The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Zero Day Defense]

Teenagers are going to have sex regardless of how much you say it's bad and how awful the repercussions are. There is no stopping that. Saying "we should shame them to oblivion for doing something humans do" makes you sound like an immense faggot.

"Don't try to do anything to change culture, people are going to keep doing things anyways."

Meanwhile, progressives do everything in their power to change culture, and they succeed.

 

[Lurker]

I support sex ed for teens, but not the woke kind that's about normalising fetishes and 8 billion genders. Just the basic facts of sexual reproduction and that penis-in-vagina -> pregnancy. Preventing a kid from finding out anything beyond "the stork brings a baby after mommy and daddy kiss" until the age of 18 is just not realistic, and likely not sufficient to stop them from having sex anyway. The mechanics of it are probably mostly instinctive and once a boy and a girl are naked in bed together, they'll figure it out even if they haven't been explicitly told that tab A goes into slot B. They just won't have any clue about the associated risks.

Sure, if you supervise your kids strictly enough you can prevent that situation (ie. getting in bed with a member of the opposite sex) from occurring in the first place - but if that's the case, knowing about sex isn't going to make a difference either way.

To circle back on the topic of abortion and back up my earlier point - in my country over the past 50 years the number of abortions per 100 live births has gone from nearly 200 to less than 40. This despite no additional legal restrictions, nor any major shift in moral sentiment, just the availability of reliable contraception. The downside being that there are much fewer pregnancies in the first place.

Previously if unprotected sex led to pregnancy, the parents would often decide to keep it even if they weren't actively aiming to have a child. Whereas now, couples will generally default to using contraception until they decide they're ready for a baby. It is certainly preferable to having tens of thousands of abortions, but if we want to maintain the population there needs to be something to encourage people to have more children now that it's so easy to opt out.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I want to address what I made bold and red:

Children are expensive! When a lot of people can barely live paycheck-to-paycheck, it's no wonder people would rather avoid having a kid altogether. Additionally, I do think that there is this overwhelming sense that bringing kids into the world as it is currently is just not a great idea. Still, I think the issue is mostly monetary, because I'm sure there are lots of people out there who actually want kids, but are prevented from having them because of their income.

 

[What the shit]

"Don't try to do anything to change culture, people are going to keep doing things anyways."

Meanwhile, progressives do everything in their power to change culture, and they succeed.

So what are you trying to say/argue?

 

[Narutard]

So what are you trying to say/argue?

 

[Lurker]

So what are you trying to say/argue?

-adjusts glasses- it would appear that he is arguing that conservatives, by nature, hate change, and progressives, by nature, create change.

pretty big-brained take from the resident angry incel

 

[Zero Day Defense]

So what are you trying to say/argue?

You're suggesting that those who want to mitigate what they view as cultural dysfunction (because nobody thinks that there'll ever be a scenario where nobody is having sex, and "having sex" isn't even so much the problem as is the downstream consequences of unprepared people doing so-- contraception or not) shouldn't even bother trying to do anything, but it's been shown over and over again that cultural change can be engineered at the hands of those within and even without the culture.

 

[Lurker]

You're suggesting that those who want to mitigate what they view as cultural dysfunction (because nobody thinks that there'll ever be a scenario where nobody is having sex, and "having sex" isn't even so much the problem as the downstream consequences of unprepared people doing so-- contraception or not) shouldn't even bother trying to do anything, but it's been shown over and over again that cultural change can be engineered at the hands of those within and even without the culture.

translation: if I can't get laid, nobody can!

 

[snailslime]

You're suggesting that those who want to mitigate what they view as cultural dysfunction (because nobody thinks that there'll ever be a scenario where nobody is having sex, and "having sex" isn't even so much the problem as is the downstream consequences of unprepared people doing so-- contraception or not) shouldn't even bother trying to do anything, but it's been shown over and over again that cultural change can be engineered at the hands of those within and even without the culture.

you can just say you're regressive

 

[What the shit]

You're suggesting that those who want to mitigate what they view as cultural dysfunction (because nobody thinks that there'll ever be a scenario where nobody is having sex, and "having sex" isn't even so much the problem as is the downstream consequences of unprepared people doing so-- contraception or not) shouldn't even bother trying to do anything, but it's been shown over and over again that cultural change can be engineered at the hands of those within and even without the culture.

Why should we change teenagers having sex? Why? What is the purpose? If the purpose is “well so they don’t have babies” I’d probably go on to say the other people above 18 shouldn’t be having sex as well so that they don’t end up having babies to eventually abort. This isn’t a teenage problem and making it seem like it is, is rather… gay.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Why should we change teenagers having sex?

Why?

What is the purpose?

You're really... insistent about this question. But I'm going to start off by saying we've already "changed teenagers having sex". Twice.

They started having sex a whole lot more from the 60s, at least until the 90s.

...now we have a culture that's still increasingly hypersexual but less people, ironically, are having sex.

If the purpose is “well so they don’t have babies” I’d probably go on to say the other people above 18 shouldn’t be having sex as well so that they don’t end up having babies to eventually abort.

We can expect adults to be able to shoulder the responsibility and costs of childbirth, parenting, and adult-level intimacy. You can't expect the same out of teenagers who have yet to even get to that age, much less that point.

What's more, it's not just that they're having sex, it's that they bear a distorted culture around it where-- among many other things-- they're either tying their self worth to whether they've had sex/how much sex they've had/the "quality" of their sex, or they're being influenced in the polar opposite direction to tie their self-worth to whether they haven't had sex. All the while, the point is missed that you gain and lose things maintaining either "condition", and that it's better to be in a position where you can bear those givings and takings with someone you legitimately and reasonably trust.

It's like drinking, but you're not poisoning all your organs-- still, in doing the deed, you invite significant neurological/general psychological changes even in a healthy encounter. Something that's better off not happening in childhood, much less with the aforementioned culture around it.

It really isn't just about heading off teen pregnancies, though that's a part of it.

 

[What the shit]

What's more, it's not just that they're having sex, it's that they bear a distorted culture around it where-- among many other things-- they're either tying their self worth to whether they've had sex/how much sex they've had/the "quality" of their sex

I highly disagree because if you’ve had sex too many times you’re considered a fuckboy or a whore which signified people you’re probably a fag and to avoid at all costs. @snailslime can you corroborate?

they're being influenced in the polar opposite direction to tie their self-worth to whether they haven't had sex.

I also highly disagree with this because that “culture” isn’t really a culture. Often times teenagers don’t want sex, and I know plenty of people who have remained virgins their entire school life and they didn’t give a shit, nor did anyone else unless you were a faggot.

All the while, the point is missed that you gain and lose things maintaining either "condition", and that it's better to be in a position where you can bear those givings and takings with someone you legitimately and reasonably trust.

It's like drinking, but you're not poisoning all your organs-- still, in doing the deed, you invite significant neurological/general psychological changes even in a healthy encounter. Something that's better off not happening in childhood, much less with the aforementioned culture around it.

And there’s no stopping that, although I wish people would fuck somebody that genuinely cared about then rather than some frat kid, I say to each their own.

 

[gang weeder]

Not to diss you or concern troll, but you seem awfully detached from your own childhood. Did you ever get tested for autism?

No. Did you ever get tested for schizophrenia? Not trying to troll you, of course.

Sorry for the rather short response to your paragraph about the Amish, but do you know that there is quite a lot of sexual abuse in those communities? That the seemingly idyllic nature of the Amish community isn't quite so? You can look it up if you'd like, but your assertion that Amish communities are free from such things like teenage sex and whatever baggage comes with that just... isn't true.

No, I don't know that. Is the implication that not allowing carefree sexual relations among teenagers leads to sexual abuse somehow?

I kind of figured as much. No offense, of course. It's a pretty common thing to hear the whole "from the South, churchgoing family, some degree of conservative", so to hear it from you, with your views on abortion, makes perfect sense. I can't tell you that your childhood was wrong and that you were raised wrong, because a lot of kids were raised the same way, and that's fine. It's interesting that when you started getting into politics, that you started out liberal despite your upbringing, and that when countered with opposing viewpoints, they somehow made more sense to you and that's why you became conservative. I can't sit here and tell you you're wrong, because I think, like all of us, myself included, that we are a byproduct of our upbringing. It's cultures colliding, and honestly, I don't really know how something like that can be "fixed".

Abortion never came up when I was "being raised"; I wasn't "taught" that it was bad or good or anything else. My parents are flip-floppy wiffle-wafflers on the issue, more like many of the people in this thread I've been arguing with, they prefer not to think about the issue and if push comes to shove they're okay with it up to a certain point. My views on abortion are because I thought the issue through and came to a conclusion that I believe to be correct, not because of anything to do with my "upbringing." I didn't develop my current views until well into my adulthood.

As far as why I "started off liberal"--again, I grew up in a fairly conservative environment in hindsight, but none of these conservative values were ever actually taught to me in a sense of "this is why we do things this way, and this is why the libs are wrong." Most people I grew up with preferred to avoid the subject of politics entirely. Thus, I only ever heard the liberal side of the argument until I started looking into things for myself and ignoring what was socially convenient. This is because, in my experience, there is very much an attitude among boomer conservatives that it is somehow impolite to actually disagree strongly with someone else about politics. You are supposed to just drop it and not talk about it. Predictably, this has contributed to liberal dominance of mainstream politics.

Well, if teenage sex and pregnancy are indeed at their lowest, then that should be a good thing, right? After all, we are in the abortion debate thread, so why should it matter if Gen Z is doing whatever dumb gay shit they do, it's not like they're having sex or getting pregnant, so abortion can't really happen when there's nothing to abort.

It is better than higher rates of fornication and unwanted pregnancies, that is for sure. It's not going down because people are adopting proper moral standards, though--unless one considers helicopter parenting a virtue I suppose. And again, other possibly worse forms of degeneracy are rising to fill the gap. If I had a daughter and I had to choose between her losing her virginity at a young age or trooning out and cutting off her breasts, I wouldn't be happy with either one, but I'd probably have to go with the former. And sure enough rates of anxiety, depression and loneliness are also at historic highs among the youth.

I support sex ed for teens, but not the woke kind that's about normalising fetishes and 8 billion genders. Just the basic facts of sexual reproduction and that penis-in-vagina -> pregnancy. Preventing a kid from finding out anything beyond "the stork brings a baby after mommy and daddy kiss" until the age of 18 is just not realistic, and likely not sufficient to stop them from having sex anyway. The mechanics of it are probably mostly instinctive and once a boy and a girl are naked in bed together, they'll figure it out even if they haven't been explicitly told that tab A goes into slot B. They just won't have any clue about the associated risks.

Sure, if you supervise your kids strictly enough you can prevent that situation (ie. getting in bed with a member of the opposite sex) from occurring in the first place - but if that's the case, knowing about sex isn't going to make a difference either way.

To circle back on the topic of abortion and back up my earlier point - in my country over the past 50 years the number of abortions per 100 live births has gone from nearly 200 to less than 40. This despite no additional legal restrictions, nor any major shift in moral sentiment, just the availability of reliable contraception. The downside being that there are much fewer pregnancies in the first place.

Previously if unprotected sex led to pregnancy, the parents would often decide to keep it even if they weren't actively aiming to have a child. Whereas now, couples will generally default to using contraception until they decide they're ready for a baby. It is certainly preferable to having tens of thousands of abortions, but if we want to maintain the population there needs to be something to encourage people to have more children now that it's so easy to opt out.

Yes, I also agree that you don't need to wait until 18 to teach someone the literal mechanics of sex i.e. "peen go in vagoo." Again, in my experience, most people were told this by their parents at some point, and those who weren't simply found out by talking to the rest of us. I don't see any reason why it needs to be a state-sponsored public school lesson, though I'm biased because I don't trust the state to handle anything at all, so I certainly don't trust it to handle this subject properly (and again, as we can see in this thread, putting the state in charge of "sex ed" leads in practice to basically telling teenagers that it's fine to whore around and sex is NBD).

Why should we change teenagers having sex? Why? What is the purpose? If the purpose is “well so they don’t have babies” I’d probably go on to say the other people above 18 shouldn’t be having sex as well so that they don’t end up having babies to eventually abort. This isn’t a teenage problem and making it seem like it is, is rather… gay.

Why is the age of majority 18? Why should there even be an age of majority? Maybe there should be no age of consent for anything?

 

[What the shit]

Why is the age of majority 18? Why should there even be an age of majority? Maybe there should be no age of consent for anything?

Uhhh… maybe you should stop before you get misinterpreted.

 

[gang weeder]

Uhhh… maybe you should stop before you get misinterpreted.

So you are shit posting and aren't prepared to defend your statements. Figured.

 

[What the shit]

Lol. Mad.

 

[snailslime]

So you are shit posting and aren't prepared to defend your statements. Figured.

you are a virgin

 

[Narutard]

@gang weeder

No. Did you ever get tested for schizophrenia? Not trying to troll you, of course.

There are no normies on KF lol. Ever thought about getting tested for it?

 

[Bunny Tracks]

Why is the age of majority 18? Why should there even be an age of majority? Maybe there should be no age of consent for anything?

That's one helluva thing to say for someone who claimed to have kids.

Edit: Just to clarify, he mentioned having kids, specifically a daughter, in this thread where he defends shitholes like Russia and China by saying they're freer than the Western world because he can screech the words "nigger", and "tranny" over there without getting cancelled on twitter, and shit.

However, those exact mentions of his children are now gone for some reason, even though a lot of the comments responding to him still include them. Make that of what you will.

 

[Disheveled Human]

Suppose, and it's not unrealistic to think in the near future genetic screening for traits becomes more advanced and they can with certainty know that the unborn child during early pregnancy will turn out to be gay, lesbian or trans; Conservatives are now getting abortions at record rates using the my body my rules argument that has pretty much kept open abortion clinics in the west single-handedly. Do Pro-Abortionists abandon that my body my right argument in favor of the conservative argument that the baby should have rights?

Now you can say well in the west we will outlaw publishing that kind of information but suppose that places like the middle east not only adopt that type of screening but make it mandatory. Do you still argue my body my rights or does it change your thought process on it?

 

[Lurker]

That's one helluva thing to say for someone who claimed to have kids.

Edit: Just to clarify, he mentioned having kids, specifically a daughter, in this thread where he defends shitholes like Russia and China by saying they're freer than the Western world because he can screech the words "nigger", and "tranny" over there without getting cancelled on twitter, and shit.

However, those exact mentions of his children are now gone for some reason, even though a lot of the comments responding to him still include them. Make that of what you will.

huh, that's really interesting...

@gang weeder please explain. what are you trying to hide, buddy? we're here for you, you can tell us anything.