Both sides of the debate welcome, but please present a better argument than "niggers."
Post data, arguments, statistics, infographics, and relevant news articles
Discuss strategies on how we can go about ending the wholesale slaughter of the unborn.
317,991 murdered children this year alone in the united states.
numberofabortions.com
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
princeton.edu
theatlantic.com
cnsnews.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
i've always used secular argumentation for my position, but i am really starting to think this is a religious issue, because it is a moral issue, and secular morality is terrifying.
oftentimes in these threads i will get people to admit that it's murder, but then they will ask "so? why is murder wrong?"
which is a perfectly reasonable question from an atheistic worldview, with no clear answer.
Agreed. Nothing can be considered morally wrong without an objective moral law giver.
Getting them to admit that it might be murder is not enough, because they are not convicted of its immorality.
where are all the proud champions of womyn's rights? usually some pop in and leave stellar argumentation like:
>it's just a clump of cells
>it's just a parasite
>it's not a human until it's born
>they will grow up poor so they're better off dead
> please present a better argument than "niggers."
Why? This is literally the argument. This is the only way to kill niggers that SJW's not only are ok with but pitch a fit if it's not actively happening. It's perfect. Why would you ever want to disrupt that perfect storm?
i don't want children murdered, even nigger children.
plus whites are the ones being killed by it the most either way.
>White women obtain 60% of all abortions
>source: en.wikipedia.org
>conservatives are against big government
>support the government telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies
>conservatives go on about muh sanctity of life
>once the baby is born don't give a fuck about it, you're on your own kid if you're born poor
Really makes u think
>support the government telling women what they can or can't do with their own bodies
pic related
>once the baby is born don't give a fuck about it, you're on your own kid if you're born poor
i can say bob shouldn't be murdered without being morally obligated to provide for bob the rest of his life
I'm not going to get into the vagaries of this complex topic. The high level overview is that aborted whites are probably going into unwanted homes to the point that them not being born is better.
Black babies aborted... there is no sequence of events that can be conjured where another potential black being avoided is a bad thing. None.
I am pro legalized abortion, but against subsidized abortion. If you want to destroy your baby, do it on your own dime. However, that removes the nigger population control element (since niggers won't pay for anything out of pocket), so it must go hand in hand with an elimination of all social benefits.
Whether a fetus is a human and has full human rights, or is merely a clump of cells, is irrelevant. No human has the right to live inside another human at that person's expense. If we are to say that both parties have the right to their own bodies and lives, then the host's rights must take priority over the guest's. If at all possible, the fetus ought to be removed without harm, but unfortunately in-vitro gestation is not good enough yet.
blah blah blah blah, words words words words...
We can kill two birds with one stone:
Eliminate subsidised abortion execpt for...
Free Abortions for dindus=Reparations
>that them not being born is better
never ever the case.
everyone is going to suffer, if we are going to kill people because there's a possibility for them to suffer, we'd have to kill everyone
>at that person's expense.
the child's existence raises the mother's darwinian fitness, the relationship is mutual symbiosis rather than parasitic
>the fetus ought to be removed without harm
why? are you saying it is wrong the harm the child?
it's not like the child is going to be in there forever.
9 months of inconvenience for one party vs. death for one party
abortion is not murder, it is self-defence for the mother.
unborn souls are reincarnated, so nothing is actually happening in terms of committing a sin. I know this because for all of unrecorded human history mortality rate of infants (still birth, natural abortion, both die during delivery) was very high, and it would not be part of a creator's plan to have innocent babies die during birth without having more chances later at life.
>raises the mother's darwinian fitness
No. Her darwinian fitness is determined not by the existence of a child, but the capacity and means to have that child. She is no fitter after conception than before it. But regardless, it is an abstract concept that confers no real-world advantage, therefore it cannot be said that it is a mutually beneficial arrangement.
>wrong the harm the child?
According to the principles of proportionality, just as it wouldn't be justified to remove an unwanted guest from your house by throwing him in a vat of acid rather than just pushing him out the door, destroying a fetus when there exists a less harmful option is unjustified. As I said, right now no alternate option exists, therefore killing the fetus is the only recourse. An unpleasant one, but one that must remain if you want to talk about any coherent system of rights.
>Post data, arguments, statistics, infographics, and relevant news articles
This is stupid. Either you think the unborn is a human bean or not. No amount of infographics should make you change your mind. Well, if 100% of undesired children commit suicide or become criminals I may consider abortion a valid solution.
>She is no fitter after conception than before it.
before: 1.0
after: 1.5
>it is an abstract concept that confers no real-world advantage
it's our sole purpose of existence from an atheistic perspective
"We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. ... This is exactly what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living." -- Dawkins
>destroying a fetus when there exists a less harmful option is unjustified
couldn't agree more, there's waiting, 9 months.
People can be against murder and not want to pay for peoples way... they are inclusive ideas fycktard
>>niggers
Perfectly valid argument.
You think you'll ever be able to logic and reason subhuman trash away from living their life based on responding to whatever fleeting biological urge is running through their heads at the time?
If you shout at two dogs fucking in an alley will they think about what they're doing and stop?
Here is my analogy
My feeling about abortion
Imagine a woman is drinking and driving and causes an accident, or she runs a stop sign and gets plowed into! She's injured but her body will recover, but her life is forever changed because her best friend was in the car. They had no choice in the matter, and they are severely injured to disability. The driver takes it upon them self to house the friend to nurse her back to health, since driver was at fault.
That's what a decent human would do, in a situation like that.
Well almost a million women CHOOSE to house the friend till they find them an inconvenience. They decide their friend is a burden on them financially, physically, or emotionally. They ARE asking too much, it's too demanding. They decide to MURDER their friend, to end the suffering, even though they WILL recover and be able to live on their own, one day.
i don't know about anyone else, but seeing the actual numbers lights a fire under my ass.
what the fuck are you talking about?
if the race question depends on the murder of nigger infants, we're too far gone anyway. the race question is completely separate from the abortion issue. that doesn't mean any of us want niggers in white society.
but if you wanna bring up the nigger argument, white women perform about 60% of all abortions. If abortion was illegal, whites would be above the replacement level, we would not be declining but growing in numbers. that's the most important thing.
that doesn't mean we can't pursue racial policies.
self defense for the mother???
the baby isnt killing a woman you fucktard
pregnancy fulfills absolutely NONE of the self-defense requirements that would make the killing of the purported violator permissible. try again.
>before: 1.0
>after: 1.5
This is a completely arbitrary set of numbers you've applied to an abstract concept that, again, confers no real-world advantage to the individual in question. You are trying to conflate biology with philosophy.
>there's waiting, 9 months
There is no obligation to wait, any more than there is an obligation to sit by and wait for your unwanted houseguest to leave on his own accord. If there is, then it cannot be said that you have the right to your own body or property, because it is the guest, and not you, that holds title to it so long as he remains.
Significant bodily harm?
Then it's a suicide attempt because you don't get pregnant by accident.
If
>destroying a fetus when there exists a less harmful option is unjustified
and
>there's waiting, 9 months
then, there is an obligation to wait
>any more than there is an obligation to sit by and wait for your unwanted houseguest to leave on his own accord
the houseguest (child) is leaving, they are just walking really slowly, it will take 9 months for them to reach the door
There is no magical point when a "clump of cells" becomes a person (or vice-versa, when it dies).
Morality is biological. Go read Frans de Waal if you think otherwise (or google for some interesting lectures).
...
There's this event called "birth" (often called a the miracle of life) that has a day where you celebrate coming into this world. You should look into it.
>exiting the vagina confers personhood
More or less people doing it doesnt make it more or less wrong.
No scientist would argue that conception = personhood, even as a fetus it's essentially a parasite.
Suicide attempters can always change their mind. They are not obligated to jump merely because they climbed on the roof. The analogy doesn't really work.
>they are just walking really slowly
And causing significant destruction while they are doing it. If there is any purpose to use the concept of rights or confer it onto actors, it is to deal with such situations.
If someone is in the process of dismantling your car because you told him you wanted it stripped for parts, but suddenly you realized that you would be better off selling it whole yet he refuses to stop, you need not wait until he is good and ready to stop the destruction of property on his own accord. You may physically remove him in order to preserve your property.
The concept of proportionality doesn't mean absolute pacifism. It means avoiding the excessive use of force in response to an action causing harm. Neither is it some clearly-defined law, but rather a general principle.
So you're not a person and we should treat you as such?
If arson begins with a match, then life begins at conception.
>Suicide attempters can always change their mind. They are not obligated to jump merely because they climbed on the roof. The analogy doesn't really work.
Attempted suicide means you went through with it but survived. It's not every cry for help or attention a person does.
A scientist would say "there is no chance of that fetus ever becoming a person if left alone, so it has no value to anyone"?
Bullshit.
>Attempted suicide
Failed suicide then. As I said, your analogy is irrelevant to the argument being made.
You sure it's not your analogy that assumes a fetus won't eventually grow into an adult?
No one "is" a person, and no one is forcing anyone to abort.
How many white babies die vs how many black babies die, percentage wise. This is the information I need to know before making my decision on abortion.
I never said that. I said you're not a person until you're born, and that at conception and even as a fetus it's essentially a parasite. A parasite can't survive out of a host for long and neither would a fertilized egg. To call that a person is ridiculous.
No one is a person? The rights we confer to "persons" do not apply?
What? My argument makes no mention of this. As I first mentioned, it makes no difference whether you give the fetus full human rights or not. The argument remains the same regardless; the mother's right to her body (ie. property) supercedes the fetus's right to his, because he is residing inside the mother and not vice-versa.
So if i light a match and leave it in the woods i'm only guilty of lighting the match, not at the logical results of that decision + time?
>it's not a forest fire unless you wait around.
sorry. But that life is GOING to exist regardless of its status at this exact moment. The only thing that will END that life is action against it.
Life begins at conception, no soul required.
>The argument remains the same regardless; the mother's right to her body (ie. property) supercedes the fetus's right to his, because he is residing inside the mother and not vice-versa.
The mother made that choice. The fetus did not. How is that fair? Should the mother be able to kill her child as long as it is living with her?
No one "is". It's not a natural kind.
\
I can tell english is not your native language.
Pregnancy does not cause significant bodily harm unless it's some sort of failed pregnancy, but there are other important requirements that would have to be fulfilled for the most significant self-defense action to be permissible (the killing of the violator): mens rea requirement, intent, culpability, present and immediate danger, life threatening danger, etc. None of those are present...
And all of that WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
>Should the mother be able to kill her child as long as it is living with her?
No. You don't see a difference between a child living WITH her and one living IN her?
>blah blah blah blah
>words words words words
kys newfag
Obviously but i don't see how that confers onto her the rights to end another life that she created.
What would happen to someone who kicked a pregnant woman in the stomach and it caused the child to be stillborn?
He just kicked a clump of cells, and assaulted a woman. So all he'd get is minor assault charges, according to you?
i know, but still.
>No scientist would argue that conception = personhood
how do you know?
not every scientist adopts peter singer's functionalist view of personhood, it's a philosophical question anyway so sciencemen aren't the authority
the stock image of a scientist is only there to point out the scientific fact that a human's life begins at conception:
princeton.edu
which we can then use to reason out that since it's the earliest black and white non-arbitrary moment we can point to, that should be where we say a person begins to exist
>I said you're not a person until you're born
oh wow this is even worse than functionalism, what difference is there between a child 1 second before birth and 1 second after other than location?
What if a 12 year girl is raped by a sandnigger. Should she keep the baby like you pro-life people believe?
abortion keeps the mud races down, and genetic garbage whites.
More abortions plz.
>So if i light a match and leave it in the woods i'm only guilty of lighting the match, not at the logical results of that decision + time?
This isn't the same situation because you're assuming that a parasite can exist and propagate outside of the host, the cells wouldn't exist or grow without the mother's womb and resources. Due to this, I believe she has the right to do with it as she wants because it's basically just her until it can survive outside of her.
>Life begins at conception, no soul required.
Nah son. You're not a person until you can survive outside of your mom.
I reckon I'm leaning towards pro choice. I can see why people choose to have abortions. I understand why people are pro lifers due to slut culture and white genocide.
However it can't be illegal. If I can't afford a baby without leeching off the government through benefits then I'm aborting. The whole sanctity of life religious shit is irrelavent but if I'm not ready to have a kid I'm aborting LEAGALLY
Pro lifers debate me
>parasite
the child is not a parasite.
they are the same species as the "host" and they raise the "host"'s darwinian fitness, therefore the relationship is mutual symbiosis if anything
Im of the opinion that women need to be held to a higher standard and denied the right to abortions on the ground that pregnancy shouldn't be an accident. Theres no reason you should ever need one if you arent a raging slut who fucks whoever whenever. We need to treat reproduction with a higher level of respect and tact, then whats currently going on. Abortion is slimy, uncultured, and barbaric.
you should look into cell migration when pregnant. babies are NOT a parasite
listening to the lefties
babies heal heart conditons in mothers, regrow cervixes, heal other issues while pregnant
Walter block had a great position on this. Private property rights approach.
In this order:
Women has right to evict
Child has right to their life
Father has right to the baby
Society has the right to the citizens
Unwanted Baby has right to be put out of its misery
>I understand why people are pro lifers due to slut culture and white genocide.
those bother me, but aren't the reason i'm pro-life.
i believe in justice, i think murderers should be punished, especially people who murder children.
>However it can't be illegal. If I can't afford a baby without leeching off the government through benefits then I'm aborting.
you don't need any money to raise a child, it's so easy a caveman could do it
>The whole sanctity of life religious shit
yeah, i mentioned this in my second post, i don't know what to say to you.
Body autonomy.
The reason abortion isn't such a hot topic on this board is because of exactly the the pro-life fucktards can never adequately argue against the implications of their policies on their own body autonomy. Baby life, no matter when it begins, never ever trumps the life of the mother without you also losing the right to your body for every day needs of those more at risk than yourself.
If pro-life morons really wanted to save babies they'd focus on the data and figure out how to stop the pregnancies from ever happening.
But you won't because your whole ideology is based on some dumb jew shit.
ALL DAY you can talk about this and it will come down to the same simple issue, you either respect body autonomy or you might as well convert to Islam now.
I can tell you've never lived with a pregnant woman. Significant loss of bone density, disrupted sleep patterns, large changes in hormone levels resulting in aberrant behavior, psychological distress that may lead to depression, and skeletal and muscular pain. Those are only the common symptoms of a "normal" pregnancy, not even getting into abnormal ones.
>mens rea, intent, culpability, DUE PROCESS
None of those matter for self-defense. When a bear attacks you, do you need to establish mens rea, or sit the bear before a court of law, before it can be established that you may act in self-defense? Of course not. Don't parrot off legal terms when you don't seem to understand how they apply.
> don't see how that confers onto her the rights to end another life that she created.
Because she owns her own body, and therefore gets to dictate who can or cannot stay within it. As I said, it is unfortunate that she cannot simply remove the fetus without causing it harm, but right now abortion is the only recourse in this situation.
>He just kicked a clump of cells, and assaulted a woman
He just killed a human, and assaulted his host and willing parent. He ought to be liable for murder of the child, and battery of the woman.
For convenience, I consider fetuses to have human rights like anyone else. Like I said several times now, it doesn't affect the argument I'm presenting.
>This isn't the same situation because you're assuming that a parasite can exist and propagate outside of the host, the cells wouldn't exist or grow without the mother's womb and resources.
Yes and the fire wouldn't have existed without the match.
>Due to this, I believe she has the right to do with it as she wants because it's basically just her until it can survive outside of her.
Yeah, and i can do whatever i want with my matches. If the forest decides to catch fire, that's not my fault.
You're not making any sense.
No.
theatlantic.com
"Even as the U.S. abortion rate is at its lowest since Roe v. Wade, women of color are five times as likely to terminate a pregnancy as their white counterparts."
"CDC Report: 55.4% of Aborted Babies Black or Hispanic"
The abortion debate can only be won by pro-life in the long term.
Amish have a dozen kids, Mormans and Muslims have half a dozen kids. Worldwide the first world nations have a far lower birthrate for those that brought the prog sexual revolution meme, but communities that didn't or that are being imported now are going to have a very dim view of the autistic screeching and semantics that excuses what is almost always murder for convenience.
Additionally, the inevitable compromise will be the artificial womb. Wherein there will be no excuse for an abortion when a woman could for just another operation keep it alive. There's another voting bloc that will have a understandably heavy pro-life bent.
War of attrition. Never EVER start a conflict that will be decided by demographics.
Abortion=less crime
Don't let your god fuck up our society
>Society has the right to the citizens
Is Walter Block not an ancap?
>Pregnancy does not cause significant bodily harm unless it's some sort of failed pregnancy
someone should have aborted you
>artificial womb. Wherein there will be no excuse for an abortion when a woman could for just another operation keep it alive.
This is the optimal outcome. Technology will solve the practical application of this ethical debate.
at what age should the parents not be allowed to decide they don't want their child anymore and snuff it out?
>Body autonomy.
i don't care what you do to your body, it's the body inside you that i don't want you to murder.
>your whole ideology is based on Christianity
sort of, i'm against abortion because i'm against the murder of children,
but i'm only against the murder of children because i believe there are certain immutable moral truths,
which i only believe because of my religious worldview.
This is an issue of sovereignty. Who is truly sovereign in society? The group or the individual? If the individual is sovereign over their body, then they are perfectly fit to decide what to do with it in all circumstances. Id this is not true, then the state owns the human body.
Don't be deceived, the right to abortion is about the right of individual sovereignty. If the state can tell you to maintain a pregnancy against your will, they can tell you what to eat, why not to eat, whether you can masturbate, or any other number of infinite activities. I don't like abortion, so I will never have one (not that I can). The people who do have to live with the shitty decision they made for the rest of their life. And I've met people who've had abortions, they are not okay.
To each his own. Making women keep babies they don't want is tantamount to slavery to the state. Can the government tell you when to spill your seed?
>Because she owns her own body, and therefore gets to dictate who can or cannot stay within it.
Yes. And she decided to get pregnant. There are consequences for that decision.
>He just killed a human, and assaulted his host and willing parent. He ought to be liable for murder of the child, and battery of the woman.
Woah woah, where you getting all this human stuff? It was just a parasitic clump of cells until it's born, remember? You can't say it's a human when someone else kills it.
>For convenience, I consider fetuses to have human rights like anyone else. Like I said several times now, it doesn't affect the argument I'm presenting.
Which is why it's wrong to murder the infant. The mother at least made the choice to kill herself, the infant did not.
Abortion is indeed murder, but sometimes murder is justified. For example when the baby is a nigger.
Yes it does. Its the only function a women serves, biologically. Its her debt to the species, and what she owes her own existence to. The child always supercedes the life of the dumb, slut mother.
>And she decided to get pregnant. There are consequences for that decision.
You are assuming that the consequences must be that she will be burdened with a child for the forseeable future. This is begging the question, not an argument. Justify WHY the consequences for that decision must be to give birth to the child. I've presented my argument why the consequences can simply be to abort the child.
>It was just a parasitic clump of cells until it's born, remember?
I never said this, are you talking to the right person? There are convenient post IDs that let you keep track of who you're arguing with.
>The mother at least made the choice to kill herself, the infant did not.
What the hell are you talking about? What choice to kill herself? Are you drunk?
Yep.
>i don't want to be held responsible for arson, all i did was light a match
Just stop.
The "significant bodily harm" part doesn't even matter if the woman voluntarily engaged in an activity that could render her pregnant. And I still don't agree that pregnancy can be considered significant bodily harm because it's a natural and healthy process, not an anomaly, disease, intentional harm caused, etc.
No, it's not that simple. If the woman put a baby in her womb then she can't murder it. And as I've explained, self-defense claims aren't permissible in the case of pregnancy anyway.
>Discuss strategies on how we can go about ending the wholesale slaughter of the unborn.
Why not make sure murder laws apply to people of all ages?
niggers
>miscarry
>charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide
Thats why
Men should be allowed to abandon parental rights and not be held liable for child support especially if the woman is irresponsible throughout her pregnancy (drinking, smoking, drugs, no prenatal check ups, knowingly birthing a child with serious birth defects, etc)
Takes 2 to tango so both should have a say and a get out of jail free card
>You are assuming that the consequences must be that she will be burdened with a child for the forseeable future.
Yeah. Why shouldn't she? She just fell onto an ejaculating dick?
>Justify WHY the consequences for that decision must be to give birth to the child
So that the child gets the same chance at life that the mother has clearly squandered.
>I've presented my argument why the consequences can simply be to abort the child.
Not sufficiently.
>What the hell are you talking about? What choice to kill herself? Are you drunk?
Wait, i thought you were talking about life-threatening complications from giving birth or something. You're arguing for lazy cunts to just off their children because they're too much trouble to raise? Fuck you, psychopath.
>doesn't even matter if the woman voluntarily engaged in an activity that could render her pregnant
>people cannot withdraw consent
Come on now.
>because it's a natural and healthy process
I just described the "natural and healthy" harm that comes to every pregnant woman. Or is it healthy back pain? Healthy tooth decalcification? Healthy mood swings? Healthy emotional disorders?
Just because it is natural, doesn't mean the harm does not exist.
You'd have to prove intent or negligence first. If someone is in a car accident who is pregnant and loses their baby because of the impact they're not going to get a negligence charge or manslaughter or for falling down stairs, etc.
Lol, if the withdrawal of the consent results in the murder of another individual that you are solely responsible for putting there, which has no culpability in its own predicament. What matters is not intent to become pregnant, what matters if the intent to commit the act.
Again, a pregnancy is not (even if we ignore the consent issue) a significant bodily harm or a present and immediate danger to the mother's life, to such an extent that it would render the killing of the violator (the baby) permissible. It simply wouldn't hold in any court of law let alone morally.
So fucking what. Theres a magical cure for that and its called not getting fucking pregnant.
>she just fell onto an ejaculating dick?
This is still not an argument.
>So that the child gets the same chance at life that the mother has clearly squandered.
Neither is this.
You need to demonstrate that the right of the fetus to reside in the mother supercedes the mother's right to dictate who stays inside her body.
>i thought you were talking about life-threatening complications from giving birth or something
No. Nor would that make any difference to the argument. If it is established that the fetus' right to life is more important than the mother's, then abortion is wrong in all cases, be it the risk of death of the mother, or rape, or whatever. If not, then abortion must be acceptable in all cases. There is no middle ground.
Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy and parenthood.
If it's not then you must also argue that men can withdraw consent to fatherhood for knocking a girl up, thus absolving all men of ever having to pay for their child or support it in any way.
this is NOT ok youtube.com
Because women do intentionally miscarry and you have to at least investigate it.
You're continuing this false equivalency. An egg won't survive if you threw them into the woods and left them to their own devices. That's inherently my point, the eggs can't survive outside of the womb so the mother can kill them because it's still the mother.
The species doesn't matter and the fitness doesn't matter, the relationship is what is being described here and its parasitic. The egg can't survive without the mother. Parasites are inherently symbiotic and sometimes don't harm the host, but they're all defined as not being able to live without the host. Fertilized eggs are parasites until they can live outside of the mother because that's the definition of a parasite, but the relationship might not harm the mother directly.
Also you're talking about fitness really simplistically. If it kills the mother, or the mother doesn't have enough resources to maintain the offspring then the fitness is against her and she'll usually kill them or foster siblicide. You can claim to be pro-life but that basically includes supporting everyone until they die.
I was very pro choice until I realized the social engineering aspect of "Industrialized Abortion" and since then I am staunch pro life.
if I build a house inside someone else's house can I claim their trespassing?
>This is still not an argument.
She made a choice that carried strict consequences. Deal with it.
>Neither is this.
People don't deserve life? Come here and say that, you fucking sicko.
>You need to demonstrate that the right of the fetus to reside in the mother supercedes the mother's right to dictate who stays inside her body.
The mother made the choice.
>No. Nor would that make any difference to the argument. If it is established that the fetus' right to life is more important than the mother's, then abortion is wrong in all cases, be it the risk of death of the mother, or rape, or whatever. If not, then abortion must be acceptable in all cases. There is no middle ground.
The lives are equal. The child is no threat to the mother, but the mother is a threat to the child.
You're a fucking psychopath who needs to die.
You need to demonstrate why the state needs to be at her beck and call for this decision. If she can operate on herself and "evict the fetus", by all means, but society is not required to provide her any help in attaining that goal.