The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[gang weeder]

just because men may be in charge doesn't mean that they shouldn't consult women AKA the people primarily affected by abortion legislation. men's opinions should not play a role in such legislation, sorry. now, i understand that it's inevitable that men will insert their opinions into such legislation, but no, it should not be that way.

it sounds to me like you're justifying women being treated as second-class citizens because men created a system where they are in the upper echelons of government. that's pretty fucked up. it's pretty... misogynistic, to be honest.

oh, wait, i forgot who i'm talking to.

The idea that you cannot have an input on an issue without some degree of, I don't know? Personal experience? Clearly not, since many women have never been pregnant. Personal stake in the outcome? Also no, since whether or not their children are born obviously is a matter of tremendous interest to men. Unique relation to the subject matter? I don't even know how you'd quantify it. Point is, if we take this notion and start trying to be consistent with it, some interesting implications come up really quickly. For instance, I could posit that only taxpayers should have any say in how public funds are spent. After all, only they will ever know what it's like to pay taxes. Poor people and worthless layabouts who pay nothing in taxes don't know what it's like to actually be taxed, so they don't get a say in where the money goes. Right?

Similar logic would lead us to conclude that slaveowners should've been the only ones with any say in what is to be done with slaves in the Old South. After all, they were the ones experiencing and interacting with the subject matter directly. Why should people in the Northern states who had never even seen a slave have any input on the matter?

 

[snailslime]

The idea that you cannot have an input on an issue without some degree of, I don't know? Personal experience? Clearly not, since many women have never been pregnant.

Many women have been pregnant, yet no man has ever been pregnant.

Personal stake in the outcome? Also no, since whether or not their children are born obviously is a matter of tremendous interest to men.

80% of the personal stake is with the mother since she's the one carrying the baby.

Unique relation to the subject matter? I don't even know how you'd quantify it. Point is, if we take this notion and start trying to be consistent with it, some interesting implications come up really quickly. For instance, I could posit that only taxpayers should have any say in how public funds are spent. After all, only they will ever know what it's like to pay taxes. Poor people and worthless layabouts who pay nothing in taxes don't know what it's like to actually be taxed, so they don't get a say in where the money goes. Right?

That sounds good, but a lot of the time rich people hoard lots of money and don't pay their fair share of taxes.

Similar logic would lead us to conclude that slaveowners should've been the only ones with any say in what is to be done with slaves in the Old South. After all, they were the ones experiencing and interacting with the subject matter directly. Why should people in the Northern states who had never even seen a slave have any input on the matter?

Slaves are people with their own feelings and baggage, fetuses are not.

 

[All Cops Are Based]

maybe you haven't noticed, but almost every single time a female gets into a role of power, a bunch of men immediately start shitting on her in an attempt to discredit her. certainly seems like a good ol' boys club where they make it difficult for women to participate. and that is a problem, even if incels like you like to pretend it's not.

Dismissing all criticism you get as being motivated by gender bias is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
* (not "you" in particular, since you're a terminally online nobody, but "you" as in women with actual power)
Newsflash, people in positions of power get criticized in nasty gendered ways. A lot. The last 2 presidents are regularly accused of pedophilia, having small/nonfuctional penises, etc.

You think that's a "women in power" thing? That's the exact sort of victim mentality people like you accuse incels of. You're just the other side of the same coin. Which is why your take on abortion is so un-nuanced. It's not a principled stance on bodily autonomy or whatever, you're just trying to own the scrotes

 

[gang weeder]

80% of the personal stake is with the mother since she's the one carrying the baby.

That's an oddly specific percentage. Maybe we should divide it by the % of the person's life that is spent inside the womb. 80 year average lifespan vs 3/4 of one year spent in utero = about 1% of an average person's life is spent in the womb, a little less. So maybe let's say the woman has 51% of the "personal stake" and the man 49%.

Of course, this is totally arbitrary nonsense, but it does still make the tiniest little bit more sense than literally making up a random percent off the top of your head.

That sounds good, but a lot of the time rich people hoard lots of money and don't pay their fair share of taxes.

And? If you've never paid taxes, why should you get a say? Don't be taxpayer-phobic, bigot. I bet you just hate taxpayers.

Slaves are people with their own feelings and baggage, fetuses are not.

Yes, the issue hinges on whether certain parties count as people or not, and not on anything else. Glad you picked up on that.

 

[snailslime]

That's an oddly specific percentage. Maybe we should divide it by the % of the person's life that is spent inside the womb. 80 year average lifespan vs 3/4 of one year spent in utero = about 1% of an average person's life is spent in the womb, a little less. So maybe let's say the woman has 51% of the "personal stake" and the man 49%.
Of course, this is totally arbitrary nonsense, but it does still make the tiniest little bit more sense than literally making up a random percent off the top of your head.

i learned that tactic from a wonderful teacher named gang weeder.

And? If you've never paid taxes, why should you
get a say? Don't be taxpayer-phobic, bigot. I bet you just hate taxpayers.

I do pay taxes.
By the way, poor and middle class people pay more than the ultra rich.

Yes, the issue hinges on whether certain parties count as people or not, and not on anything else. Glad you picked up on that.

Good thing fetuses don't.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

I'd say forcing your religion on others is. Especially when you have simped for nazis in previous posts.

Nigga. One last time from the top. What is more nazi? Killing babies or not killing babies?

What? I know you right-wingers are known for being low IQ, but a house isn't a human

Wut wut, your mom's chicken lol

Uh huh. You /pol/tards love your Putin because of the propaganda Russia posts there.

Nigga. I asked if you've seen MY raging there.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

yes based on his posting, if he messaged me outside of kf back when I was still being a thot--

I can't remember the last time reading a comment on this site gave me genuine pause.

Why.

In the hell.

Would I ever pursue someone who's only capable of renting out her bodily autonomy for less than two hours of disgustingly hollow sex in a ratty motel so I can get no less than two STDs while her pimp jerks off in the bathroom with the door left ajar, all so I can shell more money than the experience could ever be worth?

Put aside that every relationship you've ever had with a man can be extensively described with the words "pain" and/or "protection", and put aside that you lack so much self-preservation instinct that the only reason you never got murdered after repeatedly and willingly putting yourself at the mercy of dangerous people was because you repeatedly and willingly put yourself at the mercy of other dangerous people.

You are the last person who should ever think of saying anything remotely resembling "he's just like this because people like me wouldn't ever fuck him".

 

[Hotter Shoeonhead.]

@gang weeder

https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950

From the article

Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic or minimal consciousness(7,9,70). They still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness (70). The preterm infant ex utero may open its eyes and establish a minimal eye contact with its mother.

I can't remember the last time reading a comment on this site gave me genuine pause.

Why.

In the hell.

Would I ever pursue someone who's only capable of renting out her bodily autonomy for less than two hours of disgustingly hollow sex in a ratty motel so I can get no less than two STDs while her pimp jerks off in the bathroom with the door left ajar, all so I can shell more money than the experience could ever be worth?

Put aside that every relationship you've ever had with a man can be extensively described with the words "pain" and/or "protection", and put aside that you lack so much self-preservation instinct that the only reason you never got murdered after repeatedly and willingly putting yourself at the mercy of dangerous people was because you repeatedly and willingly put yourself at the mercy of other dangerous people.

You are the last person who should ever think of saying anything remotely resembling "he's just like this because people like me wouldn't ever fuck him".

Lmao as if you care about women being abused by pimps you probably jerk off to it have sex, incel.

 

[Neurotypical Mantis]

simple:
a large majority of parents already don't deserve to have kids

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

You prove it because you're the one claiming it is alive.

I did. You're actually tacitly admitting it's a life by falsely referring to it as a parasite lmao

You sure hate citing sources for your claims.

You requested the definition of life, ignored it, then requested it again. If you have a problem with the one provided, specify why.

Biologists say that only biological females can bear children, at least for now unless technology makes it possible for men to do the same (yikes).

Yikes indeed.

So are you, lol.

Early in this thread I did misuse the word murder (on purpose to trigger baby killers, it worked), other than that I've been consistent.

Miscarriage is a natural abortion. No difference, really.

More trolling. You know that some reprobate with her wire coat hanger and an intent to kill is incomparable to a loving mother awaiting her child's birth, yet suffering a tragic miscarriage. They couldn't be more different, in fact.

They don't develop sentience that allows them to feel pain and emotion until around 22 weeks.

Move that goal post nice and good, now.

You brought them up, not me. I really don't care about trannies unless they're troons who are trying to take my biological female rights away.

I believe brought them up because I asked you if you agree with Ketanji that only a biologist can define "woman".

You're the one who has a weird fixation with them.

Not really, they're injecting themselves into everything. I'd much rather they vanish or at least shut up.

Why can't I abort it if it has a lack of sentience?

Because even if it doesn't have sentience yet, it inevitably will, so it's like killing a guy you know is only in a coma for a set number of month--he will become sentient after that time.

That's just part of human development, and killing them because their current, temporary state of development is deemed by you to be a justification just isn't morally consistent. By that logic we should let born babies starve because they can't feed themselves yet. You could argue they're a burden on society and nobody should be required to care for it.

Such justifications for killing someone just aren't morally consistent. "It's not sentient yet" and "it's not self-sufficient yet" are both ways to justify unnecessary killing.

You're just making up numbers.

No shit, you disputed the commonly cited 99% statistic (without reason), so I just threw some numbers out there to make a point: even if 99% isn't accurate, if it's off by as much as even 5% (a lot) it doesn't change the point.

Oh no, a stranger on the internet said I'd be a bad mother. Whatever will I do?

We already know what you will do, if it's something that actually bothers you. Gang weed pushed your buttons pretty good.

Using ad-hominems just proves that you and the other speds in this thread already lost the argument.

I use it only in return, and even then just as a supplement to my actual arguments.

What belief in magic?
Your belief that a freshly fertilized egg is alive is more close to magic than anything I believe, lol.

You believe something magical happens that turns something which was "not a life" (fetus), TO a life after a certain number of weeks. That's magic because science has never shown something which was not classified as life to suddenly become classified as such with no reason.

Explain why a zygote does not match the definition of life, please. All you've said is it's small and not sentient (yet).

How so?

Uh, because if something is not alive it cannot be sentient, it'd be redundant to say that something not alive is not sentient. If I say my steak is not sentient, well, I'm kind of just a retard.

I refuse to argue in circles. Either accept an answer or stop asking questions that you already know the answers to.

It's the only way you can survive a debate, running in circles and hoping people get fed up. I'm almost at that point, it's a cheap tactic but effective, so good job.

 

[snailslime]

I can't remember the last time reading a comment on this site gave me genuine pause.

Why.

In the hell.

Would I ever pursue someone who's only capable of renting out her bodily autonomy for less than two hours of disgustingly hollow sex in a ratty motel so I can get no less than two STDs while her pimp jerks off in the bathroom with the door left ajar, all so I can shell more money than the experience could ever be worth?

Put aside that every relationship you've ever had with a man can be extensively described with the words "pain" and/or "protection", and put aside that you lack so much self-preservation instinct that the only reason you never got murdered after repeatedly and willingly putting yourself at the mercy of dangerous people was because you repeatedly and willingly put yourself at the mercy of other dangerous people.

You are the last person who should ever think of saying anything remotely resembling "he's just like this because people like me wouldn't ever fuck him".

going on another incel tirade?

I did. You're actually tacitly admitting it's a life by falsely referring to it as a parasite lmao

freshly conceived fetuses are less alive than parasites.

You requested the definition of life, ignored it, then requested it again. If you have a problem with the one provided, specify why.

you can't provide a source for your definition.

Early in this thread I did misuse the word murder (on purpose to trigger baby killers, it worked), other than that I've been consistent.

uh huh.

More trolling. You know that some reprobate with her wire coat hanger and an intent to kill is incomparable to a loving mother awaiting her child's birth, yet suffering a tragic miscarriage. They couldn't be more different, in fact.

yeah, one situation is emotionally based and the other isn't. they are still logically the same thing.

Move that goal post nice and good, now.

what's wrong with what i said?

I believe brought them up because I asked you if you agree with Ketanji that only a biologist can define "woman".

i think biologists know way more about biology than your average joe, yes.

Not really, they're injecting themselves into everything. I'd much rather they vanish or at least shut up.

and you say i'm moving the goalpost.

Because even if it doesn't have sentience yet, it inevitably will

why does it matter? and how do you know that for a fact?

so it's like killing a guy you know is only in a coma for a set number of month--he will become sentient after that time.

he was sentient before he became comatose, and probably consented to whatever will be done to him while he's in the coma.

That's just part of human development, and killing them because their current, temporary state of development is deemed by you to be a justification just isn't morally consistent.

it's not just a moral thing, it's basic science.

By that logic we should let born babies starve because they can't feed themselves yet. You could argue they're a burden on society and nobody should be required to care for it.

a lot of pro-lifers don't give a damn about babies after they're born.

Such justifications for killing someone just aren't morally consistent. "It's not sentient yet" and "it's not self-sufficient yet" are both ways to justify unnecessary killing.

it's not killing.

No shit, you disputed the commonly cited 99% statistic (without reason), so I just threw some numbers out there to make a point: even if 99% isn't accurate, if it's off by as much as even 5% (a lot) it doesn't change the point.

it kinda does.

We already know what you will do, if it's something that actually bothers you. Gang weed pushed your buttons pretty good.

"it was just a troll bruh"

I use it only in return, and even then just as a supplement to my actual arguments.

i never insulted you?

You believe something magical happens that turns something which was "not a life" (fetus), TO a life after a certain number of weeks. That's magic because science has never shown something which was not classified as life to suddenly become classified as such with no reason.

yeah, it's called brain development and neural connections. pretty reasonable way to define sentient life

Explain why a zygote does not match the definition of life, please. All you've said is it's small and not sentient (yet).

why should it?

Uh, because if something is not alive it cannot be sentient, it'd be redundant to say that something not alive is not sentient. If I say my steak is not sentient, well, I'm kind of just a retard.

your steak isn't sentient because it's dead. the cow it came from was once sentient though.

It's the only way you can survive a debate, running in circles and hoping people get fed up. I'm almost at that point, it's a cheap tactic but effective, so good job.

your friend gang weeder is the only one running in circles here.

 

[Epic Fail Man]

New born babies aren't sentient beings lol. They have no self awareness or even thought until they are like 2 months old. They are just things moving and wiggling around.


The fact that we can't abort them after birth is already a compromise with you guys.

 

[Lurker]

she's reiterating her statements because you speds keep making the same fucking arguments that have been refuted a million times.

what's your point, self-admitted incel?

I love how it's the usual incel dipshits who come in here and think that they can browbeat the people who actually can get pregnant about the horrors of abortion into submission.

Once again, for the incels in the back:

You are not women, you do not get to dictate or legislate what women do with their bodies.

edit: it also tickles me that there almost always is some weird racial shit that they bring up in relation to abortion. it's almost as though it's not just the desire to control women, but also to justify their racism.

 

[snailslime]

I love how it's the usual incel dipshits who come in here and think that they can browbeat the people who actually can get pregnant about the horrors of abortion into submission.

Once again, for the incels in the back:

You are not women, you do not get to dictate or legislate what women do with their bodies.

edit: it also tickles me that there almost always is some weird racial shit that they bring up in relation to abortion. it's almost as though it's not just the desire to control women, but also to justify their racism.

racism + misogyny are like the base personalities on loser men.

 

[Lurker]

racism + misogyny are like the base personalities on loser men.

something something NPCs something something

 

[The Last Stand]

I said it once, I'll say it again.

If a woman wants an abortion, let her. It's none off my business. That said, keep it to yourself. I don't want to hear about the decision.

racism + misogyny are like the base personalities on loser men.

Ironically, they are pro abortion for racial reasons.

 

[Lurker]

I said it once, I'll say it again.

If a woman wants an abortion, let her. It's none off my business. That said, keep it to yourself. I don't want to hear about the decision.

Don't you know that most women announce their abortions and have abortion parties? Because to hear these people tell if, it's super common and women just CRAVE aborting babies.

 

[The Last Stand]

Don't you know that most women announce their abortions and have abortion parties? Because to hear these people tell if, it's super common and women just CRAVE aborting babies.

Now that I don't get. In that case, I should throw a masturbation party.

 

[Lurker]

Now that I don't get. In that case, I should throw a masturbation party.

NO STOP YOU'RE KILLING BABIES

 

[Hotter Shoeonhead.]

I did. You're actually tacitly admitting it's a life by falsely referring to it as a parasite lmao


You requested the definition of life, ignored it, then requested it again. If you have a problem with the one provided, specify why.


Yikes indeed.


Early in this thread I did misuse the word murder (on purpose to trigger baby killers, it worked), other than that I've been consistent.


More trolling. You know that some reprobate with her wire coat hanger and an intent to kill is incomparable to a loving mother awaiting her child's birth, yet suffering a tragic miscarriage. They couldn't be more different, in fact.


Move that goal post nice and good, now.


I believe brought them up because I asked you if you agree with Ketanji that only a biologist can define "woman".


Not really, they're injecting themselves into everything. I'd much rather they vanish or at least shut up.


Because even if it doesn't have sentience yet, it inevitably will, so it's like killing a guy you know is only in a coma for a set number of month--he will become sentient after that time.

That's just part of human development, and killing them because their current, temporary state of development is deemed by you to be a justification just isn't morally consistent. By that logic we should let born babies starve because they can't feed themselves yet. You could argue they're a burden on society and nobody should be required to care for it.

Such justifications for killing someone just aren't morally consistent. "It's not sentient yet" and "it's not self-sufficient yet" are both ways to justify unnecessary killing.


No shit, you disputed the commonly cited 99% statistic (without reason), so I just threw some numbers out there to make a point: even if 99% isn't accurate, if it's off by as much as even 5% (a lot) it doesn't change the point.


We already know what you will do, if it's something that actually bothers you. Gang weed pushed your buttons pretty good.


I use it only in return, and even then just as a supplement to my actual arguments.


You believe something magical happens that turns something which was "not a life" (fetus), TO a life after a certain number of weeks. That's magic because science has never shown something which was not classified as life to suddenly become classified as such with no reason.

Explain why a zygote does not match the definition of life, please. All you've said is it's small and not sentient (yet).


Uh, because if something is not alive it cannot be sentient, it'd be redundant to say that something not alive is not sentient. If I say my steak is not sentient, well, I'm kind of just a retard.


It's the only way you can survive a debate, running in circles and hoping people get fed up. I'm almost at that point, it's a cheap tactic but effective, so good job.

A fetus behaves like a parasite.
And I heard this coma argument a billion types it’s retarded a person in a coma is a fully developed human not comparable to an embryo.

Not sure what even is the use since most people who are pro-choice support pulling the plug too.