The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Zero Day Defense]

Dude, in my opinion, society has been rotting out a lot longer than Roe v. Wade.

Indeed. The social and legal consequences of Roe v. Wade were just another new head on the Hydra.

 

[Pukebucket]

They're both symptoms of the same rot of modernity.

I find it really rich when people call pro-choice individuals misanthropes, because there is nothing more malignant and dehumanizing than demanding that someone else carry a child for nine months regardless of the circumstance of that child's creation, the capability of the parent to raise the child (or find a healthy substitute) or whether or not the person in question is even able to survive the birth.

I said it last night and deleted it because it was hat-rated, but I might as well bring it back; if your God actually gave a shit about babies maybe he should patch the bug in his reality that allow girls as young as fucking five years old the capacity to give birth. Maybe he should do something about the meth mommies who abuse and kill their kids because CPS is too overburdened with the population rates as-is. Maybe he should do something about rapists who get off on the idea of their victims carrying their kids so they can't just walk away from them forever.

If you want to live in a fantasy land of "the good old days" that never really existed because lead paint, child labor, and unstable/abusive parents existed (and still do for that matter) than that's your purview. But many pro-choice people live and acknowledge the reality that these things and many more are factors of human existence that are as old as time and that, sometimes, bringing a child into that circumstance is far more negligent and cruel than preventing them from being born in the first place.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I find it really rich when people call pro-choice individuals misanthropes, because there is nothing more malignant and dehumanizing than demanding that someone else carry a child for nine months regardless of the circumstance of that child's creation, the capability of the parent to raise the child (or find a healthy substitute) or whether or not the person in question is even able to survive the birth.

I said it last night and deleted it because it was hat-rated, but I might as well bring it back; if your God actually

If this is the comment you went with, I shudder to think that what you ended up deleting was likely even more discussion-blind and acerbic. I think there's been one person in this thread who's actually used God as justification for his pro-life position. It's profoundly easy to discuss a pro-life position without religious appeal.

You're just in constant conflict with the ghosts of your parents that didn't let you watch [adult swim] on Saturday night because you had church in the morning, aren't you?

 

[FEETLOAF]

At this point, nothing can change my mind. The Yahwehists have poisoned that well too badly and besides, I can't get pregnant so it's not even an issue that's much of a concern for me on an individual level.

I'll admit, I can get angry with some of my responses but from an entirely calm and rational perspective, the abortion debate is a waste of time. There are far more important issues in our society to tackle first.

Let's tackle the problems of corporatism and globalism first before arguing about abortion.

Arguing about abortion is like trying to change the curtains on the Lusitania.

You're not tackling anything either way. This is a thread of retards talking to each other about nonsense, not a political action group making practical plans.

of course killing's definition angles on an act causing death, hence why its application wholly depends on where one assigns 'life' as beginning. and this is the point from which there is no bridge between opposing sides, and rather an endless trench of shitposting saltmining fun therein

This is what I like about the abortion debate. There is one single issue at the center of it which people actually disagree on, and every single other point of argument is just coping and seething. People will go to absurd lengths to dance around the central issue because it is pure metpahysics and cannot be resolved with petty argumentation. But for some reason they still argue anyway, and the shit they say is always silly.

I find it really rich when people call pro-choice individuals misanthropes,

Bro they're literally saying the edgiest shit, "lets make baby soup!!!!"

because there is nothing more malignant and dehumanizing than demanding that someone else carry a child for nine months regardless of the circumstance of that child's creation, the capability of the parent to raise the child (or find a healthy substitute) or whether or not the person in question is even able to survive the birth.

Actually there is something more dehumanizing than that. Murder.

if your God actually gave a shit about babies maybe he should patch the bug in his reality that allow girls as young as fucking five years old the capacity to give birth.

Free will and moral responsibility for one's choices aren't bugs, they're features.
The fact that human beings can be evil is not a flaw in God's design. It's the whole point of creating reality in the first place.

Maybe he should do something about the meth mommies who abuse and kill their kids because CPS is too overburdened with the population rates as-is. Maybe he should do something about rapists who get off on the idea of their victims carrying their kids so they can't just walk away from them forever.

He does do something: He punishes them eternally for the evil choices they made.

If you want to live in a fantasy land of "the good old days" that never really existed because lead paint, child labor, and unstable/abusive parents existed

"If problems existed in the past at all then it is impossible to make a value assessment and conclude that the past was better on the whole"
High IQ take.

But many pro-choice people live and acknowledge the reality that these things and many more are factors of human existence that are as old as time and that, sometimes, bringing a child into that circumstance is far more negligent and cruel than preventing them from being born in the first place.

Sometimes in order to be moral you have to be negligent and cruel. Priorities.

 

[Nom Carver]

I find it really rich when people call pro-choice individuals misanthropes, because there is nothing more malignant and dehumanizing than demanding that someone else carry a child for nine months regardless of the circumstance of that child's creation, the capability of the parent to raise the child (or find a healthy substitute) or whether or not the person in question is even able to survive the birth.

I said it last night and deleted it because it was hat-rated, but I might as well bring it back; if your God actually gave a shit about babies maybe he should patch the bug in his reality that allow girls as young as fucking five years old the capacity to give birth. Maybe he should do something about the meth mommies who abuse and kill their kids because CPS is too overburdened with the population rates as-is. Maybe he should do something about rapists who get off on the idea of their victims carrying their kids so they can't just walk away from them forever.

If you want to live in a fantasy land of "the good old days" that never really existed because lead paint, child labor, and unstable/abusive parents existed (and still do for that matter) than that's your purview. But many pro-choice people live and acknowledge the reality that these things and many more are factors of human existence that are as old as time and that, sometimes, bringing a child into that circumstance is far more negligent and cruel than preventing them from being born in the first place.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If anyone who isn't braindead wants to take the liberty to argue pro-choice on this thread, I offer now as the time to pitch in.

That offer is still up.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Indeed. The social and legal consequences of Roe v. Wade were just another new head on the Hydra.

Nah, from where I stand, the pro-lifers and the moralists are just two heads on a hyrdra that began thousands of years earlier.

But then again. I'm well aware you and I have completely opposite views on the specifics of what the rot truly is.

On that, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Pukebucket]

If this is the comment you went with, I shudder to think that what you ended up deleting was likely even more discussion-blind and acerbic. I think there's been one person in this thread who's actually used God as justification for his pro-life position. It's profoundly easy to discuss a pro-life position without religious appeal.

You're just in constant conflict with the ghosts of your parents that didn't let you watch [adult swim] on Saturday night because you had church in the morning, aren't you?

Sorry if I'm not treating the truly mindblowing takes in this thread with reverence, I forgot I was posting here on Kiwifarms Dot Com, the forum for philosophical debate and religious morality articles.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

I said it last night and deleted it because it was hat-rated

Coward.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Sorry if I'm not treating the truly mindblowing takes in this thread with reverence

Fedoraposting is fedoraposting.

 

[Muh Vagina]

Laws are largely concerned with telling people what they can and can't do, whether they feel its necessary or not. A rapist might just have to get his dick wet, like he's going to die if he doesn't steal just a pinch of pussy. Should we just say "boys will be boys" and carry on?

You're comparing something that will scar a person for life and cause tremendous physical and emotional pain to the victim to terminating a blob of cells that has no sentience and no pain receptors. Really?

 

[Lemmingwise]

I find it really rich when people call pro-choice individuals misanthropes, because there is nothing more malignant and dehumanizing than demanding that someone else carry a child for nine months regardless of the circumstance of that child's creation, the capability of the parent to raise the child (or find a healthy substitute) or whether or not the person in question is even able to survive the birth.

I said it last night and deleted it because it was hat-rated, but I might as well bring it back; if your God actually gave a shit about babies maybe he should patch the bug in his reality that allow girls as young as fucking five years old the capacity to give birth. Maybe he should do something about the meth mommies who abuse and kill their kids because CPS is too overburdened with the population rates as-is. Maybe he should do something about rapists who get off on the idea of their victims carrying their kids so they can't just walk away from them forever.

If you want to live in a fantasy land of "the good old days" that never really existed because lead paint, child labor, and unstable/abusive parents existed (and still do for that matter) than that's your purview. But many pro-choice people live and acknowledge the reality that these things and many more are factors of human existence that are as old as time and that, sometimes, bringing a child into that circumstance is far more negligent and cruel than preventing them from being born in the first place.

What I find telling is that one of the pro-choice people said that if for whatever reason she got pregnant and if for whatever reason she was unable to terminate, she would kill the child after it was born.

And not a single pro-choice person said that was going too far, that it was wrong, or that she at that point should consider adoption.

Pro-choice people who have been participating in conversation for several pages in this thread, if I judge them by their responses, have more of a problem with talking about some of the scientifically studied effects of the birth control pill, or the fact that having two parents is better than having a single mom, than the idea of someone killing their child after it was born.

Is it weird that people walk away from this thread with the impression they're misanthropes?

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

You're comparing something that will scar a person for life and cause tremendous physical and emotional pain to the victim to terminating a blob of cells that has no sentience and no pain receptors. Really?

It's obvious that you struggle with analogies so I'll rephrase it for your sensibilities; what if somebody decides they just NEED to embezzle millions in public funds? Or they need your car to go for a joyride?

I'm trying to explain what laws are to you. I don't know what's complicated about the fact that laws necessarily constrain people's bodily autonomy all the time. But these laws apply to WOMXN (even though any man involved would be complicit) so it's totally different, right?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

If this is the comment you went with, I shudder to think that what you ended up deleting was likely even more discussion-blind and acerbic. I think there's been one person in this thread who's actually used God as justification for his pro-life position. It's profoundly easy to discuss a pro-life position without religious appeal.

You're just in constant conflict with the ghosts of your parents that didn't let you watch [adult swim] on Saturday night because you had church in the morning, aren't you?

Since it's obvious you're just angry that you can't get a woman to have sex with you, I am offering to coach you on a dating site profile and we can get your dick wet. All you have to do is send me the woman's profile you want to message and I will come up with the dialog for you

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

They really think women have abortions for fun

You all orgasm when that vacuum goes up there, don't even lie.

 

[Nom Carver]

Since it's obvious you're just angry that you can't get a woman to have sex with you, I am offering to coach you on a dating site profile and we can get your dick wet. All you have to do is send me the woman's profile you want to message and I will come up with the dialog for you

I can imagine the bio you'd write now...

"Hey gang! King Handjob here!
I am what many would consider a party within a profile.
In terms of future plans, I would like to be 25 years old someday.
No Ghosts Allowed."

 

[Gig Bucking Fun]

There is nothing moral about a forced pregnancy. It is cruel.

“There’s nothing wrong with abortions. It’s just a clump of cells bro.”

“There’s nothing wrong with abortions. It’s just an embryo bro.”

“There’s nothing wrong with abortions. It’s just a fetus bro.”

“There’s nothing wrong with abortions. It just came out of the womb bro.”

 

[Daughter of Cernunnos]

Since no pro-choicers answered it, I'll ask the question again. For context I'll quote it so you can reread the context in which it was asked:

Yes I would be against it. Women should be allowed to abort at any time for any reason.

Of course it is. These pro choice people would advocate for literally any point that lets them have more sex.

Yet you keep calling a prochoice poster in this thread an obese asexual lesbian. Which is it? Are women prochoice bc they're thots or asexual lesbians?

I got into a debate years ago with one of my friends who was going to med school because one of his classmates didn't want to ever have to perform D&Cs, and he felt like it's your responsibility to perform them as a doctor regardless of politics. I think at the time he used the argument vets love animals and don't want to put them down, but that's half the job and you can't back out.

It's a really hard call with abortion because of situations like a missed miscarriage where there is no fetal pole (baby) and it's an empty sac, you aren't really ending a human life you're just removing a literal sac of cells. When you hit the 12 week mark it's a little bit sadder for some doctors. The only reason we have abortions up to 12 weeks is because at 11-13 weeks we can do a nuchal translucency scan to detect down syndrome, and having a child with downs can be a life sentence. Now, we have testing to detect genetic anomalies at the 6 week mark but it's too expensive for a lot of people. If the government would subsidise it, I'm positive that it'll lessen the amount of women who have abortions at 12 weeks and it'll be less traumatic for women and doctors.

D&Cs have other purposes like treating endometriosis and it's immature to not even want to learn something in medicine like a specific surgery (d&c) because it's sometimes used in ways you don't approve of. I agree advanced genetic testing should be covered by the government. Preventing the birth of disabled people saves more money in the long run. At least you know what an ectopic pregnancy is unlike @Zero Day Defense and most prolifers.

"Every woman is responsible", sure sure, you girls shit gold. There has never been an irresponsible woman in the herstory of womankind.

My apologies.

So you do find even hypothetical non-medical late term abortions defendable. Do all the prochoicers agree on that or is there a difference of opinion there?

(Question not extended to those who have already stated they would murder their child post-birth)

"All the prochoicers" don't agree on everything. We're as diverse as any other interest group. I think they are defendable. If prolifers disapprove of them they should not get them but they shouldn't be setting their monotheistic moral standards through the government and imposing them on everybody. Monotheism is just a single theological belief out of countless ones and people are more secular now than ever before so your religiously colored take has no bearing on them.

I think everyone in this thread can agree to free birth control such as the morning after pill (it takes days for the egg to be fertilised after sex) and condoms.

Also, I've noticed pro choice people talk about how cruel it is to bring a child into the world if they have a genetic disease. That's a fair point. But it's also dangerous to think like that. Currently Nordic countries have the lowest number of children born with Downs. They have tests that can detect Down's syndrome early on. Women abort these children after being persuaded by their doctors

I'm not being cruel when I say doctors were telling their patients to abort their children. In the documentary that I saw on this issue interviewed mothers in the UK who had children with Down's and one of them was a nurse who already had a daughter with Down's and the doctor tried to tell her how horrible her unborn's life would be. The nurse told the presenter (who also has a child with Down's) that she told her doctor that she already had a child with Down's and loved her dearly and told the doctor that what they were doing was disgusting.

What I'm trying ask is when does abortion go from allowing a woman to chose to selective breeding?

Everyone in this thread doesn't believe in free birth control though. And all mainstream prolife groups and stances like the Catholic Church's stance impede and restrict birth control in some way.
I don't think that doctor was disgusting. Should they say that having a DS child is a walk in the sunshine? Should they lie that independence will ever be in the child's grasp? I think the DS abortion rate in Nordic countries is excellent and the closer to 100 percent the better. Of course no one should be forced to abort a DS fetus because people should still have a choice even if it's a choice of something really stupid like giving birth to someone with a trisomy when you could have prevented it. What's wrong with selective breeding?

And no, I don't support a blanket "free birth control". I'd require quite a bit more specifics. I suppose I'm not against some tax money going to the spread of condoms, even though I don't use them anymore and am subsidizing other people's entertainment.

Of course you don't. Who cares if you use them anymore? Are you volcel virtue signaling or something? This is a population-wide issue. It's more than their entertainment, it's their ability to make reproductive choices. This kind of stance of being against birth control, even in tacit ways like: "I shouldn't have to pay for it." or fearmongering pseudoscience about how birth control is bad for you, is why people think prolifers are massive hypocrites.
You don't get to take a libertarian stance on whether birth control should be covered but deny that same libertarian right for a woman to choose when she gets pregnant and how to deal with that pregnancy. It would make more sense to be against birth control being covered and think abortion shouldn't be impeded by the government in any way. Which restrictions like limits on when abortions can be performed do.

Can you tell me how giving abortions out to people who don't need it over medical emergencies, or because they were a victim of a crime they had no control in doesn't encourage people to have more, reckless sex?

It's a non-issue due to how rare and inaccessible late term abortion is in the United States.

Besides, if men were willing to fuck absolutely anything, then why are there men here arguing against abortion and the casualization of sex?

Because you're an incel you feels you got gypped on your chance to fuck hot women and want to punish the Chads and Stacies who have what you desire.

Dude, MY periods were like a vampire's banquet. It came out like jam it was so thick. But now I've naturally calmed it down by losing weight. You don't need a fucking pill. It's literally shrinking a virtual part of your brain. Instead of getting pissy, maybe listen to someone who has been through it themselves. If you want lighter periods, lose weight and get your thyroid checked and eat a balanced clean diet

I got put on BC when I was like 12 for acne and heavy periods. I was not an overweight 12 yr old. Lighter is not the same as: don't want them at all or can't deal with them if they have some kind of mental issue. But birth control can be safely used to suppress your period entirely.

discountmen

I see this is some new trad insult to normal women because more than one prolifer is using it in this thread

Kiwifarms is a centre for autistic men.

broken rape victims, or obese lesbians come out with, not functional women.

Modern feminism has produced not empowered women, but rather a gamut of kinda shit men.

You joined like last yr. Whatever your autistic pol tard frens said kf was is wrong.

birth control isn't natural

Naturalistic fallacy.

Holy shit you just reminded me, one of my friends got her implant (IUD) a few days back and was making us feel it (literally 'Wanna touch my tube!' "No" 'Yeah you do, touch it') and she was convinced it didn't stop her period, or alter her hormones, or do anything but magically prevent pregnancy. Either her doctor fucked up bad when explaining things to her, or she's a div. Considering she didn't know you couldn't microwave metal, I'm concerned it's the latter.

It was probably a copper IUD she had. They are non-hormonal and kill sperm on contact.

If your period is particularly unpleasant, or intense, or it fucks with your head to where you can't really function I am of the opinion you probably are either A) Overly dramatic, or B) Ill.

How can you know? You've never experienced it. Overly dramatic is just a stereotype about women. If they get real messed up due to a period it's probably part of a mental illness.

He's asking you why they need to produce it, not what the purpose of the drug is.

Dunno why though.

Literally one of the stupidest anti-abortion arguments I've ever heard. You only dislike capitalism when things you disapprove of are profitable. Of course someone is going to make a useful and profitable medication.

My point is that if the issue is actually "bodily autonomy", then it would be fine to go full throttle and remove every occasion for a third party to be involved in one's abortion.

Do you understand how stupid and unreasonable you sound? You're arguing providing birth control, abortions, manufacturing meds goes against the prolifers autonomy for being involved in any indirect way with something they disagree with? You realize literally no one else tries to get a privilege like that right? Only prolifers want special laws where any health provider can say no to providing birth control and abortion because they're against it for "religious reasons".
Imagine if a scientist against climate change refused to do things while employed by an oil company because they were against the effect oil use has on the planet? Would they be justifiably fired for not doing their job? Of course they would and rightly so. Being forced to participate in an ecologically destructive society to survive is against MY religious values but I would still get in trouble for bombing a pipeline. Just like anti abortion people do terrorist attacks and harassment of women's health clinics.

Maybe if you have as much capability for nuance as someone with BPD, yeah.

Yeah... if she induced those occurrences.

You already admitted you never fucked a woman or been in an relationship with one romantically yet just believe stuff you read on reddit that every femoid has BPD. It's a relatively rare disorder. It certainly doesn't describe the female condition and if you think it does you are sexist. Some studies have found it probably affects the sexes equally but men are diagnosed less due to gender stereotypes.

18% of american pregnancies result in abortion.
92% of abortions happen within 13 weeks.
(First brain function begins at about 7 weeks. It coincides with the first human fetal movement)

This means that 0.08*0.18 = 0.166

1.5% of pregnancies end in an abortion of human fetuses with functioning brain and nervous system.

There are about 600.000 abortions per year. This means that 600.000*0.08 = 48000 human fetuses with functioning brains are killed each year.

Functioning brain isn't enough context to make a judgement. Anencephalic babies with only a brainstem can live for years on life support and their brain is technically functioning the whole time. You have to look at quality of life more holistically.

"Pro-choicers" are my favorite political lolcow. The shit they say is hilarious.

You don't get to decide what a lolcow is 2021 user. Both prolifers and prochoicers can be cows.

Why does anyone appeal to the development of certain body structures after establishing that the fetus is a growing organism with a human genome? Are amputees less human because they have less of the typical human body structure?

This is so fucking stupid. This is why raptor is telling you to read the Tard Baby General thread. Cancer cells have a human genome too but we still kill them. Most babies aborted for medical reasons have conditions incompatible with life like no brain. It's not comparable to an amputee who can feel emotions and has a consciousness like a normal human being.

That kind of reasoning is super lame.

Merking 60 million kids since Roe v. Wade and declining birthrates in nearly all the Western world is one of the excuses corporatists and globalists use when pushing for the import of serfs, legality be damned.

That's without discussing abortion as a part of a complex of social phenomena that's been rotting out our society and especially disadvantaging certain demographics.

Call it corporatism and "globalism" all you like but these things are inevitable in a capitalist economic system. If you were truly against it you'd be a socialist. Capitalists will always devalue human life and use the cheapest labour they can find. People will continue not making enough money in the West to support a family. The vast majority of societal problems could eventually be cured or greatly reduced with proper socialism.

 

[Nom Carver]

Yet you keep calling a prochoice poster in this thread an obese asexual lesbian. Which is it? Are women prochoice bc they're thots of asexual lesbians?

Wrong person. I don't think I've even said asexual or lesbian once in this thread. You might be thinking of Zero Day or Jokester.

 

[Daughter of Cernunnos]

Wrong person. I don't think I've even said asexual or lesbian once in this thread. You might be thinking of Zero Day or Jokester.

I meant you as in you guys, you prolife people in this thread.

 

[Sweetpeaa]

“There’s nothing wrong with abortions. It’s just a clump of cells bro.”

“There’s nothing wrong with abortions. It’s just an embryo bro.”

“There’s nothing wrong with abortions. It’s just a fetus bro.”

“There’s nothing wrong with abortions. It just came out of the womb bro.”

That or a dumpster baby. The other alternative. I notice most men who claim to care ''so much'' about abortion don't give a fuck about women in general.