The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Android raptor]

The change you've made to my analogy is to add malice, violence, and moral culpability to the visitor, which is exactly what an innocent baby can not exhibit.

So how the heck would it "be more like" that?

I mean it takes a working brain to be malicious, which a fetus doesnt have. You're right on that part.

Unfortunately it's still more than capable of sickening or even killing you.

 

[polyester]

Define innocent

Blameless.
Not morally culpable for the harm/suffering/etc. under examination.
When, considering the totality of the person's actions, their intent when taking those actions, and alternative actions they could have taken, one can not justly hold them responsible for the harm in question.

 

[KEKleon]

Blameless.
Not morally culpable for the harm/suffering/etc. under examination.
When, considering the totality of the person's actions, their intent when taking those actions, and alternative actions they could have taken, one can not justly hold them responsible for the harm in question.

>morally

Morals change whoever you ask, especially in other cultures. Why are yours better?

And due to the ambiguity of your entire statement, you still need to define everything else. What constitutes: harm/suffering, actions, intent (according to wiki's explanation of intent in criminal law)

In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany the acts of certain crimes to constitute a violation

, alternative actions (lmfaoooo)? Any of that shit could mean anything to me.

It's all subjective. Lots of people do bad things for well-intentioned reasons to them.

 

[polyester]

Unfortunately it's still more than capable of sickening or even killing you.

No, the baby is incapable of performing such acts.

Rather, the process of pregnancy - caused by the mother's (and not the baby's) choices and actions - can, rarely, have harmful side-effects on both the mother and baby.


This:

> Killing X would decrease my own risk of coming to harm.​

does NOT imply this:

> X is to blame for posing a threat to me; I may justly respond with self-defense.​

For example, if you're ship-wrecked and end up on a life-boat with another passenger, killing that person may decrease your risk of running out of supplies before you're rescued, or the risk of him getting sick and unwittingly infecting you, etc. etc. In other words: Killing them = less health risk for you.

But killing him would still clearly be murder.

And it wouldn't be made any better by saying....
"Unfortunately [he]'s still more than capable of sickening or even killing [me]"
"Disagree that [other passenger] is innocent. [He] is a constant threat."
...and all the other vile rationalizations made in this threat.

 

[KEKleon]

Rather, the process of pregnancy - caused by the mother's (and not the baby's) choices and actions

You forgot something there.

For example, if you're ship-wrecked and end up on a life-boat with another passenger, killing that person may decrease your risk of running out of supplies before you're rescued, or the risk of him getting sick and unwittingly infecting you, etc. etc. In other words: Killing them = less health risk for you.

Survival of the fittest? Weighing pros and cons are haaaaaaard.

Come back and define everything within your definition of innocence. You left it way too open. I can't be expected to read your fucking mind.

 

[Android raptor]

No, the baby is incapable of performing such acts.

Rather, the process of pregnancy - caused by the mother's (and not the baby's) choices and actions - can, rarely, have harmful side-effects on both the mother and baby.


This:

> Killing X would decrease my own risk of coming to harm.​

does NOT imply this:

> X is to blame for posing a threat to me; I may justly respond with self-defense.​

For example, if you're ship-wrecked and end up on a life-boat with another passenger, killing that person may decrease your risk of running out of supplies before you're rescued, or the risk of him getting sick and unwittingly infecting you, etc. etc. In other words: Killing them = less health risk for you.

But killing him would still clearly be murder.

And it wouldn't be made any better by saying....
"Unfortunately [he]'s still more than capable of sickening or even killing [me]"
"Disagree that [other passenger] is innocent. [He] is a constant threat."
...and all the other vile rationalizations made in this threat.

Then why is yeeting the fetus from your body something that ends the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth?

No fetuses have consent to use my body. Any that gets in will be evicted promptly.

 

[KEKleon]

Just @ me and say you wanna diddle kids (imaginary or otherwise) to prove your point that abortion is bad. @pleasegoaway

(attached image is some loli shit, baaarely censored lmao)



(responses in the thread: "Should we censor lolicon")

Real thunk provoking stuff.
Fight all you want about creepy loli shit, normal people (especially those with kids) think it's pretty gross.

 

[Muh Vagina]

it's funny to see pro-abortionists argue for bodily autonomy when they support infringing on the bodily autonomy of the unborn

My bodily autonomy is more important than that of a nonsentient blob of cells the size of a kidney bean.

Human life is precious. If you can't recognise that you're no better than the people who herded Jews into the gas chambers.

Lol stop pretending that you care about Jews.

Yes it was. Life begins at conception. You support ending that life. Wilfully ending human life is called murder.

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

 

[pleasegoaway]

Just @ me and say you wanna diddle kids (imaginary or otherwise) to prove your point that abortion is bad. @pleasegoaway
View attachment 1923754
(attached image is some loli shit, baaarely censored lmao)

View attachment 1923761
View attachment 1923763
(responses in the thread: "Should we censor lolicon")

Real thunk provoking stuff.
Fight all you want about creepy loli shit, normal people (especially those with kids) think it's pretty gross.

Complaining about stickers makes you a dumb faggot, no exceptions.

 

[KEKleon]

Complaining about stickers makes you a dumb faggot, no exceptions.

Dude, why would I actually care? I noticed you being a faggot avoiding discussion you can't participate in because there's no coherent thought in that borderline pedo brain of yours.

 

[pleasegoaway]

Dude, why would I actually care? I noticed you being a faggot avoiding discussion you can't participate in because there's no coherent thought in that borderline pedo brain of yours.

You don't care, and that's why you need to make posts raging about how I'm totally a pedo just because I dislike censorship? lol ok

 

[KEKleon]

You don't care, and that's why you need to make posts raging about how I'm totally a pedo just because I dislike censorship? lol ok

>dislike censorship

you keep using that word and I don't think you know what it means.

 

[Nom Carver]

Why is it so hard to wrap your head around controlling your sexual urges so you don't end up having to kill unborn human beings? Are people really that addicted to sex? It's not like it's eating, drinking, you know, actual baseline needs you have to have to survive. It's sex. Sure, degenerates get addicted to it and treat it like a hobby. But it's far from a necessity, and should be held in an infinitely lower regard than the mere question of "Is it okay to trade this for a human life, even if they're just a newly-conceived fetus?". A few hours (at absolute most) of fun vs an entire life of complex thought, emotion, etc that even the mere "what if" of it all would be totally obliterated for,

I've even seen such retarded arguments as "Murder is legally defined as killing a human being, not an unborn fetus". Are you kidding me? The entire reason that was made into law in the first place was because of the moral quandaries of killing a person, not because some stone tablet that perfectly outlined every law that civilizations around the world hold in common fell out of the sky. I've seen some retarded arguments before, but the autism that goes on here is beyond stupidity, you'd get more coherent argument out of a pair of octopi flailing around on the ocean floor and interpreting what the tracks they made in the sand said.

 

[KEKleon]

Why is it so hard to wrap your head around controlling your sexual urges so you don't end up having to kill unborn human beings? Are people really that addicted to sex?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024658#s3

The level of abstinence education (no provision, covered, promoted, stressed) was positively correlated with both teen pregnancy (Spearman's rho = 0.510, p = 0.001) and teen birth (rho = 0.605, p<0.001) rates (Table 4), indicating that abstinence education in the U.S. does not cause abstinence behavior.

You're not gonna stop people from doing things, might as well discourage such "consequences" a better way. Raegan's "just say no" drug campaign sure worked (it didn't), so surely telling literal kids to not do a thing surely wouldn't do it. You do realize most people are not addicted to sex but still have sex? I guess being an incel distorts your views of what's within minor deviations of "normal".

https://anthropology.dartmouth.edu/sites/anthropology.prod/files/anthropology/wysiwyg/gallagher_thesis.pdf

As the fundamental ethos of the incel experience, the blackpill organizes an incel’s sense of self around incurable undesirability. The uptake of this fatalism, however, is problematized by the possibility of “ascension” through social ostracizing of women. In this sense, the “Sluts” section opposes other tenets of the blackpill by offering some sense of morbid hope: that recruiting more men to ridicule women could potentially “cure” the incel condition

slut shaming is born from incels’ jealousy that others enjoy the fruits of sexual liberation, while incels remain sexually impoverished.

"Is it okay to trade this for a human life, even if they're just a newly-conceived fetus?"

I don't know - is it okay the mom dies through the process? Lots of "what if"s here.

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-abortion-debate-containment-thread.76613/post-8346670

 

[Nom Carver]

How do you know my argument was even about abstinence? I'm talking about society's greater perception of sex as a whole. And yes, there are certainly a lot of what ifs, the problem of course is that the question I posed was clearly not about that, the question I posed was if it was okay to abort a fetus just so you can have sex for the hell of it. Read before you post, good lord.

 

[KEKleon]

How do you know my argument was even about abstinence? I'm talking about society's greater perception of sex as a whole. And yes, there are certainly a lot of what ifs, the problem of course is that the question I posed was clearly not about that, the question I posed was if it was okay to abort a fetus just so you can have sex for the hell of it. Read before you post, good lord.

uhhh...

controlling your sexual urges

that's kind of the whole point of abstinence.

 

[Nom Carver]

uhhh...

that's kind of the whole point of abstinence.

You're looking at this as if abstinence is totally and objectively doomed to fail no matter the context. While total abstinence is obviously doomed to fail, (you can't control people like that, and shouldn't try to) the only reason moderate abstinence is doomed to fail in our society is because of how we glorify sex and make it out to be a necessity. You're only addressing the absolute surface level of what I'm saying while simultaneously ignoring the meat and bones of my point.

Edit: For every post below this point, there's not enough autistic ratings in the world.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

So why do the Alabama and Ohio bans make no exception for rape or incest? Why do countries like Malta and Argentina force children who've been raped and impregnated to carry out those pregnancies (or die in the process)? Why have I seen so many prolifers flat out saying they think even children who've been horrifically abused shouldn't have access to abortion?

I'm not familiar with Malta or Argentinian law, as I'm not from any one of those places, nor have I ever been. Alabama and Ohio's laws are their own, but, as I assume, they are one of the many abortion ban laws that have either been written or were simply never repealed, but are unenforceable due to Roe v. Wade, but they remain on the books as a middle finger to the Supreme Court, ready to go into effect once Roe is overturned. As for the latter point, as I said MOST pro-lifers are willing to accept abortion in cases of rape, not all. Some do oppose abortion in rape cases due to not wanting to punish the child for the acts of the father. My feeling is that I lean that way, but I'm willing to accept abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother (and also for life destroying birth defects) if it means cutting out the remaining 90% of abortions that aren't covered by those situations. Then, we can have a debate regarding abortion and rape.

If you think a baby is the size of a lentil and looks like a cocktail shrimp, that's you. Personally I think babies look more like melting potatoes that anything else, and they certainly are larger than a lentil and do have awareness and shit unless they're fucked up (they also aren't inside someone's body putting their health and life at risk).

What you are talking about is your personal belief. What I've been talking about is basic scientific fact. A baby's size has nothing to do with whether or not its a baby. Some premature babies can be quite small. Its hardly relevant.

Bunch of redneck puritans in this thread. You guys are just as bad as the euphoric atheist tards.

The Edict of Milan and its consequences have been a disaster for the entire Western civilization.

Appalachia Delenda Est

You got anything actually worthwhile to add to this thread.

 

[Muh Vagina]

Why are there so many damn sexual puritans posting on Kiwi farms of all places? This is beyond inceldom.

Abortion is not murder under the legal definition. This is an objective fact.

 

[Zarael]

Oh you're right, I can't make stupid comparisons because I'm not on your side and all burden of proof lies on me otherwise you're automatically right.

That's irrelevant to the point. If you want to only allow abortions in cases where there is verifiable risk to the mothers life, great. Lets ban all abortions which do not pose an immediate risk to the mothers life. That's around 98% of them. If that's unacceptable to you then you can't justify abortion that way, you'll need to find a new argument. The fact is there's simply no way to justify abortion on demand. It goes against all logic. Bodily autonomy doesn't work since despite the screeching of pro-abortionists bodily autonomy is not an inviolate rule.

The fact that most pro-abortionists have never seriously considered ethics makes the job even harder since their stance is usually based on emotivism and a thin layer of utilitarianism that obviously leads dark places but they don't ever follow their own logic to its conclusions so they're completely oblivious to it.