The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

I support a Catholic society, and as such support a welfare state.

So yes, I do think single mothers, like any other mother, should be entitled to child benefits. Not every pro-lifer is a US evangelical.

the wlefare state is an unnatural creation of the organic Jewish ideology who hopes to turn our distinct societies into mongoloid nigger infested shitholes. When we talk about organic work you have to understand who people aren't naturally inclined to produce, they are coerced by the capitalist system, which obliges them to work and do things which aren't inclusive to their individual needs as individual autonomous human beings capable of making rational decisions, most people are. What's important is who they will force to take the vaccine in order to get welfare benefits. What if you aren't allowed to do an abortion without a vaccine? They allown't you into hospitals or get free healthcare because you rebelled against the Jewish covidiiot regime...

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

In a moral society you do not kill them. We can list all the ways we have done this in the past, including orphanages and adoption - all of which both endorsed and ran by Christians, so this claim that pro-life people dislike this is completely wrong and ahistorical - but I've seen more enthusiasm from women wanting to shut these down as well. It's because, at the end of the day, women like HHH actually aren't concerned about children but rather the power of their vaginas. That's why it always starts and ends with that one single issue, they only throw in the whole shit about "you're a hypocrite if you don't want universal basic income for mothers" as a way to just make the issue retarded.
Again, the moral system is just "don't kill children." That's pretty much it, including from a religious angle. Other solutions are evolved and created based on that. The solution that we should kill children if the mothers aren't rich enough or did a whoopsie daisy is madness and, in my opinion, mostly a bad-faith argument.

It's not a bad faith argument to point out that the right to bodily integrity comes before the right to life; it's an argument with a strong moral and legal precedent. An example of a bad faith argument would be your insinuation that there is no moral difference between abortion and killing a child outside the womb, because it willfully negates any consideration of the conflict that exists between the two rights I've highlighted in the specific context of unwanted pregnancy.

I'm willing to concede that a fetus during the later stages of pregnancy could be argued to possess a right to life, but the idea that this right should take precedence over the rights of the woman carrying it is a notion I find absurd, not to mention indefensible.

 

[Rekkington]

It's not a bad faith argument to point out that the right to bodily integrity comes before the right to life; it's an argument with a strong moral and legal precedent.

It does not have a strong moral precedent, the moral precedent is not just "my body my choice" that's just what you want it to be, and it's why there is a thread about people arguing about, and furthermore why it is a debate that has divided people unlike most others.

An example of a bad faith argument would be your insinuation that there is no moral difference between abortion and killing a child outside the womb, because it willfully negates any consideration of the conflict that exists between the two rights I've highlighted in the specific context of unwanted pregnancy.

The argument was: a fetus is a child inside the womb. This is the medical terminology. If you are in favor of killing a fetus at any stage, you would be in favor of killing a child 5 minutes before it is crowning, which is unironically what many women desire. This would be literally murdering a baby by stabbing it in the head, that is how these procedures are done.
This is why Third Term Abortions are so contentious and so many places ban them as well. This is because they realize a fetus at some point becomes a living baby, the larger debate is at what point that is, which is why people spend all their time arguing about the point of conception and all that. But that's not what you are concerned with.
The argument I was making is: if you do not consider this, you have no reason to be against killing a baby outside of the womb. It does not make it less of a life if it is outside of your body. You simply believe its temporary real estate gives you a right to murder it, and I think this is an amoral position. For this reason you don't get to start talking about morality, you do not get to kill a baby because you do not want it for the same reason you do not get to kill a toddler because you do not want it.

I'm willing to concede that a fetus during the later stages of pregnancy could be argued to possess a right to life, but the idea that this right should take precedence over the rights of the woman carrying it is a notion I find absurd, not to mention indefensible.

Since you seem to be gesturing blindly to the law, have a look at this.
"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

It does not have a strong moral precedent, the moral precedent is not just "my body my choice" that's just what you want it to be, and it's why there is a thread about people arguing about, and furthermore why it is a debate that has divided people unlike most others.

The precedent is that when the right to life comes into conflict with the right to bodily integrity, the right to bodily integrity comes first. I brought up the example of organ donation earlier to illustrate this point; I also brought up the example of a rape victim killing their rapist in self-defense even earlier. I have not seen you properly address why the logic we apply to abortion should be different to the logic applied to the above scenarios.

The argument was: a fetus is a child inside the womb. This is the medical terminology. If you are in favor of killing a fetus at any stage, you would be in favor of killing a child 5 minutes before it is crowning, which is unironically what many women desire. This would be literally murdering a baby by stabbing it in the head, that is how these procedures are done.
This is why Third Term Abortions are so contentious and so many places ban them as well. This is because they realize a fetus at some point becomes a living baby, the larger debate is at what point that is, which is why people spend all their time arguing about the point of conception and all that. But that's not what you are concerned with.
The argument I was making is: if you do not consider this, you have no reason to be against killing a baby outside of the womb. It does not make it less of a life if it is outside of your body. You simply believe its temporary real estate gives you a right to murder it, and I think this is an amoral position. For this reason you don't get to start talking about morality, you do not get to kill a baby because you do not want it for the same reason you do not get to kill a toddler because you do not want it.

I still reject the equivocation you're attempting to draw between a fetus and a toddler, for the reasons I've already outlined. I have also never said that I oppose alternatives to abortion in the later stages of pregnancy. On the contrary, in cases where induced labor could be employed as an alternative to abortion, I think choosing abortion over it would be immoral.

I also think it speaks to the weakness of your case that so much of your argument is focused on scenarios which concern literally 0.01% of abortion cases (that's the actual figure for abortions performed in the third trimester, and they're usually done when the mother's life is at risk). Around 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, when the fetus is less than 3 inches long, and barely distinguishable from the fetuses of most other mammals.

Since you seem to be gesturing blindly to the law, have a look at this.
"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

A bill introduced in the House in 2004 by a Catholic pro-lifer, and signed into law by a Republican president at a time when the pro-life lobby was particularly influential within the GOP. That's not enough to change my mind on the subject, and there are many countries outside the United States that aren't beguiled by such idiocy.

 

[FEETLOAF]

Whatever duty a person has to their family is for them to assume, not for their family to impose upon them.

No. The duty is imposed by the reality of your relationship to each other.

While most of us are fortunate enough to belong to loving families, there are plenty of less fortunate people who have legitimate reasons not to want to associate with their family, and these people are well within their right to refuse to donate an organ if it would go against their will.

Your familial duties do not go away if you don't like your parents or your children. Morality doesn't care what you like.

You will never be able to deter every mistake or transgression. Any moral system which assumes that people never make mistakes is not applicable to the real world. Unwanted pregnancies are still occasionally going to happen, and you're still left with the dilemma about what ought to be done about them.

You are thinking about "people" and "systems" like a leftist. Think about a person and their individual choices. They can absolutely deter every mistake or transgression, and they should, and you should expect that of them. If an "unwanted pregnancy" happens, well, you made shitty decisions in life that now force you to live a life and have obligations you didn't want. Tough titty, should have been more prescient in your choices.

It's not a bad faith argument to point out that the right to bodily integrity comes before the right to life;

Yeah it absolutely is. Anyone who thinks any right comes before any other right doesn't understand rights. All rights are equal and the same, and no right may ever be violated. There is no system of priorities or anything like that. There is no "let's violate this right to avoid violating that right." Never violate rights, ever. Unalienable means unalienable.
A right to "bodily autonomy" doesn't exist. You are trying to describe a right to murder your child inside your body. That's not a right.

An example of a bad faith argument would be your insinuation that there is no moral difference between abortion and killing a child outside the womb, because it willfully negates any consideration of the conflict that exists between the two rights I've highlighted in the specific context of unwanted pregnancy.

Yes, it willfully negates that because it's not true. There is no conflict between rights there.

I'm willing to concede that a fetus during the later stages of pregnancy could be argued to possess a right to life, but the idea that this right should take precedence over the rights of the woman carrying it is a notion I find absurd, not to mention indefensible.

It's not taking precedence. The right you are referring to does not exist at all.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

No. The duty is imposed by the reality of your relationship to each other.

And the reality of that relationship differs from individual to individual. The fact remains that no one has a right to one of your organs, whether they are related to you or not.

Yeah it absolutely is. Anyone who thinks any right comes before any other right doesn't understand rights. All rights are equal and the same, and no right may ever be violated. There is no system of priorities or anything like that. There is no "let's violate this right to avoid violating that right." Never violate rights, ever. Unalienable means unalienable.
A right to "bodily autonomy" doesn't exist. You are trying to describe a right to murder your child inside your body. That's not a right.

A right being inalienable doesn't mean that it doesn't have limitations. It's a common expression that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. To make that more specific to this discussion: one could say that one person's right to life ends where another person's right to bodily integrity begins. You say that the right to bodily autonomy doesn't exist? I don't think I even want to know what your stance on rape is.

 

[FEETLOAF]

And the reality of that relationship differs from individual to individual.

No it doesn't. A mother is a mother whether you like her or not. The reality of that relationship is what it is. She is your mother. You owe her your existence. He is your father. You owe him your existence. Simple as. By "relationship" I don't mean how much you like each other, I mean the nature of who each of you is in relation to each other.

A right being inalienable doesn't mean that it doesn't have limitations.

Yes it does.

It's a common expression that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Yeah that doesn't mean what you think it means.

one could say that one person's right to life ends where another person's right to bodily integrity begins.

That right doesn't exist.

You say that the right to bodily autonomy doesn't exist? I don't think I even want to know what your stance on rape is.

You have a right not to be raped. You do not have a right to not nurture and raise the human being that you created.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

No it doesn't. A mother is a mother whether you like her or not. The reality of that relationship is what it is. She is your mother. You owe her your existence. He is your father. You owe him your existence. Simple as. By "relationship" I don't mean how much you like each other, I mean the nature of who each of you is in relation to each other.

One's existence is not something people get to opt into, and it is the right of each individual to eventually choose their own path in life. Any good parent should want this for their child.

That right doesn't exist.

It does, see below.

You have a right not to be raped. You do not have a right to not nurture and raise the human being that you created.

You have a right not to be raped because rape is a violation of one's bodily integrity. A woman has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy for the same reason.

 

[FEETLOAF]

One's existence is not something people get to opt into, and it is the right of each individual to eventually choose their own path in life. Any good parent should want this for their child.

No. If your "path in life" involves abandoning your child, or worse, murdering it, then no, you absolutely do not have a right to choose that path.

You have a right not to be raped because rape is a violation of one's bodily integrity.

No, you have a right not to be raped because rape is a moral abomination and a physical assault on your body. You do not have a right to murder your child in the womb. You're the one who put it there, and you have a specific duty to keep it there and care for it until it comes out, and then a specific duty to care for it and feed it for literally the rest of its life. These are completely different situations with literally no similarities.
It is the act of invasion itself that makes rape wrong. Your fetus did not invade your body. You put it there. He is there by your actions, not by his own.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

No. If your "path in life" involves abandoning your child, or worse, murdering it, then no, you absolutely do not have a right to choose that path.

You're shifting the goalposts from the child to the parent. We were talking about the right a person has to choose their own path in life—free of parental control—within the context of familial obligations. You have still yet to demonstrate that somebody has an obligation to give a sick relative one of their organs, and you don't seem to grasp why this scenario might be relevant to the debate around abortion, and the numerous considerations that need to be made around it.

No, you have a right not to be raped because rape is a moral abomination and a physical assault on your body. You do not have a right to murder your child in the womb. You're the one who put it there, and you have a specific duty to keep it there and care for it until it comes out, and then a specific duty to care for it and feed it for literally the rest of its life. These are completely different situations with literally no similarities.
It is the act of invasion itself that makes rape wrong. Your fetus did not invade your body. You put it there. He is there by your actions, not by his own.

Prior consent is irrelevant. If a sexual act starts out as consensual, but then one of the participants continues with the act once the other person has indicated that they've had enough: that's rape. Similarly, it's a non sequitur to suggest that consent to sexual activity is consent to pregnancy. As soon as the person no longer wants to continue with the pregnancy, they have the right to end it.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to sidestep the issue of bodily integrity; it's not going to go away just because you don't happen to like what people choose to do with it.

 

[FEETLOAF]

We were talking about the right a person has to choose their own path in life—free of parental control—within the context of familial obligations.

That "right" doesn't exist.

You have still yet to demonstrate that somebody has an obligation to give a sick relative one of their organs,

They do.

Prior consent is irrelevant. If a sexual act starts out as consensual, but then one of the participants continues with the act once the other person has indicated that they've had enough, then that's rape.

If someone's dick is in you and you decide while their dick is in you that you don't like it, that isn't rape. If they stick their dick in you again after that, that's rape. Rape is the act of invasion.
You have a right to prevent someone from unlawfully entering your property. You do not have a right to kill them for being there when you don't want them to after you willingly let them in. That's not how it works.

Similarly, it's a non sequitur to suggest that consent to sexual activity is consent to pregnancy.

Something you do to yourself is intrinsically something you consent to. All of its natural consequences are also something you intrinsically consent to.
If you choose to drive off a cliff because you think you will fly, you are choosing to crash and burn, and are consenting to death.
If you choose to perform the act of procreation because you want to misuse it as an act of pleasure, surprise surprise, it's still an act of procreation, and you still chose to do it.
The action is what it is, and has the consequences it has. You chose to do it. Whether or not that choice was well informed is irrelevant.

As soon as the person no longer wants to continue with the pregnancy, they have a right to end it.

No, they don't, just as they don't have that right after their child is born. Literally nothing changes based on whether your child is in your body or outside your body. You don't get to just eliminate your child because you don't want it. Whether or not you want it isn't relevant: it's here now, it's yours, raise it. That's not optional, it's an obligation. Creating a child is a choice, but once it is created there is no choice, only duty.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to sidestep the issue of bodily integrity; it's not going to go away just because you don't happen to like what people choose to do with it.

Asserting a right ten thousand times won't suddenly change anything. The right you are referencing does not exist. There is nothing to sidestep.
Either try a new argument or stop adding pages to the thread.

 

[Thomas Highway]

Feetloaf is technically correct.

There is nothing about abortion in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

It should still remain legal though. But that would mean Congress giving up their cash cows whether for or against it.

 

[Muh Vagina]

if you are in favor of aborting a fetus a month before it is born you are literally in favor of tearing it apart and stabbing it in the hea

That doesn't happen, you fucking retard. At eight months, the pregnancy is only stopped because the fetus is already dead or won't survive. They induce labor. Stop falling for right wing propaganda. Facts over feels, isn't that what you people say?

Nobody demands men to give birth in the first place, it's literally impossible. You haven't anything to worry about.

I get that you've never touched a female and never seen a real vagina, but I assure you that I am 100% natal female.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I get that you've never touched a female and never seen a real vagina, but I assure you that I am 100% natal female.

I have never met a woman who has insisted that I need to have had sex with a woman to have standing in an internet argument, nor have I had someone try to assure me that they're a woman by telling me that they're "100% natal female" (what the hell would "72% natal female" look like?).

Putting aside the fact that you read like a male incel roleplaying as a shitty caricature of a post-Scott Pilgrim woman, if you want to assure everyone here that you're a woman, you have two options.

 

[FEETLOAF]

I get that you've never touched a female and never seen a real vagina, but I assure you that I am 100% natal female.

tits or gtfo

Facts over feels, isn't that what you people say?

No, it's what a kike said a few thousand times on youtube to MK-ultra college kids.

 

[Witthel]

People who use abortion as birth control are disgusting. Abortion itself is disgusting. Plenty of disgusting things are still legal and should remain so.

The pro-choice crowd sort of lost the messaging war by pretending that abortion isn't a gross necessity and instead some sort of womanly expression.

If someone treated taking a loved one off life support the same way the majority of pro-choicers treat abortion, they would be seen as a disgusting sociopath.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

That "right" doesn't exist.

In civilized societies, you are not enslaved to your family or clan. It is the right (and I would argue, personal responsibility) of each individual to forge their own path in life once they reach the age of majority. The society you envision is one of parochial stagnation; I believe that mankind has a much brighter future than that, and I think any loving parent should feel the same way.

They do.

No one has the right to take your organs away against your consent. What you're advocating here doesn't just violate basic common sense, it violates every humanitarian convention which has ever been written.

If someone's dick is in you and you decide while their dick is in you that you don't like it, that isn't rape.

I said I didn't think I wanted to know what your stance on rape was; now I can confirm why. Seriously, get help.

Asserting a right ten thousand times won't suddenly change anything. The right you are referencing does not exist. There is nothing to sidestep.
Either try a new argument or stop adding pages to the thread.

I'm not the one who's trying to change anything. The right to bodily integrity is well established in law, and conventional wisdom would not have this changed.

 

[Rekkington]

That doesn't happen, you fucking retard.

That's what they're saying should happen, you fucking retard. Literally people in this thread are saying that. As if this thread needed another Woman Moment.

 

[FEETLOAF]

In civilized societies, you are not enslaved to your family or clan. It is the right (and I would argue, personal responsibility) of each individual to forge their own path in life once they reach the age of majority. The society you envision is one of parochial stagnation; I believe that mankind has a much brighter future than that, and I think any loving parent should feel the same way.

Familial obligations are the root of civilization. There is no brighter future for mankind than being mankind. Progressivism is a mind virus.

No one has the right to take your organs away against your consent. What you're advocating here doesn't just violate basic common sense, it violates every humanitarian convention which has ever been written.

If your aunt needs your kidney and you don't give it to her you are a bad person.

I'm not the one who's trying to change anything. The right to bodily integrity is well established in law, and conventional wisdom would not have this changed.

"Conventional wisdom" is wrong and you should be burned at the stake for being a witch.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Soo...Texas, which has been infiltrated by a lot of woke lefties, has practically outlawed abortion.

Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions intended to make the law harder to challenge are poised to be tested in the courts.

www.texastribune.org

https://archive.ph/deAmY

Who benefits from a lot of unwanted children running around? What could possibly be the use of them?

lol wut? Texas is full of evangelical retards. Did you forget about their DA trying to sue to overturn election results? Their governor is a die-hard Trump simp, too, who outlawed masks in government buildings

That's what they're saying should happen, you fucking retard. Literally people in this thread are saying that. As if this thread needed another Woman Moment.

Do you really think a woman would wait until the 8th month to get an abortion? Jesus christ you puritanical boomers really are retarded. The only reason that late abortions like that ever happen, 99% of the time, is when the life of the mother is in danger. Abortions are generally done earlier because it's easier and safer and why the hell would someone carry it that long if they didn't want it?