Hi Jow Forums. Let's have an ethical debate about abortion. Who was in the right in Alabama? Should abortion be illegal...

Hi Jow Forums. Let's have an ethical debate about abortion. Who was in the right in Alabama? Should abortion be illegal? When does life start? Is life sacred? Discuss.

Attached: abortion_alabama_86043-jpg-ed866_1d52d2255bb6f596f8a5b48b52b1528c.fit-760w.jpg (760x424, 120K)

it starts when the vapid prozac popping whore opens her legs to random people she meets

>When does life start
Life is a continuous process, to say it begins at fertilization or whatever is absurd
>life is sacred
spook
>oh yea well we should legalize murder then starting with you
that would ruin the harmony of the society

not sure why people would want kids getting raised by people that didn't want them in the first place or kids getting raised by parents that can't get by and offer their child a nice life. people too emotional over unconcious, unfeeling, and insentient fetuses but then don't think about kids that will be left on their own.

These laws are a direct consequence of the extreme late term abortion policies that were proposed and celebrated in New York and Virginia.

Pro-abortion advocates don't understand how frightening and repulsive it is to see people on the street treating infanticide like an inherent human right and participating in a cartoonish abortion festival obviously meant to mock pro-lifers. I am not religious but even to me it sincerely looks downright Satanic. It's clear they think their behavior is exciting and morally justified, and anybody who says otherwise is a histrionic church lady scold. They point blank refuse to seriously engage with the charge that they support infanticide because they don't want to consider that a woman's emotions, finances, and personal convenience are trumped by the life of an infant.

Not all abortion is infanticide, but when progressives smugly refuse to account for the fact that their laws can in certain circumstances allow for the murder of healthy, formed children, they radicalize people in the other direction by tenfold. No amount of sloganeering and late TV pandering can overcome the murder of a baby. You can't cosplay your way out of this. You can't sneer and pitch tantrums. It is one of the most ugly and hateful crimes imaginable, recognized by every civilization as act of pure evil and repugnance.

This is not simply using a mean uh-oh word you don't like or failing to cast a brown person in the new superhero movie. It is grounds for execution.

This law is bad because it oppresses natural selection and the possibility to abort mixed race rape babies.
If you are pro-Life, then you have to raise your own children (at least 3, better 4 or more!), but mothers who want to abort their kids would make a bad job anyway

Life starts when the sperm hits the egg.

Thus, ending the process is technically no different from killing someone.

Question is; is killing someone really that bad?

Theres a billion people that could die tomorrow and the world would move on just fine. In fact, it might be better off without those 1 billion people.

Its time the right started becoming ruthlessly pragmatic again, the placid feebleness of the christians is what put us in this fucking mess in the first place.

Attached: the abortion redpill.jpg (500x701, 124K)

>Wanting more people on an already overpopulated planet
>Wanting children to be forced to be brought up by mothers who didn't want or couldn't afford them (who will probably end up with mental health issues or as criminals)

>should
It doesn’t matter. The states decided. The end. Right and wrong are subjective. Fuck off. Sage.

>get legit raped
>also can’t be bothered to take a fucking pill within 72 hours

And what the states decided is retarded

Under certain circumstances, in periods of distress or under bad climatic condition, or if the soil yields too poor a return, Nature herself tends to check the increase of population in some countries and among some races, but by a method which is quite as ruthless as it is wise. It does not impede the procreative faculty as such; but it does impede the further existence of the offspring by submitting it to such tests and privations that everything which is less strong or less healthy is forced to retreat into the bosom of tile unknown. Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.

The decrease in numbers therefore implies an increase of strength, as far as the individual is concerned, and this finally means the invigoration of the species.

But the case is different when man himself starts the process of numerical restriction. Man is not carved from Nature's wood. He is made of 'human' material. He knows more than the ruthless Queen of Wisdom. He does not impede the preservation of the individual but prevents procreation itself. To the individual, who always sees only himself and not the race, this line of action seems more humane and just than the opposite way. But, unfortunately, the consequences are also the opposite.

By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species. But man restricts the procreative faculty and strives obstinately to keep alive at any cost whatever has once been born. This correction of the Divine Will seems to him to be wise and humane, and he rejoices at having trumped Nature's card in one game at least and thus proved that she is not entirely reliable. The dear little ape of an all-mighty father is delighted to see and hear that he has succeeded in effecting a numerical restriction; but he would be very displeased if told that this, his system, brings about a degeneration in personal quality.

For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to 'save' feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature's will is scorned.

But if that policy be carried out the final results must be that such a nation will eventually terminate its own existence on this earth; for though man may defy the eternal laws of procreation during a certain period, vengeance will follow sooner or later. A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.

Don't care. Abortion is so low on the list of things destroying the West that it's a waste of time talking about it.

Attached: Planned parenthood.jpg (736x552, 63K)

>Should abortion be illegal?

It should DEFINITELY be legal to abort single mothers.
They are a clump of cell that parasites on the pody of society and on top of that produce criminaly and mass shoters.

Attached: eugenics-tree.gif (600x468, 267K)

Unless you can asexually reproduce, you don't get to terminate your pregnancy and kill your child.

>trying to bring ethics in when you murder the unborn
(You)

One of the biggest reasons not to support abortion is to look at the kind of people who support it.

Also, on the other hand, I believe that abortion should be outlawed for whites and that all minorities should have unrestricted free access.

The planet isn’t overpopulated, just certain countries

Checked, nice quids