The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Uncle Warren]

I support abortions in the pursuit of racial eugenics.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

SO how is an infant a person then? It too is completely dependant, and has little more "life experience" than when it was a fetus in the womb.

An infant has the capacity to value life. It has a conscious ego.

 

[Rafal Gan Ganowicz]

An infant has the capacity to value life. It has a conscious ego.

So does the unborn infant in the womb.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

So does the unborn infant in the womb.

I have seen no evidence to support this; certainly not in a capacity that could be relevant to abortion.

 

[Muh Vagina]

No, but anyone who wishes to rob my kids of freedom is fair game. As is anyone who advocates murdering children.

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is legal. Therefore, abortion isn't murder. Facts over feelings.

You're the one defending the wholesale murder for profit of disproportionately black babies at the hands of an intentionally racist eugenics industry..tell me more about assmad and hypocrisy, darlin

LOL as if you give a shit about black people

Babies deserve a chance to live.

Women deserve the right to bodily autonomy.

You sure don't make it sound like it.

It's always about "poor girl", "poor woman", "women", "women", "women". Not to mention the way how you use "incels" every time you're out of arguments.

Who is it that has to carry the baby for 9 months, squeeze it out of a very small hole, and tear from her V to her A again?

So does the unborn infant in the womb.

No. Fetuses and embryos are not sentient beings. They don't have the ability to think, feel pain, or form attachments.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is legal. Therefore, abortion isn't murder. Facts over feelings.



LOL as if you give a shit about black people



Women deserve the right to bodily autonomy.



Who is it that has to carry the baby for 9 months, squeeze it out of a very small hole, and tear from her V to her A again?



No. Fetuses and embryos are not sentient beings. They don't have the ability to think, feel pain, or form attachments.

I wouldn't recommend you argue with him. He's a stupid nigger. He believed (and probably still believes) that I'm some nazi from Peterborough. He's as dumb as a rock, if I told them that I fucked his mother he'd say "oh my gosh! I can't believe you, why would you fuck my mom!"

 

[Zero Day Defense]

The doctor's autonomy is hardly relevant to the conversation. They're there to provide a medical service, and the fact that they've chosen to train and work as an abortion doctor should be evidence enough that their autonomy is not being violated.

The doctor's autonomy is absolutely relevant to the conversation, unless you wish to assert that they're not generally autonomous agents. You can't compel a doctor to grant you an abortion, especially when you normally need to guarantee payment.

A human embryo being genetically distinct isn't enough to distinguish it as a human being: sperm cells

Apples and orange seeds. It's disingenuous to muddy the water between fetuses and gametes in order to make your point.

Unless the mutation was to significantly alter the person's conscious perception, or somehow disrupt their notion of self-continuity, they would fundamentally be the same person.

They literally could not be the same person. Your physicality is a substantial part of your human experience, to the point that it acts as the medium of your mentality. That genetic modification affects the structures which manifest your personality, which necessarily changes you. The thought experiment is itself worthless, however-- the implications of the proposition are immediate and deep but you account for none of it in your argument.

Human life can encompass lots of things; the crucial issue here is personhood, and I take the view that our conscious experience is absolutely central to that. Without an ability to appreciate life, our lives would have no meaning to us, and something without meaning has no moral value.

1) Human life encompasses living human beings. Fetuses in route to becoming human newborns are accordingly necessarily living and necessarily human.

2) Immediately speaking, you're only able to prove your own conscious experience. Attempting to do the same for other entities also frees you to establish the opposite for the same entities in order to, say, justify cruelty against that group-- that is to say, your method does not allow you to arrive to anything resembling a usable truth when scrutinized. This is why you need to be able to base your arguments on evidences beyond what can only be presumed (i.e. ontology and biology).

Murder is unlawful killing. Abortion is legal. Therefore, abortion isn't murder. Facts over feelings.



LOL as if you give a shit about black people



Women deserve the right to bodily autonomy.



Who is it that has to carry the baby for 9 months, squeeze it out of a very small hole, and tear from her V to her A again?



No. Fetuses and embryos are not sentient beings. They don't have the ability to think, feel pain, or form attachments.

If you can only bother to restate your theses, get off the pot.

 

[Eris!]

You're clearly not advocating for women to be politely asked not to have abortions; my understanding of your position is that you want them to be legally prevented from doing so. That involves force.

Legally prevented from commiting murder, no different from anyone else. That has literally no relationship to their pregnancy. It certainly does not give me personal responsibility for it.

I never said you did; I simply want you to own up to the consequences of what you advocate.

Why would I own up to something I have no responsibility for?

I never said you did; I simply want you to own up to the consequences of what you advocate. If you're unwilling to address the plight of the unwanted children who would almost certainly be born as a result of the policy you advocate, I think that reflects very poorly upon the virtue of the motives which inform your position.

You can't accuse me of not caring about them like you're exposing me when I explicitly say I don't care about them. Addressing their plight is not my motive. Personally caring about their wellbeing is not my motive. I don't give a shit.
My motive is that murder is impermissible.

But the beginning of what?

The beginning of the existence of the thing in question.
It exists.

But the beginning of what? The beginning of a person, or the beginning of the process which results in a person? I can throw a bunch of raw ingredients together in order to make a cake, but it's not actually a cake until it comes out of the oven. I think a very similar argument can be made with regard to embryonic development.

When a cake is in the oven and baking you ask "Is it done yet?"
This question is ontologically revealing. By referring to both the unfinished cake and the finished cake as "it," you acknowledge that both are the same ontological object at different points in time and with different characteristics. It is changing, but at all points in time it is itself. The fetus is the same: It is developing, but it is still just as much itself as it will be when it is 60 years old. The fetus and the old man are the same thing.

I'm not the one here who's trying to seize the means of reproduction.

You view doctors as cogs in a machine who exist to fulfill a social purpose. You do not view them as identical to the guy who owns the pizza parlor, whose only purpose is making money for himself. That is the communist universal healthcare mindset.

Human is anything which relates to humanity; a human being is a human with personhood.

None of this actually means anything.

Humanity and personhood are closely linked and by no means mutually exclusive, but they are nevertheless different things,

Actually they are literal synonyms and mean exactly the same thing.

and it is the latter which rights apply to

Holy shit no, the former is. They are HUMAN rights. ALL HUMANS HAVE THEM.

A human skin cell is human but it is not a person

A human skin cell is human. But WHICH human is it? That is why we brought up the DNA of the baby being distinct from its mother. It is a human, but it is NOT its mother. It therefore must be itself.

An infant has the capacity to value life. It has a conscious ego.

Bro have you ever met an infant? No they fuckin don't.

Our conscious experience might be subjective, but the existence of consciousness itself is not, nor is the fact that values are entirely dependent upon consciousness. A human being has the capacity to value their life; an embryo does not.

A two year old does not value its life. It does not value anything. It does not think, and can barely be described to meaningfully feel anything. It is not finished developing. It has no idea what the fuck is going on. Every attempt you have made to dehumanize the fetus also dehumanizes him. Literally every attempt you make to move the defining feature of being human away from simply being human, you end up permitting me to murder humans. Most of your arguments permit me to murder anyone under the age of 25. Some of them permit me to kill anyone who hasn't died of natural causes yet, since they aren't "fully done." Not a single one of your arguments applies specifically and only to fetuses.

You are engaging in special pleading, and you're bad at it.

Special pleading - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I wouldn't recommend you argue with him.

I fucking hate when people say this about me and I would never say it about even the most bad-faith retard.
Everyone is worth arguing with. There is something to be gained from having your ideas assaulted, even by an idiot. Rough rocks make good whetstones.
Don't intercede to try to rob someone of a conversation.

No. Fetuses and embryos are not sentient beings. They don't have the ability to think, feel pain, or form attachments.

True, but totally irrelevant. They do not need to be sentient beings. They are not called sentient-being rights. They only need to be human.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

The doctor's autonomy is absolutely relevant to the conversation, unless you wish to assert that they're not generally autonomous agents. You can't compel a doctor to grant you an abortion, especially when you normally need to guarantee payment.

I've never called for doctors to be forced to perform abortions. If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion, perhaps they shouldn't have trained to work as an abortion doctor? This argument is completely facile. The fact that two people need to be involved to achieve something doesn't negate the autonomy of anyone involved; unless you want to go down the same line of reasoning which leads one to conclude that "all sex is rape", and other such absurdities.

Apples and orange seeds. It's disingenuous to muddy the water between fetuses and gametes in order to make your point.

Why was my point disingenuous? Both fetuses and gametes have the potential to grow into people if given the opportunity, and if refused that opportunity (by contraception, in the case of gametes; or by abortion, in the case of fetuses), then they will not. The crucial point here is that neither have yet become people, for the various reasons I've given.

They literally could not be the same person. Your physicality is a substantial part of your human experience, to the point that it acts as the medium of your mentality. That genetic modification affects the structures which manifest your personality, which necessarily changes you. The thought experiment is itself worthless, however-- the implications of the proposition are immediate and deep but you account for none of it in your argument.

A person's physiology can substantially inform their conscious experience, but it doesn't define it. Identical twins are genetically identical, but they are nevertheless ontologically different people, with completely separate conscious experiences. It is the continuity of a person's perception of self which ultimately defines their personhood, not their genetic makeup, and whatever role genetics may play in augmenting our consciousness doesn't fundamentally negate that. A person at 30 will invariably be physically and mentally very different than the person they were at age 5, but they are still the same person on a fundamental level.

1) Human life encompasses living human beings. Fetuses in route to becoming human newborns are accordingly necessarily living and necessarily human.

2) Immediately speaking, you're only able to prove your own conscious experience. Attempting to do the same for other entities also frees you to establish the opposite for the same entities in order to, say, justify cruelty against that group-- that is to say, your method does not allow you to arrive to anything resembling a usable truth when scrutinized. This is why you need to be able to base your arguments on evidences beyond what can only be presumed (i.e. ontology and biology).

You don't have to experience another person's consciousness to infer that it exists. We have enough knowledge of the brain and it's relationship to conscious experience to be able to say that embryos are not conscious, and if the "ontology and biology" that you would like me to use as a substitute for consciousness is DNA, then I've already explained the ways that clearly breaks down as an argument.

It certainly does not give me personal responsibility for it.

Perhaps it doesn't make you personally responsible in a way that you could be held personally accountable for, but it does make you morally responsible within the context of this debate. If you're going to take a position on something, it really hurts your credibility when you shy away from discussing the reality of what you're advocating.

You can't accuse me of not caring about them when I explicitly say I don't care about them. Addressing their plight is not my motive. I don't give a shit.

I know you don't, and I'm glad that you're one of the few pro-lifers who will openly admit that. I would suggest that it severely undermines your argument though. If you're going to try to appeal to my compassion by arguing that abortion is murder, it really doesn't help your case that your own motives are decidedly less than compassionate.

You view doctors as cogs in a machine who exist to fulfill a social purpose. You do not view them as identical to the guy who owns the pizza parlor, whose only purpose is making money for himself. That is the communist universal healthcare mindset.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Whether healthcare is left to private enterprise or managed by the government, the moral arguments concerning abortion are exactly the same.

A human skin cell is human. But WHICH human is it? That is why we brought up the DNA of the baby being distinct from its mother. It is a human, but it is NOT its mother. It therefore must be itself.

But what is it other than a skin cell? It certainly isn't a person.

A two year old does not value its life. It does not value anything. It does not think, and can barely be described to meaningfully feel anything. It is not finished developing. It has no idea what the fuck is going on. It still has the same rights that you do.

A two-year-old does value it's life: it has a conscious ego, and clearly possesses emotions which are in accordance with what brings it happiness. And no, it does not possess the same rights as I do. A toddler cannot vote or get married.

Literally every attempt you make to move the defining feature of being human away from simply being human, you end up permitting me to murder humans. Most of your arguments permit me to murder anyone under the age of 25. Some of them permit me to kill anyone who hasn't died of natural causes yet, since they aren't "fully done."

I have no idea how you have managed to reach this conclusion.

 

[Eris!]

Why was my point disingenuous? Both fetuses and gametes have the potential to grow into people if given the opportunity, and if refused that opportunity (by contraception, in the case of gametes; or by abortion, in the case of fetuses), then they will not. The crucial point here is that neither have yet become people, for the various reasons I've given.

Your "crucial point" is false.

A person's physiology can substantially inform their conscious experience, but it doesn't define it.

Conscious experience is not all that matters.

It is the continuity of a person's perception of self which ultimately defines their personhood,

No, it is the continuity of their material existence which ultimately defines their personhood.

You don't have to experience another person's consciousness to infer that it exists. We have enough knowledge of the brain and it's relationship to conscious experience to be able to say that embryos are not conscious, and if the "ontology and biology" that you would like me to use as a substitute for consciousness is DNA, then I've already explained the ways that clearly breaks down as an argument.

You really haven't.

Perhaps it doesn't make you personally responsible in a way that you could be held personally accountable for, but it does make you morally responsible within the context of this debate.

No, not at all.

If you're going to take a position on something, it really hurts your credibility when you shy away from discussing the reality of what you're advocating.

The reality of what I am advocating is that you should not murder people. Anything beyond that is irrelevant.

I know you don't, and I'm glad that you're one of the few pro-lifers who will openly admit that. I would suggest that it severely undermines your argument though.

Only if you are an unreasonable person who "thinks" with their feelings.

If you're going to try to appeal to my compassion

I am not appealing to your compassion.

by arguing that abortion is murder,

That is not an appeal to compassion, it is an appeal to morality.
Murder being wrong has nothing to do with compassion. Murdering people you have no compassion for is still wrong.

But what is it other than a skin cell? It certainly isn't a person.

It certainly is.

A two-year-old does value it's life: it has a conscious ego, and clearly possesses emotions which are in accordance with what brings it happiness. And no, it does not possess the same rights as I do. A toddler cannot vote or get married.

1. No it fucking doesn't.
2. Neither of those are rights.

I have no idea how you have managed to reach this conclusion.

By taking the categories you build and seeing what they include and what they exclude.
"A human being is defined by consciousness" excludes people who are sleeping.
Your arguments are really, really, bad, and can be defeated by simple 1-point counterarguments like this.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

I fucking hate when people say this about me and I would never say it about even the most bad-faith retard.
Everyone is worth arguing with. There is something to be gained from having your ideas assaulted, even by an idiot. Rough rocks make good whetstones.
Don't intercede to try to rob someone of a conversation.

Maybe that is true about you, but I'd say that most people and the average human is looking to have fun with an argument or gain something from it. Not everyone is equal, would you rather talk to a bum or a scientist? In general you would talk to the person which has more to offer (unless you're specifically looking for something only a bum could offer). Arguing with a retard can be fun, but in almost all cases you gain nothing from it.

We only have limited time on Earth, spend it talking to scientists instead of bums.

 

[Eris!]

would you rather talk to a bum or a scientist?

A bum, 100%.

In general you would talk to the person which has more to offer (unless you're specifically looking for something only a bum could offer). Arguing with a retard can be fun, but in almost all cases you gain nothing from it.

I argue to prove to myself that I'm right. Or more accurately, to hunt for some way in which I am wrong. Being wrong is wrong, and I want to stop being wrong if I can. Retards throw curveballs I don't expect. They question things I say which intelligent people wouldn't make me explain. They make me explicitize what I thought did not need to be explicit. They refine my ideas. It is self-gratifying, self-improving, and overall just fun to knock them all out of the park. Every bad argument presented to me is a good thing, because it means I'm right.

We only have limited time on Earth,

I believe in reincarnation, so nah. I have literally infinite time, and a shortage of things to spend it on.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

So does the unborn infant in the womb.

Late term? Likely. Early term? Lol, a singular cell can't think.

 

[Eris!]

Late term? Likely. Early term? Lol, a singular cell can't think.

Neither can most adults.

 

[Muh Vagina]

Only if you are an unreasonable person who "thinks" with their feelings.

Look who's talking!

 

[Eris!]

Look who's talking!

You. Have you found any actual arguments yet, or are you just gonna continue screeching like a woman?

 

[Muh Vagina]

1. I am a woman and 2. You're the one who keeps REEEEING when people provide you with facts, such as abortion not being legally considered murder or the embryo/fetus not being considered a legal human being with rights.

 

[Eris!]

I am a woman

Yeah, I can tell.

You're the one who keeps REEEEING when people provide you with facts, such as abortion not being legally considered murder

No one ever contested that. Your low IQ brain thinks that's actually a point.
It's like coming into an argument in the 1850s about how slavery is wrong and saying "BUT SLAVERY IS LEGAL RIGHT NOW!"
Yes, we know. We think that should change.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Your "crucial point" is false.

I haven't seen you give a convincing explanation why it is, and whenever I've asked you to provide a better alternative, you've always gone back to DNA, which is demonstrably a red herring. It is not our DNA which gives our lives moral value.

You really haven't.

Do I really need to bring up identical twins, again? I think we both know that if an embryo or fetus hypothetically had identical DNA to the woman who was carrying it, your opposition to abortion would be unaffected.

Only if you are an unreasonable person who "thinks" with their feelings.

It's not about feelings, it's about values. I value the welfare of human beings, which is why I have compassion for them. You obviously do not share this compassion, which is why you are indifferent to the human consequences of the positions you advocate.

Murder being wrong has nothing to do with compassion. Murdering people you have no compassion for is still wrong.

If you have no compassion for human life, why is murder wrong? What is your opposition to murder based upon if not compassion?

1. No it fucking doesn't.
2. Neither of those are rights.

Why don't you find me a psychologist who agrees with you that infants do not possess a conscious ego? Because I almost guarantee that you won't find one. The preoperational stage of cognitive development is a fairly well established concept within psychology, and it's characterized by egocentrism, or to put it in other words: the infant's inability to understand things from another point of view. It would seem that you have never matured beyond this stage yourself.

As for "neither" voting or marriage being rights: I'd be interested to see you argue that standpoint from legal precedent. Are you going to be dropping a manifesto at some point, by any chance?

By taking the categories you build and seeing what they include and what they exclude.
"A human being is defined by consciousness" excludes people who are sleeping.
Your arguments are really, really, bad, and can be defeated by simple 1-point counterarguments like this.

The extent to which consciousness lies dormant when we are asleep does not negate it's existence. A sleeping person is still a person, and they have a moral claim to their life which affords them certain rights. I have yet to be convinced that the same can be said for the unborn, especially when weighted against the rights of the mother who is carrying them.

 

[Freya]

That still means women and girls in red states are fucked. While the ones who are well-off might be able to travel to other states to have abortions, women and girls who can't afford that will be shit out of luck and forced to either carry out unwanted pregnancies or try their luck with illegal abortions.

I heard today that Poland banned abortion due to fetal abnormality. If that's true I can only assume there will be a shitton more spuds in Poland in the next few years and I get the feeling they won't be receiving the care they need.

I really wish people who think you should be forced to carry a brainless zombaby to term would just move to Yemen or some other Islamic extremist theocracy where women are viewed as objects. Their views are a lot closer to that shit than how shit is supposed to be in secular nations.

there's a reason they're trying to simultaneously get rid of benefits and abortion. the end game is women not being able to have lives outside of the home