>this question gets asked at least 3 times last night in the same thread
>no response from Pro-Choice "debater"
>ever
You ever notice how Pro-Choice arguments contain nothing but circular logic and extremely narrow semantics? Just admit that it's murder and that you got BTFO.
Activate those almonds, baby killers.
Bump, have some leddit lead
26 weeks is too late unless the baby has super downs
*googles*
Well the difference is that one gets born through c section and one gets aborted.
Question answered unless my google skills suck.
But this is a bait thread do sage anyway
>"No new post"
Thats what i thought faggot
Sage
Wrong. 26 weeks is still in the second trimester.
Not an argument.
...
Not the question.
26 weeks is also completely legal in about half of the states.
It's anl blatant ethical problem, but I understand if you're scared of the implications.
What makes one "birth", and what makes the other "NOT murder".
Abortions keep the nigger population at bay. I wish we could convince spics they need abortions just as much.
>expecting Sup Forums LARPers to actually back up and justify their position
That's because newborns should be classified as human only after they learn to read.
Before that only animal protection laws should apply.
One lives and one dies.
Large difference in my eyes.
who the fuck cares its not like white children are being aborted anywhere near as often as other babies
I was lurking in this thread last night. Indeed you shouldn't expect an answer, or or at least an honest one. This argument is bulletproof because it takes away the "is it viable" question Pro-Choicers try to tangle others up in. Then they usually try to skirt around the obvious follow-up questions about humans on life support and "viability".
What amuses me the most is that Pro-Choicers will ALWAYS insert the "but rape" argument, yet they'll never answer this question. You can almost taste the intellectual dishonesty.
Also not the question. If you want to call it murder, though, go ahead.
Right. I shoot your mother and spare your father.
>Large difference in my eyes.
What makes one "birth", and what makes the other "a legal woman's right"?
>but not when it comes to black and mexican babies
The absolute state of conservatards
>durrr who cares
Apparently, you. It's fine if you think it's necessary for demographics. It's also not the question. Stop being intellectually dishonest and admit that it's murder for the sake of convenience...OR start caring about the question.
over 40% of white pregnancies are unwanted. but ok.
>What makes one "birth", and what makes the other "NOT murder".
One stays alive unless it unintentionally dies.
abortion is the best way to keep the nigger population down minus a final solution. Why do you want it to go away?
I did basically say it was murder, but your brain barely works before the age of 3-4 so its like killing a cow
what if your daughter is raped by a mudslime and gets regnant, i doubt you would want the mutt to live
A 26 week baby is going to require a ton of resources and it is very unlikely they will do well and mature normally. An abortion prevents the suffering and saves a tremendous amount of resources which can be allocated to babies with a better prognosis. Not too mention the financial and emotional toll on the family. If aborted, the mom can then have another kid who will be a healthier and more productive member of society.
No, it doesn't you delusional faggot. Vast majority of abortions without a medical reaction occur within the first trimester, then after 20 weeks, abortions are majorly performed due to defects and retardation
>letting your daughter go outside when there are muslims around
>not teaching her about seppuku
Reading comprehension? An aborted baby can NEVER "unintentionally die", so your answer can't even apply as logically valid. Its an intentional procedure that renders the body lifeless.
Swing and a miss.
Nobody cares about he babies.
You don't even care about the babies. All high and mighty about their right to live, yet wouldn't give two fucks about them when their grown.
I say we legalize post natal abortions up to 6 months after the kids drops out. If the nervous system ain't kicked really kicked in yet then it ain't living.
>Just admit that it's murder
Ok. At least it kill niggers disproportionately. If you weren't a christcuck you'd know that this is a good thing.
This guy gets it
Exactly OP. They can't just admit they have no sense of morals or ethics, and don't believe that the most vulnerable among us deserve our protection.
Pro-choicers, aborters, and abortion doctors all will get the rope eventually.
You just justified killing 2 year olds, then? Okay my man.
>not answering the question at hand because the majority of procedures don't occur in this time window
And yet I bet you whine about how the injustice of rape should especially make abortion legal
Really activates the almonds
LMFAO
"it's just a cluster of metal and plastic"
pic related
>Reading comprehension?
Yea, maybe you should read yourself.
The baby that is "born" through a cesarean is the one I'm referring to "staying alive" and the one aborted obviously dies.
I don't know how you got whatever that opinion was.
Ok good so we agree! It's murder. Now, what do we do with murderers?
plenty argue that not being brought into the world *is* protecting them
So murder anything that takes a lot of resources. Got it.
Why stop at 6 months? I think we should make some exceptions for people like you. How old are you, then?
honestly I am against it in principle but the world doesn't need more of the races that typically get aborted most, you know what I mean.
It would be a leaf saying that. You kill your enemies they win right... I sure feel like "protecting" trash like you right about now (using your definition by the way)
At least you're consistent.
>not actually answering the actual question and instead talking about resource cost
Phew
Projection and refusing to answer the question
One honest Pro-Choicer so far!
>every abortion happens at 26 week mark
Nice presumption, maybe nobody is answering you because your question is loaded from the beginning.
Pro-choicers are extremely defensive about their freedom to be as selfish as they want. Everybody knows abortion is bad, that’s why it’s so stigmatized. Abortion is just convenience run amok.
I honestly don't give a shit if it's life, not life, half life, whatever. It keeps the black population in check sine they abort at vastly higher rates than whites. The only thing holding them back from self-genocide is you retarded pro-lifers. Just change your name to #BLM already you double nigger lover
>making up context that doesn't exist
You stupid nigger, the question doesn't say EVERY abortion. You literally MADE it loaded on your own because you are an ethical coward that refuses to answer the question as is.
I bet you argue about how rape should be justified grounds for abortion, though!
How about you get internally consistent and stop being a pussy over whether you're okay with murdering helpless children or not.
Some earlier, some later. Is there a difference?
What do ya got. Sentience, Cluster of cells, Viability... Come on buddy, which one?
>implying banning abortion works
banning anything never works you dumb as fuck idiots
jesus fucking christ at this point i wonder if americans are even born with fully functioning brains
>I don't care because race
If you truly don't care except for this context, should it be illegal for whites to get abortions?
Well the key issue in the abortion debate is if it is life or not. And OP is conveniently choosing a term in pregnancy where not only are abortions very rare, but they are often out of medical necessity for the life of the mother. It is dishonest from the very beginning
Timing is the entire debate though, it's the key factor and OP thinks he is very smart for being intellectually dishonest.
>implying roasties would still be roasties when the only option is back alley abortions
>implying legalized/safe abortions (for the mother) aren't a DIRECT cause for degeneracy by being a convenient "out" for women who choose to be whores
>still not answering the original question
>resorting to skirting the issue with flowery language
26 week and up abortions outnumber abortions for rape babies. Yet the rape baby argument is seen as so viable that it makes most Pro-Lifers allow exceptions. They're trying to be somewhat honest. Why aren't you answering the original question without changing it?
Guns don't kill people. They just abort post natal. That's why school shootings should be legal.
Dude, your first response was to your own LITERALLY altered version of the original question. You tried to actually play that off. And you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty? Why did you change the words rather than answer the question?
Why have you still not answered the original question?
That is because those abortions are medically necessary for the lift of the mother, which is why they are more common. I am answering his question, you just don't like the truth. If you counted the number of abortions that occurred after 26 weeks that weren't medically necessary it is absolutely tiny, much less than your "rape baby" argument.
Do you think people stay pregnant for 26 weeks and just decide to get an abortion then instead of immediately? OP is arguing against a strawman, that's why it is intellectually dishonest and that's why nobody is arguing against it.
>lel instead of solving the nigger problem by forcing them into a nuclear family scenario we should instead let them act like monkeys and reproduce by accident promising that we have a solution to their "baby problem"
abortions should only be legal to those who would also remove their ovaries.
>That is because those abortions are medically necessary for the lift of the mother
No, they're not. You are again inserting a false context. There are many states that allow abortion outside of medical emergency. You know this. I'd ask you to stop being a completely dishonest faggot, but it's all you know.
abortion does a great job at killing blacks
for that reason we should keep abortion and fund it - "free abortion for the poor!" - would kill even more blacks
I already explained that OP is strawmanning, nobody thinks babies should just be aborted at 26 weeks old.
Sorry you don't like the facts, but you can look up the amount of 26+ week abortions and see they are almost all for medical necessity. Just because it's available doesn't mean it is chosen.
Sounds like facts of the matter are just too much to acknowledge and it's much more comfortable to make up your oppositions arguments for them
>If you counted the number of abortions that occurred after 26 weeks that weren't medically necessary it is absolutely tiny
Okay. So in these cases, which you've admitted exist, is it murder when it could just as soon be delivered via a cesarean NICU birth?
I am strongly pro life, but you know what is the worst thing to feel? When your moral code/ideology is wrong or illogical, in USA 36-37% of niggers / year get aborted, and although I think it is just gloryfied genocide, with how niggers multiply there, it slows USA turning to Africa 2.0 conisderably.
And I am very sad that I am admitting it, as it is against my moral code, BUT arguments speak for themeselves.
>nobody thinks babies should just be aborted at 26 weeks old.
>the amount of 26+ week abortions are almost all for medical necessity.
Those that aren't? Are these people the ones you refer to as "nobody"? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself and lacking internal consistency. Again.
Interestingly in order to justify abortion the SCOTUS changed the definition of born from: brought wholly into separate existence to: wholly brought into separate existence. How Orwellain is that?
I am okay with the eugenics "tragic truth" argument re demographics.
No, if it can't survive on it's own outside of the womb without being artificiality kept alive.
Nothing I have said has been contradictory or inconsistent.
To the person with the vagina a truck could drive through. What is 2+2?
the straw man here is that the debate is over "when life begins". the realities of abortion come down to health of mother, health of child, among many of other factors.
if you want to play a "straw man" game, how about this fact: high infant mortality rates are directly correlated to states that have restricted access to abortion. 'pro life' my ass! republicans cant even keep their babies alive once they are out of the womb, KEK
Mind blowing, isn't it?
It actually required redefining a whole concept rather than addressing the ethics.
Hey, if I change the definitions of the words, I can do anything.
Is it murder to pull the plug on someone who's on life support?
>implying you actually have to abort for life of the mother
Here, have a listen.
No, that's up to the person who is designated their medical agency. Keep trying to change the argument for a 'gotcha moment' though, really runs the whole intellectually dishonest point I made earlier home.
God doesn't put the soul in until 3 months after the baby is born though.
It doesn’t matter how many weeks it’s been. If it’s not out of the cunt it’s not a person
>No, if it can't survive on it's own outside of the womb without being artificiality kept alive.
>if you use modern health technology it doesnt count as human
Wut
He is speaking of USA statistics, not abort happy Europe
I could have worded that better, but embryos can survive outside of the mother but are they people?
I have to really outline this for you, don't I.
If the person doesn't have a will BUT the life support system is known to almost always bring such a person to a state of complete health and being able to live (outside that life support system) in a matter of mere weeks...is it murder to pull the plug?
Good projection my man.
why be pro choice when you could be pro abortion?
Good question. How about this one. How come it's called a miscarriage and not an abortion when your god kills your unborn child?
Then word it better. You're literally stating that human life that can't survive without artificial help is not human. Time to kill everyone with artificial hearts!
"Nobody"
Yeah, while there are "womens" (forgetting half of aborted babies are female) marches, in which hundreds of women hold signs saying "i'm proud to have an abortion" and saying it was a great experience.
Check you delusion, dishonest looser
Yes, under those completely different circumstances that would be murder. Noe you're going to try to loop this back to a premature baby, I'll wait.
I'm not perfect, user
Ironic post, very dishonest and delusional
God doesn't cause (every) miscarriage. If I believed this, I'd also have to believe that God gives every disease. Are you also stating that every case of cancer is given by God? Because I don't believe that.
It is murder but I am still pro choice.
I'll wait for you to redefine your definition of what can and cannot be ethically terminated. Grandpa's pacemaker is getting shaky anyway....
...
You said (every) not me.
Unborn children that cannot survive outside of their mothers womb, that should be clear enough. They are still an extention of their mothers body until they are viable,her choice.
>All this “holier than thou” bullshit about abortion being bad
Get off your high horses
I also like to bring up that if you are to punch a pregnant women in the stomach when she is 7 months pregnant if she loses it that's just a simple battery charge bc the baby isn't human. No way to charge for murder or manslaughter
What's the problem with killing your own baby? Obviously there are circumstances when a mother doesn't want a baby, she not wanting it is good enough indicator that she shouldn't have it. It's better to kill the baby when it's still a fetus so it won't be a burden on the mother for no reason. Sure there is no practical difference if the killing is made 2 weeks in or after birth, both end results are a dead baby.
In better, primitive times, mothers abandoned babies they couldn't support or when the baby was deformed. This is modern christcuckian nonsense to value human life because some old desert trilogy book said so.
I have to add "every" because I do believe He can cause them and has done so. Being honest.
Is her choice the difference of whether or not it is considered a human being?
No, it is no more a human being than your arm, leg, or torso is.
>plastic
that IS an abortion.
You're the high horse rider for refusing to answer the ethical question.
An arm or leg or torso doesn't have a heart or individual nervous system, nor at any point can it become an individual conscious being. Your definition is shit, try again.
What is the difference? Not saying yoy are wrong, but im cought up in the symantics
Bruv you are so fucking wrong
This is a consistent answer. Thank you. So is this.