ITT: We Discuss Abortion

>It would still be cheaper than dealing with nogs in your contry, just think about the prison population

This won't happen exactly because of the prisons. They are private entities who won't give up their endless profit making machine.

hmm...then just make it mandatory and actually enforced for people with low IQ or inadequate income.

Basically if you're stupid and poor you don't get to have offspring that would most likely also be in similar situation and drag the rest of society down. Pretty sure 80% of the case of this would be blacks anyway.

>Is this really to our benefit? We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. We have to choose between more black births, poor births, liberal births, and (((births))) against rampant immigration to offset low white birth and to give dems a consolation voting block.
No, it's not about let them abort, is about pay for all those abortions, so the government pay for it, dems and company can harvest organs from fetuses and sell it, profit, without investment, they make enough money to fund democrat party.

Not if Roe v. Wade is abolished when Trump replaced Ginsburg.

>low-quality births
by someone's arbitrary standard, you're a low-quality human

>Implying the standards are arbitrary
Good one

you've got an objective standard for who is a "quality" human?
tell us more

Posting this meme has unlocked a special ability: Tidal Shift. Here's a pretty fresh Moonman track I saw in a bread a few days ago. Enjoy

soundcloud.com/user-555100766-506719035

unfettered immigration from europeans coupled with the highest possible nigger deaths is the optimal compromise between these two presented choices

iq and functionality

Existentialism ruined the West.

Attached: 1458899782125.jpg (500x542, 123K)

Just curious, do you think quality genetics are nonexistent? If I predicate my answer on 'those who abort are definitively low quality' am I wrong? Perhaps in a way. Are all high-IQ people worth saving? Surely not. Those who most closely mimic the platonic form of man? We can eliminate low-quality very easily, though. You already know the answer.

what about either iq or "functionality" are objectively determined?
don't you/other people just define them hower it suits you?

Stop acting like this is about superiority only.
This is about liberty. Whites deserve a homeland

iq is determined through thorough testing
functionality is a combination of psychological and performance review based on value production in society and for oneself

Whites deserve a homeland, of course. So they can return to their superior roots and tradition.

Anything that kills mostly niggers is based in my books. Get fucked christcucks

Attached: 5C5B0F4C-2FC3-4E85-BF97-D6695F6A93ED.gif (303x277, 1.77M)

people determine the criteria for the testing according to their own personally chosen standards - that's why it's arbitrary

>psychological and performance review based on value production in society and for oneself
value to anyone is subjective, so you're still in arbitrary-territory here

it doesn't matter what they do with it, whether they are superior or not. niggers are faster runners and chinks have higher average intelligence but this doesn't mean they should be in our homelands, polluting it with their presence. This is not about superiority, although I concede there are superior genetics and inferior. This is about simple tribal liberty. The independence of one tribe from the other ones because a land for everyone is a land for no one

>do you think quality genetics are nonexistent
yep

>If I predicate my answer on 'those who abort are definitively low quality' am I wrong
yep - you don't know even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people who are killed via abortion, so pretending that you somehow know how they'd be decades into the future if they hadn't been murdered is ludicrous, yeah?

according to both psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, iq is both reliable and valid.
>value is subjective
that's why we made the capitalist system. capital is the nominalisation of value. how well you produce value in society is numerically measured.

Sure. I just think the inevitable conclusion will be tribe warfare that will result in global whiteness. It doesn't have to be that way, but it's the primary reason for an ethnostate to me. And, of course, white men having a monopoly on white women. The standard should be excellence, though.

>according to
see this is your issue

>do you think quality genetics are nonexistent
>yep
That says it all. Perhaps there are minor and semantical differences in your definition of quality and my version, but the entire lack of quality genetics is evidently wrong. Real world example: Downie vs not-downie.

why is the not-downie more quality than the downie
if it's "objective", then that's explainable - something that can be parsed in words

I agree with your notion of eugenics completely at heart. There is no reason not to abolish disease, increase speed, strength, intelligence, and create a race of ubermensch, if anything, this may be one of the greatest goods to one's own people. science is to be important to reborn ethnonationalism.

There is no real discussion to be had; you either believe it should be legal to murder or you don't. This isn't a morally grey issue.

>why is the not-downie more quality than the downie
'quality' is based on morality, morality is based on survival simply. good is that which improves genetic survival (our brains are wired to things that are supposed to do this with pleasure) and bad is that which disproves survival (our brains are wired to things that are supposed to do this pain).
So, having quality is being good. Downies have decreased fertility rates compared to non-downies. Thus their genes have a decreased chance of survival. A downie has less quality than a non-downie

>morality is based on survival simply
so a person who dies is... immoral?
what is this

I'd say the ability to feed themselves or manufacture anything someone producing food is willing to trade for is a pretty good standard. Now, kindly take that nigger cock out of your mouth and go jump from a bridge.

I'd say bipeds unable to feed themselves are just cattle. In fact, less useful than cattle. And oh boy, social studies majors with an extra degree in intersectionalist lesbian marxist transgender africanism are into that category.

>dude niggers get murdered a lot, you're a nigger lover if you think murder should be illegal
Pathetic feminist cockroach, we will destroy you like you destroy babies you pathetic excuse for a human being.

ofc i am pro choice op.
i am happy that 60 million niggers have been deleted through planned parenthood.
it is not birth control, it is population control.

>is a pretty good standard
why

because we would get rid of useless pompous broken asses like yourself. You produce nothing of value, you are a parasite, a mutation which nature never intended. Yes, you can quote me into your useless paper to get peer-reviewed by the other parasitic faggots.

there is the survival of genetics only, not of the self. to die for the group's survival, the gourp in which your genes live, or most of your genetics are preserved (so especially close family but also broader tribe) is actually good if it improves survival through those hosts of your genes. i hope i am making sense it is wee hours here

Then you'll disagree with the upcoming abolition of Roe v. Wade, I assume.
What about it did you miss? It was explained here:
>inb4 WHY?
It's evidently the case.
>Put it in words, then!
Sad

>good
because it would improve our present and future genetic survival, definitionally good. take the Heinlein-Bentham pill user.

but why is that a good standard
you just got mad

>there is the survival of genetics only
so whoever dies - even if they're a super-mega-ultra-benevolent-genius who dies from a chunk of concrete from a construction site half a mile away cascading through his skull after a bulldozer operator makes a mistake - is bad?
like, morally bad?

also you keep asking things we already explained rather than refuting them
it's getting kind of annoying

>What about it did you miss?
anyone saying why those are objective standards rather than subjective interpretations that they/you are trying to paint onto reality as being "simply correct"

>It's evidently the case.
>>Put it in words, then!
>Sad
I like how you struggled so long to actually try to describe why your arbitrary subjective standard ought to just be accepted by everyone as "the truth", and when it wasn't working out you decided to type that instead
that's beautiful

no, retard. death isn't bad. death is in fact good. we SHOULD die so we don't just keep reproducing and run out of resources. and people are bad or good only on the basis of the sum of their own good and bad acts. that piece of concrete isn't his act, how could it make him bad? the event is bad because it hurt his survival but that doesn't mean he is bad because his survival was reduced.
if he had had, say, ten healthy children and raised them into secure adulthood... and then taken his own life (suicide, obviously a bad act in this framework), then he may still be a good man since that is how it would balance out: 10 new vessels of the genetics- 1 old vessel of the genetics

no one has explained why "the ability to produce", or "the ability to survive", or literally anything else is OBJECTIVELY valuable
you're just saying things like "survival is good" and expecting other people to just agree with that and move forward to your conclusions when you've given no reason why someone SHOULD accept that survival is some objectively good quality
you're making assertions

>run out of resources
why would that be bad

>"because survival is good"
why
>"because"

that's what I'm SEEING; is that not what you're saying? am I mistaken, or have you said something more than that that you could greentext quote for me?

>and when it wasn't working out
Not a refutation, btw.

you didn't say anything - what would require refutation?

The jew has succeeded in dismantling the original concept of the ITT: We Discuss Abortion Strategy to something advantageous--post-modern relativism. He thinks he's won, too, by insisting we prove to him that which is evidently the case--if only we'd describe it in words. Back to the topic at hand, folks.

>run out of resources
>>why would that be bad
because when you run out of resources you have a mass die off. a mass die off of the organisms is a mass die off of the genetics.

>why is survival good
asking why the base principle of morality is the base principle of morality is perhaps something that cannot be answered and something senseless to ask, all that needs to be shown is that morality in its totality indeed springs from it and only it in essence

>because when you run out of resources you have a mass die off
so what?

>asking why the base principle of morality is the base principle of morality
I don't think that IS the base principle of morality
at all
why SHOULD I?

so tell me this, is not surviving a good thing or even morally neutral? what do you think you filthy deconstructionist?

then what IS the base principle faggot?

if you don't (You) someone in your post but are obviously saying something about them, it totally looks like you're just observing some objective facts and the other person is just clearly very silly
the more you know

Whining and screaming about infantacide is falling for their troll. It’s a really bad look for republicans. It’s interrupting the enemy while they make a mistake.

Remember how trump never brought up abortion at rallies? There’s a good reason. It’s bad strategy because you lose quite a lot of young supporters.

pics of developing fetuses made me against abortion, but cut up baby parts is just infantile gore posting.

I don't think abortions should be stopped. I care more about white people anyways. Fuck the Law of Nature, fuck Voltaire and Locke. Nature is a Zero Sum Game, and fuck niggers.

>doesn't answer me
go suck a dick rabbi

survival has nothing whatsoever to do with morality
whether you live or die - just looking at that alone, absent any other conditions - doesn't say whether you were good or bad at all, in any way
neither does fucking and conceiving/not conceiving a child

you want my subjective opinion of what I'm committed to treating as objectively true in regard to morality?
I think obeying God is good and right, and disobeying God is bad and wrong

>b-but I don't belie-
so what? I'm not the one trying to convince anyone that the rest of the world has to accept what I'm saying as objectively true

You don't think it's a way to make democrats look bad so they can repeal Roe v. Wade and wall off the borders, leaving democrats with, at least, the un-aborted black vote as their consolation prize for giving up the border? They need votes, that'll be their strategy, no?

That's why Northam looks anti-black with the whole black face thing.

Yeah I agree, but I’d try to convince friends and family to not abort, to have kids young so they’re in better health.

The philosophy is bullshit. If abortion is murder, then why is it suddenly not murder if the mother is at risk. Nobody can answer. It’s a case where you compromise and ban 3rd trimester or something, where barely any abortions happen anyway.

again. you are operating on a basis of the survival of the individual. this is about the survival of genetics, something that is in you yet can be out of you through your family and people.
>fucking and conceiving/not conceiving a child doesn't show whether you are good or not
no it doesn't. again, it is an addition of factors. these are in themselves good acts but one can also do bad acts in their lives which may put their essence, their genetics and the survival of that at danger.
>G-God is the basis of my morality
How the fuck
I am guessing the Christian God, you assholes still need to get through the Epicurean questioning. And then the fucking Problem of Evil. Fucking incoherent baka

But forget all that. Your statement is itself incoherent. God commands both not to kill and to kill

Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13)
Contradicted by:
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. (Exodus 32:27)

So is the same thing both morally good and morally bad?

anyways I am going to bed I have school tomorrow

Wish you could have joined in on this

I thought it was a response to some comment about post birth abortion originated by dems. Maybe that Northam guy.

It is about scotus yeah, but I think it was to promote Amy coney Barrett or whoever, the pro life judge with no immigration cases and adopted Haitian kids. She is unacceptable. Dems would win long term if she was on scotus.

It also happened when Ginsburg wasn’t looking too good.

>low-quality births
my parents are extraordinarily successful in their trades and i'm a lazy trustfund baby. by your logic i get to live, right?

>you are operating on a basis of the survival of the individual
but I'm not
I'm operating based on what I think is pleasing to God, which involves not wishing death on children

>these are in themselves good acts
why?
you're literally just asserting that - why should someone accept that?

>Problem of Evil
hello?
pic
you're literally talking like a PHIL101 brainlet

not talking about Jew history - have some stuff that's more recent and presently binding

>"Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” ( Mt 5.44 , Lu 6.27 , Lu 6.3 ) “Do not use force against an evil man.” ( Mt 5.39 ) “Do not resist evil with evil.” “Forgive and you will be forgiven.” (Lu 6.37 ) “Do not be anxious about your life.”( Lu 12.22 ) “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Mat 7.12 )

Attached: lpoe short critique.png (1658x871, 151K)

Anyone can be tricked into supporting something if the don't truly stand for anything. Either they name their cause, (((money,))) or they get coeresed into changing things.

By the way OP, the pill is the worst. It’s the reason women slut around and don’t even want kids. It messes with their brain chemistry and stops pair bonding. Prevents a hell of a lot more pregnancies primarily in white women.