Should it be legal for a man to kill the baby of a cheating wife?

Should it be legal for a man to kill the baby of a cheating wife?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=rXwMrBb2x1Q
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23158098
canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.aspx
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Not out of anger but to preserve the family unit yes

Dang what a question this one is. I'd like to see the libs say no since they love killing babies.

No, the child did nothing wrong of its own choice

Nah I dont wanna kill all my wife's kids, they're nice and my wife's BF would beat the shit outta me so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i feel like this could be argued for on the basis natural instinct. so many other animals do this

Just leave her? Why ruin your life to kill a cunt's baby? Get a fucking DNA test then fuck off and let her bring herself to ruin.

That’s what I had in mind. The child of someone who cucks will retain the genetic impulse to do the same. They are a net loss for society.
It’s very existence is wrong
Kek
I mean, the very first action that a male animal does when meeting a fertile female is to kill the offspring of rival males

it should be mandatory

Yes

It wouldn’t ruin your life if it was legal. Prior to jewish influence in society, destroying the child of an adulterer was just standard procedure. Over time the gene pool would be cleansed of unfaithful and sexually untrustworthy people.

>its very existance is wrong
Tips fedora
Doesnt change anything. The child should not lose its life because the mother's husband was a fag and couldnt keep her legs closed.

If you kill a child in the U.S, doesn't matter if it's yours or not, you will fucking go to prison. This isn't the fucking 1700-1800's.

>It’s very existence is wrong

Typical animal response. Lions for instance do kill the cubs of the other male lions they defeat.
The cheating wives baby's existence is only wrong because you as a man failed in keeping your woman wet only for you. Women do not have the agency men do. It is your fault. Besides, that baby won't be eligible to any of your money anyway.

children choose their parents. you don’t believe this yet, but contemplate it.

It should be legal for the male head of family to kill anyone in his family. Paterfamilias

what if you're a lib

I believe in a higher supernatural power, but I also have commmon sense. If you destroy people with certain genetic traits, those traits will no longer exist. More children will always be born, and of superior quality as well. Please keep your emotions out of this.

>you as a man failed in keeping your woman wet only for you. Women do not have the agency men do.

fair point, but part of male agency includes killing such males

That's grounds for a divorce where you keep all your shit and she goes homeless.

JUST DROP IT OFF IN CANADA

OP is a power kike, and these threads are meant to portray Sup Forums users as a bunch of mentally unstable sick fucks. You figure out why they might want to do this.

>but part of male agency includes killing such males

Only if they pose a social threat later in life, which they don't these days.

Superior genes are in the child that was conceived. A man saw a women and bred her. The weak genes are in the man on the internet justifying killing infants because he got cucked and cant retaliate to those really responsible.

>Christcucks defending literal cuckoldry
lmao

You're a fellow murican, answer it yourself. Retards don't give a shit if it's gonna die in an hour due to some insane disease that can be caught by testing in the fucking embryo and is birthed, if you kill a child regardless they will call you a fucking a soulless cunt and wish for your dick to be cut off and fed to a dog.

Once again. If it was legal. Now argue the central point.
>The cheating wives baby's existence is only wrong because you as a man failed in keeping your woman wet only for you
False. It carries the genetic pattern of a hypergamus cheater who will actively deceive men into raising other men’s children. By destroying the child, you have eliminated the problem and rendered said mating strategy extinct. A net benefit for newer generations.
>Women do not have the same agency men do
But they do have agency. And that agency is hypergamy.

>Meet mark
>Cuck mark
>Trick mark
>Carry on

This was the norm for most of human existence and still is.

It is not a man’s fault for being an inferior model at the time.

No.
But the man shouldn't have to take care of a baby that isn't his and should be allowed to divorce without repercussions.

>if it were legal
How is that an argument if it would never fucking be legal in the first place?
If "murdering niggers for the sake of being niggers is legal," used to be legal and even wanted by most people in the U.S just a little over hundred years ago, but guess what? Liberals will want to castrate you for even thinking it today. Not a fucking argument.

You mean the way all divorces should be?

Yes

>will retain the genetic impulse to do the same

>Only sick fucks want to keep the gene pool clean and pristine
K
>Superior genes are in the child that was conceived
I cannot agree. Reggie the petty crook is not superior because he fucked a woman during her fertile period and she was able to pass off to her beta husband that the child is his.

A superior man would simply destroy hypergamy at it’s core so western civilization will have one less thing to worry about. Like smallpox.

Heh, do you think smallpox was superior because we eradicated it?

The question is “Should it be legal?”. Not “What would buzzfeed think if it was legal?”.
Are you honestly saying that behavior is not genetic?

So you're defending the beta provider for killing chad's baby?

Unless you have an abortion then it’s her right. The cucked west in a nutshell

>False. It carries the genetic pattern of a hypergamus cheater who will actively deceive men into raising other men’s children. By destroying the child, you have eliminated the problem and rendered said mating strategy extinct. A net benefit for newer generations.

Sure, if you're into eugenics. But then again. What makes your genes so profitable that they cannot also be questioned and you yourself euthanised in an effort to preserve a good gene stock?

>But they do have agency. And that agency is hypergamy.
I think it's mostly the other way around. Men are programmed for short-term relationships. Women want long-term relationships (because carrying and raising babies is time-consuming) which make cause them to cuck Mark when Mark fails to act as if he is in a long-term relationship. It's miscommunication and ignorance at its core. So it is the man's fault for being ignorant and thus inferior.

no, but it should be legal for him to break complete contact with said woman.
In France, it's not

>man and woman get married and woman becomes pregnant

>woman cheats -> she can kill the baby if she wants
>man has no power

>man cheats ->woman can kill the baby if she wants
>man has no power

>either initiates a divorce -> she can kill the baby if she wants
>man has no power

>man dies in accident
>she can kill the baby if she wants

seriously if we're fucked up enough as a society to accept abortion as a "right", it shouldn't be solely the woman's right to choose.

No? Why the fuck would you want to kill an innocent baby if anything wouldn't he rather kill the mother?
m.youtube.com/watch?v=rXwMrBb2x1Q

No.

/thread

Of course. Alphas have served an important purpose in prehistory, but now they are relics from a bygone age of barbarism. A man who fucks another man’s woman has no right to breed. Betas are the tax base, betas are the workers, betas are the law abiders, betas are the nuclear fathers, and betas are the backbone of tradition.
Who knows? Maybe I will be sterilized for the greater Good somehow.

Women are programmed for cheating with alpha males when fertile, and trickIng betas into raising the children. This is mainstream science.

Pink id aswell, topkek

You kill them both. Paterfamilias

Because the child will continue ruining society like his mother. Children are perfectly replaceable.

no, but he should have no obligation of any kind toward raising it.

lmao that ship has sailed for good. i respect the right of every race to wish to be pure though, im just more realistic than you

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23158098

Nature>Nurture

Kek

yes.

\t.nigger

No just kill the wife.

Niggers don’t give a shit about paternity

>A man who fucks another man’s woman has no right to breed.
If her mate defends his territory.

>Betas are the tax base, betas are the workers, betas are the law abiders
good goy

>betas are the backbone of tradition
false

>Should it be legal for a man to kill the baby of a cheating wife?

In ancient Rome the husband had the legal right and it was something honor demanded.

Correct. Killing children is redpilled.

No, but the law never stopped me

only nigger babies

Fuck off nigger. Betas are nice and obedient and prefer the safety of traditional values. Alphas like Stalin are obsessed with destroying the old order.
Ave victoria

>Who knows? Maybe I will be sterilized for the greater Good somehow.

Or you disregard your notions and try and better mankind by not treating humanity as a farmer would cattle, but rather a scientist try and treat, cure and understand what can be changed in our genome. I'm specifically thinking of Gattaca right now. Refine what is already there, rather than try to cut out the whole thing like a savage.

Feelings and emotions are worthless

If it was, OP would be dead

>Feelings and emotions are worthless

I think you're in hell right now.

>Alphas like Stalin
Now I know you're trolling.

>Get a fucking DNA test then fuck off and let her bring herself to ruin.
Get a fucking DNA test then fuck off and be forced to pay child support to your wife's son by the family courts

>and be forced to pay child support to your wife's son by the family courts
In France maybe.

>'Typical animal response. Lions for instance'

WHAT!!!?
Sorry lad but NEY, that doesn't work .^.

>YOU the animal as you seem to understand them, and user is FAR from animal.

>As families gather this festive season, here is a spicy fact that mothers might be loath to dish out at the holiday table: It's now widely accepted among those who work in genetics that roughly 10 per cent of us are not fathered by the man we believe to be dad.

>Morgan Wise remembers how in 1999 the doctor rose from his chair, walked around the desk and sat down in front of him. Mr. Wise's youngest son had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis years earlier, but a medical test showed Mr. Wise did not carry a CF gene.
>"My first thought was that they must have misdiagnosed my son," the 40-year-old railway engineer from Big Spring, Tex., said in an interview this week.
>But then the doctor looked him squarely in the eye and said: "Morgan, do you have any reason to think this boy might not be yours?"
>The possibility seemed outlandish. He had been married to the same woman for 13 years and they had had three boys and a girl before they broke up in 1996. But for peace of mind, he decided to go ahead with paternity tests.
>In March, 1999, the results arrived by mail -- a creased piece of paper telling him that not one of the three boys was his.
>"I felt anger toward [my first wife] and sadness, and I felt so sorry for my kids," Mr. Wise recalled. "I told my boys, 'I love you all, you'll always be my sons, the only difference is now I'm not your birth father.' "
>Despite this revelation, a district court judge ruled that Mr. Wise had to continue paying child support for the three boys. Based on a 500-year-old common law, most states operate on the presumption that a husband is the father of any child born to his wife during a marriage.
canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.aspx

Are you black? Don't kill the kid, ditch the whore. Christ. Do have to do everything for you people?.

Found the juu.