The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

Does there come a time in the development of a fetus where the standard dangers to the mother of giving birth to it vs aborting it meet? If that moment does exist then abortion beyond that point would be inexcusable, right?
 
Muh Vagina said:
I'm just going to leave this here.

I'm looking forward to seeing you tards justify it.
Click to expand...
Pro-lifers hate women and don't give a shit about a baby once it's born.

If you don't like abortions, don't get one. Don't force your puritan shit on others.

It's also ironic how the "MAH FREEDOM" crowd are the ones who want to ban abortion
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Weed Eater, Steve Hightower, CheezzyMach and 4 others
Marshal Mannerheim said:
You do know that one of the biggest providers of care for unwanted children is the Catholic Church, right?
Click to expand...
And? There's plenty of Catholics who are against social welfare and abortion. America (I know you're in the UK) is supposed to have separation of church and state, but evangelical tards want to end that so they can force their puritan beliefs on the rest of us. And then those same tards want to end social welfare
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bunny Tracks, CheezzyMach and (deleted member)
Marshal Mannerheim said:
I'll say what I always do in these cases.

Don't kill the child for the sins of its father.
Click to expand...
You're an actual monster. You care more about a non- sentient embryo with no pain receptors than you do about this middle school student who was knocked up by her grandfather. Tell me, why does this 13 year old deserve to suffer?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Weed Eater, Bunny Tracks, Steve Hightower and 3 others
Muh Vagina said:
I'm just going to leave this here.

I'm looking forward to seeing you tards justify it.
Click to expand...
Marshal Mannerheim said:
I'll say what I always do in these cases.

Don't kill the child for the sins of its father.
Click to expand...
Muh Vagina said:
You're an actual monster. You care more about a non- sentient embryo with no pain receptors than you do about this middle school student who was knocked up by her grandfather. Tell me, why does this 13 year old deserve to suffer?
Click to expand...
Marshal Mannerheim said:
You cannot remove innocent life from the equation.
Click to expand...
Let's get away from the hyper-effeminate emotional manipulation going on here.

The argument being made by @Muh Vagina elsewhere, contrary to the one he makes here, is that abortion in general is of no moral import because (in America) it's legal and somethings something bodily autonomy.

Given this, it's absolutely unnecessary to bring up what amount to edge cases of edge cases (literally, that's what this is-- most people are not getting abortions due to rape, and most of the people who do are adults who could theoretically bear the child just fine) in order to justify the entire institution. It should be sufficient for his purposes to post an article about how an abortion restriction is forcing her to become a stay-at-home mother instead of the CEO she aspired to be-- in service of his position, which is that the life of a non-sentient human being shouldn't impinge on the bodily autonomy of its mother especially when its termination is legal (in America)), this example has the same moral import while also being more relevant (the entire institution of abortion doesn't exist solely-- or even mostly-- for the termination of pregnancies due to rape).

It's more than an "absolutely unnecessary" introduction of evidence, though-- its application is profoundly dishonest. Used properly, this story would be used to convince someone of the merits of performing an abortion for a barely pubescent child raped by a family member (after all, as a child, they incur dramatically increased risks in childbirth and even gestation). However, the evident intent is to get you to either agree with the morality of the institution of abortion overall or put you into a position where he can call you a "monster" for essentially being morally consistent. Otherwise, there's no point in bringing up an edge case of an edge case when you can generate much more common examples.

It's a bullshit bait devised by someone who himself can only comprehend the matter in the abstract-- I can surmise that much because otherwise, he wouldn't have attempted this emotional manipulation.

Screw him. He can't argue in good faith, he's hyper-effeminate with no (hitherto demonstrated) redeeming qualities, and he futilely gatekeeps by lying about his sex. There are people here who have been able to make meaningful arguments, but this guy isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Dislike
Reactions: Puff, Plunkie, Vince McMahon and 6 others
Sweetpeaa said:
Even educated people I have known in real life buy into abortion being ''A baby ripped limb through limb''. It's actually shocking how many believe this is what abortion is.
Click to expand...
I wonder if its because they were shown the same abortion video we were at school which showed an animated baby being ripped from the womb. We were shown it way to young, but I was sent to a catholic school and their motto seemed to be you're never too young when it comes to exposing kids to messed up shit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bethesda's Todd Howard
Muh Vagina said:
I'm just going to leave this here.

I'm looking forward to seeing you tards justify it.
Click to expand...
Easy to justify: Don't murder people.
Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:
It's also ironic how the "MAH FREEDOM" crowd are the ones who want to ban abortion
Click to expand...
That's precisely why we want it banned. Murder is a violation of someone's freedoms.
Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:
Abortion isn't murder to the vast majority of people. Don't force your religious shit on us
Click to expand...
I'll vote based on how I see it, and you vote based on how you see it. Whichever viewpoint wins becomes the law.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: Bean Cheese, Marshal Mannerheim, Muh Vagina and 1 other person
Marshal Mannerheim said:
You cannot remove innocent life from the equation.
Click to expand...
You're justifying ruining an innocent life. That of the 13 year old rape victim. The embryo won't suffer.
Zero Day Defense said:
Let's get away from the hyper-effeminate emotional manipulation going on here.

The argument being made by @Muh Vagina here, contrary to the one he makes elsewhere, is that abortion in general is of no moral import because (in America) it's legal and somethings something bodily autonomy.

Given this, it's absolutely unnecessary to bring up what amount to edge cases of edge cases (literally, that's what this is-- most people are not getting abortions due to rape, and most of the people who do are adults who could theoretically bear the child just fine) in order to justify the entire institution. It should be sufficient for his purposes to post an article about how an abortion restriction is forcing her to become a stay-at-home mother instead of the CEO she aspired to be-- in service of his position, which is that the life of a non-sentient human being shouldn't impinge on the bodily autonomy of its mother especially when its termination is legal (in America)), this example has the same moral import while also being more relevant (the entire institution of abortion doesn't exist solely-- or even mostly-- for the termination of pregnancies due to rape).

It's more than an "absolutely unnecessary" introduction of evidence, though-- its application is profoundly dishonest. Used properly, this story would be used to convince someone of the merits of performing an abortion for a barely pubescent child raped by a family member (after all, as a child, they incur dramatically increased risks in childbirth and even gestation). However, the evident intent is to get you to either agree with the morality of the institution of abortion overall or put you into a position where he can call you a "monster" for essentially being morally consistent. Otherwise, there's no point in bringing up an edge case of an edge case when you can generate much more common examples.

It's a bullshit bait devised by someone who himself can only comprehend the matter in the abstract-- I can surmise that much because otherwise, he wouldn't have attempted this emotional manipulation.

Screw him. He can't argue in good faith, he's hyper-effeminate with no (hitherto demonstrated) redeeming qualities, and he futilely gatekeeps by lying about his sex. There are people here who have been able to make meaningful arguments, but this guy isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
How can you post all of that and not want to off yourself?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CheezzyMach and Android raptor
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back