Now that the dust has settled, let's talk abortion. I am conservative in most respects, but I don't really care if a woman gets an abortion or not. Here is my reasoning:
>if a woman doesn't want to be a mother she's going to raise a shitty child
>they're going to degrade society and probably end up needing welfare and shit
>more liberals than conservatives will get abortions
>more nogs will get abortions
Barring religious reasons, I don't see how this is flawed.
Any definition of the “ensoulment” of the fetus is arbitrary. I personally feel like when the kid starts kicking, he prolly ought not get aborted unless mom’s health requires it. Up until then, abortions should be free and taxpayer funded. Too many people.
Agreed.
I think abortions are tacky as fuck and in an ideal world, there is no reason for them, but people fuck up.
>le 10,000th ABORTION IS OKAY GUISE thread today
Kill yourself, faggot.
I think a lot of modern ills comes down to letting women choose for themselves, from voting, to contraception, to the erosion of courting ritual, father's consent, the property dynamics implicit in rape (one might say therefore rape no longer truly exists in the White world), to the introduction of women into the workplace and places of higher education. A slave is not equipped to exercise will and neither a woman agency, when you thrust such things upon them things wil not be as they should.
>"le" non-argument
Back to plebbit, scum.
I’m a liberal, but to me being a liberal means that your goal is to make a better future. Fundamentally I believe that it is our place to spend our lives caring for others.
And that’s where I run into a problem. I think every person is unique and important, and to me a person starts when two sets of DNA combine into a brand new unique human being with all of the potential that entails. It’s not so really religious for me. I just think we should take care of each other, and that means taking care of everyone.
Which puts me in a really shitty place because I have no one representing me. There’s no pro-life liberals and no conservatives that believe in helping others.
I just think we should really work on improving child care and parental benefits until abortion is no longer necessary, but as long as everyone is out there fighting the sides drift farther apart. I haven’t seen a civil discussion on the topic in years. And in those years, no real progress was made.
What are your thoughts on bearing the burden of people who are too irresponsible to make proper life choices? It seems to me that those things snowball - you have crappy parents making the next generation of crappy parents.
I respect your opinion but I don't think the randomness of genetics is a good enough reason to burden society.
I think that we as a society have the means to prevent a true third option in a well-funded adoption program. People act like the only two options are “Abort the baby” or “Raise it yourself”, but the third option of “Give your child to a responsible entity” has been out there for millennia. I would like to see us really start to expand on that as a culture.
Genetics determine a lot, but if done properly people can become decent through their environment.
I also think birth control should be more thoroughly state funded. The default should be that no one can get pregnant and in order to get pregnant you need to get your birth control removed. Both men and women should have to make an effort before they’re actually capable of making a human being, which would minimize accidents immensely. But that’s a different can of worms.
Present* a true third option. Not prevent. Worst typo ever.
I could get behind something like that, except for the whole "government mandating birth control" bit. If the government can mandate that, then I think that sets precedence for a lot of other mandates handed down from "on high."
Same. I can't personally approve of any ban that
>doesn't allow exceptions for rape, incest or risk of major risk/injury/illness/death of mother
>doesn't allow abortion/extraction at any time for any dead fetus/infant (there's no point to keeping a corpse in a woman)
>is stupidly early like what's going down in Alabama right now
The question is how early? I propose for either when
>fetus/infant starts moving or kicking
or
>fetus/infant can show that they can feel or specifically can feel pain
or
>some other metric that shows that they're aware? No clue how to accomplish that however.
Does anyone know at what point of development
>fetus/infant can show that they can feel or specifically can feel pain
?
The whole "can't feel pain" bit is kind of a blurry line for me, too. In an ideal situation, I'd like the mother and fetus to be anethetized. Not for the mother's sake but for the fetus.
Being put under is a bit much for the mother at least, due to the inherent risks in anesthesia. I think it'd be good for it to be at least be a voluntary option for the mother though along with other choices such as a sedative or a dosage of cannabis. I don't know if it would even matter to put the fetus/infant under, if the fetus/infant is going to get aborted it doesn't matter much if putting it under is dangerous (unless it would also be dangerous for the mother).
I could accept a sort of partial abortion ban (for example, no abortions unless needed due to rape/incest/risk to mother/death of fetus after the fetus/infant can begin to feel pain) as long as it was upheld correctly AND access to contraceptives was heavily increased. What's going on now is just stupid IMO.
Sometimes, forcing a w̶h̶o̶r̶e̶woman to raise a shitty child
>prevents her from parasitizing and destroying a decent man who could have otherwise found a traditional loving wife and start a family
>prevents her from spreading stds to all males within a 50mi radius because nothing turns away decent men than a half-nigglet greeting them at the door
>keeps her out of the workplace and prevents her from sinking productivity with her stronk independent womyn bullshit
>makes her a highly visual example on the dangers of riding the cock carousel to impressionable girls
Sometimes, the cost of dealing with one delinquent piece of garbage is worth the amount of prevention it affords.
Honestly wouldnt mind some population control for once. Also its kind of really not a decrease in liberals as you want it to be since Gen Z is increasingly becoming more liberal. Even on my campus more people are identifying as progressives or anarchists than conservative or right libertarian
According to WebMD
>You should feel your baby's first movements, called "quickening," between weeks 16 and 25 of your pregnancy. If this is your first pregnancy, you may not feel your baby move until closer to 25 weeks. By the second pregnancy, some women start to feel movements as early as 13 weeks. You're more likely to feel baby move when you're in a quiet position, either sitting or lying down.
So starting from the beginning (counting time in pregnancy begins from the first day of the most recent menstrual period):
Begin month 1
>week 1, period begins and ends, lasts 7 days
>week 2
>week 3, fertile, pregnancy occurs
>week 4,
End of month 1, has now noticed missed period
Begin month 2
>week 5
>week 6
>week 7
>week 8
End of month 2
Begin month 3
>week 9
>week 10
>week 11
>week 12
End of month 3
Begin month 4
>week 13
^ This is the earliest the fetus/infant will start to move around.
Quickening can begin when the pregnancy is 13 weeks along or when the fetus/infant is 2.5 months old. I think this would be a good cut off point for abortions unless in the case of rape/incest/risk to mother/death of fetus.
Now I'm going to try to find a source for when fetuses can begin to feel/feel pain.
>those are the only options
Or could could be a decent human being and adopt the baby out.
Says the plebbitor
Part of that tho must be simply due to the fact that the younger you are, the more likely people identify with being more liberal
Jow Forums thinks my posts are spam so I have to break it up
These and other observations are taken to suggest that the fetal mind can support an experience of pain from at least 26 weeks' gestation.
>ncbi DOT nlm DOT nih DOT gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/
In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and,
as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be
concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.
>web DOT archive DOT org/web /20111002222748if_
/http:// www DOT rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf
You are a consequentialist and therefore not a conservative. kys kike.
Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.
>ncbi DOT nlm DOT nih DOT gov/pubmed/16118385
It looks like pain is not a concern early in development, therefore I think what I put in my earlier post is fair
Cutting off access to abortion (except in cases of rape, incest, risk to the mother, death of fetus/infant) at 13 weeks of pregnancy development and when the fetus/infant is 2.5 months old seems fair. It gives women two months to notice a missing period and to obtain an abortion. Access to condoms, contraceptives, Plan B pill, etc., should be made more accessible no matter what however.
Millenials right now are reaching to their 30s and still mainain liberal viewpoints and gen z are approaching their 20s or early 20s. Its highly possible that if this new resurgence of the dem party pulls through, we could be seeing a New Deal era of liberal ideology. Personally i just want corporations out of politics and close tax loopholes to keep the ruling class in check.
These abortion developments is going to make women absolutely freak the fuck out. Even if Trump gets a second term I could see us ending up with AOC after that easily.
>well-funded
So instead of the adoption agencies charging people money to adopt, they *pay* people to take off with the kids and do god knows what? Great thinking, wow.
I could also see a case for not allowing abortions (outside of rape, incest, risk to the mother, death of fetus/infant) past the earliest timeframe for when a fetus/infant can be born and survive.
>The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks and 5 days.
>Two premature babies hold the record for this. >Surprisingly, the first record holder was born in 1987, a time when the medical care of premature babies (neonatology) was a very new field. >However, this is well before the accepted age of viability.
>Usually, the earliest a baby can survive is about 22 weeks gestation.
>The age of viability is 24 weeks. At 22 weeks, there’s a 0-10% chance of survival; at 24 weeks the survival rate is 40-70%.
Closing access to abortion at the start of 20 weeks in pregnancy development (except in cases of rape, incest, risk to the mother, death of fetus/infant) would mean the fetus/infant would be 4.5 months/18 weeks old.
>In 2014, Lyla Stensrud, born in San Antonio, Texas, U.S. became the youngest premature baby in the world. She was born at 21 weeks 4 days and weighed 410 grams (less than a pound). Kaashif Ahmad resuscitated the baby after she was born.
>As of November 2018, Lyla was attending preschool. She had a slight delay in speech, but no other known medical issues or disabilities.
bump