Why does killing a pregnant woman get you a double murder charge, but abortion is perfectly fine?

Why does killing a pregnant woman get you a double murder charge, but abortion is perfectly fine?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Jewish zeitgeist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy

because apparently she is the only one allowed to kill her baby. kind of how suicide isn't murder. it's retarded, but that's their logic.

If an invader enter your home you're allowed to shoot him in self defense, or you can choose to welcome him as a guest, yet if somebody across the street shoots a rocket launcher toward your house and kills both you and the intruder then it's a double murder.

Is this the leafiest of leaf posts in leaf history?

>Why does killing a pregnant woman get you a double murder charge,
It doesn't in most states. Only in the red states where the fetus in at a stage where it is viable (can be born)

Abortion is not murder in any state.

Because if you aren't cool with baby-murder, you're an oppressive misogynist shitlord who just wants to keep your boot on the necks of women. How dare you imply they should be held to responsible for their actions.

That's at least what I've gathered every time I've raise that point.

>because apparently she is the only one allowed to kill her baby.
killing babies is illegal
>I didn't mean babies, I meant fetuses.
>I didn't mean killing, I meant terminating
Wew lad, for a minute there we were gonna have to call you out for being a liar and such.

>kind of how suicide isn't murder.
non-sequitur

>I'm retarded, but that's my logic.
The real problem is that you cannot possibly articulate abortion in any recognizable rational terms. You are reduced to distortions, mischaracterizations, lies, emotional pleas and other fallacies. That's why all your arguments fail 100% of the time.

I used to be anti abortion, but I realized that only shit tier humans get non emergent abortions. I'd prefer those genetics to be wiped from the earth.

I myself am not pro-life. I'm pro-eugenics and euthanasia, because I want the people fucked up enough to abort outside of extreme circumstances to be prevented from breeding.

terminate yourself :)

>baby-murder
Not a baby until it is born
Not a murder until it is a living being

Don't you ever grow tired of being insanely ignorant? Serious question.

For real though, suicide isn't murder because you are consciously deciding to terminate your own life, something you personally own. Abortion is taking life away from someone else, which is not your decision.

I'm going to assume you yourself are ignorant, and for that reason, I'm not going to be hostile because I want to help. I have a serious question before I go further: Have you ever spent a long period of time around someone pregnant?

Clearly a womyn, don't bother.

One is done with permission and is controlled while the other one isn't.

>Abortion is taking life away from someone else,
They are not "someone" until they are born.
Everyone has a birthday
A fetus does not.

>Have you ever spent a long period of time around someone pregnant?
Oh great another emotion argument devoid of any rationality.

To answer your question yes, she miscarried twice and had a baby girl on the third go-round.

She tried to commit suicide after piece of human shit protesters accosted her outside of Planned Parenthood when she got an amniocentesis.

Now it is my life long mission to shove your nose into the shit you shit eaters fling at others and make you explain yourselves, but I realize to my very core that you are all nothing more than worthless buckets of steaming shit and nothing you can say will ever be enough.

Because the murdered mother wanted to keep her baby

Because it's based on the false premise of consent differentiating between murder and abortion.
Consent is not real or a valid basis for forming laws.

>I've got no rational argument either
Yea, that's what I thought.

>Abortion is taking life away from someone else, which is not your decision.
Honestly answer - how many people do you see in the photo?

Damn, someone's triggered.

>Because it's based on the false premise of consent differentiating between murder and abortion.
I don't know what Cracker Jack box you got your (cough) law degree from counselor, but a non-viable fetus is not considered "alive" in any state because life does not begin -at conception-.

>4 boobs
wew lad

Alright, you're genuinely retarded. I'm not going to play soft with you, then. It's not an emotion based argument, it's a logic based argument, and for this reason:

At a certain point, the unborn entity inside the womb develops sentience, which is demonstrated around the point of the second trimester, in my experience. This is mostly because they develop the traits to do things that demonstrate slight communication, kicks and such. Fluttering in response to pleasant or unpleasant stimuli is a good example of this. Just as well, in some cases of premature birth around the third trimester, the unborn saves itself through forcing bodily reactions in the mother, say using force to break her water when the child is at risk of suffocation. In any case, the creature demonstrates sentience, as well as develops personal tastes with regards to likes and dislikes, and even in the womb -- they develop implicit memories.

That said, roll with me on this logic. What determines life? The unborn has not developed enough to be properly birthed yet, though it demonstrates sentience, instincts, and personality, alongside basic biological functions. If we are to say the unborn is not living despite having these traits, we could make the case that animals are not living beings, and that babies for the first two and a half years are not living beings either.

The only thing you use to legitimize its life is birth, but that is not legitimate as a gauge. It demonstrates primitive humanity long before it is born. I'm not arguing that a cluster of cells is human, but when it begins to develop that primal sentience and starts to form a personality, it is life on the scale of a creature rather than a parasite, bacteria, or cluster of cells. This is because observable traits we attribute to life are present in the unborn. This is plain and simple fact.

>Damn, someone's triggered.
Yes, it because hormonal adolescents like parrot the kewl kids and take stands on issues without having any real life consequences.

If you have a rational argument to radically move the goalposts of life from birth to somewhere else, I'd like to hear it.

If you're just shitposting for kicks, I'll rip you to shreds.

Deal?

So according to you killing a woman's fetus or child in the womb would not be considered taking a human life?
In your world view when does someone pass from being non human and non living into being human and living, and on what basis to you believe that?

The whole argument presented that pro-lifers are "pieces of shit" is in itself, an emotional argument. The whole idea that pro-life sentiments is "taking stances without consequences" is in itself a fallacious argument. Because we can see these observable traits that signify primitive, but surely sentient life in the unborn when they develop the means to signal, pro-choice is arguing a platform that will have the consequence of killing sentient life that had the potential to be meaningful. Neither side avoids consequences for their actions, it is just that one is proposing what is, at the end of the day, the murder of living humanoids because the mother found them to be an inconvenience; while the other is proposing that mothers should be forced to allow the humanoid a chance at making something of their lives before they are unwillingly taken away, which as an unfortunate byproduct means: "You have to face the consequences of your sexual decisions." Neither has a particularly happy ending, and there will always be blood on someone's hands.

Once a fetus is capable if being born, then it is ready to become alive.

>At a certain point, the unborn
Logic fail #1: >Why do you say unborn? Is that like an unhatched egg? Uncooked omelet? Unborn senior citizen? That's presupposing that the born state is already assumed. I can tell you that with miscarriage, the born state cannot be logically assumed.

>entity inside the womb develops sentience
Logic fail #2: Sentience has a subjective definition. It cannot be used in terms of objective reasoning. The difference between lizard-brain (response-stimuli) and sentience (pain cognition) only happens at the end of gestation, ie viable or able to be born.

>demonstrate slight communication, kicks and such
Logic fail #3: You are referring to the lizard brain respond-stimuli. There is no conscious communication, unless you are prepared to prove this conclusively with evidence and not more argle-bargle.

> Fluttering in response to pleasant or unpleasant stimuli is a good example of this.
Logic fail #4: You are the magic fetus-whisperer who can read the mind of the fetus? Wew, I've never read such raw stupidity in a long time. Thanks for that laugh.

> In any case, the creature demonstrates sentience
Logic fail #5: Only in the last few weeks as you very specifically say, when the fetus could be born.

> and personality, alongside basic biological functions.
Logic fail #6: Like breathing eating and shitting? the fetus does none of that itself. Sorry, but the neurological self-delusion of projecting personality is called personification.

> If we are to say the unborn is not living
Logic fail #6: The unborn what? Do you seriously walk into a grocery store and ask for a carton of unborn chickens? Are you really that raging retarded? It is already well established that the fetus is living human tissue. It just does not become it own being until it is born.

continued

>She tried to commit suicide after piece of human shit protesters accosted her outside of Planned Parenthood when she got an amniocentesis.

What kind of weak minded whore did you stick your dick in that would get depressed over this?

women are so privileged that a life is only valuable if they deem it so. women are tyrannial, in bed with the government, fighting against reason and logic.

...continued

>The only thing you use to legitimize its life is birth, but that is not legitimate as a gauge.
Logic fail #7: The "miracle of birth" has been the absolute standard for ten thousand years. It is our history, language, science, culture religion and law since antiquity.

>It demonstrates primitive humanity long before it is born.
Logic fail #8: If you are claiming a radically new starting point of new human life, then the burden is squarely on you to prove it.

>This is because observable traits we attribute to life are present in the unborn.
Logic fail #9: Only at the point where the fetus is viable, and that is where all our conventions and disciplines agree life begins: Birth

Well probably because killing is not the same as murdering
So suicide of mother counts as 2 deaths and killing a pregnant woman illegally is double murder
If you legally kill the pregnant women it is neither

>So according to you killing a woman's fetus or child in the womb would not be considered taking a human life?
Not until the fetus is viable at the end of gestation.

On what basis does a fetus cease being non human and non living simply because it has entered into the end of gestation? Simply because it is viable? When you say viable what do you mean?

I'm going to just go ahead and guess you're a troll at this point. Aside from the unironic use of the term fail, your first hole to poke into my argument is "unborn", when you yourself referred to them as the unborn. A fetus is temporary, a zygote is temporary. There is no one stage the unborn child remains in, and any other term would rustle your jimmies. Babies/children/humans are considered invalid to you, so addressing it as an unborn entity is the best I could do with your nitpicking.

Just as well, all this shit about basic, animalistic responses does not defuse the idea that the unborn have primitive, but living minds. You also suggest that there is projection in personality in regards to their responses, but these responses carry over into implicit memories and behaviors in babies and toddlers, which only goes on to add credibility to the idea that the only thing separating them from the unborn is the presence of a date of being ejected from the womb, since it -- again -- carries over.

>ad hominems
>magic fetus whisperer
Nice deflection of the arguments, cunt.

>the creature demonstrates sentience
>only in the last few weeks
Nope. Second trimester onward at the very least. I've noticed the pattern.

>the miracle of birth has been the standard for ten thousand years
The same standard of "muh antiquity" that led to the myth of the all-powerful sky-daddy telling us what we can and cannot do? Sorry, I'd rather stick to science and objective analysis of contemporary knowledge.

Continued...

murder
[mur-der]
noun
Law.the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

A pregnant woman commits suicide and that 2 killings herself and the baby, 3 if there are twins, etc
To determine if its double murder it depends wheter if abortion is considered murder in the legislation of the event

>In your world view when does someone pass from being non human into being human
This is a strawman. Did I make the claim that the fetus in non-human? Submit your imaginary proof or apologize for being such a flaming dumbass.
Apology accepted.


>and non living into being living, and on what basis to you believe that?
All the hundreds of significant and distinct biological changes that occur when the woman's egg finally hatches. the transition of the fetus from the submerged amniotic sac with it's heart connected to the placenta, suddenly to an environment where its lungs operate on its own and it is no longer attached physically to the woman. When it becomes its own being and is alive on its own

>ywn be the SEETHING roastie toastie pink id itt getting btfo
Feels good nigga

>I'm going to just go ahead and guess you're a troll at this point.
I'm quite certain you're just a piece of random dogshit I've accidentally stepped in and I'm going to scrape you off my shoe now
Buh bye.

>if you are claiming a radically new starting point of new human life it is on you to prove it
This is why I bring up the personal experience of observing a pregnant woman throughout all three terms and early childhood post-delivery. They are capable of demonstrating characteristics of primitive, animalistic life and thought that are implicitly carried over in infancy and later childhood. The fact that they are still growing/gestating does not invalidate their lives.

>Only at the point where the fetus is viable, and that is where all of "our" conventions and disciplines agree life begins: Birth
Collectivist reasoning and the projection of your own beliefs onto others. You'd argue for it to be considered not-murder if a baby was aborted within a week of the point where the water could break. There's a reason there are people who are against abortion after the first term, or even the first two weeks, and why some people that are pro-choice eventually go pro-life after getting an abortion or working at an abortion clinic. See the star of the show with regards to the precious "Roe vs. Wade" case liberals worry about so much.

>Or apologize -- apology accepted, no time for a refutation because fuck you, that's why.
Aren't you a mature one? I like that. There's so few people these days willing to be mature and civil in a discussion on a hot-button issue. Your whole argument this time has amounted to invalid life and subversion of the concept of sentience, a universal concept of life. Your argument is based on dehumanization and a distinction between what makes someone a legitimate, living human. Review your old posts, please.

Oh, nice try sweetie. We'll get you to argue with reason, yet! I know you can do it! I believe in you!

Well it was assumed that you don't believe a fetus is human because you claim that it is not wrong to forcefully cause its life to cease, or in other words kill it. Is it your belief that it is permissible to kill a fetus on the mere basis that it is not viable outside of the uterus? What quality does a human require to spare it from death in your opinion?

>Aside from the unironic use of the term fail, your first hole to poke into my argument is "unborn",
You unironically rely on this misleading euphemism because you apparently can't muster a rational argument.

> There is no one stage the unborn child
"There is no one stage the unborn senior citizen"
See what a retard you are?

>Babies/children/humans are considered invalid to you
You're reduced to lies now? Typical.

>the unborn have primitive, but living minds.
Lizard brain. I thought we covered that. It's kind of amazing to meet someone who is still trapped in their lizard brain.

> but these responses carry over into implicit memories and behaviors in babies and toddlers, Only at the stage when they are ready to be born. When they are ready to be born, then they are viable. 26 weeks maybe, but not a whit before then.

PS: 26 weeks is NOT when abortions happen.

>Nice deflection of the arguments
You started it.

> Second trimester onward at the very least.
I call bullshit. Prove a 2nd trimester fetus can dance to Mozart or admit you were lying, you silly git.

>I'd rather stick to science and objective analysis of contemporary knowledge.
Yet you cling to sheer voodoo to move the goalposts? Interesting cognitive dissonance.

>See what a retard you are?
No, I only see what a retard you are, since you clearly missed the sentence that came before that elaborates on that train of thought and why there is no proper terminology with you.

>You're reduced to lies now?
Your previous posts disagree with you.

>It's kind of amazing to meet someone who is still trapped in their lizard brain.
Isn't it? You're a fascinating subject and I will cherish the case study you've provided me. I don't think you realize how much I appreciate this.

>Only at the stage when they are ready to be born. When they are ready to be born, then they are viable. 26 weeks maybe, but not a whit before then. PS: 26 weeks is not when abortions happen.
So no argument, then?

>You started it (the deflection of arguments)
Look to my first post where I said I was going to assume ignorance on your part and kindly try to walk you through why others do not see eye to eye with you, then look to your first response. Your former posts disagree with you.

>Prove a 2nd trimester fetus can dance to Mozart or admit you were lying, you silly git
Mozart is quite specific, but if I were to provide alternative anecdotal evidence of my brother and my nephew squirming about and fluttering in response to music, you'd probably dismiss it, as you've been doing.

>Yet you cling to sheer voodoo to move the goalposts?
I haven't moved goalposts, and for someone talking about voodoo, you sure do seem to have this idea about a 10,000 year standard being valid in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the extreme position that only birth validates life.

>This is why I bring up the personal experience of observing a pregnant woman
They are capable of demonstrating characteristics of primitive, animalistic life
The pregnant women you've observed? Jesus fucking Christ you've been kicked out of a lot of relationships for "no apparent reason" haven't you?

>The fact that they are still growing/gestating does not invalidate their lives.
Its "life" begins when it's viable. I know you can't admit that but you know it is true. You are literally telling me it is.

> You'd argue for it to be considered not-murder
I don't have to. It's really, legally, technically, biologically, linguistically, sociologically, culturally not"murder".

>and why some people that are pro-choice eventually go pro-life after getting an abortion or working at an abortion clinic
I'm sure that's all very emotional and subjective. Which is all you've got.

Let's hear your rational arguments. The first round only proved you're not very rational.


>Your argument is based on dehumanization
You argument is only based on personifying something that has no personality. no wait, you we going to prove that with something besides irrational claims. No wait, you didn't have any evidence.

Your move, hotshot.

>Well it was assumed that you don't believe a fetus is human
You and your strawman assumed wrong.

Next?

>my nephew squirming about and fluttering in response to music, you'd probably dismiss it, as you've been doing.
Are you objective enough to understand that you might be reading into the fetal movements something you'd really really like to believe?

> a 10,000 year standard being valid in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary
the ten thousand year eivdence is the miracle of birth. How old are you? Count back to the day you were born. What day do we celebrate every year? the day your parents fucked? No, the day you were born.

I challenge you to give us conclusive proof that fertilization day is the time-honored standard.

(Epic Fail in 3...2...1...)

Your logic is completely faulty. You have contradicted your self so many times. Your entire argument is based on dehumanizing a fetus, while still claiming that it is human, but not really because it lacks viability, and that somehow invalidates its right to not be killed. You still haven't explained why viability magically transforms a lifeless mass of cells into a human being worthy of rights.
Basically your a dumb bitch that needs to be smacked around a little bit.

>The pregnant women you've observed? Jesus fucking Christ you've been kicked out of a lot of relationships for "no apparent reason" haven't you?

I'm certain 's characterization of you as a seething roastie is accurate. Not only is this not an argument and a deflection of the point, but all that is is you saying: "I don't like how you worded this."

>You are literally telling me it is
Viability to you is birth. Their continued growth is your only reasoning for this. Again, you could argue that without the aspect of birth, infants, toddlers, and children are invalid for the fact that they are still developing.

>I don't have to.
So, I'm right, then?

>I'm sure that's all very emotional and subjective which is all you've got.
Honey, you don't need to criticize yourself like that. You're doing fine.

>No wait, you didn't have any evidence.
Where's yours? You want to talk about the burden of proof, yet you provide no evidence to invalidate my claims. Even most pro-choice people would argue against many of the points you've raised in debating me.

>Your move, hotshot.
Ladies first.

>You and your strawman assumed wrong
You say we're assuming, but you're confirming most of this indirectly.

>Are you objective enough to understand that you might be reading into the fetal movements something you'd really really like to believe?
Are you objective enough to understand that you might be reading into the concept of birthdays something you'd really like to believe in order to avenge your friend who suffered miscarriages and got verbally abused by hardcore pro-lifers?

>What day do we celebrate every year?
The day of your birth, and every consecutive year you've survived after that. It's a celebration of your success in continuing your existence.

>I challenge you to give us conclusive proof that fertilization day is the time-honored standard.
See above. And many have proposed that if we can pin-point conception, we ought to celebrate that as well, some big names like Tolkien.

>Epic Fail in...
It's afraid...

> Your logic is completely faulty.
No it isn't, your is.

>You have contradicted your self so many times.
Nope.

>Your entire argument is based on dehumanizing a fetus
No, that was you falsifying my argument because you didn't have a rational response

>while still claiming that it is human, but not really because it lacks viability,
If it is a human fetus it is human.
Once it's born it's a human being

Now that you have my real arguments rather than the ones you just imagined, you may resume your feeble-minded attacks.


>You still haven't explained why viability magically transforms a lifeless
Didn't say lifeless. I said the fetus is living tissue. Are you sure you're responding to the correct poster?

>mass of cells into a human being worthy of rights.
We confer full personhood on a fetus when it is born. That's been the tradition for thousands of years. Why are you radically trying to change that?

>Basically your a dumb bitch that needs to be smacked around a little bit.
Still not a single rational argument, but now threatening violence out of frustration that all your specious arguments failed. Well played.

>and that somehow invalidates its right to not be killed.
What is not alive cannot be killed.
What is the linguistic term for a fetus that does not become alive when it is born?

Stillborn.

Not murderedborn. Not deadborn. Not killedborn.

Do you still fail to grasp the deficiency with your claims? Or do you insist the beatings continue?

... Oh shit. It just occurred to me. This explains so much... there was never a friend, was there, CSRfWkQC? You were the friend...

WHAT THE FUCK.

HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?

Because law and crime are social construct.

>Didn't say lifeless. I said the fetus is living tissue
>What is not alive cannot be killed.
Wow really gets the old noggin sizzling.
While your here please show us your tits.

That explains why you're so hellbent on de-legitimizing the life of an unborn human. You lost your chance to be a mother twice, and couldn't bear the idea of it happening again.

CSRfWkQC, you don't need to be afraid. I'm sure your children would've loved you, and you would've been a damn fine mother if they made it. You still have a chance, you know... you don't need to be afraid of having your young stolen from you by the cruelest force of nature. It doesn't have to end like this. There's still hope for you.

>Again, you could argue that without the aspect of birth, infants, toddlers, and children are invalid for the fact that they are still developing.
No, I don't. Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. You lose again.

>You want to talk about the burden of proof,
Sure. I have 10,000 years of law, language, religion science, culture and tradition. You have conjecture and misogyny.

>n order to avenge your friend who suffered miscarriages and got verbally abused by hardcore pro-lifers?
My wife was emotionally scarred by her miscarriages. She was vulnerable. There is virtually zero difference between the fuckwits who abused her and the fuckwits on this board abusing me.

I am not quite like her. And if you cannot explain your argument in rational terms you will fall like all the rest of them.

>My "wife"
>You fuckwits on this board are "abusing" me

Let it out... you're safe here. You don't need to be afraid.

Abortion is killing(no rational person denies this), so, the only difference here it's legalized.

>Misogyny
Well, it was a good argument while it lasted, but the first of the leftist buzzwords has been thrown. It can only go downhill from here.

>de-legitimizing the life of an unborn human.
What are you claiming is the legitimized life of an unborn senior?

>CSRfWkQC, you don't need to be afraid.
Fear is something I rarely experience. I used to be an adrenaline junkie. Then I burned up all the fear chemicals in my brain a long time ago with coke and meth. But I still feel the need to protect the victims of brutality.

I asked you for proof and all you deliver is poof.

>Abortion is killing(no rational person denies this),
Abortion is not killing or it would be illegal. No irrational person can come up with a single rational argument why.

>the leftist buzzwords has been thrown.
You don't have to be rational because [squirrel]
Well aren't you a special snowflake.

>FEAR IS SOMETHING I RARELY EXPERIENCE. I USED TO BE AN ADRENALINE JUNKIE, THEN I BURNED UP ALL THE FEAR CHEMICALS IN MY BRAIN ALONG TIME AGO!

Pic related.

>I did a lot of coke and meth
And you wonder why your "wife" miscarried, you absolute degenerate?

>"I still need to protect the victims of brutality!"
Same, that's why I'm making the case for pro-lifers.

>Then I burned up all the fear chemicals in my brain a long time ago with coke and meth.
HHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA A FUCKING CRACK HEAD!!!
But for real I want to see those mammaries.
Come on show us those titties.

Really fires the neurons.

replying to leafs, definitely a woman.

Alright, fine. I'll explain my reasoning behind the comment.

This ENTIRE discussion has been about the child's right to life, and you bring out the word that means "hatred of women", without the conversation ONCE being about women. You threw out a buzzword in an attempt to denigrate your foe, rather than use a word that fit.

And don't fire back with "oh, its misogynist BECAUSE they didn't talk about women", because that's an aspect of the conversation that hasn't been addressed yet, since there is still a fierce contention on whether or not a fetus deserves to live.

Buzzwords are bad, and only hurt your argument. Stop it.

>And you wonder why your "wife" miscarried, you absolute degenerate?
That could be. She was never into drugs. But my test was good swimmers and lots of them.

>good swimmers and lots of them
>miscarried those same swimmers

>This ENTIRE discussion has been about the child's right to life,
No, a child already has a right to life. We laugh at you because you are incapable of distinguishing between a born being and a not born fetus.

We're talking about the personhood of a fetus that is living but not yet a living being.

>you bring out the word that means "hatred of women"
You deny that punishing women for being "whores" was never mentioned in this thread? Denial.

>there is still a fierce contention on whether or not a fetus deserves to live.
No, there is no discussion of deserving/not deserving to live. That can only happen after birth.

>"We"
It seems like you're only speaking for yourself, crackhead-sama.

>You deny that punishing women for being "whores" was never mentioned in this thread?
In other threads on this subject, that absolutely happened. I've been zeroed in on our chit-chat, but the closest "punishment for being a whore" came from me saying that one is the consequence of being forced to carry to term because you're responsible for its conception on one hand, versus killing sentient life because of it being an inconvenience on the other, in reference to the extreme, dehumanizing view from both sides.

>No, there is no discussion of deserving/not deserving to live. That can only happen after birth.
Are you sure you aren't still doing a bit of the ole snort and wheeze to cope with the loss of your would-be children?

I think I'm starting to really understand that the pro-lifers are shitty to women in general and the pro-choicers are just defending women's rights.

...

Because the woman's choice determinates the importance if the fetus

See Point 2 specifically. I have been zeroed in on the conversation between you and ivQBvuu, because the miniature spats between you and random users were, honestly, not worth keeping track of.

>versus killing sentient life
You failed to prove that was even a thing before 26 weeks - the age a preemie can be "born"

>because of it being an inconvenience on the other
Who are you to judge? When I exercise my right to barbecue, your opinion of my exercising of that right is useless and meaningless.

When a woman exercises her natural and inalienable right to decide - for herself - if she will bear a child or not, your opinion is once again irrelevant, insignificant and meaningless.

>No, a child already has a right to life.
>right to life.
There is no such thing. If it existed you would not be killing million of Arabs on Middle East (directly and indirectly). Society can kill whoever they like and it would lawful, legal and moral.

>Because the woman's choice

And you want to take that choice away from her? Why?

>When a woman exercises her natural and inalienable right to decide - for herself - if she will bear a child or not
Where is this "right" derived from? Your obnoxious worldview reeks of Atheism and tactical moral relativism. From whence are human rights derived at all?

>Where is this "right" derived from?
From democratic procedure of voting.

Because George Bush was one of those white knight cuckservatives

Also, because white "men" are way to permissive of their women, so they let women take advantage of them with bullshit double standards

>Killing unborn human babies because I got impregnated by Chad despite all possible options available to prevent/counteract conception and I really don't want to deal with the responsibility is a human right
>btw I'm a former hard-drug user that talks tough on teh 4chinz and you guys are goddamn misogynists that want to oppress women by taking away their right to kill off children when they irresponsibly fuck

Wew, and people wonder why this board is full of literal Nazis and aspiring Pinochets. You fuckers are the lowest of the low, to a South Park level of exaggeration with regards to selfishness, hedonism, and general degeneracy. I do take pity on your alleged wife, but there's a reason that eugenics were a great idea.

If you kill some woman in the first place, does
it really matter whether she was pregnant or
otherwise? At least so far as sentence/prison
duration is concerned.

>Where is this "right" derived from?
Women bear children. That's seems pretty simple.
>Your obnoxious worldview reeks of Atheism and tactical moral relativism
So you can argue against "Atheism and tactical moral relativism" and you want to change the subject to something you can argue against, but you can't argue against women having their own rights? Uh, this is the current year. Women are real people now.

Then they are false values. If human rights were dependent on popular consent they would not be eternal and would be subject to constant flux and change, and therefore not objectively true. If human rights are based on popular consent there is absolutely no reason an individual would have to consent to accepting them at all. Democracy is not a valid basis for human rights.

>There is no such thing.
Says the guy whose country targeted schools and hospitals to kill thousands of children in Syria.

Thanks but no thanks, Ivan

It's called the pussy pass. Women are innocent darlings who can do no wrong. It's men's job to clean up their messes.

This is not an argument. Simply because women carry children does not necessarily guarantee them the eternal right to abortion or any other rights.
If humans have any rights where do they come from? Maybe from above....

Lol at all the pro abortion feminists in here actually believing that passing through a through some pussy lips grants you 'life'. Pol fell for the fetus jew

>Killing unborn human babies
Unborn babies? You must be new.

>because I got impregnated by Chad despite all possible options available to prevent/counteract conception
Roman Catholic countries are prohibited from using birth control, Chad. There literally are no options. But in your country - the country with the absolute highest number of abortions per capita - there is free birth control.

Sound like you have serious degeneracy problem, Russbro.

>unborn babies
>babies aren't real unless they're born
>stop saying unborn, you autist
Desperation, the chain-post.

>Roman Catholic countries...
I'm not a Catholic, and I care about Burgerland. I bleed, nut, and sweat red, white, and blue, and your "MUH CATHOLICISM" does not apply here.

>Implying Chad
Kek

>Russbro
Da.

>they would not be eternal and would be subject to constant flux and change
And they do. See negro trade and witch burning in the US.

>If human rights are based on popular consent there is absolutely no reason an individual would have to consent to accepting them at all.
Individual consent is not required.

>This is not an argument.
It is in any enlightened society. Women have the same rights as men, and because they bear children, they have additional rights. We can't expect the niggers to understand it, so don't even try.
>Simply because women carry children does not necessarily guarantee them the eternal right to abortion or any other rights.
These are natural rights that we even project on animals. No good shepherd has to put up with a rams impregnating the sheep before winter, the lambs will die in the snow.

She injected a marijuana while pregnant

>babies aren't real unless they're born
Why would you say such a thing?

>stop saying unborn, you autist
You started it, but the brain damage goes deep, doesn't it? Seriously if you had a valid rational argument, you could argue it with out the euphemisms and emotional pleas.

>Sorry, I got nothing
Saw that coming.

Because goobermint

Are you familiar with Immanuel Kant and John Locke?
Kant say women have self-determination. Locke says we are all the masters of our own destiny. I don't understand how you can think bearing children wouldn't be part of that process.

>Why would you say such a thing?
>You started it

You see, children. This is what a beaten crackhead looks like. They don't know how to argue from here, and resort to trying to flip their own retardation around and go "lul ur dum"

>Sorry, I got nothing.
Didn't say that.

>If humans have any rights where do they come from?
We are born with them.