The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Chewing Character]

I had this thought last night so I came to my favorite Peruvian pepper picking forum to post about it. Considering there's 300+ pages of this thread, it is very likely ground already tread before, but I am autistic and I want to sperg.

I feel abortion arguments on both sides fail to change any mindsets because they hyper focus on the morality of the act itself. If someone genuinely believes that a human fetus is real human bean with a soul, you're not gonna facts and logic them into suddenly rejecting their ideals and thinking murder is cool because you showed them a 14 page scientific study. The inverse is true as well; if someone genuinely believes that a human fetus is a clump of cells similar to a tumor, they're not gonna convert into a tradcath overnight because you showed them some photos of a bloodied flippered homunculus.

I think a much more interesting (and fruitful) argument is the governments' role in the matter, and conversations about the larger scale issues it could lead to on both ends.

On the pro choice end, I don't want the government able to decide who will breed or not breed based on the circumstances of the pregnancy; it feels like it will very quickly slippery slope its way into more government control over the populace, especially considering the documented history of forced government sterilization of groups considered "unfit" to breed.

On the pro life end, I'm concerned of the inverse slippery slope where more and more complex ethical issues regarding medical procedures are ignored in favor of less government control over the people, as there's a very well documented history of governments letting comically immoral shit slide in favor of scientific results (ie: Tuskegee Syphilis Study)

Overall, I feel there is no easy solution to the abortion debate, but I have found success in moving peoples' opinions closer to the center using the arguments I presented here.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

good thing no living person is being killed

Not going in circles with you over this.

classy

Thanks.

uh huh

Is there a logical basis for your skepticism?

cringe

Your libtard beliefs are cringe, yeah.

you are the one who accused her of stirring drama.

You accused me of hating women, stick to your accusation.

 

[Narutard]

Men, aside from fags, don't typically behave that way.

Where do you think we are?

 

[snailslime]

Not going in circles with you over this.

at least you admit you can't argue straightforwardly.

Is there a logical basis for your skepticism?

yes

Your libtard beliefs are cringe, yeah.

whatever ya say, boomer.

You accused me of hating women, stick to your accusation.

it's really obvious you do

 

[BULLY HUNTER_77]

That wasn't the question. The question was that of a coma patient who you know will become conscious in a few months.

k

A coma patient isn't the same as brain death. For example, a coma patient will still brain stem reflexes.

 

[gang weeder]

think a much more interesting (and fruitful) argument is the governments' role in the matter, and conversations about the larger scale issues it could lead to on both ends.

Considering that the pro life position is that abortion is murder, I think the role of the government is pretty clear and unambiguous. Likewise, if you're pro choice, I see no reason why the govt would be involved except maybe to pay for abortions, which indeed they do with planned parenthood.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Where do you think we are?

I know, but I typically avoid the cow drama stuff. I stick to looking at news articles, talking about entertainment, shitposting, and sperging about politics with the genius minds here. I don't get the appeal of the other stuff.

at least you admit you can't argue straightforwardly.

Lol

yes

Okay then, let's hear it.

whatever ya say, boomer.

Ok groomer.

it's really obvious you do

If so you'll have no problem showing that to be true.

 

[murph]

Abortion was always a eugenics program. Hope you all are happy with the extra niggers your politics bought you.

 

[snailslime]

I know, but I typically avoid the cow drama stuff. I stick to looking at news articles, talking about entertainment, shitposting, and sperging about politics with the genius minds here. I don't get the appeal of the other stuff.

ew go away newfag.

Okay then, let's hear it.

you already heard it

Ok groomer.

says the person who supports the Group Of Pedophiles (GOP) party

If so you'll have no problem showing that to be true.

it has already been done

 

[gang weeder]

k

A coma patient isn't the same as brain death. For example, a coma patient will still brain stem reflexes.

Okay. Suppose you have a brain death patient who you know will regain consciousness in a few months?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

ew go away newfag.

you already heard it

Oh, so nothing.

says the person who supports the Group Of Pedophiles (GOP) party

Yeah, they're the ones opposing the "don't say gay" bill, right?

it has already been done

Delusional confirmed.

 

[Narutard]

Okay. Suppose you have a brain death patient who you know will regain consciousness in a few months?

Impossible.

 

[snailslime]

Oh, so nothing.


Yeah, they're the ones opposing the "don't say gay" bill, right?


Delusional confirmed.

so what is your opinion on women?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

so what is your opinion on women?

I try to treat people how they deserve to be treated, which means on an individual basis, and that includes women. Sure, there's some stereotypes I think often hold true, like that they're more emotional than men, but that doesn't make me hate them.

 

[gang weeder]

Impossible.

Again, I am asking about a situation directly comparable to that of a fetus. Is it that hard of a question to answer?

 

[Chewing Character]

Considering that the pro life position is that abortion is murder, I think the role of the government is pretty clear and unambiguous. Likewise, if you're pro choice, I see no reason why the govt would be involved except maybe to pay for abortions, which indeed they do with planned parenthood.

What a reductionist view. The pro life argument can vary heavily from person to person, with some making full exceptions for abortion in cases of rape/incest/tardbaby, while others think it's immoral regardless of the circumstances behind the pregnancy. Some use religious backing for their beliefs, while others are completely irreligious in their reasoning. There's literally the entire "life at conception" vs "life at heartbeat" vs "life at brain development" turbosperg debate. Turning an entire multifaceted group's viewpoints into "babby is kill" for whatever point you are trying to make, regardless of position, is a bit retarded. Beyond that, the actual argument of your post makes no sense- the government cannot simultaneously be sanctioning abortion in the prolife mindset while also having no involvement in the prochoice mindset.

Let me construct you a better argument then the waste of Null's server space that is this post. Feel free to delete your previous braindead comment, and just use mine rather than posting again.

think a much more interesting (and fruitful) argument is the governments' role in the matter, and conversations about the larger scale issues it could lead to on both ends.

Reducing the abortion debate to a conversation about governmental control ignores a large point of the argument itself, and inevitably, the argument will return to whether the original action is right or wrong, because that in itself is what decides how the government should respond to it. Sure, it can help change some views, but at best people will go from "abortion is murder" to "abortion is murder but allowing it is better than the government fucking my asshole 24/7" or the inverse, "abortion is fine" to "abortion is fine but allowing it could lead to the government fucking my asshole 24/7"

 

[BULLY HUNTER_77]

Okay. Suppose you have a brain death patient who you know will regain consciousness in a few months?

Okay. Suppose you have a someone who's been flattened by a steamroller who you know will resurrect in a few months? This is a pointless hypothetical since there are no currently known ways to overcome death.

I suspect where you're getting at is a comparison to fetuses. In this moral framework, brain death reverts a human back into a clump of cells. If (and this is purely a hypothetical with no basis in reality) humans had the capability to regenerate their nervous system, preventing nervous system regeneration would also be classified as contraception and thus allowable.

Look, I just prefer simple, consistent worldviews: either you always work to keep a human alive or you always work to keep a functioning nervous system alive. You'll just tie yourself into knots trying to preserve everything that could be a human in the future or could be a functioning nervous system in the future.

 

[Rich Evans Ayypologist]

nurse, i need an analogy for something that has no analogous circumstances, stat

Reducing the abortion debate to a conversation about governmental control ignores a large point of the argument itself, and inevitably, the argument will return to whether the original action is right or wrong, because that in itself is what decides how the government should respond to it.

The main thing is that evaluating morality on an individual moral basis is pretty easy, because you'll generally have an emotional response to it and then justify said response in whatever way you want. When it comes to evaluating on the perspective of government, an endless amount of complicating factors are introduced which tend to overwhelm individuals, such as "how does my government actually work?" and it tends to herd people back to unsolvable "questions" of moral judgment. I have of late found that many if not most americans genuinely do not know how bills are passed into law, much less how this interacts with the judicial system. These folks speak of government and its role more as an expression of their tribal identity than as any serious opinion, for example.

In fairness, including the question of government role also introduces effectively unsolvable questions: what is government's role for just about anything in the private life? Even if we cut out the opinions of the terminally unemployed whose everything is paid for by their parents, we're left with a wide range of opinions handling the gauntlet from people pushing for fully-socialized European-style large-state governments all the way to people who want the government to not use any taxpayer money for public welfare (but don't you dare touch medicare/aid). In the former instance there, the state might have an imperative to take a more active stance in the regulation and funding of abortions, as well as deciding policies regarding permissiveness. On the other end of the spectrum, people may either suggest that the government has no real business intervening in this topic (thus leaving it up to smaller municipalities to decide), or they may (ironically) want more government intervention in order to outright ban the practice.

The problem with a centralia-style-ever-ablaze topic like abortion is that there's no real lens through which you can arrive at a productive discussion about the topic - at least in a public forum style. Speaking with a friend, say, you might enjoy delving in to all of those complexities, and you've got the rapport shared enough to really explain both individuals' established beliefs on morality, the role of government, etc. to arrive at a satisfying discussion. then a third guy comes in and starts shitting on your patio table

 

[gang weeder]

What a reductionist view. The pro life argument can vary heavily from person to person, with some making full exceptions for abortion in cases of rape/incest/tardbaby, while others think it's immoral regardless of the circumstances behind the pregnancy. Some use religious backing for their beliefs, while others are completely irreligious in their reasoning.

Yes, the different perspectives people take can be varied, but introducing "the role of government" does not make any of these positions any more complex or nuanced. In all cases, the role of the government is to ban abortion if you decide that it's murder, or to do nothing if not. There is not really anything in between, unless one were to try and claim that a fetus has some kind of bizarre status as a half-person or something novel like that.

Beyond that, the actual argument of your post makes no sense- the government cannot simultaneously be sanctioning abortion in the prolife mindset while also having no involvement in the prochoice mindset.

Obviously, I do not mean that the government is somehow going to take both positions simultaneously. What I am saying is that, regardless of which position ultimately wins out, the role of the government is no more complex than the positions themselves. Either it's murder or it isn't. Accordingly, either it's banned or allowed without restrictions. If your perspective is that life begins at precisely 24 weeks of gestation, for whatever reason, that means the role of government is to ban it at the 24th week and do nothing at the 23rd and before.

You could potentially raise some questions, as others occasionally have, about what exactly counts as an abortion and what doesn't--could a woman be held liable for manslaughter if her own behavior causes a miscarriage, for instance? How would that be enforced in the legal system? But you'd have to accept a pro-life premise before things like that would even become an issue, and obviously, the argument never gets that far.

Reducing the abortion debate to a conversation about governmental control ignores a large point of the argument itself, and inevitably, the argument will return to whether the original action is right or wrong, because that in itself is what decides how the government should respond to it. Sure, it can help change some views, but at best people will go from "abortion is murder" to "abortion is murder but allowing it is better than the government fucking my asshole 24/7" or the inverse, "abortion is fine" to "abortion is fine but allowing it could lead to the government fucking my asshole 24/7"

I'm not sure what the point of arguing with yourself is. Do you see a subject like abortion as an abstract topic with which to stimulate your intellect, without any morally correct position one way or the other?

I suspect where you're getting at is a comparison to fetuses. In this moral framework, brain death reverts a human back into a clump of cells. If (and this is purely a hypothetical with no basis in reality) humans had the capability to regenerate their nervous system, preventing nervous system regeneration would also be classified as contraception and thus allowable.

So your belief is that if a person were to be braindead, and you did know that they would regain consciousness in a few months, it would still be allowable to kill them and thus put them down permanently. Okay. I disagree, but at least we reached the core of the issue and identified the key point of disparity.

Look, I just prefer simple, consistent worldviews: either you always work to keep a human alive or you always work to keep a functioning nervous system alive. You'll just tie yourself into knots trying to preserve everything that could be a human in the future or could be a functioning nervous system in the future.

Were you the person saying that it's impossible to be against child murder but still in favor of the death penalty for child murderers? I don't recall ever getting an explanation on that one.

On the other end of the spectrum, people may either suggest that the government has no real business intervening in this topic (thus leaving it up to smaller municipalities to decide), or they may (ironically) want more government intervention in order to outright ban the practice.

Even the most die-hard libertarian tends to agree that preventing murder is a legitimate function of government, though. So again, there is not actually any difference of opinion in what the role of government should be. The difference in opinion is in whether or not (or perhaps when, if you are the type who likes to identify life as starting at a particular week) abortion constitutes murder, not about what the role of government is in policing murder.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

Let's make one thing abundantly clear here @gang weeder: you can't come back from being brain dead. How do I know anything you're saying makes any sense when you think people can return from the dead?