1.Humans have a right to their body

1.Humans have a right to their body
2.Human can detach things from their body
3.Human can detach a fetus from their body

Understand now?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=gWK1sG3spiE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

A fetus is a human body

What I can't understand is why the woman wants to detach it at all.

Why not just hand it to an orphanage after birth?

A human can detach another human from their body.

giving birth would be extremely painful

you're a big guy

For you

Pregnancy ruins your body

That's all well and good, but I don't want to pay for it. I'd rather spend that money on things I do with my body, like blackjack and hookers.

>3.Human can detach a fetus from their body
Does the detached human have rights after it's disconnected?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=gWK1sG3spiE

"No."

Who are you quoting?

detach your head from your body

>detached human
It's just a fetus, not a human.

Oh boy its another episode of a fucking leaf umaru poster fuck off

Yeah, it's called giving birth.

if i was a woman i would support abortion desu senpai
but i'm a man so i don't give a single shit because it's not my problem

Daily reminder:

>More abortions
>Less Democrats

It is a human. How is it not a human?

1. Delete this now
2. Fucking retard
3. My brother works for steam

1. Humans have a right to their body
2. Babies are humans
3. Babies can detach things from their body
4. Babies can detach mothers from their body.

Understand now?

In fact I consider abortion morally justified.

A fetus is a human being however isnt an individual, it is literally parasitizing on a woman is heavy and drains her of life blood.
Its like taxation without benefits. It is there and you're sick of it, it can go fuck itself. And it is not woman problem that it cant live on its own.
A woman has a moral right to refuse to support her child.

Just imagine that a nigger teleported and stuck in a wall of your house.
Would you rather keep feeding him and cleaning after he shits or would you rather shoot him for house invasion?

...

Now thats the convincing argument

>Offspring are parasites.

Disgusting

Humans do have a right to their body but Woman =/= human

Even if it means death to an innocent babe? Are they really too fucking cruel to wait a couple months?

The less humans are born - the better. The less humans are born in poverty/shitty environment - the best.
I think abortion should be OBLIGATORY for people who cannot sustain a healthy environment for their potential children both financially and morally.

It's called birth bro

It literally is in a biological sense.

It lives inside you, drains you of your energy, intoxicates you with your own waste, and also injuries you on its way out.
I think they have a right to refuse to support it if they chose so.

Its not an act of murder, rather denial of support.

1.Americans have a right to their country
2.Americans can detach things from their country
3.Americans can detach illegal immigrants from their country

Understand now?

I'm pro life but I support the liberal woman's right to choose. They cut the babies out like they were parasites but honestly it keeps them from being raised by retarded socialist women and actually becoming parasites.

Humans have a right not to be raped.

Humans don't have the right to evade the consequences of their actions.

Not that I care that much how many of her babies a woman murders. We don't need stupid people breeding.

>Its not an act of murder, rather denial of support.

No, the baby has as much right to the body as the mother does. It's her body; it's also the baby's body.

I'm sure this makes complete sense when you don't know the definition of parasite.

That baby is undesired, so it is better off dead than having a non-loving parent.

And also, it is not even human until it's late into the pregnancy, and abortions in late stage pregnancies are illegal.

"Babies" are just mindless larvae without any self-awareness. To top it off they are disgusting as fuck. Less "babies" - better for this overpopulated shit of a planet.

>Woman makes baby
>Baby has a body
>Baby cannot consent to being detached from woman

So who's got the moral right? The woman who voluntarily had a baby? Or the baby who had no say in whether it existed or not? The guilty party is the woman and the innocent party is the baby.

>better for this overpopulated shit of a planet.

Falling for the (((overpopulation))) meme. We are no where near over populated.

>Less "babies" - better for this overpopulated shit of a planet.
Yes. This is at the bottom of the leftist argument.


>"Babies" are just mindless larvae without any self-awareness.
Same can be said of the mothers. Doesn't change their right to life.
A deep seated hatred of humanity.

I dont think body rights can be shared.
The baby has a right to its own body, and if it cant survive alone - whoops tough shit, nobody owes you anything.

Its not like people just have to support you only because you exist.

>Less "babies" - better for this overpopulated shit of a planet.
Yes. This is at the bottom of the leftist argument.

A deep seated hatred of humanity.

>"Babies" are just mindless larvae without any self-awareness.
Same can be said of the mothers. Doesn't change their right to life.

>The woman who voluntarily had a baby? Or the baby who had no say in whether it existed or not?
Obviously, she didn't VOLUNTARILY have a baby. Besides, a baby is not a living thing until late into the pregnancy, when it's no longer legal to abort it.

Canada is so fucked.

Northern wall.

>1.Humans have a right to their body
you lost me

no country anywhere recognizes this as a right

Why not just use a fucking condom?

>I dont think body rights can be shared.

Of course they can. Joint ownership. Like conjoined twins.

If you ever touch me, I'm chopping you up into pieces and detaching you. As you say, it's my right.

...

abortion is only acceptable in the case of the mother's life being threatened, a racemixed baby/rape or the child having genetic defects that would be passed on or if the child will be a useless eater

>it takes two to tango
You're a slut

If a conjoined twin can get an operation that will free him, but kill his brother in the process, does he have the right to go through with it without his brother's permission?

We should sterilize humans who cannot love their children and concentrate them in fema camps.

Epicurean society inevitably falls.

Americuck telling someone their country is fucked. Well done.

>she didn't VOLUNTARILY have a baby.

The only possible case where a woman didn't have the baby is in rape cases.

>Besides, a baby is not a living thing until late into the pregnancy
It is a living thing if it has cells which can replicate on their own.

It's not a meme. Too many humans everywhere, even in shitholes.

I don't care whether it's deemed "leftist" by you "pro-life" poser retards.

>Same can be said of the mothers.
No, adult humans possess self-awareness at least to some extent. "Babies" don't.

The only sane argument in favour of abortion bans is that it can potentially decrease the nubmer of women turning into irresponsible sluts. But not because "waaaah mah babieses are sho shweet don't kill them life is sacred waaah".

Is it murder if one Twin kills himself and the other dies too? A moral dilemmas for you.

But really try looking at it like a capitalist.
A womans body is her private property, umbilical cord is like taxes/free shit for the baby.
Doesnt woman have a right to virtually tell the fetus "I'm done with you, go find a job and live on your own"
Isnt it only baby's fault that its gonna die?
>What a scrub
>Cant even LIVE
>Got gud

>It's not a meme. Too many humans everywhere, even in shitholes.

It is a meme. Humans are not at any sort of tipping point. Humans just suck at managing resources.

1) The value of human life is decreasing thanks to trans-humanism.
2) A Fetus is a human life.
3) The value of a Fetus is decreasing.
4) Devaluing fetuses is a violation of the NAP.

Yes. The weak must fear the strong.

>"waaaah mah babieses are sho shweet don't kill them life is sacred waaah".

You're a disgusting degenerate who hates human life. Of course, there's no point in arguing with you.

kek

>The only possible case where a woman didn't have the baby is in rape cases.
Just because she voluntarily had sex, doesn't mean she voluntarily got pregnant.

>It is a living thing if it has cells which can replicate on their own.
But they can't replicate on their own, they require help of a mother's body.

The real question is why was he allowed to be born with that level of defect

>Just because she voluntarily had sex, doesn't mean she voluntarily got pregnant.

Yes it does. Do any voluntary action and you accept the possible consequences of that action. I drive a car and hit someone. I didn't voluntarily hit them, but I still have to compensate them because it's my fault.

>But they can't replicate on their own, they require help of a mother's body.
Tell me which of the mothers cells is replicating for the child?

fpbp

...

Fucking normalfag stay butthurt and GTFO back to plebbit.
Wouldn't be surprised if you're a whiny female. The pro-life cunts are even more cringy than their cuckservative fuck buddies.

>disgusting degenerate
Says a nigger-tier breeding propagator.

>hates human life
It's deserving of it. And anyway your "babies" are as humans as a caterpillar is butterfly.

A fetus has a right to its body

Newfag got fagged

that's one spicy spess ancap

I honestly believe that instead of aborting fetuses they should be granted to the government as property. Raised in government institutions, given gene-augments and exist as the most extreme public servants. They'd become a Judge Dredd/Schola Progenium type deal. We're already controlled by corporate interests and multinational lobbyist special interest groups. Might as well adopt pure capitalism. Sink or swim. Shadowrun.

>replicating for the child?
Our point is the fetus is not an individual because it taxes the mother for nutrition and oxygen.

And I believe a mother has a right to do like "you know what? You dont get shit from me, go get your own shit, I dont owe you anything"

People's rights are generally limited when the exercise of those rights violate the rights of others. If the fetus is human then aborting it is tantamount to murder. It all comes down to personhood and not "bodily autonomy". The irony of this is that liberals who push the muh body narrative would balk at castle doctrine, something that is somewhat similar in principle.

>Our point is the fetus is not an individual because it taxes the mother for nutrition and oxygen.

The baby taxes the mother for life even after birth. The baby taxes the mother for life in the third trimester.
Is still okay to murder it?

A newborn still requires external support to sustain it's existence.

>"you know what? You dont get shit from me, go get your own shit, I dont owe you anything"
People are responsible for the consequences of their actions. You have sex, you get pregnant and that is your fault. You own the responsibility.

Humans have a right to their body.
Fetuses are human.
Thus Fetuses have a right to their body.

>1.Humans have a right to their body
Be a slut
>2.Human can detach things from their body
Detach integrity and modesty from your body
>3.Human can detach a fetus from their body
Get pregnant against your will because you're a dumb slut

Checked and Rekt

>Yes it does. Do any voluntary action and you accept the possible consequences of that action. I drive a car and hit someone. I didn't voluntarily hit them, but I still have to compensate them because it's my fault.
Yes, a woman has to pay for an abortion, because it's partly her fault. But she doesn't deserve to get so harshly punished to be forced to sacrifice her entire life over one mistake if the science is advanced enough to prevent it.

>Tell me which of the mothers cells is replicating for the child?
Now you're grasping at straws. A child cannot survive outside of its life support system. You have no right to force a living thing to sacrifice its entire life to be its life support system.

Even if it's alive, it doesn't matter. It has no consciousness, so no one will be hurt by its death, and the FETUS (not a child) won't even be aware of its existence.

>throwing puppies into a river is animal cruelty
>pulling babies apart piece by piece from the womb for birth control is encouraged

>3.Human can detach a fetus from their body

Assuming a woman can only breastfeed, would she have a moral right to refuse her babby access to her body and thus starve her child?

Is this a crime leaf and should she be punished?

Try answering the question without diversions.

>Says a nigger-tier breeding propagator.

So I guess niggers breed and whites.... die off?
hahaha KYS.

At least this disgusting mindset you have will end with you.

i knew it was you canadian faggot

>es, a woman has to pay for an abortion, because it's partly her fault

That's the same as saying, instead of paying for the medical expenses of the person I hit. I can choose to euthanise them.

>But she doesn't deserve to get so harshly punished to be forced to sacrifice her entire life over one mistake if the science is advanced enough to prevent it.
Adoption is an option. You do not get the right to take someone else's life away because of your own actions no matter how hard it is for you.

>Now you're grasping at straws. A child cannot survive outside of its life support system.
A child can't survive on it's own for a long time outside the womb either. Is it okay to kill it?

>You have no right to force a living thing to sacrifice its entire life to be its life support system.
The right to life trumps the right to a good life. Also adoption.

>Even if it's alive, it doesn't matter.
So you admit it's alive.

>so no one will be hurt by its death
So the amount of suffering caused onto other people is the determining factor in whether or not you can kill someone?

>won't even be aware of its existence.
Fairly sure there are plenty of retards who aren't aware of their own existence. You still can't kill them.
Children don't become aware of their own existence until about 18 months. Guess you can still kill them?

Puppies have a more sensitive nervous system regarding drowning while dead babies have no sense that they are being pulled apart piece wise.

In a cuckservative's mind it's vice versa:
>throwing puppies into a river is ok
>pulling babies apart piece by piece from the womb for birth control is blasphemy

Trips of truth.

No, nobody should breed ideally. Or at least only those should be allowed who can afford rearing their child in a proper way, both financially and morally. Breeding for the sake of breeding is degenerate nigger-tier behaviour. Copying niggers in this doesn't make much of a "race war".

Also, why are you still here, plebbitor?

I always wondered how these people felt about aborting puppies. Because the common argument is "muh financial situation". If the financial situation of a person was that they couldn't afford a litter of puppies it's therefore okay to abort the puppies? "n-no you can adopt them out." So why not just adopt out the baby then?

>No, nobody should breed ideally.

t. retard.

Seriously if you believe that you should kill yourself and right the mistake your parents wrought upon the world.

>no arguments, only emtions
t. confirmed assblasted cunt

>you should kill yourself
I will when I deem it necessary, not when some outsider slut from plebbit tells me to, ok.

not sure whose ass you pulled that out of but I didn't mention a timeperiod. Babies can definitely feel and recoil from pain long before the 6 month limit for abortions.

All I'm asking is to give a human fetus the same rights as an animal. IDC how many fertilized embryos die but waiting until a late stage in the pregnancy before aborting is pure negligence and should be punished.

>I will when I deem it necessary

You shouldn't have needed me to tell you to. You claim that your parents made a mistake in giving birth to you.

Every second you let yourself survive, you give lie to that statement.

You're full of shit either way until you kill yourself. Then we'll know you believe it.

>That's the same as saying, instead of paying for the medical expenses of the person I hit. I can choose to euthanise them.
No, it isn't, because you didn't create them, and they are not a part of your body.

>Adoption is an option. You do not get the right to take someone else's life away because of your own actions no matter how hard it is for you.
Giving birth will ruin her body and make her less desirable. Also, it is not alive yet. How do I explain this concept to you?

>A child can't survive on it's own for a long time outside the womb either. Is it okay to kill it?
Outside the womb, it can be thought to fend for itself and eventually grow up. Inside the womb, it's merely a glorified parasite.

>The right to life trumps the right to a good life. Also adoption.
It's not as easy to find adoptive parents as you think. And I don't agree that it's more noble to let someone live and be miserable than to end their misery.

>So you admit it's alive.
No. Your mental gymnastics and putting the words in my mouth when I prove you wrong proves you know you're merely in denial.

>So the amount of suffering caused onto other people is the determining factor in whether or not you can kill someone?
It's not a "someone", it's a something. Not alive yet. Unwanted baby is worse than an aborted fetus.

>Fairly sure there are plenty of retards who aren't aware of their own existence. You still can't kill them.
>Children don't become aware of their own existence until about 18 months. Guess you can still kill them?
But unlike the fetus, they are alive and have influenced other people in one way or another.

But you don't have a right to kill someone.

Especially considering you put it there.

You can't attach someone to you, make them dependent on the connection, and then sever it.

>All I'm asking is to give a human fetus the same rights as an animal
They don't have the same abilities as animals.
Some animal fetuses can crawl out of their mothers and continue developing outside the body, but a human baby can't even feed itself for many months after birth, maybe if they make cheap ways to keep a fetus alive outside the body and they continue denying children the same rights as other people, the state would invest in technology to grow orphan slaves from unwanted fetus from random sluts, but until then they get what they can take.

>Babies aren't alive

Oh boy.

Once again, it's not a baby, it's a fetus.

Are you a religious retard who believes it's the same because Bible told you so?

Okay so on this whole thread I've got a few questions, please try to answer and hold back the autism as I hold back mine

>1. When is a fetus suddenly a child?

>2. when it becomes a living thing does the mother have to bring it into the world and take responsibility? Just like how parents have to raise kids without like.. killing them?

>3. How do you justify when the fetus is alive? Not against your agreement, just curious

On the topic of letting them live miserable lives, if you go and ask the average kid who went through the adoption system if they would like to die, do you think they would say yes?

Probably fucking not, you idiot. It's up to them, you're not God. Let them grow up and then decide to kill themselves.

3 humans can remove kebab parasite

Just imagine if you were aborted