Just wanted to hear some of the better, well-rounded arguments for and against abortion.
If you have a unique and/or nuanced POV and you believe that you can justify, not only to yourself but to others, the justice of your system, I'd love to hear that too.
Personally, I'm averse to killing things unless necessary.
Holy fuck this thread is gay
BUMP
I'm against women having rights or choice.
Thanks for the bump, mate.
Although I appreciate the humorous response, I was really hoping I'd get to sink my teeth into some good ideas about the subject.
BUMP
shit thread and abortion is fine.
you cant bump your own thread retard
can she disappear from the earth already?
the fuck am i looking at here. did she blackface her whole body?
What race is it?
Liberals sez its ok to procreate with who ever you like.
Rightist hates that most.
YOU Fucking spaz.
>u can't bump ur own thread
I just did.
>abortion is fine
Thanks for that thoughtful perspective, fagget.
For it, as is any right winger with a three digit IQ. Kills liberals and shitskins exclusively.
>against abortion
It's a person, killing people is wrong.
>for abortion
It's not a person, so it's okay.
The end.
We assume that humans have moral relevance. It's wrong to kill a human without reason. When does this moral relevance attach? There's no reason to say it attaches at birth or at the second trimester. If you want moral consistency you must say it attaches at conception which is the start of a unique human life. Killing this unique human life is, as assumed, immoral.
It is murder
The argument really comes down to two things: when does life begin and what about muh rape victim
If they argue that life doesn't begin at conception: well, the zygote begins self-replicating and multiplying almost at once. If we found self-multiplying cells on the surface of Mars, no one would hesitate to call that life, and it would be an enormous discovery that could change everything. Cells in a womb? Apparently up for debate
They will also argue that even though it's technically living, it can't feel pain and so the abortion is not immoral; inflicting pain is less of a moral conundrum than murder. It's mind-boggling how the argument is always about justifying murder.
After this conversation they will always bring up rape. Rape victims make of up less than 1% of abortion cases but this doesn't matter, because in a liberal's mind the exception to the rule should be the fulcrum around which we rewrite all of our rules
B-b-but I got raped, so now I want to murder this baby!
except thats the best and most logical response. women need to be controlled like its the early 1900s and also either gas the kikes or ship them to some other country.
>for abortion
it's a person, so it's okay.
She'll probably last longer than most of us here, user.
Non-specific in the general case, but I'm all ears if you have a specific idea that revolves around qualification for abortion or something.
Children shouldn't be raised by parents that didn't want them.
Adoption isn't optimal since it tends to mess adoptees up in terms of their identity. I also believe in a sort of biological symbiosis between parent and child.
It depends what happens to them after they die. If they just go to heaven, then no big deal. If this if their only shot of ever existing in the entire universe for all eternity, then killing them is a pretty shitty thing to do. Pretty big roll of the dice though, and it sucks that a conscious being that has already experienced life gets to make that choice... but fuck it, less assholes in traffic. There should be uniformity though. For example, if I kill my pregnant wife it shouldn't be double homicide if abortion is legal. Sounds like woman's choice is more about whether it's murder or not.
Keku
Unironically the best post so far, thanks brother; do you know of any evidence that supports or conflicts with these claims of "personhood"?
Women's bodily autonomy > fetus life
spot.colorado.edu
It's just that simple
Me again. To clarifiy, these are my anti-abortion arguments. I see too many children getting raised to be assholes because their parents can't or won't do a proper job of raising them, and they can't give them away for adoption because they'd be judged too harshly by society.
Sorry, I didn't think I'd have to specify that I'm looking for arguments that are based on value-systems/morals.
You could make that argument (that it's moral to kill liberals and niggers), but you haven't; if you did make that argument, I'd ask you to clarify your position with regard to harm/killing of living things in general (animals, trees, fungi etc).
Fixed:
>against abortion
It's a person, killing people is wrong.
>for abortion
WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN'S BODIES?!?!?!
>“At the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
>“It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”
-Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Source:
nytimes.com
It's a form of eugenics that targets minorities and the poor. They openly admitted it before that became an un-pc ideology. Now, people fall for their new narrative That it's a women's rights issue.
It's no big deal to murder people if they go the heaven?
Less about personhood, but is there nothing to be said for the potential of life? When someone is killed, do you only mourn the person you know or the person they might have been? People mourn the deaths of those they've never met all the time. Some might say that any egg or sperm cell is the potential for life and thus we cannot value every one of them as we do a human life, but menstruation and masturbatory emissions will occur no matter what. Their union is a conscious choice we make.
Well besides murdering the child, why is the option even there? Do you think some philanthropists really care about your right to choose or is it far more nefarious? Research Eugenics it’s foundings, Margaret Sanger what she said about exterminating the negro race her founding of planned parenthood and how most major cities carry over a 50%abortion rate in the black community today. Read into Forced sterilization programs and realize it’s really only an option because they fucking hate you, they want you dead. If it is going to be legal then let’s have a grown talk about why it is even pushed and glorified. They are a breakaway class in their own words. Start there
Thank you, great post.
One thing though, I'd argue that the unborn babies (humans) ARE killed for a reason - preference and/or convenience.
Does this change anything hung in your view?
10/10 post that has honestly given me a lot to think about, I really appreciate this one - self-replicating cells on Mars etc.
One question for clarification:
Why do you say that inflicting pain/harm/damage has less of a moral implication than inflicting death (painless or otherwise)?
Thanks again for this one.
sorry m8 ya can't
well it creates a fundimental imbalance of rights between men and women.
note that to fix this you don't need to change anything about a "women's right to choose" and can still give men at least some choice (if not totally equal).
I can think of the moral wrongness of late term abortions. It is the killing of a self-functioning organism. As this child is a human and innocent of wrongdoing we define this as murder. How is it self-functioning? The earliest a baby has been recorded as born and survived is 22 weeks and 5 days, one when neonatal care was just taking off. Late-term abortions typically occur after 20 weeks. The whole argument of it is not a person flies out the window for late-term abortions.
I agree. What if the man is willing to take on all responsibility and raise the child. Because the woman has to bare it, he gets no choice though. But, courts tend to always rule in the mother's favor as well, unless the male can prove she's a drug addict, etc.
Anti vaxers are child murderers, but free abortions any time with no apology........ Leftist say some of the darndest things.
>union of egg and sperm is (almost always) a conscious choice that two people make, together
Excellent point, but 50% of his man's are below average intelligence; I'm not saying this invalidates the responsibility (it doesn't), but reality is full of idiots - do we need to focus on education for the dregs of society to solve this issue?
>abortion proceedings creat a fundamental imbalance between the rights of men and women
Interesting point - maybe there is a way to resolve the imbalance, or, maybe the immediate imbalance is a sign that the initial step (abortion proceedings) isn't the best way to address the situation.
Well, I'm against abortion. Not from a religious stand point at all, god or allah or patrick swayze can go fuck themselves if they actually existed. But my reasoning is this:
Life begins at the moment of egg fertilization. As soon as the sperm enters the egg, the process is completely out of our hands. You don't need to do weekly system updates, don't need to go to a repair shop, don't need to see a doctor to get required chromosomes. It's all done on a cellular level. The only difference between a fertilized egg at the moment of conception and a newborn baby is time. You just need to wait.
But to appease pro choice people, I'd say that abortions are legal if the baby is showing signs of malformities or any detectable problems that will impact it's life. Even if the baby is 8 months old, I'd be ok with it. Also, cases of rape or the health of the mother I'd be ok with it. But, I do NOT think that an abortion is ok just because someone "isn't ready". That baby is sure fucking ready, deal with it.
Thanks for all of the valuable responses, mates; keep em coming if you have em!
What about the fact that a pregnant women can restrict her caloric intake and force a still-born pregnancy all on her own, without causing any serious harm to herself?
I've never thought of that. Are there commonly cases like this? I did a quick google and didn't find anything. My quick answer: don't do anything. It sounds an awful lot like murder to me, but determining foul play sounds like a nightmare. Perhaps if it's obvious it's foul play, then let a court decide. I could make all kinds of rules right here and now, and grey areas will crop up anyway. So short answer is let it be, and let the woman get away with it.
Abortion is right because it's the only thing keeping that 13% from being 80%.
Rights of people who are defenseless, innocent, and/or especially vulnerable should be especially protected. Since unborn child fits above criteria it's rights are more important than pregnant women's who deosent want to take responsibility for her actions.
Other than that, abortion scars said women phisically and mentally for the rest of her life, so it's for her own good as well.
It's also counterproductive for preservation of the society, so healthy society must opose it.
DNA is blueprint to all life every living thing on this planet has it. DNA is made at conception single cell organisms in some cases are considered life according to NASA and the scientific community due to DNA . DNA made at conception is unique, you could fuck the same partner 5 million times and never make the same DNA again. Life starts at conception.
newkidscenter.com
Never mind, found a fucking article that holds your hand on how to do it. Makes it sound like a good thing that all women should do. Jesus christ.
Thanks for the response, champ. I'm sure it's not common in civilised society but it's a simple equation of energy in vs energy out w/ the brain/body re-prioritising the importance of the parts that make up the whole.
Life=life
Taking life of any sort is the destruction of creation which is an affront to the creator.
I'm in favor of conception that "life" is an ongoing process, which is passed on during conception, since you can't start a life from scratch using something that is dead - for example dead sperm won't fertilize an egg. If you end said process, it's finished (methaphisics/religion aside)
It actually might be very fucking common. After reading that article and seeing how easy it is to induce a miscarriage, I wonder how many women already do this. Just the right blend of herbs and spices and voila, no more babby.
You’re either for or against nature. It’s a simple philosophical position. Is the soul just the mind or does the soul exist? If you believe the miracle of consciousness and rational man’s existence is a fluke of chemicals and odds (lucky us) then abortion isn’t wrong. If you believe the soul is something more than just the brain, then a soul is imparted on to a human life at the moment of conception, since it can logically not arrive at any other time.
Not sure why you would make that assumption, pragmatic arguments are every bit as valid as moral ones. Besides, the moral argument has been stated so many times there's really no point in arguing it. The two sides have fundamentally irreconcilable views on the matter vis-a-vis when a fetus becomes a person. No amount of debate on the topic is going to bridge that gap for the vast majority of people. This in turn is evidence that we as humans cannot come to a rational agreement of what constitutes "right." As long as that is the case, the side that is louder by virtue of having more support is the one that is presumed to be "right" at any given time. This is democracy.
Where the question becomes interesting is in its strategic, long term impact. Without commenting on the morality of abortion or birth control, it is a fundamental truth that groups which halt their own increase get crowded out and overtaken by groups which don't. By supporting mass abortion, liberals are essentially trading the future for the present, which is par for the course in people who display high time preference. Sure, they're free to screw around now, but 60 years from now, white people on the whole will likely be shockingly more right wing than they are today. (Studies show kids vote the same way their parents do 80% of the time) That's good for me. So yes, I'm for it.
Politics is force. We like to pretend it isn't, but it is. Because when you vote for a law, you're saying that at some point in the future, if someone doesn't follow this law, someone else with a gun will come and take them away. Ultimately, the future belongs to those who show up, and in the present, anything that reduces the amount of force the enemy can exert in the future is good. They are the enemy. And I will not make the mistake of stopping an enemy from killing themselves.
abortion keeps nogs around 15% of the us population. probably worth it.
Our position is that we're in an escalating cold war against those groups, who will happily use the democratic process to expropriate from us or kill us as soon as they get the opportunity. Is it murder? Perhaps. If so, the doctors and consenting mothers bear the guilt, not us. Why is it our responsibility to stop our enemies from killing themselves? Wars are meant to be won.
>maybe the immediate imbalance is a sign that the initial step (abortion proceedings) isn't the best way to address the situation.
It'll probably be one of those things people in the future will look back on as horribly barbaric once technology makes it a non-issue.
not necessarily abortion itself but the fact we had it as a "right" rather then a medical necessity after multiple form of effective birth control were made widely available.
Oh yeah dude, if you weren't already aware there is this thing in ascorbic acid called bioflavonoids that (usually) get removed during the vitamin C supplement creation process; there are plenty of "natural" vitamin C supplements on the market which still contain the bioflavonoids.
If a woman who is pregnant (not sure of timeframe) takes huge doses of this "natural" vitamin C, it causes still-birth at quite a reliable rate, without serious harm to the woman.
How autistic are you?
So how do you feel about your welfare tax dollars paying for abortions?
I'm a staunch believer that the world, even the US, is massively overpopulated. You'd think that I would be pro abortion because of this, however I don't think aborting kids is the way to achieve a smaller population. I do cringe at the fact that low income, low intelligence populations tend to shit kids out at record numbers. So, what I think should be done is give financial incentive to having no children. If you are over the age of 16, you get a tax break. The amount you get back during tax season increases every year up until the age of 45, at which point it peaks. Married, filing jointly, with no kids gets an even bigger financial boost. Blacks understand money in their pocket. That may be the way to counter the problem.
Imagine how much he would have to fork over in gibs if those fetuses grew to collect paychecks, make more of themselves, and secure more gibs through voting.
Jesus, that scared me for a second. My pregnant wife likes to drink a lot of lemon juice. But she is already 8 months in.
I'm pretty sure you should make the thread next time, you seem quite intelligent and well-versed on this subject.
Your point about pragmatic and moral arguments being equally valid is not a small note to be skipped over.
What about a natural selection argument?
If she is inclined to have an abortion her genes don't deserve to survive.
No need to kill white kids. Kill niglets and the nig that caused em, other than that abortion is bad
You may want to check her diet a little more closely.
>Dyed hair
and nothing was lost.
I used to be pro abortion because 'womens choice' and 'accidents happen'. Then i actually looked into it. Deciding 7 months in you dont want the child when its pretty much fully developed is murder. I now believe that realistically it should only be allowed before the first 2-4 weeks.
For:
It’s mostly niggers having abortions
Anyone who would abort their baby is a terrible mother
Anyone considering abortion would probably be on welfare
Against:
The word of God
Some white babies are killed that could at least be raised by adopted parents
Women shouldn’t have the right to decide which dress to wear, much less whether or not to take a life
Adoption should be looked at more often. I got two close friends that had to adopt due to medical reasons. One of them forked over 100k in costs to get just one kid. The other went through family/friends, and it has been a headache with the natural parents ever since. There's gotta be a way to make giving a child up for adoption easier, and getting a kid cheaper. But not so just anyone could buy a kid. Fucking freaks would be saving up to buy sex toys too often.
Ban abortion and adoption would all of a sudden be 1,000,000x easier. Divert planned parenthood funds to christain (not catholic) adoption agencies.
Keep the christian thing out of it and I'd be on board.
talking about "a woman's right to choose" is like talking about a dog's right to drive a car.
Yikes, it's like you guys want to become an embattled minority.
I make plenty of threads. Not really on this topic though.
>Your point about pragmatic and moral arguments being equally valid is not a small note to be skipped over.
No, but again, it's an argument that has been done to death. Idealism vs pragmatism. It's as old as philosophy. Some people fall on one side, some on the other. I take the pragmatic approach because idealism doesn't matter if you lose. Ask the Melians what they thought about morality. Or ask the Carthaginians opinions on the treatment of civilians during warfare. Except you can't, because they were all killed.
Morality is a luxury. It is something we can only afford to care about when we're happy and safe and well fed. How long do you hold on to your morality, your idealism, when there are barbarians at the gates, or tanks rolling down your street? Do you hold fast to your principles, and let your family, your nation, or your civilization, sink into oblivion? Or do you fight with everything you have in you to make sure there is room in the world for your children and your children's children? I pick the latter.
Appeal to nature fallacy. Natural doesn't automatically mean good.
I unironically enjoy the company of niggers so think abortion should be outlawed everywhere, federally.
>Man punches his girlfriend in the stomach because he doesn't want a baby
>Recognized by law and any sane human as murder
>Woman gets a (((doctor))) to kill her own fetus because she doesn't want a baby
>MUH BODY MUH RIGHTS
There is no logical pro-abortion argument that doesn't lead to acceptance of outright infanticide up to about 1 year old. It is inherently an act of inhumanity.
I’m not sure who God conisders a person. I would be ok with some conpromise that illegalizes abortion for people with pink nipples and keeps providing them for all of those with brown nipples. Maybe even allow post birth abortion for sub human babies. Maybe even retroactive 30-40 trimester abortion for upright apes
I view it like this:
Embryos/fetuses are organisms that live inside of host organisms, connected to the host's biological systems. If it can survive outside of the host organism, then it is an individual; as an individual, it is protected by rights. However, if it can't survive outside of the host organism, then it is not an individual; making it unable to have rights that supersede the wishes of the host.
People often try to counter this by saying that humans can't really survive on their own, referencing the needs of children, elderly, or the disabled; but these are very different from having a biological requirement to exist as a part of another human for survival.
So, I approve of abortion if it happens before the fetus is able to survive outside of the mother. After that point, I approve of inducing labor to remove it.
Abortion is the leading cause of death for niggers. The only whites who use abortion are whores who you don't want raising the next generation anyways.
It's not an appeal to nature fallacy. He just didn't expand on his thought. It's basically artificial selection combined with natural selection. The woman who chooses to terminate is in effect eliminating her own genes, thus natural selection. At the same time she is also choosing to make sure the make she hated with doesn't have his genes pass on, which is artificial selection. In a way a person who chooses to terminate a child is in effect terminating the genes and that led to that decision (if they don't go on to have any other children). The only reason to support abortion is that it kills minorities more than white people.
Abortion is murder, but aborting to save the life of the mother is justifiable homicide via self defense.
If a woman gets raped though, she should still carry the innocent to term, no atrocity enacted upon me allows me to kill a third party. She can then choose to keep the baby or put it up for adoption.
Abortions are allowed one time. at the same time of the abortion, you are rendered infertile by hopefully irreversible means
This does not include pregnancies that must or may be voided for other reasons, which may very well be none, I'll leave fiddling with the minority cases to everyone else. this system should work fine for the broad stroke.
Obviously no amount of fetus material may be put into use for any purpose.
My point was that basing a pro-abortion argument on the idea of natural selection assumes natural selection, which is natural, is desirable. Essentially "nature decided those genes should be removed from the gene pool, so it's fine that they are." Hence an appeal to nature as the arbiter of good.
We agree on everything else.
There are places in Europe where around 50% of all total pregnancies are aborted. Pretty fucking nasty.
>One thing though, I'd argue that the unborn babies (humans) ARE killed for a reason - preference and/or convenience.
The reason would need to be one that would justify killing any other kind of human. It's not justified to kill someone just for inconveniencing you.
If the baby is a risk to the life of the mother then abortion is justified for the same reason that it is permitted to kill someone to save your own life. That's what you'd be doing here.
Beyond saving the life of the mother there is no other reason to commit abortion. If the baby is a product of rape that isn't a reason - we don't let you murder the rapist's other children, why should we let you murder this one?
For: nogs get abortions.
Against: women are even looser when they think there won't be consequences.
If you're against, you can give sheboons the death penalty for murdering their first newborn (already considered scrapped), without risking the creation of 15 more later.