Why do people support abortion

>would you pay for them to become wealthy?
Honestly I would if I could

Imagine a society where child-rearing costs are lower and much more children are born, but most of them are mentally deficient and that is not immediately apparent. Such society will think that killing infants is rather OK.

Emergency cases excluded to ones where one or both would die anyway I can support, but that's all. We (everyone) need better foster services and ways of encouraging ethical adoption.

Adoption agencies exist, alongside laws that allow you to drop a young child off with no legal repurcussions if you can't take care of it.

I already said it but I'll address it again, we need to have better methods of supporting parentless children and having them be adopted. I would certainly pay for it, whether it was through having sex with my future wife or through taxes for state-funded adoption clinics or through donations to private adoption facilities. I believe that all people have a right to life, and that killing a child due to convenience or personal emotions should not be a decision.

should i care about abortion laws?

Abortion sucks, but so does giving birth to deformed as fuck monstrosities and teenage parents. Abortion is unquestionably eugenic and is good for society as a whole

That's not a solution because you're still ignoring the time wasted going into labor.
Only alternative I see is finding a way to transplant the fetus

Would if I could, but I'm poor too

I think it's important

Eugenics is dangerous and paves the road to some awful ideologies, and is bad for society as a whole.

I don't see how it's necessarily relevant. I think that there should be government-obligate services that will account for anyone in a tight pinch; it ideally would be limited to a tiny portion of the population anyway (as people should be more careful having sex etc or abstaining if not ready for pregnancy) but even thought it will be heavily inflated from that ideal it will still be able to cover the people afflicted in my opinion.

If you're distraught about abortion wait until you hear about adoption
>dropped off at a young age
>lose strong natural bond to mother
>nobody to comfort you like a mother could
>limited window of "cute time" to be adopted
>little chance of being adopted after 4
>no hope after 9
>will be literally raised in a school
>booted out second you turn 18, no exceptions

And until such a thing happens, we need abortion.

vocaroo.com/i/s1rYC9C88NcG

that is a really hard to swallow redpill

oof

why do you think this way? if you aren't female these laws dont really effect you

That's why I think it's important to make adoption more appealing for competent families and make the services themselves better overall. We can change that cruel system through simple ads etc, it honestly wouldn't take that long.

I disagree that we need it but I understand that it is filling the void. We need to stop abortion and we need to do it by changing how it is handled governmentally.

meanie

I don't see how me being male or female changes anything, it's to accomodate the children that would otherwise be killed. That's all.

That's how I see it too. We need to find away to move away from it. But not by forbidding people from doing it, but by solving the reasons we need it

I don't care much about abortions myself, but I must admit that anti-abortionist position is much more consistent, meanwhile a lot of pro-abortionist arguments are nonsense.

you could make adoption centers the best place in the world and you still couldn't match the natural bond a mother and child have
its better just to abort them really, kids raised in an adoption center usually have no hope for a good life

Then why not go and kill all children currently in adoption houses? They have no future anyway.

I just dont know why do you care if someone wants to abort their child if it doesn't affect you in any way

im not saying its wrong i just dont know why

>We change our beliefs based on the situation and accept new ideas
>therefore we are nonsense

Try harder

No, you are nonsense when you speak nonsense (new or old), quite simple.

because i said "usually"
rapebabies are always raised in dysfunctional households where there's very little mother-son bonding, if any
all in all it's always better to just abort them instead of ruining their childhood and possibly adulthood by raising them in a dysfunctional home or adoption center

on top of this, kids in adoption centers are already past the prenatal stage and can feel pain, unlike babies

fetuses*

Is that actually proven?

Well I think it should be disallowed paramount. I couldn't see myself saying that any other form of murder should be allowed and we should only incentivize it to not happen.

I don't agree fundamentally. One of my best friends lived in an adoption house for most of his young life and he's very happy and driven nowadays.

Because I believe that human life is sacred and should be protected; I'm confused by your question because, to me, it's the same as asking why someone have opinions on any other murder law just because it didn't affect them.

Changing beliefs isn't always a good thing. The value of human life cannot be understated.

The state of current adoption centers needn't be factored in due to the prerequisite that making them better will solve most of their problems.

I can understand that. But I didn't say incentivize it, I said move away from it.

during the possibility window for abortion, the fetus usually hasn't even formed a brain yet

If it's pain during killing which matters and not killing itself, then is it OK to kill children (or people in general if killing is quick and painless?

for supporting abortion you need higher education, IQ and not be retarded redneck,.

killing them for what reason?

yes

For example if they are poor (it is stated ITT that abortions are OK because resulting children have a good chance to be poor).

Ok, so if it's OK to kill people in general, then it's also OK to abort. Some conclusion, yet it would fit for those who disagree with the premise.

Kids can't be rich or poor. They're financially dependent on their guardians

I'm fairy sure that young prince can be called rich, and child in african village can be called poor, so it's just word nitpicking.

No it isn't. The point is you've already gone past the stage of the guardian accepting to raise that kid. Hence they are now responsible for it, socially and financially. Once you've taken on the responsibility, there's no taking it back. That's the key difference

Quite a high horse you got there

Well I guess there's no point in arguing against someone who believes what you do

Giving women rights has been a disastrous mistake

>No it isn't.
What isn't? You think that one can't say that young son of king is rich and and young son of poor alcoholics is poor?

Now you're the one word nitpicking.

That's wrong and it isn't related.

No, you directly stated that
>Kids can't be rich or poor.

Yes, and I explained why. But somehow you only cared about the three first words in my comment so I'll give you some time until you've read the rest

No, you switched to unrelated argument. Thing which we discussed was whether it's OK to kill people if they are or will be poor.

If they are self-sufficient or already being cared for by a consenting guardian, then no.

So it's ok to kill them if they are not self-sufficient, or their guardian stopped consenting, or maybe said guardian died?

> they are not self-sufficient
Doesn't exist. Once you become self-sufficient you stay self-sufficient
> guardian stops consenting
Once you take responsibility, there's no taking it back
> guardian dies
Unrelated

>Once you become self-sufficient you stay self-sufficient
You can never be self-sufficient in the first place, you also can stop being self-sufficient.
>Once you take responsibility, there's no taking it back
Ok, so if someone cares for a child, he must be forced to care for said child even further. Basically it is sometimes OK to force people to care for someone.
>Unrelated
Why not?

1. Doesn't make any sense
2. Yes, I think so
3. Why is it, you're the one that brought it up

But I gotta go here circlejerk-bro, I need to do some shopping, later

>Doesn't make any sense
Perfectly does. A child is never self-sufficient until some age, and you also can become non-self-sufficient in adulthood (say due to ilness).
> Yes, I think so
Ok, that's at least something.
> Why is it, you're the one that brought it up
Yes, I did. Say, little child had parents who cared about him, then parents dies in a car crash. Is it OK to kill the child, or should someone (relatives or state) take the care?

>But I gotta go here circlejerk-bro, I need to do some shopping, later
Bye-bye, have a nice shopping spree.

I want a child, not a semi-fuctioning house vegetable that's going to eat away my finances and destroy my life. Severely retarded children should either be aborted or thrown into asylums to peacefully life out their lives and if they are some how able to breed, they should be castrated.

because people are heartless and self-centred
that's why adoption exists

Children are property and do not obtain rights until the exit the womb.
It's at the soul discretion of the mother carrying the child whether or not she wants to terminate it. It's literally inside of her body after all.

Well that just means you're selfish and cruel.

Good bait

Why not
>Children are property and do not obtain rights until becoming 18

Not even baiting, why should a fetus, which needs to be physically inside of the mother's body for survival, have any rights. Humans should have complete and total domain over their bodies, and the state has no business dictating what people can/can't do with them. If a mother wants to kill a the fetus that's living inside of her womb, that's her decision to make.

because a child who has been born no longer needs to live inside of another human in order to survive.

>because a child who has been born no longer needs to live inside of another human in order to survive.
That's actually an anti-abortion argument. If you'd be able to take fetus out and somehow feed it, then "abortion is murder" would no longer be true.
Also newborn or young child can't survive without care too.

Because the child inside her body has no say in whether or not she kills it. Once a woman is pregnant, she has to take care of two people instead of one.

Yes, but I'm saying that the fetus shouldn't have any say insofar as it is inside of the women's body.

>Also newborn or young child can't survive without care too.
Sure, but it doesn't have to live inside of the mother.

As long as the fetus is inside of the mother, it is property of the mother.

It is inside women's body because that's how reproduction works. First you have sex, then fetus grows in mothers body, then parents care for the child till growing up. If you are cared for by someone, you don't become just their property.

But it's not property of the mother. It's a living human being that has rights, or at least should. People know the risks of having sex, and one of those is pregnancy. If you are pregnant, then you have another human that you must take care of. Simple as that.

>It is inside women's body because that's how reproduction works.
Yeah I know that, but as long as it's in the woman's body, the fetus doesn't have rights.

>If you are cared for by someone, you don't become just their property.
Obviously, but if you're literally living inside of someone's body you do become their property.

>It's a living human being
Debatable, but beside the point.

>that has rights, or at least should
No, it shouldn't. It is inside another persons body, and for all intents and purposes, is a part of the women's body.

I could care less about the risks of having sex, that's totally irrelevant to me. I just don't see why a fetus, which needs to live inside of another humans body, should have the same rights as a human who has been born.

>the fetus doesn't have rights.
>if you're literally living inside of someone's body you do become their property.
That's basically restating your claim, and that's what anti-abortionists disagree with. Although even pro-abortionists don't use property claim often since it sounds quite doubtful.

>It is inside another persons body, and for all intents and purposes, is a part of the women's body.
It is not, even according to law. Fetus has different genetics, if you kill pregnant women, your sentence will be harsher due to killing two beings, and if fetus is born, it is a child of both mother and father.
>I could care less about the risks of having sex, that's totally irrelevant to me.
It's sex which causes pregnancy and babies.
>I just don't see why a fetus, which needs to live inside of another humans body, should have the same rights as a human who has been born.
Rights may be not the same (for example fetus can't drive), but just right to live would be enough.

>It is not, even according to law. Fetus has different genetics, if you kill pregnant women, your sentence will be harsher due to killing two beings, and if fetus is born, it is a child of both mother and father.
You're misunderstanding the phrase "for all intents and purposes." In this context it means that even though they are technically different beings, they function as though they were one.

also:
>appealing to authority
wew lad

>Rights may be not the same ... fetus can't drive
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

>It's sex which causes pregnancy and babies.
I know, what's your point.

>You're misunderstanding the phrase "for all intents and purposes." In this context it means that even though they are technically different beings, they function as though they were one.
Women will not magically split in two after some time. Her organs will also not fall out and walk on their own. Meanwhile fetus in several months will get born and will become a baby. That's the differences in their functioning.
>appealing to authority
Just trying to give some analogies, but ok. What are you even basing your property claim on? Are there some analogous cases in which someone is property of someone else?
>What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
That "rights of fetus and mother are not the same" and "fetus don't have the right to live" are different claims.
>I know, what's your point.
That having sex has a risk of getting a a baby (after all that's an initial function of sex).

They want to slut around and have no responsibility for their actions (pregnancy).

Attached: pepe abortion.jpg (788x600, 134K)

>What are you even basing your property claim on?
Your body is your property, therefore, something inside of your body is also your property.

I think a lot of our arguments are getting lost in translation though, I don't really understand a lot of what you're saying :(

We live in a sick fucked up world, but don't worry, we'll slay the normalfags, all of them, and establish our own civilization

>Your body is your property, therefore, something inside of your body is also your property.
No? If you will swallow something, it will not necessary become your property. If some evil wizard will become tiny and will start living inside your body, he may be obliged to go out, but he will not become your property.

>If some evil wizard will become tiny and will start living inside your body, he may be obliged to go out, but he will not become your property.
Sure, but if that same wizard were to live in your body, hook up to your organs, and feed off of your nutrients, then I would argue that he becomes your property.

No. You can argue that he should be kicked. You can even argue that he should be kicked even if he will die as a result. Maybe he should also pay you compensation for such behaviour. But in no such cases he will become your property since slavery is not permitted.

i want to bash your head repeatedly against a curbstone

I think gay people should have rights and stuff but I think abortion should be illegal and people should be able to have guns. What political party does this make me?

Attached: 1494445226528.png (295x375, 141K)

one that hasn't been made yet because the world is realizing our current political parties are shit

vocaroo.com/i/s0KS4WBMA4KG

Guess I'll just have to found it right now.
What should we call it?
lol

do you masturbate? because you're killing billions of children when you do that

LOL XD! Y U NOT WANT RIP OUT EMBRYO! IS BASICALLY SPURM XDDDDDDDD

>why do people support abortion
It's a sacrifice to their god.
>what god
moloch
>why do they sacrifice
for shekels and shits and giggles

>why is it ok to kill a child just because it doesn't look human yet
You're right. I think it should be always ok

lawl

A difference in beliefs.
some people think people start their lives when they are born (hence birthdays).
Some people believe that when an egg is fertilized that human lives start.

I think abortion is good, because he is not yet human, he does not feel anything, he does not believe or realize what is happening to him.

I support newborn euthanasia if the child suffers from a debilitating physical disease. They're of no use to society.