Does this not look like a human baby to you?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
How is abortion not murder?
Does this not look like a human baby to you?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
personhood is legally dictated prior to birth, you dont cheat the system. schizophrenic thinking up down is inversion non value non birthed fat moron corpses
>personhood is legally dictated prior to birth
No, but it should be.
schizophrenia genetic blacklist fvey specie. non position
Could you make a coherent response next time?
schizophrenia eugenicideds downs following me around kos dclxvi murder all fvey specie 0% 2012-
>still completely incoherent
Try again
dieing rn as a species for this balance yw
I believe that you are an actual bot. It is obviously likely that somebody out there is autistic enough to spam gibberish for fun (especially here), but the alternative is much more fun.
meds
"Personhood" is the most flexible concept in the world. See Peter Singer.
The act depicted in the OP picture is the murder of a human infant.
Moreover, after the more typical D&C, the abortionist has to piece the pieces together, to make sure he got them all out of the womb: the chest, the left leg, the right leg, the left arm, the right arm, the head.
It is murder, the secularist prostitutes and prostitutemongers have no morals so don't even bother arguing with them over morality. They'll just openly proclaim they enjoy killing babies as a "retort" and they have done so many times already during their pro-murder protests
Religious practices aren't usually logical.
In particular, the twitter religion doesn't consider these humans as such.
Words are inherently somewhat arbitrary and cultural/political forces have the power to reshape their meaning. Enough people have decided that they want to be able to kill babies without the negative connotation of the word "murder", so they've simply redefined the word murder to not include abortion.
Murder is objectively the malignant killing of fellow human beings, babies are human beings and therefore it is murder.
Even if it was murder(its not), an adult woman's freedom to control her own reproduction is more important than bronze age religious ethics.
>Even if it was murder(its not)
It is.
>an adult woman's freedom to control her own reproduction
I'm against infanticide, not contraception.
>I'm against infanticide, not contraception.
Which is just mega cope.
Nope. Killing babies is not neccessary for a woman to control her own reproduction, since contraception exists, and given that killing babies is basically the most morally detestable thing you can do there is no reason for it to not be banned.
>is not neccessary
It's also not necessary for a man to undergo a vasectomy to control his own reproduction but it's not illegal to do so.
What the frick are you even saying, that men should just get a vasectomy so women don't have to be on birth control? That's just moving the goalposts. And you aren't merely controlling your reproduction with a vasectomy, you're eliminating it entirely, but if you want to cuck yourself out of the genepool I'm not stopping you.
>What the frick are you even saying, that men should just get a vasectomy so women don't have to be on birth control?
No, I'm saying something not being necessary doesn't people shouldn't have a right to do it you moron.
Then you obviously didn't read the entire post, if it isn't neccessary and it involves BABY MURDER you shouldn't have a right to it.
I don't care if it involves baby murder(it doesn't), individual liberty is more important. Any society that makes abortion or any kind of reproductive provision illlegal is an authoritarian shithole.
>it doesn't
It does.
>individual liberty is more important
Not if that individual liberty involves taking the life of another individual.
>Any society that makes abortion or any kind of reproductive provision illlegal is an authoritarian shithole.
Ah yes the authoritarian shithole of Lichtenstein, coincidentally also one of the richest places on the planet (per capita).
>Not if that individual liberty involves taking the life of another individual.
It's not another individual until it is outside of the womb, it is an entity completely reliant on the mother's body, and therefore can't be said to have any rights.
Garbage argument. Babies can be born prematurely and it will be completely reliant on its parents (or other caregivers) atleast until its a teenager.
Babies that are born also enjoy the social contract called "rights", so parents don't have a choice but to be caregivers of them even if they don't want them, a fetus does not.
>Babies that are born also enjoy the social contract called "rights"
But it doesn't follow reason, a newborn baby is physically identical to a baby of the same age (gestation-wise) within the womb.
>a newborn baby is physically identical to a baby of the same age (gestation-wise) within the womb.
Yeah and nobody has said that abortion necessarily has to be legal up until the day of birth, only that abortion should be legal up to a point decided by competent experts in bioethics and medical professionals. I mean, in my country abortion is very hard to get after weeks 8-12, and practically impossible to get after week 12 unless you can prove you'll die.
>unless you can prove you'll die.
There is no way to prove this under any circumstance. That would be like having the ability to predict, with 100% certainty, the future. And even if that were possible, it's still immoral to kill one person against their will even if it is to save someone else.
>it's still immoral to kill one person against their will even if it is to save someone else.
No it's not, both ethics itself and the law has endless exceptions to this. You're acting like everyone agrees that morality is set in stone and cannot ever change.
>so parents don't have a choice but to be caregivers of them even if they don't want them
They should have thought of that before they had unprotected sex, your actions have consequences.
>They should have thought of that before they had unprotected sex, your actions have consequences.
But since abortion exists, they don't have to deal with those consequences.
Even with protection (which is not something everyone can access or use properly) there are accidental pregnancies. Abstinence is 100% effective but it's impossible to expect it long term from so many couples.
There also comes a point where more children are downright destructive to a normal family. I come from a large ass family and my entire childhood was a disaster because my parents just couldn't stop shitting out babies.
Yeah even with four or five kids there's a lot of demands on the parents.
At least you're alive to tell us about it
>(which is not something everyone can access or use properly)
Not in the west.
>there are accidental pregnancies
Ah yes, that 0,00000000001% chance.
Condoms are about 98% effective when used properly.
It's worth noting that in some parts of the US, abstinence only education is still the norm, and teenagers aren't known for critically parsing and evaluating everything they can find on the internet.
Couples don't use condoms, they use birth control. And like half the time, if not more, the one-night stands won't use condoms either.
Some couples do use condoms since some women do not tolerate birth control pills (they frick with your hormones and temper).
>Ah yes the authoritarian shithole of Lichtenstein, coincidentally also one of the richest places on the planet (per capita).
Nice cherrypicking bro, meanwhile 99% of African states don't have legal abortion.
>says all societies that ban abortion are authoritarian shitholes
>*provides an example to the contrary*
>"b-b-but africa is a shithole and they ban abortion"
>chooses one of the few examples where the argument doesn't apply
>thinks this proves his point
>few
Most of Europes microstates ban abortion, a couple of Britains autonomous little islands ban abortion, a number of Caribbean states (many of whom are rich tourist hotspots) ban abortion, and of course a number of US states ban abortion. Compared to the shitholes that ban abortion I guess you could say they are few in number, but it's still more than enough to prove that having a prosperous democracy is fully compatible with banning infanticide.
>Liechtenstein having illegal abortion does mean it is an authoritarian shithole anon
But it isn't an authoritarian shithole so I'm still not wrong.
>But it isn't an authoritarian shithole so I'm still not wrong.
It is, because it restricts women's freedom by making abortion illegal. What point of freedom being the most important value don't you understand you fricking fascist?
>if it removes 1 freedom it is authoritarian
It doesn't work like that, no country on earth gives it's citizens complete freedom.
Liechtenstein having illegal abortion does mean it is an authoritarian shithole anon, being able to become rich there doesn't invalidate that point. You could also become rich during the NEP era in the Soviet Union, but that doesn't change the fact that the Soviet Union was a authoritarian shithole.
Not having sex also exists.
Abortion is Bronze Age religious ethics tho
ok iron age then you pedantic frick
Abortions after the FIRST trimester are absolutely murder. The youngest birth on record is following 152 days of pregnancy. A baby by the end of the 4th month has sentience, it's not a "clump of cells".
It's insane that most legal jurisdictions in the world that have abortion allow it into the 5th or 6th month, and abortions in the third trimester are not unheard of either. Women have premature births at 5 or 6 months all the time.
Abortion activists want it allowed into the 9th month of pregnancy. Their entire frame of logic is that as long as the baby is inside the woman then it's not a person or human, but a parasite or non-person.
Almost all abortions that late are for medical emergencies, euthanizing the fetus in order to save the mother’s life. Ain’t no woman wants to put up with the bullshit of pregnancy for that long unless she has too.
>It's only murder if there's consciousness
So if I chloroform a guy and then shoot him in the head once he's out, that's not murder?
Do you not know what euthanasia means?
so... can it live on it's own without being connected to the mother's bloodstream?
Because women want the hivemind to determine what is a person and what isn't. Couple that with not wanting to face their consequences of their one night stands
>Because women want the hivemind to determine what is a person and what isn't.
Society does determine what a person is and isn't irrespective of what women want.
Tell me what a person is.
A self-aware human, which excludes toddlers up to the age of 2, and I don't think anyone wants it to be legal to kill kids outside of the womb no matter the age.
>A self-aware human
So an infant is not a person then.
Why are you using the definition of person as a basis of arguing pro or anti-abortion?
Let me ask you this instead, what is the sentient difference between a mass of cells from day 1 of conception to day 20?
>So an infant is not a person then.
That's my point, but unlike animals, it can become a person.
But you said earlier that women want the hivemind of what a person is. Yet your own definition of a person does not include a week 5 pregnancy, does it?
No, but I wasn't the guy who made that claim.
Just another thread full of LARPing Christgays who pretend to care about the morality of abortion but in reality just wants to stick it to females.
Amerimutts don't even understand embryology. They unironically think that conception is some magic thing where then a baby is waiting in the uterus until birth. They have no idea what fricked up cell transformations occur in the first four weeks of pregnancy, basically a blob of cells going from one place to the other, changing characteristics.
>They unironically think that conception is some magic thing where then a baby is waiting in the uterus until birth
Yes and also when daddy shoots his hot cum load into mommy and the spermatozoid nucleus merges with the oocyte nucleus, JEEZUS comes down to earth and inserts a SOVL into this new human being
Of course there are circumstances that make abortion atleast somewhat justifiable (rape, poverty, handicapped baby, etc.), but abortion on demand is just completely moronic.
>Rape
Kid can't help how he came to be, so don't kill him for it.
>Poverty
Guess we should just kill all the homeless, better than having them live such awful lives
>Crippled baby
Guess we gotta have a holocaust then, it's more compassionate than having all those poor souls enjoy the right to life
Yes.
The world is already overcrowded and the absolute last thing we need while trying to survive a changing world is a vast underclass of useless NEETs and other social parasites burdening the public system and diverting resources from worthier, stronger, better supported children
>Guess we should just kill all the homeless
yes
>Guess we gotta have a holocaust then
yes
Did you get lost on your way to facebook?
Seethe
Cope
Dilate
Have sex
It's killing a baby, therefore murder, and everything else is cope. But as someone else pointed out, we're already past the 'It's not murder' stage to 'It is murder and it's fun. I'm going to ghoilishly celebrate murder as a flex hahaha'.
Which of these embryos is a human?
moronic take, you can acknowledge a fetuse is a living being whatever the species
A cancerous tumour is a living being too and you sick frick would go blast it with radiation before cutting it up
egalitarianism diff
never said killing a living being was always bad
yes it is moronic, and so is OP's "boo hoo this looks like a person :(" drivel.
Murder is wrong because you steal consciousness from a living, so it's not wrong to kill something that lacks sentience and self awareness. Since fetuses do not have the mental development necesary for consciousness until the end of the first trimester, an abortion within the first three months isn't murder.
Most abortions are done before the fetus is able to feel anything, and late-term abortions are done when the fetus is dying. No one wants a late-term abortion: it is a harrowing experience
Abortion may or may not be murder, depending on its legality. But what cannot be debated is what an abortion is, the death of a human being.
If getting an abortion isn't the same thing as killing a human being, there's literally no reason to get one.
Abortion is the death of a human being; It's the same as pulling the plug from your braindead grandpa. A living creature without consciousness, self awareness, or personhood dies. This is far lesser of a tragedy than if a conscious self-aware person dies.
Killing people in their sleep is still a heinous crime, anon. Don't try that one in court.
People who are asleep still have consciousness. They have complete brainwave patterns and they react to stimuli and wake up if you slap them. Humans in comas and embryos in the first trimester lack any of these qualities, so they don't count as sentient persons.
Yes. The wrongness of killing any living being is proportional to that being's sentience. This is why it's okay to crush a spider and hunt fish by the billions, but it's wrong to kill an elephant or a chimpanzee
>Humans in comas and embryos in the first trimester lack any of these qualities, so they don't count as sentient persons.
Sure they do. I just looked it up and based on our definition of persons, from an English standpoint they are persons. To kill a person who is still alive is either assisted suicide or murder, manslaughter if it was against their will with them not consenting to the act.
Arguing the definition of words is, ironically, the literal definiton of semantics. I will not be arguing semantics.
Yes and you're a hypocrite for holding that point
>I will not be arguing semantics.
So there's agreement on what a person is then, that's good. It means abortion's days are through and there will be no more murders at last.
People who argue for abortion don't care about whether or not children grow up in poverty or whether or not they are loved. Women who get abortions tend to abuse their children more to begin with. People who support abortion generally desire for more severe abuse of women and children, not the other way around. If you cared about the safety and care of children, you would be against abortion, not for it.
meds
If women who get abortions abuse their children more, and someone supports abortion, what does that mean? That they don't actually care about the safety of children. Someone who did would want to try and prevent unnecessary abuse.
I support abortions because I don't want those dumb b***hes having kids and then raising them so poorly that they steal my hubcaps.
Abortion lowers the number of undesirables without inflicting suffering on any conscious being.
Abortion isn't a sterilizing procedure. She will just have another baby and then severely abuse him, then he may become a criminal and steal your hubcaps. Abortion doesn't stop people from having kids, it just means that the kids they do have will be even more severely abused and neglected.
I support sterilization too.
The fact is, one more abortion means one less hubcap stealing hoodlum.
I would rather have my hubcap stolen then get stabbed during a carjacking. The worse a child is abused, the more severe their developmental problems are. More abortion = more severe abuse.
It's the opposite. If mothers who abort are also more abusive, then you should encourage them to abort so they don't have more kids to abuse.
The one baby she does eventually have is the one when she's older and married to a man. The baby growing up with a father figure means that his life will not be shit.
Maybe, but probably not. If you think that women go from being young prostitutes who kill their own children, to be chaste, respectable women who will only have children in wedlock...
Well, maybe it happens once in a blue moon. But you are not being realistic.
Yes the vast majority of people - men and women - who are fast and lose and wild when they're 18-25 end up slowing down by their 30s. They don't need to be paragons of virtue, they just need to be normal. And they do become normal.
You're not completely wrong, but I do think that women not killing their own children is still the best way to mitigate risk.
It's still killing your own child either way. The young child's blood falls to the earth and screams for vengeance. It's a child that was still going to live.
I don't believe you. I suspect that you think that by putting consequences to having sex - birth without the option of abortion - that this will encourage people to be less promiscuous.
If I am right on the money and this is what your think, then I need you to know that you're a mouth breathing moron. More consequences will not make irresponsible prostitutes more responsible. They'll just ignore the consequences.
That's fascinating but does not change the fact that you are a hypocrite for calling abortion murder but thinking that pulling the plug on vegetables is preserving their dignity. You can think whatever you want about my motivations or my values, but know that at least my beliefs are internally cosistent.
I never called abortion murder.
Secondly, it's not comparable to abortion. Abortion is taking something that's healthy and killing it on purpose. Euthanasia is taking something that isn't healthy, which may have no hope of recovery, and killing it on purpose. It simply is not the same.
On a moral standpoint, this rabbit hole has no bottom. If it's worse to kill a fetus because it will eventually develop into a healthy human being, what does that have to say about condoms? What does that say about abstinence? How many healthy human beings were never born because of the genocide of christian abstinence?
If you try and build a framework of morality based on the potential of more healthy humans in the future vs fewer healthy humans, you will end up with the cruelest and most controlling false-morality imaginable.
A sperm cell is not a human being.
There is nothing more to say on the matter.
And a man in a coma is also a human being. And that sperm cell will lead to a human being born just as surely as that embryo will lead to a human being born.
>being that is literally incapable of being conscious
>being that is capable of being conscious but isn't 100% conscious in the current moment, but can easily go back to being so
I don't even think you need the difference explained to you. You're just pretending to be an autist because your entire argument revolves around pointless semantics.
Why would a person who does child sacrifices be explaining anything to me?
that is literally incapable of being conscious
I assume, like any human, you literally started out as that kind of being and over time evolved into what you are now, so either you were quite capable to become conscious or you are so crazy as to pretend you are not and thereby admit you are not worth listening to.
On a different note, is it not funny that abortionists attack their opponents as religious fanatics while at the same time they deny the Darwinian principles which sustain the attack? Because if one supposes the theory of evolution to be true and species can alter their traits over time and even evolve into new species, then one would be even more stupid to deny the development of an individual from a fertilized egg to man, which appears even physically like a grossly simplified rundown of evolution in the womb. Why then do we define what is human absolutely by the end result, when the end result always changes a little and only the origin is consistent? Food for thought.
>It's the same as pulling the plug from your braindead grandpa
Which, depending on the context, isn't a wrong thing to do at all.
Euthanasia is different because it's generally done to preserve a person's dignity or lessen their suffering. Moreover, some people request to be killed if they are in such a state.
I think that killing a person who is completely defenseless and innocent is more tragic, for reasons that should be obvious.
>Euthanasia is different because it's generally done to preserve a person's dignity or lessen their suffering
You homosexuals go fricking apeshit whenever people say "oh the babies who were aborted would just grow up to be unloved and in imense poverty or they would just be given up to adoption." Because that's obviously a bad excuse. But suddenly euthenasia is for preserving dignity? You are a dog eyed hypocrite Black person.
A healthy fetus and a person who is a vegetable aren't comparable. That was my point.
So killing soneone in their sleep is not murder!
see
>People who are asleep still have consciousness. They have complete brainwave patterns and they react to stimuli and wake up if you slap them. Humans in comas and embryos in the first trimester lack any of these qualities, so they don't count as sentient persons.
No, because it's snuffing out potential. Obviously throwing away a flower as it's starting to bloom is worse than throwing a dead flower away.
see
If your mother wakes up tomorrow and I'm inside of her, will you kill me?
Even if it was possible for doctors to take out the fetus and continue to grow it in a test tube until it’s old enough to be put up for adoption, I bet roasties would still want to kill it. It’s not about having control over their body, it’s about murdering children to avoid responsibility. b***hes aren’t any different from Casey Anthony.
It's moreso about hatred. For example, we hear a lot about how women who were raped in wartime wanted to get abortions. Why? Because women who are raped tend to hate the man who raped them, so they want to direct their anger towards the child of the rapist, who is obviously innocent towards any crime. It's much more rare for married people to get abortions, because married people generally hate eachother less and aren't interested in killing their own children as an expression of anger.
>so they want to direct their anger towards the child of the rapist, who is obviously innocent towards any crime
Its less that and more of not wanting a reminder of the event
Not really, because for women who have been raped they usually have more severe psychological problems about sex. But obviously women who were raped still have sex. It's not about having a reminder, it's simply that they hate the person who raped them. Same thing with women who have bastards, if some abusive alcoholic gangbanger knocks up some hoodrat, she will kill his kid because she hates him.
''Life starts at conception''
Then are sperm cells not alive?
Fun fact: did you know that two thirds of all fertilized ovums die within the first few weeks of insemination? If abortion were murder, why would God create human biology where two thirds of all human beings get murdered and nothing can change that?
>abhorrent post
>atheist
>anime
ticks every box
Not an atheist
satanism is atheism you goofiest of animegays
I don't worship satan. I just like that picture because it's funny
silly discord b***h, i can tell you are an atheist cumbag from your posts, denial is moronic
Nope. I just know that humans recieve their soul after when they take their first breath, just like how Adam recieved his soul when God breathed it into him, and not before his body was formed.
stop coping baby killer, you are obviously some disorder subversive with the anime posting. get lost atheist
Well then what's your explanation? Are you some kind of moronic calvinist coping on predestination?
stfu scum, you are gay and murderous atheistic GAY you will get nothing from me but facts about YOU
That's cool but life begins at the quickening.
Life begins at the quickening, moron
It's actually the quickening moron.
You know what? As a middle ground between birth and conception, I will absolutely settle on life starting at the quickening.
None of this is up to you to decide. Either you support the continued child sacrifices, or else you are someone who opposes the child sacrifices.
If it isn't quickened (ie. alive) it isn't a child.
I oppose all sacrifices or other killings post-quickening. Unless it's an old guy in a coma.
War is also murder, just like the death penalty. And the so-called pro-life movement has never spoken out against it. If they oppose murder, it is simply a blatant attempt to enslave women.
War is self defense, and without self defense we will simply be taken over by a warlord and forced into unjust wars at any length. The death penalty is justice for those convicted of a crime, which no one has ever attempted to argue that an unborn child has done. Your arguments are those of a complete sophist, anon. Come on now.
>muh ulterior motives
Absolute brainlet tier argument which counts as a concession (unless you admit to being lazy or trolling) since you imply that's the defense you can offer.
Yes, it is murder. But it is the murder of someone we are under no obligation to protect, just like an animal, a foreign combatant, or a dangerous criminal. Either any murder is bad, or it is arbitrary nonsense.
Should the disposal of HeLa cells also be considered murder according to the logic of abortion opponents? After all, this is a living human being.
It is a human with unique human DNA and will live like you or I do if it isnt killed.
heres how you shut down abortionists
>whats the race of the baby
now they are all pro life for the next five minutes of their anti-White screed.
> unique human DNA
Because murder of twins is OK 😐
twins do not have identical DNA despite the popular conception of twins being identical clones.
try again baby killing simpcel lmao
So it's okay to murder clones or what? What is your agenda here.
>twins do not have identical DNA
Identical twins do. That's why they're called identical twins, moron.
Identical twins do have identical DNA what the hell are you talking about?
>abortionists
the correct term is obstetrician–gynecologist
Some abortionists hire hit men to kill their child for them.
>Some abortionists hire hit men to kill their child for them.
???
>continued child sacrifices
Okay I'll bite: who are they sacrificed to?
>Okay I'll bite: who are they sacrificed to?
Oh please don't ask this question, now he's going to go on and on about baal or lucifer or Q
Is that who you do your sacrifices to, anon?
>Oh please don't ask this question, now he's going to go on and on about baal or lucifer or Q
I know that; i figured the thread could use some comedy
It is sacrifice in the name of Sattwa (or truth), hence it is called Sadhya (truth sacrifice). Abortion is Sattwa Sadhya - the sacrifice of truth to truth sacrifice. If you do not protect women, then no one will. If no one will protect women, how will children be born? If no one protects the women, how can she protect the children? The children need to be born for the protection of the women. Child murder will keep us stuck in the cycle of violence. Abortion is the weapon of the sadhya, of the sacrifice. If the sadhya can be sacrificed for so long, it is only because people are not aware of it. Those who support abortion are not aware of the sadhya, they don’t understand what Sattwa Sadhya is. If we protect children, there is no need for them to be sacrificed.
no its not women's health specialists do not all fall on pro-abortion side, therefore they can not be called categorically abortionists.
I am talking about the heroic individuals who support the right to choose, if you dont like it, dont participate in it, If you dont like slavery, dont own slaves, no one is forcing you to buy -slav-....I mean abortion, no one is forcing you to have an abortion, its about the right to choose.
It's not funny anon. These people have killed untold numbers of children, a large portion of the people you meet have either committed murder or accessory to murder. Hiring a hitman to kill your own child is as illegal as it gets.
>and will live like you or I do if it isnt killed.
Most conceptions end up dying early on. The mother has to make drastic changes to her lifestyle for 9 months to make sure it doesn't die or come out moronic.
>now they are all pro life for the next five minutes of their anti-White screed.
Literally the only people I see trying to make this a race thing are the pro lifers.
More important than stating abortion is murder, is that abortion is arbitrary. There is no hard break between the fertilized egg and the 100-year old. The woman's reproductive organs have no natural way to abort, so it cannot be a natural right. The dead have no say. The unborn are not dead. Paradoxically, the abortionist person is, in principle, closer to death. The fetus is, by definition, more lively; it is developing, changing, growing (into a full human), much faster than the ageing human, which is a sign of great animation, thus life, not high consciousness, which the mentally moronic and brain-damaged do not have, who are still lively. The fetus is a new house's foundation, the adult a withering, old castle. If the question is about time in the body, not what comes afterwards and the fetus is not desired, why remove it prematurely to its detriment, when its stay in the body is only temporary and the natural exit serves the purpose as well, if not better, than the artificial intervention? You do not argue for your right to surgically remove feces from the bowel before they're full-grown excrements to avoid crapping, yet you insist to prevent something indubitably far more important: birth. But if to free the body is your aim, what difference do a few weeks, waiting til birth frees it, make? It seems you want to destroy the fetus before being held responsible for it. In addition, you must base whatever (corporal) rights on the value of (human) life. Let us compare life to free speech, another matter of liberty. If you agree free speech should be had, you must agree to give it 1) a platform and 2) enable it to succeed, or else you have a trivial view of free speech. The abortionist view of life is trivial. Life, if so valuable, should be created, not just served. Lastly, abortionists are not acting as if their behaviour would be a universal imperative, because humanity would die out if it were, thus they are irresponsible and arbitrary.
God bless.
Rape apologist.
Nowadays there are those who are called rapists of animals because they consume their milk and eggs. Substantiate your claims.
>Yes there is it's the development of conscience/sentiene.
>development
Development is gradual, it implies there is no hard break. Infants are still not much more sentient than animals and the mentally impaired aren't.
It is the same organism. There is not even a metamorphosis, not even a wrapping into a cocoon and becoming a butterfly.
> Substantiate your claims.
The logical conclusion to the idea that life must be created is that everyone must be raped in order to create as much life as possible.
Ah, well. I stated life "should" be created, not "must" be created. See:
>Life, if so valuable, should be created, not just served.
And even with an obligation to procreate, there is no need to rape as long as there are people who enter consensual relationships and procreate, which will with little doubt always be the case because humans are so inclined and there is nothing saying we must meet a maximal quota for the sake of quantity, but it should be common sense that human life should generally continue as far as possible and not be unnecessarily prevented when already in the making, which the abortionist view contradicts.
Women who have abortions statistically have the same number of children as people who don't. There's no worry about abortion leading to a lack of people lol
The original argument in my post was moral in nature, the categorical imperative to have children contradicting the right to abortion, not the practical statistical results.
>categorical imperative
we're talking about real morality, not make believe
Go home ~~*Ayn Rand*~~, you're drunk.
On second thought:
1. Source?
2. I doubt.
3. If so, all those abortions are still humans.
4. If so, fertility rates in developed nations could be positive if abortions were instead live births, so there is quite a worry about lack of people there.
5. Abortion is currently spreading across the third world and once that finished, it is going to collapse global fertility.
All processes are gradual; you can still tell if that process has met certain benchmarks or not
> Infants are still not much more sentient than animals and the mentally impaired aren't.
Infants and the mentally deficient are ignorant, the former because they have not given the chance to learn, the latter because they are unable to communicate with normal people. This doesn't mean that either of them is stupid, lacks self awareness, or realizes that they exist.
The only people you can really make this claim for is people who are literally born with just a brainstem and nothing else, and can't even feed themselves propperly. And I feel far more dispair that they had to be born that way, then I do when they die.
>All processes are gradual; you can still tell if that process has met certain benchmarks or not
The original point was not to be made about "benchmarks", but a hard break (that warrants the right to life or not) and whether there was any.
The fact that you admit that benchmark exists and that this thing is a gradual process/development, means you concede thatundoubtedly the fetus and the 100-year old are the identical organism, human being. Any hard break is arbitrary and waters down what it means to be human. Following the logic of abortion, we could legalize negligence of infants, as after all, they cannot feed themselves. With all other arbitrary breaks we admit the following: That they are truly not perfect, a year more or less may still work for some, but we have to start somewhere and besides we always leave some basic rights intact. This includes age of consent, voting age, driving age, religious maturity, drinking age, draft age etc.
But for abortion? It has to be this ONE hard break that decides over life and death. Don't kid yourself, this is ridiculous. It denies the gradual reality you and I just acknowledged.
>Infants and the mentally deficient
Infants develop self-awareness around 18 months and the mentally deficient, likely much later in life, if at all.
>The only people you can really make this claim for is people who are literally born with just a brainstem and nothing else, and can't even feed themselves propperly. And I feel far more dispair that they had to be born that way, then I do when they die.
This is not a matter to be decided by feelings, but reality.
>There is no hard break between the fertilized egg and the 100-year old
Yes there is it's the development of conscience/sentiene.
I'm baffled by the cucked IQfy right-wingers. They claim that “hierarchy is natural”, that “people are not equal”, that “some deserve more than others”, and so on. But when you put their claims to the test, they're all nonsense. Explain why the life of a parasitic Fetus mcHeartbeat is equal to that of a real person who contributes to society and helps build civilization. If you ask me, it's a bunch of leftist nonsense. If abortion is murder, then it should count as 0.1% of the actual murder of an adult.
The concept of hierarchy assumes that some lives are more valuable to society than others. If you can't see that and believe EvErYoNe Is EqUal, you should stop LARPing and stop talking about forced equality, racial quotas, and trans rights. A fetus is a human being as well, but pretending that his life is as valuable as a real human life is the pinnacle of PILPUT and israeli subversion. You can't have a hierarchy if you believe the absurd notion that every insignificant micro-person is worth the same as the perfect Übermensch. Abortion is wrong, but it is wrong on the level of littering and the like, not on the level of killing a president in cold blood, so stop pretending otherwise.
>They claim that “hierarchy is natural”, that “people are not equal”, that “some deserve more than others”, and so on.
Sounds like an irrelevant strawman that has nothing to do with this. What if I don't believe one or more of those things, but still oppose abortion?
I happen to believe that all lives have value. If the abortionists could kill me for getting in their way, they would. They are fine with pushing the abortion line past birth and killing off anyone they want to as "undesirables." They are trying to make this a reality as much as they can. And that's what's really different between me, and the other position. They claim to be compassionate, but in reality, they are the cold-blooded killers. This is all because they are fundamentally dishonest in their approach to everything. If possible, in another set of circumstances, the abortionist would kill many people who they could mark as undesirable, if they could get away with doing this. That's exactly the kind of world they want to create.
>The concept of hierarchy assumes that some lives are more valuable to society than others.
Have you ever heard of different roles before? Two people can be valued as individual people in their respective roles. In fact that's what we've done, when it comes to people who aren't secretly cold-blooded killers such as the abortionist.
>you should stop LARPing and stop talking about forced equality
The Constitution forces the government to treat people equal - this, and only this, is the right approach.
>A fetus is a human being as well, but pretending that his life is as valuable as a real human life is the pinnacle of PILPUT and israeli subversion.
Now you've lost me. See pic attached.
Why do you write so much when you only needed a sentence to make your point. Seriously obnoxious. To your point, the sort of women who get abortions are usually a net drain on society. A baby has the potential to be better than that.
You don't need to be baffled. No, the people on the website where people get together on the gif board to laugh at innocent people getting "rekt" does not truly care about aborted babies. What they actually care about is restricting women's rights. They want to punish women for having casual sex. Most of them are simply upset that women are not having casual sex with them. Once you understand this, it all makes sense.
on one hand murder is a legal term, so if abortion is legal its not murder in the legal sense
on the other hand, murder is also a moral term, but morality is subjective...so if you dont believe abortion is immoral, then its not murder in the moral sense
QED op is a moron and abortion is fine get over it
abortion is murder and so is contraception.
but you really wouldn't know about that one, would you, OP?
contraception isn't always murder
contraception isn't murder when it prevents conception, when it stops sperm from getting into the egg
contraception is murder when it stops the fertilized egg from growing in the womb
so, condoms are an example of the first one, pills are an example of the second one.
That's just morning-after pills rather than pills in general as I understand it.
That's an extremely late term and pretty much only takes place in the case of miscarriage, which nobody has a fricking choice over.
Don't force children upon the mentally moronic, and don't mourn the loss of these peoples "children" when it is their own choice.
Give birth to your own healthy offspring, shut up, and prosper.
soon
because sex is fun, how can murder be fun r-right?