The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[gang weeder]

proof or the foundation of your arguments mean nothing.

I mean, on some level, what counts as "life" is subjective and cannot be "proved." Someone could claim, for instance, that Jews are a non-human sub-species--or that human embryos are not actually humans until they reach a certain arbitrarily chosen stage of development, for instance. In one sense these are value judgments that cannot be "proven" any more than the statement that "murder is wrong" can be.

But if we accept the premise that human life must be defined as starting somewhere, that there must be a point where each individual passes from non-existence into existence, conception is the only starting point that is not chosen arbitrarily and has a solid basis in biological reality. Since this is the point in time at which a genetically distinct individual member of the species comes to exist in space and time. Any point chosen after this is quickly revealed as arbitrary with any bare minimum of critical thinking, i.e.:

1. "it's a clump of cells"--all living organisms are, to a larger or smaller degree
2. "it has a heartbeat"--the presence, absence, or functionality of specific organs is not used to define life in any other context
3. "it can feel pain"--so can animals
4. "it isn't conscious"--there is no reason to believe that infants are either

And so forth and so on. Conception is the only starting point that cannot be assailed in such terms. The fact that it can't be is proven in the way that abortion advocates inevitably feel that they must resort to copes such as "but you don't support welfare so that means you don't actually value life," twisting themselves into knots to portray children as some kind of evil parasite that is forced upon parents against their will, rather than sticking to the simple core issue of when human life begins (and by extension, whether it is okay to end it out of financial or emotional convenience).

 

[Ultrapenguin]

yes, i think too many non-qualified people have kids. there should be a screening process necessary to have your own children and adopt.

it's not eugenics because it has nothing to do with DNA.

Right, that's a tempting idea, but the issue is: who is going to be engaging in that screening process? The same elites and academics that would prefer the middle class didn't exist? Affirmative action is pretty aggravating when it's applied to universities and white collar jobs, just wait until it's applied to your ability to have children.


Anyways, I kind of fucking hate the abortion debate, because the very act of trying to boil the issue down to a yes or no seems insulting in and of itself.
I don't know these women, I'm not their partner or family member, trying to argue which words on a piece of paper should govern hundreds of millions of women is fucking retarded. I don't know if they should have an abortion, if they'd like I'll happily give them some input when I become familiar with their specific situation.

Yeah, maybe there's a chance that some unborn child would've had some benefit to society, but that's purely theoretical.
What one can say objectively is the average resources a person will take up in their life, that overpopulation is an issue, that we're staring down the barrel of ecological catastrophe, and that there are countless educated millenials just now coming to terms with the devastating realization that they should start collecting cats because they're never going to have the opportunity to have a family, so given the only objective information I have about bringing more humans into the world, yes, if you don't want to have a kid then get an abortion or, hell, feel free to murder your baby and blame it on SIDS, there are people out there who very much would like to have a child to occupy the space you've freed up.

I would never tell anyone whether or not to get an abortion. My advice to women would be to think carefully before going through with it, because a lot of times things you think are going to be horrible and that you can't possibly handle turn out to be some of the greatest blessings in your life, but if they're really sure it's best then go ahead.

I can try to persuade people, but in the end unless we're talking about my family or community it's really no skin off my nose what happens to anyone's kids.

But if we accept the premise that human life must be defined as starting somewhere, that there must be a point where each individual passes from non-existence into existence, conception is the only starting point that is not chosen arbitrarily and has a solid basis in biological reality.

Why do we have to accept that premise?

If your arguments are purely theoretical/moral then we don't have to agree life even exists because this shit's all imaginary, and if your arguments are intended to inform law then we don't have to agree because law is not rational or consistent, if not in code then in enforcement.

I guess I'm not sure what standpoint you're arguing from. Even if we all accepted that abortion was terrible I'd still disagree with the idea that abortion laws were adequately enforceable.

 

[Niggaplease]

I think stupid people shouldn't procreate, and that abortions should be easily accesible, its why I worked in a sex reassignment clinic for a bit, I support the natural selection of the stupid.

I mean, on some level, what counts as "life" is subjective and cannot be "proved." Someone could claim, for instance, that Jews are a non-human sub-species--or that human embryos are not actually humans until they reach a certain arbitrarily chosen stage of development, for instance. In one sense these are value judgments that cannot be "proven" any more than the statement that "murder is wrong" can be.

life doesn't begin at conception, when the sperm hits egg, the first cells form a zygote, that is a clump of cells that attaches to the womans uterus lining, you start off as unconcious unaware clump of cells, that can be rejected by the womans body at any time for any reason, its why most women wait atleast a good month before announcing a pregnancy publically, one random fuck up can result in the body ejecting the zygote. its insanely easy to do so in the early months, like drinking one to many lattes, your applyng personhood, to the same shit my uterus pushes out each month. does that mean my period blood is some how sacred and that I am commiting child murder because I didn't got knocked up that month?
if a zygote is somehow sacred because its an a fertilized egg, than wouldn't sperm be considered sacred, and you wasting your sperm is akin to murder?

But if we accept the premise that human life must be defined as starting somewhere, that there must be a point where each individual passes from non-existence into existence, conception is the only starting point that is not chosen arbitrarily and has a solid basis in biological reality. Since this is the point in time at which a genetically distinct individual member of the species comes to exist in space and time. Any point chosen after this is quickly revealed as arbitrary with any bare minimum of critical thinking, i.e.:

thats equating personhood to your jizz, conception forms a zygote, a zygote in the early stages of pregnancy can be subject to random fuck ups that will make a womans body reject it, with out the woman not knowing she got knocked up to begin with.

1. "it's a clump of cells"--all living organisms are, to a larger or smaller degree

your jizz is a bunch of cells we don't apply personhood to that now do we?

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

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

He seems to be backtracking on that rn. Well done!

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.

The DAs have substantial discretion that enables them to grant exemptions from the reach of valid law anyway, so it needn't be applied. I was appealing to the doctrine of stare decisis as judges can draw on established judicial authority (precedents) to help formulate their positions, which are likely to be overturned if they are “nebulous, vague, judicially crafted standards not well-rooted in legal texts or traditions” (see Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 842 (1991.)) Which I thought it could help to establish the workability your above-mentioned nuances in the US law.

I mean, on some level, what counts as "life" is subjective and cannot be "proved." Someone could claim, for instance, that Jews are a non-human sub-species.

Shots fired! Shots fired! @snailslime! Unleash your inner zionist!

 

[snailslime]

I mean, on some level, what counts as "life" is subjective and cannot be "proved."

what do you consider "life"?

Someone could claim, for instance, that Jews are a non-human sub-species--or that human embryos are not actually humans until they reach a certain arbitrarily chosen stage of development, for instance. In one sense these are value judgments that cannot be "proven" any more than the statement that "murder is wrong" can be.

tell me you flunked basic high school biology without telling me you flunked basic high school biology.

But if we accept the premise that human life must be defined as starting somewhere, that there must be a point where each individual passes from non-existence into existence, conception is the only starting point that is not chosen arbitrarily and has a solid basis in biological reality.

what makes you choose conception as the starting point and not the development of the heart/brain/nervous system?

Since this is the point in time at which a genetically distinct individual member of the species comes to exist in space and time. Any point chosen after this is quickly revealed as arbitrary with any bare minimum of critical thinking, i.e.:

1. "it's a clump of cells"--all living organisms are, to a larger or smaller degree

right, a clump of cells that cannot feel pain or emotions.

2. "it has a heartbeat"--the presence, absence, or functionality of specific organs is not used to define life in any other context

plants lack organs but they're still alive. is eating vegetables murder?

3. "it can feel pain"--so can animals

i don't support killing animals, and fetuses cannot feel pain when they're only a few weeks old.

4. "it isn't conscious"--there is no reason to believe that infants are either

what? are you really going to argue that a newly conceived fetus is as conscious as an infant?

And so forth and so on. Conception is the only starting point that cannot be assailed in such terms. The fact that it can't be is proven in the way that abortion advocates

that is an unfalsifiable claim. you have no way to prove that if you really want to ignore what scientists say.

inevitably feel that they must resort to copes such as "but you don't support welfare so that means you don't actually value life," twisting themselves into knots to portray children as some kind of evil parasite that is forced upon parents against their will

how can you say you value life if you don't support welfare for mothers? do you hear yourself? why do you only care about a baby before it's born and able to function as an independent being.

rather than sticking to the simple core issue of when human life begins (and by extension, whether it is okay to end it out of financial or emotional convenience).

um, you still haven't given one reason as to why life begins at conception.

Right, that's a tempting idea, but the issue is: who is going to be engaging in that screening process? The same elites and academics that would prefer the middle class didn't exist? Affirmative action is pretty aggravating when it's applied to universities and white collar jobs, just wait until it's applied to your ability to have children.

ideally, the government. in reality, it would be a long and difficult discussion.

i'd still rather have people get licenses to be parents than have the shitshows that we have today.

 

[Niggaplease]

what do you consider "life"?

by his own logic coom should be considered life and every time its not cooming in a vagina, it should be considered child murder.

 

[vanilla_pepsi_head]

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 difference here is that the fetus is fully dependent on the mother's body/organs for survival. If she decides she no longer wishes to have her bodily autonomy violated by another person, I don't think she should be obligated to. The fetus dying is an unfortunate effect of this decision, and certainly this shouldn't be done lightly, but for me the issue of bodily autonomy wins out over "right to life" of the dependent. Perhaps this would be easier to accept if there were some way of approving or denying abortion based on some legal appeal laying out all the details of the woman's life and how she became pregnant, but that is obviously unrealistic and why should some disinterested third party be the arbiter of that anyway? If people do it for reasons you or I might consider retarded, that's between them and their God.

As a thought experiment, let's say that there was some kind of mass casualty event, and as a hasty last ditch effort to save a man's life, they sew the motherfucker to me like a conjoined twin while I'm unconscious so my organs can keep him alive. I can choose to have this procedure reversed, but the guy's gonna die if I do. Would I be obligated to let this continue if I found I could not tolerate my body being violated in this way? Even if that person was a first degree relative? If yes, do you believe in mandatory organ donation? I know it's not a 1:1 comparison and pro-lifers may well disagree with my take regardless but I hope that makes it a bit easier to see where I'm coming from.

 

[gang weeder]

The difference here is that the fetus is fully dependent on the mother's body/organs for survival. If she decides she no longer wishes to have her bodily autonomy violated by another person, I don't think she should be obligated to. The fetus dying is an unfortunate effect of this decision, and certainly this shouldn't be done lightly, but for me the issue of bodily autonomy wins out over "right to life" of the dependent. Perhaps this would be easier to accept if there were some way of approving or denying abortion based on some legal appeal laying out all the details of the woman's life and how she became pregnant, but that is obviously unrealistic and why should some disinterested third party be the arbiter of that anyway? If people do it for reasons you or I might consider retarded, that's between them and their God.

As a thought experiment, let's say that there was some kind of mass casualty event, and as a hasty last ditch effort to save a man's life, they sew the motherfucker to me like a conjoined twin while I'm unconscious so my organs can keep him alive. I can choose to have this procedure reversed, but the guy's gonna die if I do. Would I be obligated to let this continue if I found I could not tolerate my body being violated in this way? Even if that person was a first degree relative? If yes, do you believe in mandatory organ donation? I know it's not a 1:1 comparison and pro-lifers may well disagree with my take regardless but I hope that makes it a bit easier to see where I'm coming from.

This applies equally well to infants, who remain entirely dependent on their parents (or on the attention of someone in that role) to continue living. What if the mother decides she no longer wishes to have her autonomy violated by the constant demands of caring for an infant? Should she not smother the infant so that she may return to whatever her previous state of being was?

Why do we have to accept that premise?

If your arguments are purely theoretical/moral then we don't have to agree life even exists because this shit's all imaginary, and if your arguments are intended to inform law then we don't have to agree because law is not rational or consistent, if not in code then in enforcement.

So, if I were to posit that any attempt to define life is pointless and subjective, therefore any murder in any circumstances is acceptable because morality effectively doesn't exist, what would be your response? I mean, if you believe that, "we don't have to agree life even exists because this shit's all imaginary."

life doesn't begin at conception, when the sperm hits egg, the first cells form a zygote, that is a clump of cells that attaches to the womans uterus lining, you start off as unconcious unaware clump of cells, that can be rejected by the womans body at any time for any reason, its why most women wait atleast a good month before announcing a pregnancy publically, one random fuck up can result in the body ejecting the zygote. its insanely easy to do so in the early months, like drinking one to many lattes, your applyng personhood, to the same shit my uterus pushes out each month. does that mean my period blood is some how sacred and that I am commiting child murder because I didn't got knocked up that month?
if a zygote is somehow sacred because its an a fertilized egg, than wouldn't sperm be considered sacred, and you wasting your sperm is akin to murder?

Okay, so, your argument would then be that life begins when the zygote attaches definitively to the lining of the woman's uterus. This is by far the best definition that I have seen from any abortion advocate. Now, do you think it is acceptable to kill the child after this point?

As far as the notion that "wasting sperm is murder"--considering that every time a man ejaculates, hundreds of thousands or millions or whatever absurd number of sperm cells are expended, this would imply that the mere existence of any man would make said man a mass murderer, simply by existing. Because it is physically impossible for any more than the tiniest fraction of his sperm cells to ever fertilize an egg, and the extreme majority of them will expire without doing so. If you think that is the case, then okay, feel free to make that case I guess. I rather think this reveals that life beginning at conception is the only reasonable conclusion. Sperm cells alone do not qualify as a distinct human life, or else God would not have designed us in such a fashion as to expend millions of them in order to produce a single child.

what do you consider "life"?

You first, atheist.

 

[snailslime]

This applies equally well to infants, who remain entirely dependent on their parents (or on the attention of someone in that role) to continue living. What if the mother decides she no longer wishes to have her autonomy violated by the constant demands of caring for an infant? Should she not smother the infant so that she may return to whatever her previous state of being was?

the infant is a human being with the ability to feel pain and emotions, so smothering it would be wrong. she can give it up for adoption.

So, if I were to posit that any attempt to define life is pointless and subjective, therefore any murder in any circumstances is acceptable because morality effectively doesn't exist, what would be your response? I mean, if you believe that, "we don't have to agree life even exists because this shit's all imaginary."

i'll take things no one ever said for 500, alex!

Okay, so, your argument would then be that life begins when the zygote attaches definitively to the lining of the woman's uterus. This is by far the best definition that I have seen from any abortion advocate. Now, do you think it is acceptable to kill the child after this point?

i think it's reasonable to believe that life begins when the baby is either born or develops the ability to feel pain.

As far as the notion that "wasting sperm is murder"--considering that every time a man ejaculates, hundreds of thousands or millions or whatever absurd number of sperm cells are expended, this would imply that the mere existence of any man would make said man a mass murderer, simply by existing. Because it is physically impossible for any more than the tiniest fraction of his sperm cells to ever fertilize an egg, and the extreme majority of them will expire without doing so. If you think that is the case, then okay, feel free to make that case I guess. I rather think this reveals that life beginning at conception is the only reasonable conclusion. Sperm cells alone do not qualify as a distinct human life, or else God would not have designed us in such a fashion as to expend millions of them in order to produce a single child.

this is why you're wrong on everything you say, because when you really break it down, your definition of "life" makes absolutely no sense.

You first, atheist.

tell me, what is your opinion on Genesis 2:7 and Hosea 9:11–16?

 

[gang weeder]

tell me, what is your opinion on Genesis 2:7 and Hosea 9:11–16?

Are you a Christian?

 

[snailslime]

Are you a Christian?

nope, i'm of the one it was based off of.

 

[gang weeder]

nope, i'm of the one it was based off of.

Wait, you're a Jew? You've got to be joking.

 

[snailslime]

Wait, you're a Jew? You've got to be joking.

now are you going to address my points or automatically lose by tarding out with ad-hominems?

 

[vanilla_pepsi_head]

This applies equally well to infants, who remain entirely dependent on their parents (or on the attention of someone in that role) to continue living. What if the mother decides she no longer wishes to have her autonomy violated by the constant demands of caring for an infant? Should she not smother the infant so that she may return to whatever her previous state of being was?

You know what, sure. I think everyone should be allowed to dispatch their own minor children without repercussion if they're sufficiently pissed off or broke. I also think people should be allowed to kill other peoples' minor children if they have extended screaming tantrums in public or repeatedly kick your seat. Of course that has nothing to do with bodily autonomy which was the subject of my post. If you didn't understand how I was using that term I explained it and included a couple of examples, so either you have the reading comprehension skill of a window licking retard or you're being deliberately obtuse. Now if you'll excuse me, I got a new crossbow and was just headed to the nearest playground for some target practice.

 

[gang weeder]

View attachment 3123594
now are you going to address my points or automatically lose by tarding out with ad-hominems?

You have to admit it's pretty funny that you've turned out to be a Jew. Maybe those noticers really are onto something.

You know what, sure. I think everyone should be allowed to dispatch their own minor children without repercussion if they're sufficiently pissed off or broke. I also think people should be allowed to kill other peoples' minor children if they have extended screaming tantrums in public or repeatedly kick your seat. Of course that has nothing to do with bodily autonomy which was the subject of my post. If you didn't understand how I was using that term I explained it and included a couple of examples, so either you have the reading comprehension skill of a window licking retard or you're being deliberately obtuse. Now if you'll excuse me, I got a new crossbow and was just headed to the nearest playground for some target practice.

And does murdering a child violate the child's "bodily autonomy?"

 

[snailslime]

You have to admit it's pretty funny that you've turned out to be a Jew. Maybe those noticers really are onto something.

it's not news, newfag.

anyway you worship a dead jew, you should watch your tone.

And does murdering a child violate the child's "bodily autonomy?"

a fetus is not a child, idiot.

 

[gang weeder]

a fetus is not a child, idiot.

But if you were to kill a child, would the child's bodily autonomy be violated?

 

[snailslime]

But if you were to kill a child, would the child's bodily autonomy be violated?

yes, why are you asking?

 

[BelUwUga]

yes, why are you asking?

He's retarded and angry he's been subverted. For his whole life begins at conception stance he reversed course in 90 minutes earlier. I've argued for longer just because someone annoyed me.

 

[snailslime]

He's retarded and angry he's been subverted. For his whole life begins at conception stance he reversed course in 90 minutes earlier. I've argued for longer just because someone annoyed me.

embarrassing.