The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[snailslime]

So you don't actually trust the soyence if it says something you don't like. Only when it says things that you already agree with. Got it. Not surprised.

i do trust science. are you against science because you're an uneducated hick or because it hurts your feefees?

 

[BULLY HUNTER_77]

Murder is kinda not justified by definition, though I guess some people might argue it's justified if the person you're murdering is evil enough (i.e. a serial child rapist). Killing, sure, a couple obvious cases for that are self defense or fighting as a soldier in a war.

The trick here would be for you as a pro-abortion person to try and find a way how any of those justifications could ever possibly apply to a child that hasn't even been born yet.

Just checking to see if it's possible to convince you that abortion is based and eugenics-pilled. I take it you're familiar with the quote that's widely attributed to LBJ?

 

[Freya]

Just checking to see if it's possible to convince you that abortion is based and eugenics-pilled. I take it you're familiar with the quote that's widely attributed to LBJ?

muttmerican politics these days is solely contrarian.

its not about what policies make sense or are good, its about what pisses off people you don't like

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

@BelUwUga let's make this thread great again. Let's debate for the sake of it. I will be the harshest, most argumentative and stubborn pro-lifer one can ever hope to meet. With essays, swearing, shit-flinging and mental gymnastics aplenty.

 

[gang weeder]

i do trust science.

Even if it said you should suck the girldick?

Just checking to see if it's possible to convince you that abortion is based and eugenics-pilled. I take it you're familiar with the quote that's widely attributed to LBJ?

Abortion advocates are much closer to eugenicists than pro-lifers, since they typically imply that it's desirable to kill children if their parents aren't wealthy enough. As I've already pointed out, probably several times, this would naturally lead to a disproportionate number of black babies being killed, and sure enough it plays out that way IRL too with blacks utilizing abortion at the highest rates.

How can you possibly still believe that abortion is okay if these are the best defenses of it that you can come up with? Really confirms my belief that pro-abortion sentiment just comes from pre-conceived bias (i.e. being raised in a culture that says abortion is good) and political convenience.

muttmerican politics these days is solely contrarian.

its not about what policies make sense or are good, its about what pisses off people you don't like

Nice projection.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

its interesting you people dont ever address the argument at hand, you just compare it to other things

I did address it, the very first thing I said was that it's arbitrary criteria. You guys want to pretend the ability to feel pain is necessary in order to not be killed, you seek justification for your ghoulish position. Same reason you'll inaccurately compare it to a virus or parasite or clump of cells, even though they're biologically distinct and we're all clumps of cells; it's a dehumanization tactic to, again, justify your position.

I'm just taking away your excuse and you don't like it. If the ability to feel pain is something you need inp order to be spared, then the fact is there's people you can kill who are fully grown adults.

What's that, the goal post has moved, now there's more criteria like "being able to walk"? Minecraft to all cripples. Having a fully developed brain? Minecraft to all children and liberals. Ability to breathe on your own? Minecraft to all COVID patients on ventilators during this PANDEMIC.

Maybe there's no good reason to kill innocent end human life you're responsible for existing in the first place, and your endless stream of excuses to do so only hurts your position.

It was a bit tougher to argue against "safe, legal, rare" than it is "the right to kill it for literally any or no reason up until birth".

 

[Shidoen]

Abortion should be the final solution for pregnancy with terrible beginnings. Most of those cases are so small though that it doesn't represent the majority of patients. I really hate the enthusiastic ones about their abortions. Like if the Aztecs had them as their Sacrifice Temples, maybe those Spanish cannons wouldn't blown them away.
Reference:

 

[BULLY HUNTER_77]

How can you possibly still believe that abortion is okay if these are the best defenses of it that you can come up with? Really confirms my belief that pro-abortion sentiment just comes from pre-conceived bias (i.e. being raised in a culture that says abortion is good) and political convenience.

I haven't posted *my* opinion on abortion yet. I'm just asking you clarifying questions about your worldview to see how rigid your stance is.

Abortion advocates are much closer to eugenicists than pro-lifers, since they typically imply that it's desirable to kill children if their parents aren't wealthy enough. As I've already pointed out, probably several times, this would naturally lead to a disproportionate number of black babies being killed, and sure enough it plays out that way IRL too with blacks utilizing abortion at the highest rates.

Yes. But do *you* personally agree with eugenics? I'm basically asking if you're a chudbud - if the black race is a threat to white America and abortion disproportionately affects black babies, then perhaps the fetuses are justifiable casualties in the American Race War?

 

[snailslime]

Even if it said you should suck the girldick?

why are you so obsessed with girldick, tranny?

Abortion advocates are much closer to eugenicists than pro-lifers, since they typically imply that it's desirable to kill children if their parents aren't wealthy enough. As I've already pointed out, probably several times, this would naturally lead to a disproportionate number of black babies being killed, and sure enough it plays out that way IRL too with blacks utilizing abortion at the highest rates.

like you care about black babies.
it's not eugenics because it has nothing to do with DNA, doofus.

How can you possibly still believe that abortion is okay if these are the best defenses of it that you can come up with? Really confirms my belief that pro-abortion sentiment just comes from pre-conceived bias (i.e. being raised in a culture that says abortion is good) and political convenience.


Nice projection.

because you deliberately ignore all the reasons that obliterate your arguments.

I did address it, the very first thing I said was that it's arbitrary criteria. You guys want to pretend the ability to feel pain is necessary in order to not be killed, you seek justification for your ghoulish position. Same reason you'll inaccurately compare it to a virus or parasite or clump of cells, even though they're biologically distinct and we're all clumps of cells; it's a dehumanization tactic to, again, justify your position.

a freshly conceived fetus is more like a parasite than an infant. facts > feelings

I'm just taking away your excuse and you don't like it. If the ability to feel pain is something you need inp order to be spared, then the fact is there's people you can kill who are fully grown adults.

physician assisted suicide is a thing.

What's that, the goal post has moved, now there's more criteria like "being able to walk"? Minecraft to all cripples. Having a fully developed brain? Minecraft to all children and liberals. Ability to breathe on your own? Minecraft to all COVID patients on ventilators during this PANDEMIC.

what's this retarded vidya game jargon. touch grass and go outside

Maybe there's no good reason to kill innocent end human life you're responsible for existing in the first place, and your endless stream of excuses to do so only hurts your position.

It was a bit tougher to argue against "safe, legal, rare" than it is "the right to kill it for literally any or no reason up until birth".

appeal to emotion fallacy.

 

[gang weeder]

I haven't posted *my* opinion on abortion yet. I'm just asking you clarifying questions about your worldview to see how rigid your stance is.

Yes. But do *you* personally agree with eugenics? I'm basically asking if you're a chudbud - if the black race is a threat to white America and abortion disproportionately affects black babies, then perhaps the fetuses are justifiable casualties in the American Race War?

No, I don't support just killing off all the niggers. Lol. I've clarified my beliefs from pretty much every possible angle by this point, maybe you should try and share your own viewpoint instead of throwing out this low effort garbage. But maybe you already know that abortion is indefensible and so it's easier for you to simply pretend you don't have a position. You're doing a way better job at being Jewish than snailslime.

 

[snailslime]

No, I don't support just killing off all the niggers. Lol. I've clarified my beliefs from pretty much every possible angle by this point, maybe you should try and share your own viewpoint instead of throwing out this low effort garbage. But maybe you already know that abortion is indefensible and so it's easier for you to simply pretend you don't have a position. You're doing a way better job at being Jewish than snailslime.

afraid to tag people?

 

[Freya]

I did address it, the very first thing I said was that it's arbitrary criteria. You guys want to pretend the ability to feel pain is necessary in order to not be killed, you seek justification for your ghoulish position. Same reason you'll inaccurately compare it to a virus or parasite or clump of cells, even though they're biologically distinct and we're all clumps of cells; it's a dehumanization tactic to, again, justify your position.

I'm just taking away your excuse and you don't like it. If the ability to feel pain is something you need inp order to be spared, then the fact is there's people you can kill who are fully grown adults.

What's that, the goal post has moved, now there's more criteria like "being able to walk"? Minecraft to all cripples. Having a fully developed brain? Minecraft to all children and liberals. Ability to breathe on your own? Minecraft to all COVID patients on ventilators during this PANDEMIC.

Maybe there's no good reason to kill innocent end human life you're responsible for existing in the first place, and your endless stream of excuses to do so only hurts your position.

It was a bit tougher to argue against "safe, legal, rare" than it is "the right to kill it for literally any or no reason up until birth".

who gives a shit? an embryo isnt even remotely comparable to a 30 week old fetus let alone an actual infant. doctors arent performing abortions weeks from birth. a human in a coma is still a human that was born with an actual brain, not an 8 week old fetus.


none of this shit remotely makes sense and youre just a giant faggot

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I've actually explained this point in an earlier post. Speaking as someone who is pro-choice, I understand this logic because you're dealing with a soon-to-be person who has done nothing compared to someone who has made their choices clear when it comes to the death penalty. I see no inconsistency with this logic, and it's nothing more than a game of semantics.

As for her point in regards to pain, she's saying she would rather a pregnancy be terminated before the fetus is able to perceive pain, not that personhood is assigned to pain. Would you rather it feel pain, or would you rather it not?

But going back to your point, you are correct that that's how life is defined. And you are correct that we assign arbitrary standards when we come to what we value in a life form, such as humans and animals. My question is why exactly do you assign value to something that is in the early stages of becoming a fully-grown human? In the first month of pregnancy, it's not until the 5th week that vital organs like the heart and brain begin to develop, and it's not until the 24th week where consciousness begins to arise. And before you bring up the point of coma patients, I mean in a scenario where consciousness has yet to be developed, not that it's been taken away. I want to understand your position more. Ignore this, I forgot that you assign value at conception, as you're using the biology definition of what "life" is. It's a more philosophical question, and I'd rather not go that route.

Damn, would you look at that. Respectful, intellectually honest, and reasonable. You're not a liberal, are you?

As for your question regarding pain, obviously between the two options a painless death is preferable, but if it's an unnecessary death to begin with then they should both be avoided.

If you don't want to go the philosophical route that's fine, but even though I'm not arguing from that perspective I don't mind discussing it if you are coming from that angle.

What scientist says that a zygote meets the criteria for life?

You're sounding like Ketanji Brown Jackson who said she couldn't define "woman" because she's not a biologist. We know the scientific definition of both woman and life, we don't need to cite biologists, we already know ourselves that a zygote meets the criteria, as I explained.

Do you need a meteorologist to tell you it's raining outside too? Smells like you're setting up an appeal to authority fallacy here.

By the way, if you want to get technical then here is the definition of Murder: It says Human Being and not Human Fetus.
View attachment 3126196

Kill and murder are different words, and I am being careful in my use of them as there's a distinction. In casual conversation I'll use the, interchangeably though.

Just because something isn't legally classified as murder doesn't make it morally correct, unless you think killing escaping slaves was fine.

And here is the definition of a Human Being. Women, men and children are not fetuses.
View attachment 3126218

I said human in reference to our species. That definition leaves out newborns since they do not have superior mental development, any speech whatsoever, and no stance at all. It also leaves out disabled people and such. Are you suggesting babies and the disabled are not "human beings"? Their DNA would argue otherwise, regardless of their stage of development and abilities.

So you don't support welfare for single mothers?

Not just them, no. They're included, however, if they are legal American citizens and not vicious criminals.

So you're not unconditionally pro-life.

Who among us would allow our family, friends, and selves to be raped, tortured, and killed by enemies just because self-defense would then somehow constitute, in your opinion, inconsistency in our pro-life position? Are you insane or just dishonest to not understand the difference?

What makes a fetus without a developed brain, nervous system or heart more worthy of life than a living, breathing, feeling animal?

Because they're of an inferior species I don't care about, we're not discussing animals.

Except this is blatantly false. And it's usually not a life yet.

It's the truth. And it is a life, if you disagree let's hear why because it scientifically is indeed a life, just one you assign no value to.

Who are you to decide this?

Didn't you just harp on the difference between murder and killing? Because you know that applies here, right? And if your argument is now that killing non-humans is wrong, and your cult believes that unborn children are not human, by your own logic abortion is wrong.

So, you should be asking yourself that very question. Indeed, who are you to decide this?

So is eating vegetables murder? Plants are alive.

No, but I suppose it is technically killing the plant. But it's okay because they don't feel pain

They have less value than even animals do, so I'll gladly slaughter plants, it's plant holocaust. I really don't know what you hope to achieve here, if I eat salad I can't be pro-life because I'm a hypocrite?

who gives a shit? an embryo isnt even remotely comparable to a 30 week old fetus let alone an actual infant. doctors arent performing abortions weeks from birth. a human in a coma is still a human that was born with an actual brain, not an 8 week old fetus.


none of this shit remotely makes sense and youre just a giant faggot

Didn't read past "who gives a shit". You keep saying that and yet here you are.

You're just unable or unwilling to think deeply and have no input, your shallow responses show you're just a troll not worth responding to.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_77]

No, I don't support just killing off all the niggers. Lol. I've clarified my beliefs from pretty much every possible angle by this point, maybe you should try and share your own viewpoint instead of throwing out this low effort garbage. But maybe you already know that abortion is indefensible and so it's easier for you to simply pretend you don't have a position. You're doing a way better job at being Jewish than snailslime.

I only asked after reading through like two pages of your posts and it still wasn't clear to me. I don't have the patience read every single post you've ever made.

Spoiler: My opinion on the AQ

Trying to be the ultimate moralfag will only drive you to madness. Every society kills. What matters to me is a stable society with a consistently applied moral code. I see three possibilities:

1) A humanist society that values all human life. If every human matters, no matter their stage in development, then abortion should be illegal. A theocratic society that believes in the human soul is also viable in this category. Must be anti-war and against the death penalty. Non-human animals can matter as well but this isn't 100% necessary.

2) A non-religious society that only respects the nervous system. All life with the capacity to feel pain (e.g. with a functioning nervous system) should be respected. A society of vegetarians and vegans (eating the meat of organisms without a functioning nervous system is also okay). Abortion is allowed up until a nervous system is developed because one clump of cells without the capacity to feel pain is just as worthless as any other - early abortion is viewed as a form of contraception and is no more a crime than trampling on a bed of moss. This isn't an issue because the concept of a "soul" doesn't exist in this society. Snailslime would fit in nicely in a society like this. Say what you want about her, at least she has consistent principles.

3) The "fuck it, we're all just cruel animals living in a cruel world" society. Spiders will consume their young if necessary, and so will we. The stem cell and organ harvest is bountiful. Children don't have rights unless they are capable of functioning independently of their parents in society. Everywhere is basically LA. The globohomo wet dream.

The issue with America is it's schizophrenically split between the three potentially stable societies, making it unstable. The reason no one can even begin to have a productive conversation about abortion is because no side has even remotely comparable moral frameworks. This is why, after almost 300 pages of autistic screaming at each other, no one is even remotely close to changing their mind in this thread.

 

[Freya]

considering all of the immense suffering of babies and kids in real life that are actually affected and feel every ounce of it, for these weirdos to pretend to care about a grain of rice in a womans uterus is just utterly insane

 

[Freya]

I only asked after reading through like two pages of your posts and it still wasn't clear to me. I don't have the patience read every single post you've ever made.

Spoiler: My opinion on the AQ

Trying to be the ultimate moralfag will only drive you to madness. Every society kills. What matters to me is a stable society with a consistently applied moral code. I see three possibilities:

1) A humanist society that values all human life. If every human matters, no matter their stage in development, then abortion should be illegal. A theocratic society that believes in the human soul is also viable in this category. Must be anti-war and against the death penalty. Non-human animals can matter as well but this isn't 100% necessary.

2) A non-religious society that only respects the nervous system. All life with the capacity to feel pain (e.g. with a functioning nervous system) should be respected. A society of vegetarians and vegans (eating the meat of organisms without a functioning nervous system is also okay). Abortion is allowed up until a nervous system is developed because one clump of cells without the capacity to feel pain is just as worthless as any other - early abortion is viewed as a form of contraception and is no more a crime than trampling on a bed of moss. This isn't an issue because the concept of a "soul" doesn't exist in this society. Snailslime would fit in nicely in a society like this. Say what you want about her, at least she has consistent principles.

3) The "fuck it, we're all just cruel animals living in a cruel world" society. Spiders will consume their young if necessary, and so will we. The stem cell and organ harvest is bountiful. Children don't have rights unless they are capable of functioning independently of their parents in society. Everywhere is basically LA. The globohomo wet dream.
View attachment 3127755

The issue with America is it's schizophrenically split between the three potentially stable societies, making it unstable. The reason no one can even begin to have a productive conversation about abortion is because no side has even remotely comparable moral frameworks. This is why, after almost 300 pages of autistic screaming at each other, no one is even remotely close to changing their mind in this thread.

because absolutely nobody itt actually cares about a heavy blod clot. it's a cultural issues concerning the roles women are *permitted to take*

 

[gang weeder]

I only asked after reading through like two pages of your posts and it still wasn't clear to me. I don't have the patience read every single post you've ever made.

After everything I've posted here saying that abortion is murder over and over, including bringing up multiple times that abortion and the mindsets of abortionists disproportionately affect blacks, you concluded that I might be some kind of Klan member who wants to kill all the darkies? You're either the dumbest person in the thread or more likely trolling.

Must be anti-war and against the death penalty.

Why? Every single person on any side of either of those issues still believes it is wrong to kill children.

2) A non-religious society that only respects the nervous system. All life with the capacity to feel pain (e.g. with a functioning nervous system) should be respected. A society of vegetarians and vegans (eating the meat of organisms without a functioning nervous system is also okay). Abortion is allowed up until a nervous system is developed because one clump of cells without the capacity to feel pain is just as worthless as any other - early abortion is viewed as a form of contraception and is no more a crime than trampling on a bed of moss. This isn't an issue because the concept of a "soul" doesn't exist in this society. Snailslime would fit in nicely in a society like this. Say what you want about her, at least she has consistent principles.

This would mean it's okay to kill people as long as it's done in a painless way. If you think that pain is the only form of harm. This has been said like 50 times at this point. Are you sure you read all my posts?

3) The "fuck it, we're all just cruel animals living in a cruel world" society. Spiders will consume their young if necessary, and so will we. The stem cell and organ harvest is bountiful. Children don't have rights unless they are capable of functioning independently of their parents in society. Everywhere is basically LA. The globohomo wet dream.

Even the most fucked up degenerate of globohomo still oppose killing children, at least in public.

The issue with America is it's schizophrenically split between the three potentially stable societies, making it unstable. The reason no one can even begin to have a productive conversation about abortion is because no side has even remotely comparable moral frameworks. This is why, after almost 300 pages of autistic screaming at each other, no one is even remotely close to changing their mind in this thread.

Again, there actually is a common moral framework in that essentially everyone always believes that killing children is wrong, regardless of anything else. This is why I don't have to reference religion even once in any of my arguments. It is purely a matter of whether abortion = killing a child or not.

Sperg debates never change any minds anywhere. There are people who value finding the morally correct stance above political convenience, and those people never need 300 page long sperg sessions to be convinced. If they haven't yet considered or been exposed to the correct stance, then once they have, they will adopt it very quickly with a minimal amount of pushback (or in many cases without engaging at all, instead simply viewing a convo like this one silently from the sidelines). Meanwhile, and this is unfortunately the majority of the population, there are people who value social and political convenience over truth, and thus no amount of debating will ever change their mind. Their mind will change only when public sentiment as a whole perceptibly changes, if ever.

 

[snailslime]

@SSj_Ness i can't quote your post because it's too long so i'll just number my replies.

1) define "life". it's not a logical fallacy to trust the word of scientists over the word ofthe clueless.

2) killing is more broad than committing murder so nice argument, i guess? murder is killing with intent.

abortion is killing a person as much as having a period or miscarriage is.

3) fetuses are not human beings, no.

4) animals are superior to fetuses. their lives matter more.

5) i have a right to my own opinion and in my opinion, if you are going to be so gung-ho about preaching pro-life mantras towards fetuses, you definitely should feel the same disgust towards killing animals. otherwise you sound extremely hypocritical.

6) so, what authority do you have to rank lives? like, are you a god or something? how can you decide that plants and animals are less important than fetuses?

if you reverse the question on me, i don't claim to have authority. i just see the term pro-life and apply it to all life, like a logical person would.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

a freshly conceived fetus is more like a parasite than an infant. facts > feelings

Projection. The fact is that your feelings don't matter, as humans at no point in development are parasites. Words have meanings and distinctions exist, you're merely attempting good old fashioned dehumanization. Won't work here.

Maybe go convince some kids of that just like trannies do, play on their ignorance and innocence to recruit them into your death cult. Libs love doing that stuff.

physician assisted suicide is a thing.

Any facilities in your area?

what's this retarded vidya game jargon. touch grass and go outside

Do I have to post the Neo bullet dodging gif again?

appeal to emotion fallacy.

Saying it's wrong to kill the innocent, especially your own offspring, is an appeal to emotion fallacy? Then guilty as charged lmao

i can't quote your post because it's too long so i'll just number my replies.

1) define "life". it's not a logical fallacy to trust the word of scientists over the word ofthe clueless.

Already did define life and even discussed it a bit to elaborate, but that's not what you wanted, you want me to cite a scientist who will define life instead. Why even pretend you want me to do what you know I already did?

You don't need a biologist to define simple things, any person who payed any attention to biology in middle school can tell you this stuff. Guess we need a biologist to tell us what women and life are, a meteorologist to tell us what rainy and sunny days are, and mathematicians to tell us what addition and subtraction are.

We're not discussing advanced biology, these are the most simple terms. Life is easily defined, there's set criteria for it which was discussed. I even gave an example of something which is NOT considered life (virus) and something which IS considered life (amoeba) to help you understand.

If you dispute anything I said, or the reputable source of the definition provided, or found any error, let me know and tell me why I'm wrong. You don't need me to go cite a fucking a scientist, that is a distraction and merely setting up an appeal to authority argument.

2) killing is more broad than committing murder so nice argument, i guess? murder is killing with intent.

Is there a point you're making?

abortion is killing a person as much as having a period or miscarriage is.

There's no action taken to cause a miscarriage, let alone intent with one. They're merely sad and unavoidable events, most normal women mourn the loss.

I'm sure one could be purposefully brought on, but that's more of an abortion.

So no, abortion is far different than miscarriage. Abortion is an action done with intent which in a sane and moral world would constitute murder, but instead is currently not.

Or do you need me to cite a lawyer to define murder and killing for you...? You wanted a biologist cited to define life, so surely you want me to also cite a lawyer to define murder/kill, correct? Because only a lawyer knows what constitutes murder, like only biologists know what constitutes a life or a woman.

3) fetuses are not human beings, no.

What species does the unborn offspring of a pregnant human belong to?

4) animals are superior to fetuses. their lives matter more.

Maybe to you, and inconsistently according to the law perhaps, but not to most people, especially not most women. Tell a pregnant woman who's not at an abortion center that her "fetus" is worth less than a goldfish, see how that goes.

5) i have a right to my own opinion and in my opinion, if you are going to be so gung-ho about preaching pro-life mantras towards fetuses, you definitely should feel the same disgust towards killing animals. otherwise you sound extremely hypocritical.

Animals are of inferior species, if we need food there's nothing wrong with killing an animal. There's no hypocrisy there, I only advocated for my own species.

I'm against pointless killing of animals, for the record.

6) so, what authority do you have to rank lives? like, are you a god or something? how can you decide that plants and animals are less important than fetuses?

Didn't you just rank animals above fetuses? Only insane or stupid people would value the life of a blade of grass over a growing person, which is why not all opinions should be considered equal.

If we're not allowed to rank life by importance then a human is equal to a stalk of celery, and unless you're arguing for everyone to kill themselves via starvation, then if we must "kill" plants to survive it's no worse than killing people to survive. So if I "kill" celery to survive then I may as well kill a person for what I need to survive, like their money or food, correct? It's no worse, right?

if you reverse the question on me, i don't claim to have authority.

"animals are superior to fetuses. their lives matter more." - You

i just see the term pro-life and apply it to all life, like a logical person would.

That's the exact opposite of logic. It's entirely illogical and disingenuous. Pro-life refers specifically to the right to life of humans, the innocent unborn to be more precise.

You are trying to muddle up "pro-life" with these asinine arguments, like that eating salad somehow makes a pro-lifer an illogical hypocrite. Your disingenuous and stupid arguments won't be considered compelling to anyone except the most entrenched extremists. Tell me you're trolling because this is ridiculous.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_77]

Why?

I don't care what the moral framework is, as long as it's consistent. You seem to struggle comprehending a moral framework outside your own - likely because it contains dissonant ideas.

This would mean it's okay to kill people as long as it's done in a painless way. If you think that pain is the only form of harm. This has been said like 50 times at this point. Are you sure you read all my posts?

From a biological perspective, you are your nervous system. The ability to process and react to pain is an indicator the organism has a basic sense of self or primitive consciousness. You are missing the point. In a world where the soul doesn't exist, a fetus only becomes a person when its nervous system develops. Aborting the development would be classified as contraception in that case. Why do you think your opponents spend all their time talking about their reproductive rights?

If you've tied to bring this up with @snailslime over fifty times in this thread, there's nothing I can add to the conversation to make you understand her perspective better.