The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

IncestualMayoMonkeys said:
Do you thrive on being edgy? Is that how you cope with the lack of mutual love/care and respect in your life? By trying to make everyone else's life a living hell? How is it working?
Click to expand...
Edgy? What are you fucking retarded?

I mean this from the bottom of my blacken heart; I hope all you niggers get the wall, and I hope it's agonizing.
 
  • Dislike
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: The Cunting Death, veri, Dream_Cooter and 4 others
BULLY HUNTER_77 said:
Well, according to @gang weeder's source:

1,815,144 black arrests were made in 2019
vs
4,729,290 white arrests

This means the 13/50 meme is probably closer to 13/40
~2 million into ~47 million is ~4.25% of blacks were arrested in 2019
~5 million into ~250 million is ~2% of whites were arrested in 2019

So, the New York Times statistic would be: The rate of criminality among African American communities is roughly 2 times the national average (4.25% vs 2%). There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy. HHH mentioned poverty being a factor. Police profiling may also be a factor. Genetics & culture may also be a factor.
Click to expand...

Again: 13/50 refers to homicides, not all crimes, though it is pretty funny and telling that you ran the numbers of all crimes anyways and blacks still came up massively over-represented. Police profiling is a non-falsifiable premise and also goes against basic sense (why did the cops start engaging in racial profiling in the first place? Because the easiest way to instantly identify those more likely to be criminals is by their skin color). Wealth/poverty may have some mitigating effect, but it still comes nowhere near race in terms of how much it predicts criminality. IIRC the wealthiest blacks still have rates of criminality greater than or roughly equal to the poorest whites.

The real debate is culture vs genetics. I tend to think it's a mix of both, as nations in Africa are also low-trust high-crime societies from what I can recall, although admittedly I am not as familiar with those stats as I am with the stats here in the US. At the same time, I have every confidence that if you compare a black guy who goes to church every Sunday, has been married with kids and held a steady job for 20 years, the odds of him committing a violent crime are near-zero compared to the average inner city gangbanger.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Cilleystring and SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
gang weeder said:
Again: 13/50 refers to homicides, not all crimes, though it is pretty funny and telling that you ran the numbers of all crimes anyways and blacks still came up massively over-represented. Police profiling is a non-falsifiable premise and also goes against basic sense (why did the cops start engaging in racial profiling in the first place? Because the easiest way to instantly identify those more likely to be criminals is by their skin color). Wealth/poverty may have some mitigating effect, but it still comes nowhere near race in terms of how much it predicts criminality. IIRC the wealthiest blacks still have rates of criminality greater than or roughly equal to the poorest whites.

The real debate is culture vs genetics. I tend to think it's a mix of both, as nations in Africa are also low-trust high-crime societies from what I can recall, although admittedly I am not as familiar with those stats as I am with the stats here in the US. At the same time, I have every confidence that if you compare a black guy who goes to church every Sunday, has been married with kids and held a steady job for 20 years, the odds of him committing a violent crime are near-zero compared to the average inner city gangbanger.
Click to expand...
Try getting a college education, retard. Then maybe you'll learn how to read statistics.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Dream_Cooter
and 99 others said:
You can't. That isn't how statistics works. If I told you 100% of murders were caused by Humans could that tell you how many Humans are murderers?
Click to expand...

If we apply that hypothetical to blacks, then no, if 100% of murders were caused by blacks that would not tell us how many blacks are murders. What it would tell us with absolute certainty, though, is that you are more likely to get murdered by a black person than a non-black one (in fact, in your given analogy of 100%, there would be zero risk of anyone non-black ever murdering you).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
gang weeder said:
If we apply that hypothetical to blacks, then no, if 100% of murders were caused by blacks that would not tell us how many blacks are murders. What it would tell us with absolute certainty, though, is that you are more likely to get murdered by a black person than a non-black one (in fact, in your given analogy of 100%, there would be zero risk of anyone non-black ever murdering you).
Click to expand...
Again, take a statistics class. You are painfully stupid.
 
BULLY HUNTER_77 said:
Yeah, I'm pretty ignorant on the subject. This is honestly my first time really digging into it.

Another interesting detail to add: 38.4% of all murders apparently go unsolved.

This means the FBI statistic just confirms that ~30% of all murders are committed by 13% of the population. The race of the remaining ~40% of murderers is still unknown. My guess is @snailslime and @Hollywood Hulk Hogan would argue that the remaining murderers are likely white since black and minority communities tend to be overpoliced. Regardless, the 13/30 statistic means that the murder rate among black populations is at least 2x the national average.
Click to expand...

Well, the 13/50 meme came from a particular year, and I may not have pulled up the correct one. Additionally, it's based on arrests, rather than on murders which are definitively "solved." But the overall point remains true regardless, as you've discovered. Also I can't blame you too much for being ignorant after realizing that you followed on from snailslime's post, which in typical fashion, was mind-fuckingly wrong and stupid.

Kenya Jones said:
Once again, I'm asking for a source on that, because a good first question is, where was this study taken? Was it America? Was it Europe? was it in Nigeria? These things matter.
Click to expand...

Google it. You're displaying too much motivated skepticism for me to bother holding your hand. Again, it's only among the young females who are transtrending, though it wouldn't terribly surprise me if troons at all ages/genders are disproportionately white. We all know why that would be.

snailslime said:
Nah, I want you to tell me since you're such an expert on black crime rates.
Click to expand...

I gave you the FBI numbers, run the percentages if you want (or should I say, if you even can?). I'm not your personal calculator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
Larry David's Opera Cape said:
Pro-choicers love to drag out stories of horrifically deformed babies to defend late-term abortion in particular. Anencephaly is a fave- it's fatal, it's easily diagnosed with ultrasound (after about mid-pregnancy), and howwwww can you maaaaaake a pooooor wahmen carry a MONSTER like that to term only for it to die a miserable death?

But they never answer for me why abortion (killing the baby before birth then inducing contractions to facilitate delivery) is better for the woman than enrolling her in something like perinatal hospice, where counselors and nurses help make sure that both the physical and psychological pain are addressed in the hospital.

Late term abortion procedure described here.

1. Cervical dilation starts a couple days before the procedure. (Painful.)
2. "Most patients will be provided NSAIDs for pain management." (Ibuprofen)
3. "The rate of mortality following legal procedures in the US is 0.62 legal induced abortion-related deaths per 100,000 reported legal abortions. The strongest risk factor for mortality following abortion is increasing gestational age." (Not any safer than normal labor and delivery.)

The woman goes to the clinic and gets the dilating materials put in her cervix, then goes home. She comes back for the procedure and is discharged later that day to home, where she bleeds and has milk come in exactly like after a normal birth. They recommend stuffing cabbage leaves in the bra and binding the chest to stop the milk coming in.

Meanwhile the birth plans for perinatal hospice talks about getting narcotics for pain relief and sedation to help sleep. It talks about what family you want present, and having a chaplain and counselor available for emotional and spiritual support. You experience the whole thing in a hospital where someone can monitor your bleeding and vital signs and provide IV pain relief. Counselors help with funeral arrangements.

How is this not more compassionate to a woman/couple experiencing such a loss, compared to throw back an ibuprofen and hold onto the rails so we can suck the baby's brains out and throw it in a bag?
Click to expand...
It takes about 20 weeks to discover genetic issues with a fetus. Since we're talking about severely malformed tard babies, it is an act of mercy to end the pregnancy vs expecting the woman to give birth to something that might not live an hour, and will know nothing but pain. If the child has a chance and, with adequate care, can live a normal life I'd advise against abortion.

But giving birth to a baby with just a brain stem or expecting her to commit to the labor of a child that will know nothing in life is not pro life, it is pro birth. But you know this already.
Sanshain said:
@Chandler Quotes not working. But nice to see an actually sane person here for a change.

I'm staunchly anti-abortion for the most part, but I believe some exceptions are reasonable. If there is undeniable proof a child is hideously deformed and incompatible with life, or won't even be born with basic sentience, then you can fairly argue that abortion is just an extension of a miscarriage - a natural biological safeguard against such pregnancies that nonetheless sometimes fails to work properly.

The issue with this and all other similar exceptions is the lack of certainty. I personally know at least one woman who was very strongly advised to get an abortion because multiple medical professionals sincerely believed her baby would be born with severe mental and physical defects. She was pressured quite heavily, but ultimately chose to carry to term. Her daughter came out perfectly healthy with no abnormalities whatsoever. The doctors were all completely wrong, and she was never even given an explanation of why they were so convinced that abortion was the best option. In a similar case, another woman became pregnant in her mid-40's and was advised to abort based on the elevated risk of neurological disorders due to her age. Once again, she had a perfectly healthy baby with no defects.

In criminal law it's often said that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man. I believe the same thing applies to abortions. If there is any reasonable degree of uncertainty, the risk of destroying a perfectly viable human life is simply not morally acceptable. Even if a defect is certain, the degree it affects the newborn is as much a societal issue as it is a biological issue. Even children born with Downs Syndrome can lead productive, happy lives. Eugenics inherently cheapens the value of human life and puts humanity on a slippery slope, and abortion is eugenics, no matter how you look at it.

You can claim that publicly available abortion has good outcomes, and I won't entirely disagree. But saying that it creates an overall net positive is like saying that a mass shooter with a body count of ten people had a positive impact on society because one of his victims was a terrorist who was planning to blow up a fully-loaded commercial airliner later that day. Even the numbers that have been repeatedly cited in this thread agree; the overwhelming majority of abortions are purely elective, not the result of rape, incest or dangerous fetal abnormality. This sets a genuinely nightmarish societal precedent. It is purely something used for convenience now, not for any objective benefit to humanity as a whole.

We got rid of CFC's when it was proven they destroyed the atmosphere.

We got rid of leaded fuel when it was proven it lowered IQ and caused dangerous air pollution.

We got rid of arsenic in, well, fucking everything when it was proven a lethal poison.

Multiple times throughout history, humans have collectively come together and said 'we reject the usage of this extremely convenient thing that everyone has come to rely on, because the death toll is inexcusable, and we cannot justify the health costs of keeping it'.

Yet abortion has killed more people than all the examples above, put together. 99% or more of those people were killed for no reason other than convenience, because their parents had been lazy and not taken proper precautions. But uniquely, we still pretend this is in any way acceptable.

This is a black stain on the human conscience.
Click to expand...
Eugenics is the de-facto standard of human evolution. Polite society will not admit to this nor will any other website but since this website does not give a shit it is much easier to say.

Every human desires a healthy child. Every one. When you discover that your child will have a crippling disease whose quality of life will be severely impacted, that is not pro life. No more than having your child be dosed with the radiation clouds from Chernobyl and coming out with four eyes and two heads.

We removed those things from the environment because they were dangerous, and impacted quality of life.
I have always been in favour of genetic screenings and counseling for both father and mother - Israel does it - and Israel has seen a dramatic decrease in many genetic problems.

Eugenics is considered a slippery slope for designer babies and to create a perfect humanity that becomes flawed in of itself. We think of Unit 731 or the Nazis when it's discussed. Under normal circumstances it is just sexual selection. Certain traits will be eliminated and in Scandinavia, you'd be hard pressed to find a Down's Syndrome baby. In one VICE documentary, a pro life woman took her Downie daughter to Iceland to show people how cruel they were for ending Downs Syndrome pregnancies. Even the girl herself wondered why she was there.

Certainty is becoming more precise with more genetic screening. Parents that do not have the funds to care for a severely disabled child should not be forced to carry one to term.

To address the '99% for convenience', a good chunk occurred in communities where the women were either in low income housing or poor relationships. Either they are too stupid to take birth control or cannot afford it. If you remember Idiocracy, the women in the trailer parks all refused to take birth control. That is one aspect. The other are women with other children who cannot afford any more; for whatever reason, their husbands refused birth control or refused to let their wives take birth control, or have any conversation on family planning. You do have a more solid argument on abortion being used as birth control here, and I would suggest these women be temporarily sterilized or given IUDs. Prevents needless suffering.

Humanity will always have a black stain on its conscience, ever since its inception. And, as said before, everyone has a price tag whether we want to admit it or not. You can end abortion laws, but you won't stop abortion overall. You can have those kids brought to term and have them become one more nameless number in the system.

Abortion rates decrease naturally with good birth control, sex ed (proper sex ed mind you), and family support programs. The US has very little maternal protection clauses so you're really wanting the cauldron to bubble over.
gang weeder said:
At the same time, if a man gets a woman pregnant and decides he would like to have the child, he gets no say in the matter. The decision to kill the child rests solely with the woman. So I would argue this is wholly appropriate within the current regime. No agency means no responsibility. Of course, you are ignoring the fact that the legal system will force men to pay child support even if the woman never allows him to see their child.



Not necessarily. I don't often see the topic of what to do with "tard babies" discussed, but that's because the argument can never move past the immorality of abortion in the first place. I wouldn't be opposed to having some form of state care for such people. We certainly hand out untold trillions in welfare for far less worthy reasons. But again, we would have to agree that abortion is wrong first before this talking point would merit any serious consideration.



Again: If "having a price tag" over someone's head justifies killing them, we should just kill off the black population and be done with it. I don't know why you people have such a difficult time with this one, no amount of repetition ever seems to break through the programming on it.



A zygote is a human being, so yes, willfully terminating them is murder. There is no justification for picking a particular stage of development at which a human being is arbitrarily conferred personhood.



All of these so-called "ethical arguments" also justify infanticide. I have yet to find anyone who is willing to seriously claim that infanticide is okay due to "quality of life" or "financial" concerns. Maybe you'll be the first?



My understanding of the so-called "birth control" pill is that it is in fact an abortifacient, as a zygote forms and is then unable to implant into the lining of the uterus. By definition, a contraceptive must stop conception from occurring, such as a condom. An intervention which allows conception to occur then terminates the child is not contraception.
Click to expand...
If you want to ban abortion it should be fair that the man be 100% tied to that child; where it is punishable by life in prison should he ever walk out on the child be fathered. Treat them as harshly as we do the women, and you'll see out of wedlock births drop like a stone, because men will fear missed paternity tests as women fear pregnancy tests. But since you are already complaining that men are treated unfairly, my point matters even more. Men complain more about being held responsible for the child they created than the woman who chose to end a pregnancy.

Likewise, you will always repeat the argument that it is murder, and proceed to say that the zygote is a person. If so, if the zygote fails to implant in a uterus it is murder. It is not considered a person for tax purposes, the census, mandatory child support or welfare, or other benefits that are given to newborns. This fresh cell that has yet to implant and start a pregnancy has more worth than the woman who carries it. That is another aspect of the argument you miss.

There is a justification for personhood, because you need to define it. Again, if it fails to implant that is murder or manslaughter, as it is the willful death of a would-be person. IVF would undoubtedly be murder, and Louisiana's proposed law has 'implantation' in it, which would include it and birth control.

You would have to ban certain forms of birth control as they are abortifacients, as they prevent any implantation and lead to the death of that little person.

You, personally, are not opposed to state care for severely mentally or physically handicapped babies, but other pro lifers are because it's a hole in their pocket. They've admitted to this. They don't want their tax dollars paying for the babies they demanded be born; they want it to remain in their pockets. Simply put, the mother and her child get no recompense from the very people who valued the fetus's humanity when it was one.
 
  • Agree
  • Dislike
  • Informative
Reactions: Hepativore, snailslime, Kiwi & Cow and 2 others
Lily Says 41%! said:
Yes I do. Why would you assume someone is anti-gun or anti-dp just bc they're for legal abortion? Someone could have any number of opinions on different issues. This kind of extreme partisan thinking is autistic, stupid and extremely American. I don't believe that you're Russian.
Click to expand...
Well, at least you're consistent. Being anti-DP (but not the other kind) is part or the standard leftist belief package.

И мне похуй веришь ты мне или нет.
 
  • Agree
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: Dream_Cooter, SSj_Ness (Yiffed), snailslime and 1 other person
Muh Vagina said:
Zero, because my birth control hasn't failed me yet. Now answer the question. How many tard babies have you adopted.

Lying won't make your mother love you. Project somewhere else.

Do you really expect me to believe that the manlets, incels, and deathfats in this thread screeching about how evil abortion is have ever had consensual sex?
Click to expand...
Being an uggo is great for birth control and if you keep killing tards then how will I adopt them and care for them in a college dorm?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dream_Cooter and SSj_Ness (Yiffed)
If you want to ban abortion it should be fair that the man be 100% tied to that child; where it is punishable by life in prison should he ever walk out on the child be fathered. Treat them as harshly as we do the women, and you'll see out of wedlock births drop like a stone, because men will fear missed paternity tests as women fear pregnancy tests. But since you are already complaining that men are treated unfairly, my point matters even more. Men complain more about being held responsible for the child they created than the woman who chose to end a pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Yes, men should have to take care of their children. Out of wedlock births dropping like a stone sounds like an excellent outcome to me. Does it not to you?

Likewise, you will always repeat the argument that it is murder, and proceed to say that the zygote is a person. If so, if the zygote fails to implant in a uterus it is murder. It is not considered a person for tax purposes, the census, mandatory child support or welfare, or other benefits that are given to newborns. This fresh cell that has yet to implant and start a pregnancy has more worth than the woman who carries it. That is another aspect of the argument you miss.

There is a justification for personhood, because you need to define it. Again, if it fails to implant that is murder or manslaughter, as it is the willful death of a would-be person. IVF would undoubtedly be murder, and Louisiana's proposed law has 'implantation' in it, which would include it and birth control.
Click to expand...

This could only be the case if a woman has some kind of conscious control over whether the zygote implants or not. I assume you know that this is not the case. I assume you also know that murder requires intent. If the woman undergoes some kind of intervention which actively blocks implantation, this can be considered murder (though even many pro-lifers may struggle to actually call it that). But that is clear intent to eliminate the nascent life.

A zygote that doesn't implant because it simply doesn't, without any particular action taken by the woman, is likewise clearly a tragedy of nature, not a murder. Just like a two year old falling down the stairs, hitting their head and dying is a tragedy, not a murder (as opposed to a parent pushing the two year old down those stairs).

You seem intelligent enough to realize how dishonest this particular talking point is, but I don't know. Maybe not, maybe you're just grasping for any possible "gotchas" since none of them are landing.

You would have to ban certain forms of birth control as they are abortifacients, as they prevent any implantation and lead to the death of that little person.
Click to expand...

Yes, being anti-abortion means banning abortifacients. Congrats on figuring that out. Calling an abortifacient "birth control" is a dishonest sleight-of-hand, in my opinion. Though I suppose technically they prevent birth, but then again, so does a late-term abortion.

You, personally, are not opposed to state care for severely mentally or physically handicapped babies, but other pro lifers are because it's a hole in their pocket. They've admitted to this. They don't want their tax dollars paying for the babies they demanded be born; they want it to remain in their pockets. Simply put, the mother and her child get no recompense from the very people who valued the fetus's humanity when it was one.
Click to expand...

Well, that is their issue to answer for, I suppose. I think you are probably misrepresenting how this talking point usually goes, though. If you ask people whether they support welfare in general, you will get very different answers to asking if they support welfare for people who have severe mental or physical disabilities.

Manah said:
Anyways the abortion rate for black women is significantly higher than it is for white women so if anything I'm surprised that more people here aren't all for it.
Click to expand...

I've seen more anti-lifers bring this up in this thread than pro-life. Always the obsession with the black abortion rate.
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: SSj_Ness (Yiffed), snailslime and Larry David's Opera Cape
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back