The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Eto]

apologize for the snipes lol, it's just hard to tell who's arguing to genuinely understand a position better. this is deep thoughts on kiwi farms.

It's no problem. I was genuinely confused by the whole exchange, but I get why you'd be unable to tell. As for the clump of cells point, absolutely. It's not until 24-28 weeks that it gains sentience. I just hate the phrase, as I don't see it as helpful in the long run. I see too many people latch onto that point and take it for a mile.

 

[AngryItalianAmerican]

Would you favor murdering those children as a solution to end their suffering? Because that's what abortion is. "The child might suffer after they are born so we should kill it pre-emptively so that they don't suffer." For the millionth time, this line of thinking also suggests that it is good to smother infants in their crib if they don't have a "good" home life. After all, if we let them live, they only have a life of suffering to look forward to, right?

No, I'm suggesting to keep pumping them out and not provide properly for them, so they have no recourse but turn sociopathic and incur in a life of petty crime so we can jail'em or shoot'em.

If we are making child bearing legally obligatory, at least we should provide for the children once they are born, if not, we are just sponsoring misery for generations to come.

And as we have proven, with the dogmatic approach to governing, that we can't provide for every child we legally enforced people to have, we, as a society, are at best irresponsible or at worst, insidious.

 

[snailslime]

Would you favor murdering those children as a solution to end their suffering? Because that's what abortion is.

except it isn't

 

[gang weeder]

No, I'm suggesting to keep pumping them out and not provide properly for them, so they have no recourse but turn sociopathic and incur in a life of petty crime so we can jail'em or shoot'em.

If we are making child bearing legally obligatory, at least we should provide for the children once they are born, if not, we are just sponsoring misery for generations to come.

And as we have proven, with the dogmatic approach to governing, that we can't provide for every child we legally enforced people to have, we, as a society, are at best irresponsible or at worst, insidious.

"legally enforced people to have." That's some interesting wording. The implication that if someone does not have the opportunity to kill their offspring--presumably in order to be free of the financial burden that the child represents--this means they were "legally forced" to have the child? It really seems to me like you are advocating for killing children if they aren't adequately "provided for."

 

[BelUwUga]

I have a question for the "It's literally murder" people: what about Plan B or a pharmaceutical abortion? When does it go from prophylactic to murder for you?

 

[AngryItalianAmerican]

"legally enforced people to have." That's some interesting wording. The implication that if someone does not have the opportunity to kill their offspring--presumably in order to be free of the financial burden that the child represents--this means they were "legally forced" to have the child? It really seems to me like you are advocating for killing children if they aren't adequately "provided for."

We kill them anyways, starve them, neglect them, or abandon them (the CPS way).

And yes, the state will enforce the pursuit of the parents (in developed countries), and IF the pursuing agency is semi-competent we MIGHT catch them.

But what good will come of that? (Yay! Incarceration of the criminal parents!).
We punished the child, who died and lived a miserable existance, the parent, who clearly didn't wanted the child, and proved, in its engagement to sexuality to be chronically irresponsible, and we punished ourselves with the development of an ever more desperate underclass.

What I'm advocating for is not sticking my beak in a private problem, people know their situation, if they don't feel capable and/or mature enough to deal with raising children, and it doesn't affect anyone other than them, it's their choice.

 

[gang weeder]

We kill them anyways, starve them, neglect them, or abandon them (the CPS way).

And yes, the state will enforce the pursuit of the parents (in developed countries), and IF the pursuing agency is semi-competent we MIGHT catch them.

But what good will come of that? (Yay! Incarceration of the criminal parents!).
We punished the child, who died and lived a miserable existance, the parent, who clearly didn't wanted the child, and proved, in its engagement to sexuality to be chronically irresponsible, and we punished ourselves with the development of an ever more desperate underclass.

What I'm advocating for is not sticking my beak in a private problem, people know their situation, if they don't feel capable and/or mature enough to deal with raising children, and it doesn't affect anyone other than them, it's their choice.

if they don't feel capable and/or mature enough to deal with raising children, and it doesn't affect anyone other than them, it's their choice..... to..... kill their offspring?

Just making absolutely sure what your position is. If parents feel that they "aren't mature enough to deal with raising children," it's okay or even a good thing for them to kill the child in order to solve the issue? As, y'know, a "private problem" that "doesn't affect anyone other than them?" It's quite rare to find an abortionist who unironically believes this, but if you really are one of the proud few child-murder-supporters, props to you for intellectual consistency if nothing else.

 

[gang weeder]

I have a question for the "It's literally murder" people: what about Plan B or a pharmaceutical abortion? When does it go from prophylactic to murder for you?

Life begins at conception. Therefore, something which kills the child after conception = abortion = murder. I don't know the specifics of Plan B but I'm pretty sure a "pharmaceutical abortion" qualifies here.

 

[BelUwUga]

Life begins at conception. Therefore, something which kills the child after conception = abortion = murder. I don't know the specifics of Plan B but I'm pretty sure a "pharmaceutical abortion" qualifies here.

Okay so it's as soon as a swimmer gets through the egg? What about conditions detectable early on that are incompatible with life? "Live" baby but unconscious or quickly perishing regardless of care. Is it murder to terminate that pregnancy with a pill when the alternative is subjecting the mother to the risks of childbirth for something out of our tard baby thread?

What about if this isn't a conscious choice? There are myriad medications, substances, or activities that can spontaneously terminate pregnancies, especially early term. Are those women murderers? What if this entire process were to happen without her knowledge? She thinks it's an irregular cycle but in reality it was technically a miscarriage. I just want to make sure I fully understand your stance. These are questions that must be answered but an all-or-nothing stance strikes me as irrational.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

Post hand, I want to see if you're white

I would like to use this occasion to simp for giant strawberries. The true fruits of the Gods.

Bla bla bla everything I don't like is child murder.

 

[The Cunting Death]

based and strawberry pilled

 

[AngryItalianAmerican]

I would like to use this occasion to simp for giant strawberries. The true fruits of the Gods.
View attachment 3121770

Damn! You have the skin complexion of a mollusk. I bet you taste great with wasabi.

 

[gang weeder]

Okay so it's as soon as a swimmer gets through the egg? What about conditions detectable early on that are incompatible with life? "Live" baby but unconscious or quickly perishing regardless of care. Is it murder to terminate that pregnancy with a pill when the alternative is subjecting the mother to the risks of childbirth for something out of our tard baby thread?

If the child is non-viable, then it becomes no longer a question of if the child will die, but simply how. So yes, in this case, you could justify a medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy. This would be a similar case to pulling life support on a braindead individual, in my view. This does not justify aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, in which case you are actively choosing to kill a child that otherwise would not have died in the womb. If you had a person in a coma on life support but you knew for a fact that they would wake up and be perfectly fine in a few months, it would obviously not be okay to pull the plug.

What about if this isn't a conscious choice? There are myriad medications, substances, or activities that can spontaneously terminate pregnancies, especially early term. Are those women murderers? What if this entire process were to happen without her knowledge? She thinks it's an irregular cycle but in reality it was technically a miscarriage. I just want to make sure I fully understand your stance. These are questions that must be answered but an all-or-nothing stance strikes me as irrational.

This would be akin to manslaughter, just like killing people in a car accident. Obviously it wasn't your intention to do so, but you did in fact still kill someone. Irresponsible behavior involving substances makes it more reprehensible, exactly like drunk driving.

We generally take an "all-or-nothing" stance with regards to murder, and I've yet to see any good reason why this would suddenly change for people who are still in the womb. The idea that killing a genetically distinct individual inside the womb is somehow morally different from smothering them in their crib as an infant is a purely arbitrary sentiment, born of nothing more than political convenience and pre-conceived emotional reactions so far as I've ever seen.

 

[BelUwUga]

If the child is non-viable, then it becomes no longer a question of if the child will die, but simply how. So yes, in this case, you could justify a medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy.

I mean if this is the line of rationalization couldn't I just as validly say we're all non-viable on a long enough time scale? And since it's just a matter of how, I'm justified to start stacking bodies? Can you elaborate here?

This would be a similar case to pulling life support on a braindead individual, in my view. This does not justify aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, in which case you are actively choosing to kill a child that otherwise would not have died in the womb. If you had a person in a coma on life support but you knew for a fact that they would wake up and be perfectly fine in a few months, it would obviously not be okay to pull the plug.

That's what I'm asking though. It's not that they would have died in the women, it's that they'd live. Well "live" is more accurate. Biological functions work but nothing is going on upstairs. They are a breathing potato that will be a dependent all of their life.

This would be akin to manslaughter, just like killing people in a car accident. Obviously it wasn't your intention to do so, but you did in fact still kill someone. Irresponsible behavior involving substances makes it more reprehensible, exactly like drunk driving.

I should have elaborated on the "spontaneous" more. I don't mean mommy is getting creampied, wasted, and snorting cocaine and this happens. I mean someone who is desperately trying for a child, taking every precaution, can unknowingly have this just happen. There's things we know that make it more likely, but there's far more cases where there isn't the foggiest of indications. Understandably this isn't something for society to address, but I think it would speak to the abstract morality. Like you said, it did die, are these women murderers?

We generally take an "all-or-nothing" stance with regards to murder, and I've yet to see any good reason why this would suddenly change for people who are still in the womb. The idea that killing that a genetically distinct individual inside the womb is somehow morally different from smothering them in their crib as an infant is a purely arbitrary sentiment, born of nothing more than political convenience and pre-conceived emotional reactions so far as I've ever seen.

While you're right vis a vis murder, what about if we substitute homicide? Integrates manslaughter as you mentioned above. It also encompasses principles like self-defense. Would the circumstances I described above not be almost parallel nuance?

 

[gang weeder]

I mean if this is the line of rationalization couldn't I just as validly say we're all non-viable on a long enough time scale? And since it's just a matter of how, I'm justified to start stacking bodies? Can you elaborate here?

You could, and I'd be open to the argument. I think a case where the child will die in the womb anyways, or the continuation of the pregnancy will seriously threaten the mother's life (such as ectopic pregnancy), is the only situation in which abortion is potentially justified. I don't know that it definitely is, it's just that in any other case it very definitely isn't. To continue the metaphor, if we had a braindead individual on life support and someone argued that we must keep them on life support until they expire naturally, and that it would be wrong to pull the plug just because there's no brain activity, I'm not sure how much I'd be able to disagree with them. A situation like this is more of an open question to me.

Of course, 99.99999999% of abortions do not fall into this category, so this is typically just an excuse used by abortionists to try and hide from the core of the issue (namely, that a child in the womb is still a person).

I should have elaborated on the "spontaneous" more. I don't mean mommy is getting creampied, wasted, and snorting cocaine and this happens. I mean someone who is desperately trying for a child, taking every precaution, can unknowingly have this just happen. There's things we know that make it more likely, but there's far more cases where there isn't the foggiest of indications. Understandably this isn't something for society to address, but I think it would speak to the abstract morality. Like you said, it did die, are these women murderers?

It sounds like you're describing a miscarriage. Relating it easily into a post-birth situation, if you have an infant who just suddenly dies one day without apparent cause and not due to any action or inaction on your part--it just randomly happened, and this even does happen, it's called SIDS--are the parents murderers in that case?

While you're right vis a vis murder, what about if we substitute homicide? Integrates manslaughter as you mentioned above. It also encompasses principles like self-defense. Would the circumstances I described above not be almost parallel nuance?

We already made the comparisons to murder and manslaughter, so I don't see what further point is being made here. Self-defense is generally considered a justification to kill, yes--possibly the only acceptable justification--but this obviously does not apply in the case of a fetus, who is quite clearly incapable of assaulting or threatening anyone. Unless we count cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, I suppose, which we also already discussed above (but even then, this is entirely different from what we typically think of as self-defense, as clearly there can be no intent to harm from a fetus).

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

I shift from autistic racism to pro-life apologia because I can do it better than @gang weeder.

I mean if this is the line of rationalization couldn't I just as validly say we're all non-viable on a long enough time scale? And since it's just a matter of how, I'm justified to start stacking bodies? Can you elaborate here?

This premise is basically true but reductive beyond recourse. The goal of pro-life is to either preserve all life (because it's fundamentally worth more than its projected viability,) or confine abortions to extreme cases where a foetus shall perish by illness or be seriously deprived of sensorial and/or cognitive properties. None of this leads to all foetuses being subject to abortion on the grounds of being mortal.

That's what I'm asking though. It's not that they would have died in the women, it's that they'd live. Well "live" is more accurate. Biological functions work but nothing is going on upstairs. They are a breathing potato that will be a dependent all of their life.

See above.

I should have elaborated on the "spontaneous" more. I don't mean mommy is getting creampied, wasted, and snorting cocaine and this happens. I mean someone who is desperately trying for a child, taking every precaution, can unknowingly have this just happen. There's things we know that make it more likely, but there's far more cases where there isn't the foggiest of indications. Understandably this isn't something for society to address, but I think it would speak to the abstract morality. Like you said, it did die, are these women murderers?

It's extraordinarily hard to prove intent under such circumstances and presuming all such moms to be murderers (even in the mommy scenario) causes more problems than solutions. A genuine pro-life stance accounts for all variables and attempts to mitigate circumstances where abortions take place. You're almost obliged to apply restorative, as opposed punitive justice.

While you're right vis a vis murder, what about if we substitute homicide? Integrates manslaughter as you mentioned above. It also encompasses principles like self-defense. Would the circumstances I described above not be almost parallel nuance?

We need instances of case law here. If there's too much nuance the law is as useful as when applied with unreasonable rigidity.

 

[BelUwUga]

You could, and I'd be open to the argument. I think a case where the child will die in the womb anyways, or the continuation of the pregnancy will seriously threaten the mother's life (such as ectopic pregnancy), is the only situation in which abortion is potentially justified. I don't know that it definitely is, it's just that in any other case it very definitely isn't. To continue the metaphor, if we had a braindead individual on life support and someone argued that we must keep them on life support until they expire naturally, and that it would be wrong to pull the plug just because there's no brain activity, I'm not sure how much I'd be able to disagree with them. A situation like this is more of an open question to me.

Okay so are you retracting this prior statement? Because it is pretty black and whit and incongruous with what you're saying now.

Of course, 99.99999999% of abortions do not fall into this category, so this is typically just an excuse used by abortionists to try and hide from the core of the issue (namely, that a child in the womb is still a person).

It sounds like you're describing a miscarriage. Relating it easily into a post-birth situation, if you have an infant who just suddenly dies one day without apparent cause and not due to any action or inaction on your part--it just randomly happened, and this even does happen, it's called SIDS--are the parents murderers in that case?

I guess it's kind of the "If a tree falls..." situation. Nobody knows what caused the miscarriage, nobody knows it even happened. For the purposes of the thought experiment, we know that something she did unintentionally that caused it. Are you saying there's a moral basis to claim she's guilty of the equivalent of manslaughter?

It might be a vanishingly small minority, it could be a singular case study. This is why I wanted to make sure you truly consider it all or nothing. I have my own opinions on the (nonexistence) of SIDS, where I would actually say in a lot of cases it's a diagnosis of convenience to spare an unwell mother. Lots of smoke around these bodies for them not to have burned if you catch my drift.

We already made the comparisons to murder and manslaughter, so I don't see what further point is being made here. Self-defense is generally considered a justification to kill, yes--possibly the only acceptable justification--but this obviously does not apply in the case of a fetus, who is quite clearly incapable of assaulting or threatening anyone. Unless we count cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, I suppose, which we also already discussed above (but even then, this is entirely different from what we typically think of as self-defense, as clearly there can be no intent to harm from a fetus).

This is why I said parallel nuance, not the same/similar nuance. As it appears we've fleshed out now there are edge cases where it wouldn't be murder. Regardless of their number this is in fact not an all-or-nothing issue.
Edit:

This premise is basically true but reductive beyond recourse.

That's what I was getting at about his own statement. I figured it'd be sporting to leave the door open for redemption.

The goal of pro-life is to either preserve all life (because it's fundamentally worth more than its projected viability,) or confine abortions to extreme cases where a foetus shall perish by illness or be seriously deprived of sensorial and/or cognitive properties. None of this leads to all foetuses being subject to abortion on the grounds of being mortal.

See above.

I mean if we're talking edge cases thats a different story. Gangweeder staked out an all or nothing position.

It's extraordinarily hard to prove intent under such circumstances and presuming all such moms to be murderers (even in the mommy scenario) causes more problems than solutions. A genuine pro-life stance accounts for all variables and attempts to mitigate circumstances where abortions take place. You're almost obliged to apply restorative, as opposed punitive justice.

I agree, I more wanted to show his position would exclude these people.

We need instances of case law here. If there's too much nuance the law is as useful as when applied with unreasonable rigidity.

Please explain: how would there be case law in situations where DAs decline to prosecute due to legislative exception? E.G. self-defense/stand your ground.

 

[gang weeder]

Okay so are you retracting this prior statement? Because it is pretty black and whit and incongruous with what you're saying now.

Yes, I will qualify this with "with the potential exception of cases where the fetus is non-viable and/or the pregnancy risks the mother's life." If you think this makes it "not an all-or-nothing issue," then by that measure, you are correct, it is not a 100% "all-or-nothing issue." Just a 99% one. In the same way that killing people outside of self-defense is a 99.99999999% "all-or-nothing" issue, with the 0.00000001% edge case being instances like Terri Schiavo (brain-dead on life support in vegetative state with no evidence they will ever recover). Such outlier exceptions are usually taken for granted among pro-lifers.

It might be a vanishingly small minority, it could be a singular case study. This is why I wanted to make sure you truly consider it all or nothing. I have my own opinions on the (nonexistence) of SIDS, where I would actually say in a lot of cases it's a diagnosis of convenience to spare an unwell mother. Lots of smoke around these bodies for them not to have burned if you catch my drift.

I would agree with you regarding SIDS but for purposes of example we can posit that it is a genuine case of a mystery death, or at the least, a death not caused by any action or inaction of the parent, but rather by random happenstance. I.e., you are playing with your child in the living room when a tiny meteorite strikes your house and kills them.

 

[Isaac]

Refutation: Fags who hate Jews should have been aborted.

Racism is a sin. Anti-Jews and Zionists are guilty of this sin.

"I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semetic."
-Roald Dahl

“In their synagogues and in their prayers they wish us every misfortune. They rob us of our money and goods through their usury, and they play on us every wicked trick they can. No one acts thus, except the devil himself, or whomever he possesses, as he has possessed the Jews.”
-Martin Luther

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews,
and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."

We should forgive their trespasses, love them we would anyone else. But that doesn't entail ignoring, or forgetting
what they have done to harm us.

Martin Luther has said that we should not preach in a manner that inspires the listener to hate their sin,
for it will just make you hated by them. I have done this myself repeatedly, and I am sorry. Forgive if I have offended,
and let us continue in peace and goodwill.

"Let us be as wise as serpents, and as harmless as doves."
That is the solution to The Jewish Question, and nothing else is relevant.

I have a question for the "It's literally murder" people: what about Plan B or a pharmaceutical abortion? When does it go from prophylactic to murder for you?

It's murder after conception. And those misconstrusions that have been made in this thread can be immediately disregarded. For, we all know
what to do with the woman that has accidentally induced a miscarriage within herself.

 

[snailslime]

Life begins at conception.

proof or the foundation of your arguments mean nothing.