The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Muh Vagina]

Are you even reading my posts anymore?
Why are you attributing a belief to me which I have explicitly told you I don't hold?

So you're pro-abortion in this case?

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Lots of things continue on their own. That doesn't mean that you can't take charge of your life and prevent it from happening. If a cavity forms in one of your teeth, you can go to a dentist to get it fixed; if a woman ends up with an unwanted pregnancy, she can go to a doctor to have it terminated. There is no logical reason why somebody needs to surrender themselves to circumstances which nature has set in motion. A big part of what defines our existence as humans is our ability to overcome our natural limitations.

This is like Joseph Stalin's transformation of nature. Stalin killed 22 million people, more than have died in the Great War, and millions more fetuses have already died from this disastrous human "rights" crusade. If Ludendorff is the architect for the command economy then John Locke is the architect for abortion genocide massacre we are facing today.

Joe Rogan, when he was smoking the famous Wiener Salzstangen weed, commented that abortion is wrong because it messes with the natural balance of nature. Why should we prevent natural evolution by assisting those with cavities? if someone has cavities let them die. And if someone has an abortion let them have the child for the sake of nature.

 

[Eris!]

So you're pro-abortion in this case?

I don't. I have zero opinion on what she should do, only on what she shouldn't.

I can oppose her committing murder without having any opinion at all on what she should do instead. I'm not her daddy, I'm not in charge of telling her what to do. I don't care what she does. After she doesn't commit murder my involvement ends. If i say you can't steal bread I'm not saying you should starve, I'm saying you can't steal bread. Nothing more is implied or meant than what is literally said.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

It does mean you can't blame me personally for them.

I never tried to blame you for women getting pregnant. I do however condemn your support for intervening in a woman's self-determination regarding her pregnancy, and that is what this debate essentially centers around.

Not if your dentist has to murder someone to fix it you can't.

The logical reason is morality. Murder is wrong, do not commit murder.

Preventing people from committing murder is not a violation of any right.

It's not an equivocation and it's not an analogy. Abortion is literally murder.

Murder is wrong. Punish murderers for committing murder.

You keep saying that abortion is murder like it is a self-evident truth, yet you have failed to demonstrate this in any way that society would sensibly understand. To commit murder is to unjustifiably kill another human being, and abortion is neither unjustifiable; in light of the mother's rights over her own body, nor does it clearly result in the death of another human being; as it is hardly clear that a fetus is a person to begin with. This brings us to our next point of contention:

Its humanity is not up for discussion. It is an objective fact that it is a human being. Its species is human, its genome is unique and not its mother's or its father's. It is a thing unto itself, and the type of thing that it is is human. There is no room for argument on this. I will not entertain any. It's murder. At no point will any of my arguments call it anything else or acknowledge any euphemism for it. Any argument that does not acknowledge it as murder will get the same reaction from me and most of the other anti-abortion posters in this thread: You can't even acknowledge the most basic fact of the situation, you've just proved bad faith, why should we listen to you?

I've already explained why DNA is insufficient to define what it means to be a human being. Identical twins have identical DNA, yet this clearly doesn't mean that they are the same person. Similarly, if someone was to undergo some kind of radical genetical mutation, they wouldn't suddenly become someone else. On an existential level, our continuity of self is dependent upon the mind, not the body.

Our DNA is not what defines us as people, our individual conscious experience and identity does, and what makes murder such an egregious crime is not that it involves the cessation of some biological process, but that it involves the violation of a person's most fundamental will: the will to live. A fetus has no conscious experience, no perception of self, and no ability to value it's existence. It has no will to live which could possibly be violated. As such, I reject the argument that killing it could possibly amount to murder.

All are without conditions.

You mean, apart from the ones I mentioned.

How many times do I have to say I'm not a utilitarian? I don't want to prevent anything. I do not care about the social outcome, I care only about morals. I do not want to manage society at all. There is not a single person in this situation whose wellbeing I personally care about.
Murder is wrong. Punish murderers for committing murder. That is literally it. Any other motivation you apply to me is imaginary on your end.

You don't have to take an entirely utilitarian view in order to recognize that your position on this topic is dogmatic to the point of insanity, and if your "morals" serve no practical purpose beyond satisfying a misplaced outrage then I see no reason why anyone should take them seriously.

 

[Eris!]

I never tried to blame you for women getting pregnant.

You accused me of forcing them to be pregnant.

You keep saying that abortion is murder like it is a self-evident truth

It is.

yet you have failed to demonstrate this in any way that society would sensibly understand

I did so right here:

Its species is human, its genome is unique and not its mother's or its father's. It is a thing unto itself, and the type of thing that it is is human.

as it is hardly clear that a fetus is a person to begin with

Not only is it perfectly, clear, it's inarguable fact.

and abortion is neither unjustifiable; in light of the mother's rights over her own body,

Not wanting to raise your child is not justification for murdering it.
The child's right to life is inviolable unless waved.

our continuity of self is dependent upon the mind, not the body.

A sleeping human is a human. The only factor that matters is ontology. You are a human. You were never not a human. From the instant of your creation to the instant of your dissolution you are a human.

our individual conscious experience and identity does,

Absolutely fucking not.

makes murder such an egregious crime is not that it involves the cessation of some biological process, but that it involves the violation of a person's most fundamental will: the will to live.

What makes murder wrong is the same as what makes every violation of human rights wrong. You are taking something which does not belong to you. The child's life is his. You may not end it, you may not damage it.

A fetus has no conscious experience, no perception of self, and no ability to value it's existence.

None of that is relevant. It has life.

You mean, apart from the ones I mentioned.

No, I mean including them.

You don't have to take an entirely utilitarian view in order to recognize that your position on this topic is dogmatic to the point of insanity,

How dare I think that morality is inviolable. Being dogmatic and uncompromising about morality is a good thing. Thank you.

and if your "morals" serve no practical purpose beyond satisfying a misplaced outrage then I see no reason why anyone should take them seriously.

Morals do not serve a purpose, they are the purpose.

So you're pro-abortion in this case?

You're trolling at this point.

 

[Muh Vagina]

Just answer the fucking question. If a 12 year old gets raped and impregnated by her uncle, what do you believe the most moral course of action is?

 

[Eris!]

Just answer the fucking question. If a 12 year old gets raped and impregnated by her uncle, what do you believe the most moral course of action is?

I don't give a shit and it's not my job to make those choices for her. I have no position on what she should do, only on what she shouldn't. I have zero advice for her, I don't care. Asking over and over and over again won't change my answer.

She shouldn't murder her baby.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

You accused me of forcing them to be pregnant.

Forcing a woman to be pregnant and forcing a woman to remain pregnant is a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned. You are still attempting to impose your will upon another person.

A sleeping human is a human. The only factor that matters is ontology. You are a human. You were never not a human. From the instant of your creation to the instant of your dissolution you are a human.

The difference is that someone who is asleep is already a human being. They're not a potential person, since their potential has clearly been realized. This is not obviously the case for the unborn, and I reject your ontology for the reasons I've already given. The distinction between life and death is not as instantaneous as you're making out, and to demonstrate this, all I have to do is bring up the ongoing debate among bioethicists about the standards which ought to be employed during resuscitation.

Once upon a time, it was believed that when your heart stopped, you were dead, but this is no longer the case thanks to advances in CPR. Medical science is increasingly fostering the view that death is a gradual process, not an instantaneous event, and as science progresses, the arbitrary cutoff point keeps getting pushed back further and further.

If you actually had any knowledge of medical science, you could probably use this fact to your advantage, but you clearly don't, so we'll move on.

What makes murder wrong is the same as what makes every violation of human rights wrong. You are taking something which does not belong to you. The child's life is his. You may not end it, you may not damage it.

Notions of ownership apply to people, and if you cannot demonstrate that a fetus is a person, it cannot be said to own anything. When it comes to the subject of rights, there are plenty of limitations which can apply depending upon the cognitive development of those concerned, and the best example of this is the limitations which society places upon children and the mentally impaired.

Children are less cognitively developed than adults, and both their rights and responsibilities are more limited as a result. When something has no cognitive development, it can arguably be said to possess no rights. Note that at no point during this example has the subject of DNA came up as a consideration.

None of that is relevant. It has life.

Every living cell with human DNA has life. The point you keep missing is that a person is more than just the sum of their living parts.

How dare I think that morality is inviolable. Being dogmatic and uncompromising about morality is a good thing. Thank you.

Not if it makes no logical sense. Being uncompromising to uphold a defensible moral position is one thing; refusing to budge from an indefensible one is another one entirely.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

You keep saying that abortion is murder like it is a self-evident truth, yet you have failed to demonstrate this in any way that society would sensibly understand. To commit murder is to unjustifiably kill another human being, and abortion is neither unjustifiable; in light of the mother's rights over her own body, nor does it clearly result in the death of another human being; as it is hardly clear that a fetus is a person to begin with.

There are only two scenarios where murder can be reasonably justified: in war and in self defence. We are not at war with fetuses and there is no active conspiracy by the fetuses to wage war against humanity. Why is a fetus part of a woman's body? It may be connected by the umbilical cord, but there are two separate brains. And I will put this another way, if there was an ant out there that you knew in a year or two would mature and gain full sentience like a human being, if you killed it while it was still in mindless hapless ant mode would that be morally wrong?

 

[Muh Vagina]

I don't give a shit and it's not my job to make those choices for her. I have no position on what she should do, only on what she shouldn't. I have zero advice for her, I don't care. Asking over and over and over again won't change my answer.

She shouldn't murder her baby.

So just to confirm, you believe that it is the more moral choice to traumatize a 12 year old rape victim even more and also jeopardize her physical health? The nonsentient blob the size of a kidney bean should be the higher priority?

 

[Eris!]

Forcing a woman to be pregnant and forcing a woman to remain pregnant is a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned.

Then you have a very low IQ because there is a vast rhetorical gulf between those two things. A big part of that gulf is that the latter is literally not a thing. You can't force someone to do something that requires and can receive no inputs from you, which is caused independently of you, and which persists without you. You couldn't force it even if you wanted to, it's logically nonsense.

You are still attempting to impose your will upon another person.

My will has literally nothing to do with pregnancy. It has to do with murder.

The difference is that someone who is asleep is already a human being.

Precisely. A fetus has already begun to exist.

They're not a potential person, since their potential has clearly been realized.

Their potential does not need to be realized. You do not become a human at age 25 when you finish developing. You only need to start the process and have a thing that exists. Once it exists it exists, and it is human. When you build a house, the house exists the instant you lay the first brick. It's just a house that is in construction.

This is not obviously the case for the unborn

Yes, it is.

The distinction between life and death is not as instantaneous as you're making out

Yes, it is.

all I have to do is bring up the ongoing debate among bioethicists about the standards which ought to be employed during resuscitation.

Their confusion does not require me to have confusion. The issue is perfectly clear.

and if you cannot demonstrate that a fetus is a person

I can and have. Your willful self-delusion does not change this. You are engaging in bad faith, pretending a fact is an open question.
You will not convince me that you don't agree with me. I know you do.

When it comes to the subject of rights, there are plenty of limitations which can apply depending upon the cognitive development of those concerned,

Absolutely not.

Every living cell with human DNA has life. The point you keep missing is that a person is more than just the sum of their living parts.

None of that is relevant. Only one factor is relevant.

Not if it makes no logical sense. Being uncompromising to uphold a defensible moral position is one thing; refusing to budge from an indefensible one is another one entirely.

You are defending the indefensible, not me.

So just to confirm, you believe that it is the more moral choice to traumatize a 12 year old rape victim even more and also jeopardize her physical health?

I don't know how many times you need to hear "No" before you actually listen. Rephrasing your question ten thousand times can only be some kind of attempt at irritating me. Are you intentionally being annoying? Are you trolling? It's not really working. You're annoying like a fly, I read your post and say "That's annoying, why is he like this?" and then I move on. I'm granting you endless patience here. Every time you've asked your dumb question I have given the same answer. Maybe at some point you'll move on.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

So just to confirm, you believe that it is the more moral choice to traumatize a 12 year old rape victim even more and also jeopardize her physical health? The nonsentient blob the size of a kidney bean should be the higher priority?

You're arguing with an autistic teenager whose parents have told him abortion is murder so now he parrots it every chance he gets and due to his autism, he can't see the world in anything but black and white

 

[Eris!]

You're arguing with an autistic teenager whose parents have told him abortion is murder so now he parrots it every chance he gets and due to his autism, he can't see the world in anything but black and white

My mother is a liberal. Your attempt to gaslight is pathetic and reveals your inability to do anything else.

 

[haurchefant]

So just to confirm, you believe that it is the more moral choice to traumatize a 12 year old rape victim even more and also jeopardize her physical health? The nonsentient blob the size of a kidney bean should be the higher priority?

He is not willing to actually say it, but yes that is his stance. On the other hand he's not going to stop her because he doesn't care, and he also doesn't care what happens to people after they're born.

 

[Eris!]

He is not willing to actually say it, but yes that is his stance.

I say exactly what I mean. No more, no less. Your inability to cope with that is sad.

On the other hand he's not going to stop her because he doesn't care, and he also doesn't care what happens to people after they're born.

Correct, I don't care. I don't know why you need to hunt for some secret motivation where I actually secretly do care and actually secretly just want to hurt women because i'm secretly an angry bitter incel.
Murder is wrong. Don't murder. I don't know why you feel a person can't believe this.

Is there a single person left on your side who is willing to engage in good faith, or have I slaughtered them all?

 

[haurchefant]

I say exactly what I mean. No more, no less. Your inability to cope with that is sad.

Correct, I don't care. I don't know why you need to hunt for some secret motivation where I actually secretly do care and actually secretly just want to hurt women because i'm secretly an angry bitter incel.
Murder is wrong. Don't murder. I don't know why you feel a person can't believe this.

Is there a single person left on your side who is willing to engage in good faith, or have I slaughtered them all?

Unfortunately you have slaughtered no one, HHH is still here pontificating at you and you just admitted that you think its immoral for child rape victims (rare as they may or may not be) to have abortions so that they don't have to go through pregnancy. You haven't won anything at all and you haven't even put forth any actual arguments, you just sperged and shat about murder and baby killing etc.

Don't forget that you're the one who couldn't comprehend me playing Devil's Advocate a few pages ago (even though this is a simple concept that even school children can figure out) and that Null took away your ability to rate posts because of how hard you shit yourself in front of him. You have embarrassed yourself thoroughly here.

Babykilling is good and righteous so long as you do it for the right reasons. All hail babykilling!

 

[Eris!]

Unfortunately you have slaughtered no one, HHH is still here pontificating at you and you just admitted that you think its immoral for child rape victims (rare as they may or may not be) to have abortions so that they don't have to go through pregnancy. You haven't won anything at all and you haven't even put forth any actual arguments, you just sperged and shat about murder and baby killing etc.

Every post HHH makes counts as an argument in my favor. A bad faith argument by your opponent is as valid a point in your favor as a good faith argument from your side. You people's behavior is my strongest argument.

Don't forget that you're the one who couldn't comprehend me playing Devil's Advocate a few pages ago

I can comprehend that you doing so is further proof I am right. Even those arguing with me secretly agree with me.
Please remember that my argument in this thread is not that abortion is wrong, but that everyone agrees abortion is wrong. My point is that there is no actual debate. My point is that you are all devils' advocates or compromised by self interest.

and that Null took away your ability to rate posts because of how hard you shit yourself in front of him

lmao

Babykilling is good and righteous so long as you do it for the right reasons. All hail babykilling!

This statement alone is my argument. You being this way proves me right.

 

[haurchefant]

Every post HHH makes counts as an argument in my favor. A bad faith argument by your opponent is as valid a point in your favor as a good faith argument from your side. You people's behavior is my strongest argument.


I can comprehend that you doing so is further proof I am right. Even those arguing with me secretly agree with me.

lmao


This statement alone is my argument. You being this way proves me right.

Alexa, define "rhetoric."

 

[Eris!]

Alexa, define "rhetoric."

Something dishonest people use.
The rest of us state the truth plainly.

 

[haurchefant]

Something dishonest people use.
The rest of us state the truth plainly.

Then I regret to inform you that you have been engaging in rhetoric this entire thread, even if you're only a beginner level student at it. Though it's not like there was a reason to rise to the occasion. I'm still amazed at how many people insist on writing pedo child rape fanfic in this thread to justify their viewpoints.