreme Crusader
SSj_Ness said:
But that's different, because 2 seconds have passed since it left the mother's sacred body and killing it is now bad.

Oh wait, the cord was still attached, she's safe!
Click to expand...
you know its weird that human fetuses depending on the area have weird rights.
abusing animals is a federal crime.
killing an american citizen is a crime
just killing a human is a crime.
what is a fetus legally speaking, why isnt killing one murder, except for protecting the mother.
if you look at precedent, in many states, killing a pregnant woman counts as double homicide.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Puff, Zero Day Defense, Extreme Crusader and 3 others
Michael Janke said:
you know its weird that human fetuses depending on the area have weird rights.
abusing animals is a federal crime.
killing an american citizen is a crime
just killing a human is a crime.
what is a fetus legally speaking, why isnt killing one murder, except for protecting the mother.
if you look at precedent, in many states, killing a pregnant woman counts as double homicide.
Click to expand...
Because it is in the state's interest to keep women childless and alone.
 
gang weeder said:
Protecting the life of the mother is the only valid reason, especially since in most of those cases, the child will not survive anyways (ectopic pregnancy etc.). As you correctly deduced, allowing the incest/rape exception will just lead women to accuse their partners of rape whenever they want an abortion. This would be reason enough to disqualify it without considering the fact that you're still, y'know, murdering a child. I've yet to find anyone who would defend the idea of a woman smothering her infant because it was a product of rape and she decided she didn't want it anymore.
Click to expand...
It's not a child
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Extreme Crusader
gang weeder said:
I've yet to find anyone who would defend the idea of a woman smothering her infant because it was a product of rape and she decided she didn't want it anymore.
Click to expand...

Haven't you noticed that women who commit infanticide seem to get off pretty fucking lightly overall? And how many cases of post partum psychosis or SIDS would actually seem fishy as fuck if anyone really looked into it? The victims are overwhelmingly not products of rape yet it gets swept under the carpet. Being forced to birth a product of rape I'd say could easily qualify as trauma severe enough to legitimately lose one's shit. I don't say that to defend infanticide but I think you're being optimistic to assume there aren't a ton of people who might in that circumstance.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Extreme Crusader
vanilla_pepsi_head said:
Haven't you noticed that women who commit infanticide seem to get off pretty fucking lightly overall? And how many cases of post partum psychosis or SIDS would actually seem fishy as fuck if anyone really looked into it? The victims are overwhelmingly not products of rape yet it gets swept under the carpet. Being forced to birth a product of rape I'd say could easily qualify as trauma severe enough to legitimately lose one's shit. I don't say that to defend infanticide but I think you're being optimistic to assume there aren't a ton of people who might in that circumstance.
Click to expand...
Oh I've no doubt. Historically it's not uncommon at all for women to leave their children to die on a hill if they feel the kid is too much of a burden. The difference is that we don't legalize that and pretend that it somehow isn't an evil thing to do, like we do with abortion.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed), Extreme Crusader and Mayor Adam West
gang weeder said:
Oh I've no doubt. Historically it's not uncommon at all for women to leave their children to die on a hill if they feel the kid is too much of a burden. The difference is that we don't legalize that and pretend that it somehow isn't an evil thing to do, like we do with abortion.
Click to expand...
Because that's a child,not a heavy period
 
  • Dislike
  • Agree
Reactions: snailslime, Coyotism, SSj_Ness (Yiffed) and 1 other person
gang weeder said:
I've yet to find anyone who would defend the idea of a woman smothering her infant because it was a product of rape and she decided she didn't want it anymore.
Click to expand...
I have family members who justify their take of excusing the abuse of babies/toddlers if the mother is not allowed to 'abort' the pregnancy.
 
SSj_Ness said:
Yeah, that's why I need help to clarify when it's okay for offspring to not be killed. Help me out here.

Or is calling people incels and retards the only thing you can do?
Click to expand...
I don't respect anyone that can't tell a blod clot from an actual infant
 
aborted-fetus-2.jpeg
 
Freya said:
Because that's a child,not a heavy period
Click to expand...

I'm not super militant on the issue, but I do find it fascinating how many logical inconsistencies there are from people on the issue.

I think most people recognize that there is a difference between the morning after pill, and aborting a fetus at 40 weeks. That means there is a line, somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, where the majority of people no longer support abortion, and another line earlier in the pregnancy where the majority of people do.

What's interesting is this also means there is not only a group of people who never support abortion (for moral reasons) BUT ALSO a large group of people who are ok with abortion all the way up to day of delivery. I've always wanted to have one of those people explain how that is anything other than infanticide. And if you support abortion in general, but not at 40 weeks, then that means by definition you support regulating abortions.

On the other side of the argument, there are people who are against abortion except in the case of rape or incest, why? If you think abortion is murder, how do you justify making these exceptions? Would you also extend that exception to letting a mother murder her 3 year old that she finds out was really the result of a rape? If not, why not? If you view a fetus as the same thing as a child, then you can't logically accept one and not the other.

In fact the only argument on either side that seems based in logic is exceptions due to risk for the mothers life.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed) and Zero Day Defense
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back