Listen up pro-life supporters

A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother's body, unlike born human beings. Even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use somebody else's body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else's life. The "right to life" also doesn't imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

So, I got banned for 48 hours from Sup Forums for "spamming/reposting"at the exact time I downloaded the picture of the Oprah Winfrey or whatever. This might be my 10th post ever made and I've been a lurker since 05. Haven't posted since the election. What the actual fuck?

by your logic pic related has no right to live because he can't survive on his own

He doesn't have a right to live, though.

> the "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use somebody else's body

Getting pregnant is giving permission, why would she take the steps to start a life just end it?
Abortion is like breaking eggs, mixing it with yeast, flour, and milk. Putting it in the oven and deciding that you don't want cake.

That's something different. This person in your example is dependent on a machine, not another human being. Machines don't have rights but women do believe it or not.

Children under 5 cannot survive on their own. Should they be eligible for abortion as well?

You're asserting that giving birth is the "responsible" choice in the event of a pregnancy, but that's just your opinion. I'd argue that if a mother knows she won't be able to provide for her child, it's actually more responsible to have an abortion, and in doing so prevent a whole lot of undue suffering and misery.

But let's look at this argument a bit further. If you think getting an abortion is "avoiding responsibility," that implies that it's a woman's responsibility to bear a child if she chooses to have sex. That sounds suspiciously like you're dictating what a woman's role and purpose is, and a lot less like you're making an argument about the life of a child.

Women rarely die in pregnancy due to advanced health care however abortion does kill unborn children

>dependent on a machine and not another machine
Shit bait faggot

If a mother knows she can't provide for the child then why did'nt she use condoms like every responsible human being.

Fetus is a human being. It has rights, even when it is not a person. Even a dog has some rights.
It was her choice to get pregnant. It shouldn't be her choice to kill a human.
A woman should control her body, of course!
But a fetus is not her body! It is in it.

You don't ask a pregnant woman: "How is you body?", you ask her "How is the baby?".

When even the Jews are on our side, you know you're going down: youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs

Not everyone has easy access to contraception, nor does everyone have a good enough sex education class to know how to use it or where to obtain it.

Most people value a fully developed adult person's life over an unborn fetus.

Abortion is fine, but squatters rights mean they should have at least 9 months notice.

Unless they are stupid, they would know that unprotected intercourse leads to babies or STDs. It does'nt require sex ed to know that much.

do you have a peer reviewed study to support that sensational claim that most people value a fully developed adult person's life over an unborn fetus?

Hey man how would you feel if a stranger was trespassing in your own house and living there for 9 months? That's how pregnancy feels to women. We as men can't really imagine how stressful that can be.

you want to sterilise poor people?

>doesn't know about birth control or how you get pregnant
>knows about free abortion clinic

They choose to have sex, therefore the responsibility of potential children is on them. Even prostitutes are smart enough to ask their clients to use a condom.

Pregnancy is an implicit contract between the new life being brought in and the mother creating that new life. Abortion is a violation of that contract.

If you go the hospital and sign up for some sort of treatment and then they kick you out because you're costing them too much money, and subsequently die, then the hospital is at fault for violating the contract.

If I stab a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill her baby and she lives, should I not be charged with murder?

a woman's body is not her personal property, it belongs to nature, and nature dictates that if you are an irresponsible slut who can't resist the dick you will get pregnant.

/thread

>Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother.

So that should be the only reason allowed for abortion then, no?

I have a 7 months child, it can't survive on it's own either. Are you claiming that a woman would have the right to end it's life?

Mong

In hospitals when both a woman's life and her unborn fetus' life are in stake, doctors usually choose to abort the fetus. You can easily research this.

Even stupid people can get pregnant... but it's really about education. Girls as young as 13 are getting pregnant these days and it's a good thing but they need to stay informed.

>A black person can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its state handouts, unlike white people. Even if a black person could support themself, the "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use somebody else's labour.


You're pretty racist, OP.

Human children cannot survive without parental support until the age of 5 or 6. Why can't you kill kindergarteners?

I'm not saying this. The moment the fetus leaves the woman's body it ceases to be independent on the mother. The woman can either take care of the child or let nature take it's course. It's up to her.

so you don't have a peer reviewed study, just anecdotal evidence that assumes doctors know best. opinion discarded as worthless, sorry user, try again when you have real evidence to support your nonsense.

>bearing children is always a threat to the life of the mother
no its not

Obviously, you attacked an innocent woman.

You should consider all of the options you discussed...BEFORE the dick goes in and gets a woman pregnant....not afterwards. Idjut

But she shoudn't let nature take it's course within her body? because without outside intervention she cannot abort the baby.

so which is it? nature or intervention?

Stop twisting my words, you racist asshole. I tried my very best to put up with you Sup Forums assholes and you aren't making it any easier.

they don't need to live inside a woman to survive

Depends on the situation.

>False analogy, the topic!

Pregnancy =/ organ donation. They're two different things.

Your arguments were terrible, brah. Really the pro-life side has the better argument on abortion. Is saying, "We should leave pregnancies alone" really that unreasonable?

define the situation

According to you, a 1-month-old infant has no right to live because it cannot survive on its own.

You're like that ancap meme that goes on about selling or disowning their baby because they have no obligation to tend to it.

Does a mother have a right to drink alcohol during pregnancy knowing it will relegate a newborn to fetal-alcohol syndrome? After all, that's far less than outright aborting the baby. Of course not.

You-anti-life fucks have to perform some real mental gymnastics.

what is sex for? procreation, it creates life. why did she have sex if she didn't want to have a kid? by having a guy orgasm inside you you're literally saying "i want your seed so we can create a life".

if she didn't want a kid she shouldn't have had sex. you're not innocent, you know what sex does, if you can't accept the risk or responsibility then don't risk it. don't kill a baby because you don't want the financial and time burden. there's only 1 way to make a baby and you did it.

sometimes i wish there was a hell so people who kill their children can burn in hell for eternity. it's fucking disgusting.

Woman here. I agree. Your choice over your body is to keep your Goddamn legs closed. Incest and rape are too little a stastic to force a broadstroak "right to" law. There are grey areas.

Abortion is not birth control. Stop being whores.

I wasn't twisting your words. You were arguing that nobody has the right to conscript anyone else to aid their survival, and I gave you an example to show where that kind of thinking leads.

Either explain how the comparison isn't applicable or admit that you think everyone who's ever needed help of any kind forfeits their right to life.

/thread

Depends on the woman, her current feelings and overall situation. It's part of the woman's body afterall and she should be allowed to do as she pleases and not let men make decisions for her.

>It is fully dependent on its mother's body, unlike born human beings.
So if you leave a newborn baby out in the cold it will survive on its own? Neat!

>The "right to life" also doesn't imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life.
She has an obligation if she put the baby inside her. You can't create a new human just to kill it. That's not just immoral, it is evil.

>Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother.
No its not. Women are literally evolved to do that. Every single one of us got here from women doing that.

>A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body.
No it's not. If there is a right to not have another's will imposed on your body, that is a separate right. The right to life is merely the right to not be killed. That is all. And it is the most fundamental human right there is, because no other right matters if you do not have the right to life. You can have ownership over your body, but if you do not have a right to life I can just kill you anyway. How much does your ownership right matter then?

>Do women not have this right as well?
Of course women have rights. But their rights end where the rights of others begin. They do not have the right to murder their children, as we see for example with the case of Andrea Yates.

>she should be allowed to do as she pleases

She can, But she cannot force others to aid in the murder of her unborn child.

>murder
Yeah no, just read the original post again maybe you will understand.

I fully support chopping up as many niggers as possible before they become criminals and parasites.

He's correctly using the word "murder" to refer to abortion. You knew what he meant, don't be a faggot and pretend he just "didn't understand."

I understand your opinion, i just don't agree with your opinion.

A fetus is a life independent of the mother therefore terminating the pregnancy is murder.

The personal "choice" (whatever that means because women never had such right in history to begin with) is not a right higher than life.
Abortion is murder of a vulnerable with a futile motive.

>a right to use somebody else's body.
>not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body

explain how a fetus "decided" to use that body or impose its will of using it.

Is a welfare recipient living inside of a belly of another person like a fucking parasite? N-O! Pregnancy and the scenario you described are two very different things. It's her choice to remove part of her body as she pleases.

Listen up Shitlibs

A liberal can't survive of its own. It is fully dependent on the workers tax dollar, unlike real american citizens. Even if a liberal was working, the "right to welfare" doesn't imply a right to use somebody else's money. People have the right to donate their income, for example, even if doing so would help those financially burdened. The "right to welfare" also doesn't imply a right to live by leeching off of somebody else's income. Being Liberal is always a threat to the prosperity of the country. A "right to welfare" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's incompetence leeching off your income. Do Americans not have this right as well?

>Depends on the woman, her current feelings
>morality is based on feelings

oh, I see. You're 14.

get out of here, kid.

>part of her body
But it's not her body, it's an independent living being. You wouldn't consider a child to be part of a mother body would you? at what point does is cease to be part of her body and transcend into being a independent being?

The "mother's life" argument is bullshit.

>takes several hours to prepare for late term abortion, and the woman still has to go through labour
>any good doctor in a good hospital can get a woman in an OR, do a C-section and have the kid out in less than an hour

Sure, it may not survive, but you miss 100% of the shots you don't take

While I agree with you, your vagoo does not give your opinion more weight. Tits or gtfo.

>kid
Yeah that's funny. I have a wife and we're very happy together. I also have a steady job which is something you basement dwelling virgin can only dream of. Fuck off.

That's fine as long as it's also my wallet my choice.

So do we have the right to kill all people on welfare?

>Even if a fetus was alive
It's certainly alive, there's no question about that.

Lol, no. I found these on Google when I did a tits search, though. Have fun!

>This person in your example is dependent on a machine, not another human being. Machines don't have rights but women do believe it or not.
Uh huh, and who has to maintain the machine and keep it working?

Seriously.
This

You can't survive on your own and naked on Antarctica, should we kill everyone who tries to research that continent?

A welfare leech can't survive on its own either. But in all honesty I agree with you. Feetuses don't need human rights. We should be able to kill them and people on welfare with impunity.

>at what point does is cease to be part of her body
When it leaves her body, duh. Either by birth or abortion. How stupid can you be?

What is someone consumes say, a live mouse? Does that no become part of her body?

>Is a welfare recipient living inside of a belly of another person like a fucking parasite?

Yes. Helping yourself to the product of someone else's labour is, in effect, taking ownership of their body for the time it takes them to produce the wealth you're walking off with. Most of us don't just wish our income into existence with sheer mental acuity, you know.

>Pregnancy and the scenario you described are two very different things.
I agree, a mother is directly responsible for her child's state of dependence through her choice to have sex, whereas I am not directly responsible for the state of dependence of welfare recipients through my choices.

Again, if this analogy is broken please tell me how, I'm not arguing against social programs for the disadvantaged, I'd just like to know why you think it's okay to claim ownership over the bodies of taxpayers, but not over those of pregnant women.

>I'd argue that if a mother knows she won't be able to provide for her child, it's actually more responsible to have an abortion, and in doing so prevent a whole lot of undue suffering and misery.
The "responsible" thing to do would've been to keep her legs closed and not have sex.

>But let's look at this argument a bit further. If you think getting an abortion is "avoiding responsibility," that implies that it's a woman's responsibility to bear a child if she chooses to have sex.
Yeah. It is.

>That sounds suspiciously like you're dictating what a woman's role and purpose is,
ooooOOOOOOoOOoo muh spooky fascist implication

You're telling us what we can and can't do. You're exactly the dictator you're claiming your enemies are.

A technician doesn't have to carry the machine inside of his body for 9 months you fucking bigot.

So his rights matter because he's attached to something without rights? An unborn baby's rights don't count because the mom has rights, too? Why do her rights matter more than his?

Why can't women kill dependent toddlers justifiably?

If you saw a species in nature continually ripping its unborn offspring out of its wounds and killing it, wouldn't you think something is wrong with the species?

>Not everyone has easy access to contraception, nor does everyone have a good enough sex education class to know how to use it or where to obtain it.
"1 person in a country of 320 million doesn't know
Therefore the remaining 319,999,999 have to cater to them"

--You

That argument doesn't work. Everyone knows how condoms work, everyone knows you can buy them at any drug store. You don't need classes, you need a parent.

>Hey man how would you feel if a stranger was trespassing in your own house and living there for 9 months? That's how pregnancy feels to women.
No, it isn't.

Double standard, double standard

>her current feelings
>feelings
>feelings
AHAHAHA
>feelings
AHAHAHAHAHA

Sure you do, kid. Uh huh. Yeah.

If a technician was hooked up to the machine because he either chose to not be careful or because he purposefully ignored warnings of "don't hook yourself up to this machine unless you are okay with potentially being responsible for the wellbeing of another life", should the technician have a right to pull the plug?

What is your definition of personal responsibility?

Funny how abortion is a "right to one's body," but women who give birth and throw their babies into dumpsters are deamed monsters by society, isn't it? Abortion is just another example of the far left's extreme nonsense. Of course abortion needs to exist as a medical procedure. But as a "right" functioning as out patient after the fact birth control? Give me a break.

Great argument.

What the fuck do you mean? You just attacked a person it doesn't matter if you go to jail for murder or attempted murder.

I was speaking mainly about 3rd world countries, and it's true that many young girls don't have either a female or male role model or both. A lot of things can go down without proper education on the subject. You shouldn't take this so lightly.

...

Murder

>I tried my very best to put up with you Sup Forums assholes
hysterical. Go back to plebbit/tumblr/fagbook/whatever retarded place you came from and never come back. You're lucky we don't demand tits

There are other factors to getting pregnant. Many things can happen. The woman can be drunk, raped, maybe both. You can't look at this from just one perspective.

Last time I checked women don't just randomly become pregnant, it is a choice. My wife and I had struggled to have a child for a little over a year before she was finally pregnant. If you are irresponsible enough to not use a fucking condom and you get pregnant, you have no right to murder another human being out of convenience. Don't even try to use the argument that contraceptives aren't always readily available. A 5 year old could walk in to the pharmacy and get a box of rubbers for 3.50$. Even then, other contraceptives such as an IUD are readily available and sometimes even covered by a healthcare provider. I am actually disgusted that you would justify the murder of a completely innocent human life just because it is in the mother's body (mind you it was put there willingly).

>A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well?

No one has this right, courts, contracts, and civil authorities impose on the body all the time were resisting results in punishment.

An infant can't survive on it's own either.
Should it be illegal to kill a newborn baby?

>The woman can be drunk, raped, maybe both.

OK that's fair. What's not fair is willfully letting dudes cum inside you and not expecting consequences.

What came first the chicken or the egg?
Who is more valuable, the mother or the future of the species? Maybe both are equal.

Shut up OP

>Getting pregnant is giving permission,
So a raped women was begging for it? This is why people laugh at you.

>Abortion is like breaking eggs
Precisely. It's the woman's eggs, she can do whatever she wants with them until they become a person.

This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn't the case. Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34.

Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole "carrying another human being around in your stomach for nine months" thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies — not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway. There's also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents.

In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn't address all of them.

A fetus meets every single requirement for life, and for human life more specifically. A fetus is human, and it is alive. Read a highschool biology textbook.

What is argueable is whether or not a fetus has sentience. You could argue that until it jas detectable levels of brainwaves, it may be considered braindead, and therefore has different levels of legal protection. That in my opinion is the only gray area as far as i am concerned.

I used to be pro-choice. And for some reasons I believe abortion is still acceptable e.g., the child will be severely disabled or the woman was raped. But many of these exceptions are a minority of abortion cases, so moving forward let us only consider the majority of cases -- women who cannot accept responsibility for their actions.

The problem with being pro-choice is the absolute disregard for the future of a human being. Yes, a baby may not be considered human until a certain point in time within the womb, based on scientific evidence in conjunction with modern 'moral' logic. What people forget to mention -- or do not research -- is that this cell has already undergone a cascade of different reactions to become a fully individual human. These cells have an entirely unique genome which will never be seen again.

If you abort your child, you are killing it. You are removing the only possibility for that specific genetic information to be expressed. You can boil the life of a human down to 2 things, consciousness and body. Our consciousness resides in our nervous system: our memories, our idiosyncratic personalities, our understanding of the world. Our body is merely the phenotype expressed from our genome. That DNA is what makes us who we are at birth, short a few environmental factors. The timeline between zygote and newborn is irrelevant.

Who are you to deny the experience of our world to? What gives you the right to kill a cell which could become a great human? Don't be so foolish to think because you cant see the baby you aren't killing it.

Are you saying I need to move out of my mom? That's unacceptable!

You didn't answer my question.

I didn't add rape/drunk. I said in cases of ignorance or outright choosing not to be safe. Answer the question according the context given instead of shifting the goalposts, please.

Neither do preemies, but whatever makes you feel good about scrambling your babies brains with an eggbeater. At least some of you are coming around to murdering newborns without guilt.

Maybe this will answer your question