Abortion argument

I have no opinion one way or the other on abortion, but I am sick of morons poorly arguing about abortion rights.

The argument of "when does it become a life" is completely irrelevant and is a misdirection from the true nature of the argument. The real argument is that it is a life, but there are situations in which it is morally justifiable to take a life. If you begin to argue about "when does it become a life" or "how late is too late" you've already lost the argument. If someone starts down that path, you say, "Is it permissible for me to kill someone if they are threatening my life," If they say no, they're retarded and you've already won. If they say yes, they've conceded that there is no "too late" for abortion.

Attached: abortedbabies.jpg (1200x675, 32K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-murder.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I think abortion and contraception is morally evil.

You have a very poor conception of evil.

>Killing someone in self defense is the same as killing your baby out of selfishness

That's a different argument. That's about what circumstances make it permissible to take a life, not whether or not it is permissible as a whole to abort a baby.

You're both ethically bankrupt, and argumentatively dysfunctional.

abortion and contraception are the main vehicles for white genocide. I'd say that most people in the world today have a poor conception of evil and it's leading to their downfall.

When life began on this earth, when certain chemicals reactions took place to create the first single-celled organisms, do you think it succeeded on the first try? No, for hundreds, maybe thousands of years proteins and amino acids (or whatever they were) came together and failed. Then, when they assembled in the right way, life on earth began. That Organism, in that inhospitable environment, is celebrated as the progenitor of every single living being on this earth right now, and yet we cannot extent the same status on a fertilized egg as we do that primitive single celled creature.

Not an argument.
abortion kills more blacks. If anything, abortion reduces any chance of "white genocide"

Once again, you're arguing about "when is it a life," which is not my argument. I am willing to concede it's a life from whatever point you want. I am arguing that there are situations in which it is morally justifiable to take a life.

is that really a justification for it? see what I mean by poor conception of evil? I don't think blacks are responsible for white genocide.

I think you're an absolute idiot.

Like everything else, industrialisation turned it into the most vile and degenerate form of genocide.

The problem is technology and industrialisation, always.

up until a hundred years ago almost all white people thought of contraception as morally wrong.

Yes we've known this for some time. The whole;

> *it's 11:59* "wait..3...2...1.." * clock ticks 12:00* "it's humaaaaannn!!"

Is obvious arbitrary garbage, as if some kike Doctors decision grants humanity and DNA does not. In fact every pro abortion argument can be refuted with simple jutaxpositing of later stage development. ("It's not it's own body/dependant!" = Conjoined twins or "muh consciousness!" = Man in coma etc) The question is how do you put a stop to it?

I agree wholeheartedly

I never said that was justification for abortion. I am merely pointing out flaws in your premise.

If you think having an abortion is selfish you're a fucking idiot. Having an abortion is a hard decision.

yes murder tends to be a tough decision, I get it.

Once again, not the correct argument. The argument isn't "when is it a life" the argument is "when is it morally permissible to take a life"

It isn't morally justified to take back life bar self defence, this has been known since 1970s mainstream and argubly since enlightenment. If an Indivdiual cannot kill, how and what point can a aggregate therefore magically gain this right?

>I am arguing that there are situations in which it is morally justifiable to take a life.

not innocent life no. the death penalty should only be used to remove people who are unable to exist in society without causing harm and death to others.

>the death penalty should only be used to remove people who are unable to exist in society without causing harm and death to others.
Ok so you've conceded that it's permissible to abort a baby if it is going to cause harm and death to the mother.

If we are willing to kill an unborn baby for "convenience" then logically we should extend that to any other person.
It'd be convenient to kill any one with a major mental disorder rather than keep them alive and suffer.

Uh-oh, having the views of a (insert political party) has now been classified as a major mental illness.

And now you're dead for the sake of convenience. I mean why negotiate when i could just have you killed?

This is where this line of thinking ends.

kek, trust me little guy, you will never have to worry about contraception.

Attached: 1536069998952.jpg (808x773, 95K)

I agree that abortion for the sake of convenience is not morally justifiable. I do not, however, believe this makes abortion in itself immoral.

That's because people back then were ignorent enough to believe all the "contraception is wrong" lies that came from the church influence over people.

Aka it isn't morally permissible to take a life, to argue such a position is self refuting (just as saying "I am a slave" is nonsensical) argumentation implies self ownership, that's not to say some Chad cant slap you around and throw in a cage but it isn't justifiable. It's the one thing lobertardians actually got right. You cannot transfer or "pool" sovereignty, that's just nonsense. You could enforce contracts however.

I unironically support the eradication of downies and non-functional "humans"

It's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of if we keep going down the road of abortion and saying state sanctioned murder is okay for unborn babies , is that it will snowball into finding a reason to kill anyone.

What race is it? On a side note, I believe that a child's life is not defunct, just because it or the parent will face hardship, that the argument along that line is a syptom of our (((culture))) being centered around materials and status instead of family and community

Yes but not for the same reason, an unborn child is no threat to society the same way a serial killer or terrorist is, but it is probably the one situation where mother should be given the choice, but it is a choice many mothers do not take, as they would rather die than lose their baby.

So you're anti-self defense because you believe it will snowball into flippant murder?

>Posting on Jow Forums is now classified as being a "non -functional human"
gg you're dead.

>I agree that abortion for the sake of convenience is not morally justifiable

Literally no one outside of fringe lunatics would believe this either. But as a matter of public policy, that is irrelevant.

Imagine if you had a 12 year old daughter that was raped and became pregnent. You wouldn't be against abortion then, would you?

>Killing in self defense is the same as murdering an innocent unborn baby
yeah, nah cunt.

That is reasonable, as death to the mother could very likely come before childbirth and kill the child anyways. Life or death isn't exactly convenience, in the vein that self defense killing isn't for pleasure.

Well if you want to get into the societal threat argument, you're going down the wrong path. Statistically, it could be overwhelmingly likely that an unborn child will have a negative impact on society and could justify its abortion. If that's the argument you want to make.

It's not irrelevant. There are plenty of people who believe that abortion is always morally unjustifiable and would certainly make it illegal.

go ahead and feed moloch, don't blame anyone
but yourself when you end up in the lake of fire.

Attached: Killing-Murder-Decalogue.jpg (1200x819, 190K)

we should allow retro active abortion to at least 4yrs old... 9yrs old is preferable. it takes a few years to know if you really want the kid.

>It's not irrelevant. There are plenty of people who believe that abortion is always morally unjustifiable and would certainly make it illegal.

I'm fundamentally agreeing with you, I meant the other way around--there will always be people who stretch the law but you can't legislate something like this based on exceptions.

Abortion should be seen as a legal last resort. Pregnancy should be between two consenting adults. We should lower abortion rates by expanding sexual education and contraception availability. I don't see where morality needs to really come into this argument. Then again, I also don't see life as "sacred" which is something a lot of the moral arguments stem from.

Is there a case for abortion or is this wrong?
>pic related

Attached: 7CE66B96-D57A-4C35-B569-7D065F790260.jpg (960x814, 105K)

How's your 3rd world southern cesspool treating you? Have you been promoted at your local wal-mart yet?

Attached: cropped_reuters_KKK-800x430.jpg (800x430, 73K)

Arguing that motive is necessary for an argument of self defense is a perfectly good argument; however, most cases of self defense only require the person defending his or herself to be in fear for their life, not, necessarily, for them to prescribe motive to the assailant

>Statistically, it could be overwhelmingly likely that an unborn child will have a negative impact on society

do you have those stats to hand?

I really just want to see what happens to the women who want "control over their own bodies" when enough women in congress get elected and then make abortion illegal.

Attached: 10BCC2FD-4C8F-4228-9796-DB3EB31C7198.jpg (720x458, 75K)

>thou shalt not kill
Guess David is going to hell for killing Goliath

I don't have to have the statistics. I'm merely pointing out the logical extension of your argument.

gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-murder.html

.

Attached: 03D8DDC2-AA49-4205-AFD4-EABDE6D53566.jpg (480x662, 70K)

..

Attached: EA02AEFD-9AD3-4F0B-865B-FF179F9F5690.png (587x665, 225K)

Well we're at a crossroads then because I don't find that logical at all

>go to link
>read first line
"imply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life."
>unjustified
Thanks for conceding the argument.

,

Attached: C106E237-F4F0-4611-B854-F10946BA53AE.png (480x531, 269K)

1. Killing a serial killer or terrorist is justifiable because there is a likelihood that they are a threat to society
2. Therefore, it is morally justifiable to kill someone if they are likely to pose a threat to society
3. If a baby is likely to pose a threat to society, it is morally justifiable to kill said baby.

Does that make sense?

>A Palestinian army is at your doorstep rearing to kill you
>Self Defense
fuck off at this point shill.

Your question, to be applicable, should be: "Is it permissible for me to kill a defenseless child if I don't want them near me?" Because most people who are generally opposed to abortion don't take issue with a procedure being done if the life of the mother is in danger. At most, they think you should try to save both if possible, but it's incredibly rare to find a person who would say you should just let both die without trying.

Abortion is ending life before it can make it's own, killing in self defense is ending a. Life that has made a poor decision.

The only justifiable situation is when the pregnancy results in complications that will put mother's life in danger.

In this dilema who will you save? The unborn child which might still die or the mother who lived till now and is proven fertile?
Abortion when legalized in britain was just like this. Then came waves of marxistoid nutjobery and changed it into the contemporary monstruosity.

,,

Attached: AAF8DB91-C210-458B-B44A-8829F0F24D54.jpg (599x702, 76K)

What about cases in which a child would be born with some sort of horrible birth defect or incurable disease?

Attached: 8F9E673A-BE41-40E9-AC7C-CDE8DE81DB99.jpg (255x226, 32K)

No because there is no basis for the child to be a threat to society

I believe it is morally justifiable to abort a baby if the mother can provide evidence that the child will be in some way deformed or has Down’s syndrome or something along those lines. I believe it is permissible if the birth of the child would likely result in the death of the mother. I believe it is permissible if the pregnancy is a result of rape, but this would have to be proven somehow.
Every time one has sex, whether they use contraception or not, they risk a pregnancy. People should be held responsible for their actions, so if you whore around and get knocked up you should suffer the consequences.

There is no conceivable situation in which a child could pose a threat to society?

In what way can a baby threaten society? When it is an adult, if it decides to become a threat it can be killed then if needed.

A yes, the slippery slope fallacy. At least it would be a fallacy if recent events such as kids in drag weren't a thing but alas, we opened pandoras box. You do bring up a valid point, when does justified removal of life end?

I completely agree, but in accepting that birth defects are a potential reason for abortion, you are arguing that the child's quality of life is a potential justification for abortion, which lets people put their foot in the door for other situations in which the child would have a bad quality of life.

Abortion: yes.
Contraception: it depends. Conception has been used for a lot of degenerate behavior, but let's not conflate the two since many view abortion as backup contraception.

The baby doesn't necessarily even have to pose a threat to society in itself. It merely has to be statistically likely that it could pose a threat to society.

It's conceivable that you could murder someone, do you belong in jail?

not that I can see no

It is harder to give a definitive answer there since there are arguments going for it and against it too. For example:

Pro:
> the offspring will be a burden and might just end that family line altogether

Anti
> life and its evolution was always struggle and that defect child might just live to breed and be our next evolutionary step

I'd say abortion is fine in this case too.

If someone is Pro-life, kill them.

It would simply have to be more specific than ‘bad quality of life’ - there would have to be a list of conditions that would be deemed acceptable. Of course there will always be people trying to slowly pry the rules apart

It's based on moral relativism. If a woman wants to abort, clearly the child is an inconvenience for her and can reduce the quality of her life. Supporting abortion means taking the side of the already living sentient being over a highly undeveloped(yet) human. If you are highly principled and think that all human lives are valuable then you are right in your own way. If you don't think that all lives matter then you can support abortion. Or you are emotional and base your view on how abortion makes you feel: some are very upset seeing the body parts of the fetus, some don't care.
The abortion question should be decided by a referendum, the collective morality of the society should dictate.

everytime I go to Walmart and see so many disgusting kids around, I pray to god for more abortions.

Attached: 66A93179-4A3F-4CB5-A3D2-78A591EEBFDA.jpg (750x652, 61K)

exactly