Abortion

Sup Forums, I have some questions about abortion. It is an issue I've been undecided on my whole life.
I can understand the pro-choice view because:
1. The child would probably be born into a situation that is awful anyways, creating more suffering than if it is just aborted.
2. The risk of the mother's health is a big one.
3. The child, if deformed or mentally handicapped, would cause long term suffering for themselves and their family.

However, the pro-life side also stands up very well to me:
1. Abortion is murder no matter how you put it. It is putting an end or stop to human life. Even if you want to argue that human life doesn't begin until birth, that doesn't change the fact that you are doing something that will stop the development of a human life- effectively ending the human life.
2. It gives an out to people who should be responsible but choose not to be, and then use taxpayer-assisted programs to commit what is essentially infanticide.
3. Saying that ending the life is okay just because there is no pain/no consciousness is a horrible argument made by the pro-choice side, because I could find someone sleeping and shoot them in the head. They were in a state of no consciousness and felt no pain, but it was still wrong to murder them.

I would be pro-life but my issue comes with consistency- it would be preferable to allow abortions in situations where the baby will be mentally or physically handicapped, or where the health of a woman is at risk.

So is it possible to be pro-life in certain situations, and pro-choice in others? I would say yes, except that that encourages inconsistency and also the idea that you are the one who gets to choose who lives and who dies- I'm not religious but I think it's wrong to be doing that.

Someone please discuss this with me so that we can reach a better conclusion/state of ideas.

>inb4 it's good because it kills millions of black babies
This thread isn't about utilitarianism.

My position has always been ban after three months and that's what is logical. After three months you are killing a living being.

I Consider myself to be mostly pro-life.
It has been proven that a fetus can feel pain and birth control should be more available because it's better than the alternative..

That's fair enough, and also nice trips. I can understand that, but at the same time, before that you are still stopping the active development of a human life. It's not like masturbating and letting the sperm die, because sperm have already found the egg and if you leave that alone a human being will be there in a few months.

It's that interference that bothers me, however I don't know how that meshes with my concerns about forcing a family to have a disabled child out of no fault of their own.

This. Before the third month it's not alive yet.

only before the third trimester

It should not affect you. Would you not consider a condom an interference in the development of human life too then?

It's literal murder, but god did that plenty of times and there are too many humans, right? Do we need more humans?

I agree with you on that. People are going to fuck profusely no matter what, sadly. Are you pro-life in the situation of a child who will have Down's Syndrome or be otherwise disabled/a burden to the family? That is where I am stumped.
This seems to be the consensus so far. So what if later in development the family finds out the child will be disabled/handicapped and a huge burden to them, and probably will not find much joy in life itself?

My main issue with the first trimester argument is that by then the life is still developing and by interfering you are stopping this human from being born.

The ultimate sway point for me is you have all these fucking idiots running around are because they didn't have capable parents, if the mother and father are not ready, cut that thing out.

No, because the condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and starting the development of a human life, where as if you kill a 2 month old fetus, leave it for another month and it will be a human being even by your definition.
I'm not religious but I don't think we should be killing babies just because we think it's worse for the greater good to have them. Once our main concern is the greater good, then we start to move towards things like Communism/Socialism and so on.

Lemme just state a quick thing to hopefully sway your view.
My mother had an abortion earlier in her life.
She later had my sister and I.
If she didnt get the abortion I WOULD NOT HAVE EXISTED NEITHER WOULD MY SISTER

I was referring more to selfishness actually. If someone doesn't want it, says to themselves, why I does the planet need 12 billion humans, then who cares, essentially. We eat hamburgers all the and most of us aren't wringing our hands about that. Selfishness is only bad within the context of the christjew box. Christjewism is actually pretty marxist, so right back at you.

Anti-abortion fags are delusional retards. Literally, the lower a person's IQ the higher chance they are "pro-life".

A fetus has less consciousness than a fucking spider. If abortion is murder, then so is flushing a spider down the toilet.

Consciousness, empathy and higher intelligence - the things that make us human and give us our worth compared to most other animals - doesn't fully develop until we are several years old. That's why you can't remember being a baby, obviously.

If you dispute these things, then it is obvious that you aren't capable of being logical and instead are simply parroting some religious faggotry or acting out of blind emotion.

An embryo that I fertilized in college was aborted, ask me anything about it.

/thread

>No, because the condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and starting the development of a human life, where as if you kill a 2 month old fetus, leave it for another month and it will be a human being even by your definition.
Well you have a point, but I guess I would say at least it isn't technically a living human at that point. I'm pro choice at that point because that is a moral grey area.

If you kill a fetus without the woman's permission, it's murder. But if she wants the thing dead, it's no longer murder to perform the identical action. That means a woman's thoughts and feelings define whether something is murder or not, which I suppose is not so strange given that it's a man's thoughts and feelings that determine that he's really a woman.

Fair enough, but I don't like the idea of eugenics.
That makes sense, but I don't think it's a very good moral argument that abortion should exist because that way later on other people might exist.
That's an okay and fair view that I can understand. Also not to be a stickler but all the hippy stuff you hear about Christ is not true, he was never a marxist or socialist in any way. His message was to help others when you have the means, and also shamed people for not standing up to oppressive government, or following his word and taking what you have and making more.
The difference is that it's human life vs other forms of life.
If you are going to make the argument that human life is not more valuable, then you have to make the argument that murder should be legal, or you must be a vegan/starve to death.
I'm not religious nor was I raised religious but I see the value in human life.
The difference is that animals will never develop higher intelligence, whereas if you leave the fetus alone, it will. It is still ending a human life in development.

But the "it's a person who's using you like a parasite" argument doesn't stand up because you chose to have sex, and therefore chose to have that baby.

If a woman is raped, I would say she can have an abortion because she did not choose to have sex and therefore did not choose the consequences. However, there's still something to say about whether or not it's okay to end the rape-baby's life because it also didn't choose its situation. So I'm not decided on that.
That's okay, and I appreciate your intellectual honesty. It's a morally gray area to me as well and I'm really not certain on all the details.
Kek, that's a great point actually.

>you chose to have sex, and therefore chose to have that baby

Most people have sex for enjoyment and intimacy, not to make a baby. That's like saying you deserve to get hit by a car because you chose to use a sidewalk. There is always a chance something will unintentionally go wrong

Why are humans above population controls? We cull other species for the benefit of the ecosystem as a whole but humans somehow are above that. Furthermore I notice some people who are pro life are also pro death penalty. If we use the stupid tautology of murder is murder then I find it troubling that a lot of these people are accepting of state sanctioned murder.

My position: humans are not above population controls, healthy societies are self-correcting of it ills regardless of the fact that at no fault of a fetuses own it it's being killed. Furthermore those who have been removed from society to the confines of a cell because they have committed the most heinous of crimes deserve to die.

If you don't recognize that more unwanted children in the world is a bad thing I will direct your attention to the black communities. Even with the highest abortion numbers they still outpace other races and we see these numbers of illegitimate children having an effect.

Those who are pro-life I suggest you apply your time and effort to more productive endeavors. Btw people who are using abortion as birth control should be charged with murder.

>you chose to have sex, therefore you chose to have that baby

That's not how that works. It's amazing how completely out of touch that you sexless weirdos are with the reality of sex and relationships.

>Most people have sex for enjoyment and intimacy, not to make a baby. That's like saying you deserve to get hit by a car because you chose to use a sidewalk.

Except that's a very false equivalency. It's more akin to saying you deserve to get hit by a car because you chose to walk down the middle of the road.

Having sex creates babies, that's its intended purpose biologically, just like how a road is meant for cars. Sure you can have sex for reasons other than procreation, and you can use a road for reasons other than driving, but you must deal with the consequences of both.

A parent should be able to have their child killed at any time for any reason up until like, 4 years old. Who gives a shit? or there should just be like human pounds where you take your kid and if someone wants to adopt it, then they can, if no one does, then fuck it. Maybe they can give it to the military to train super soldiers.

>virgin!
Please make actual arguments. If you think that sex is not meant to makes babies, you are wrong. Yes you can do it for fun and no there's nothing wrong with that, but when there are more than 16 different methods of birth control all that can be compiled together, each with a 99.99% chance of effectiveness, there's no excuse.

I'll let you in on a secret, sometimes girls are secretyl fucking crazy and skip their BC to reel you into a very long term committed relationship.

I would suggest that this has more to do with the government pervertedly incentivizing illigitamacy by structuring child-support payments such that bastardry pays the best.

And I can let you in on a secret- you can still use a condom that you brought from home to avoid that risk. There is no excuse anymore.

Wear a condom then, retard

>Having sex creates babies, that's its intended purpose biologically

Biology doesn't dictate my ethics or my rights. I'm not surrendering my body to anyone, and no one gets to have it. Cancer is biologically meant to kill you, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to remove the tumor.

Agreed if you go further into it you will find many underlying contributing factors

Or, I'm just spitballing here. Get her to abort the kid that you didn't consent to making.

Either murder is always immoral, or your morality is meaningless.

In situations where the mother's life is at risk, the child would die, anyway. These are a non-issue and non-inconsistency.

>you are stopping this human from being born

So condoms are as bad as abortion? Seriously you autists, the only right way to approach the abortion question is to allow them within the first 8 weeks only. If a woman can't pull her shit together and make a reasonable decision in two months then she's squeezing that shit out. No excuses, except in the case where the mother may die or be seriously maimed by giving birth.

They don't even have to raise the fucking thing, just bring it into this world

Condoms don't stop a human from being born, they prevent a human from being conceived.

The human already exists in an abortion.

You consent to making a baby when you have sex with a woman with no birth control. It's in the terms and conditions. If you put your peepee in a vajayjay, a baby comes out. It's nature, that's just what happens.
Like if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, they're gonna get shot. You can't go "I didn't consent to their dying."

>you consent to making a baby

Nope, we're not going to fast but try and keep up.

>You consent to making a baby when you have sex with a woman with no birth control. It's in the terms and conditions.
>Nope
Are you legitimately dense? It can't be boiled down further than this.
Condoms stop the sperm from joining with the egg, not ending the development of the currently developing life.

Pretty obvious that I did not know she skipped birth control. You are accusing me of dense, yet you didn't pick that one up.

Batting 1000 chief.

Did you take a sex ed class in school? Sex makes babies. If you have sex, you make a baby. Birth control exists to prevent that. By choosing to not use birth control, you're choosing to make a baby.

You're the idiot that chose to not wear a condom, lad. YOU skipped the birth control.

t. cuck

Unless you're married, you should be wrapping it, period. You are a victim of your own poor judgment of the girl's character. Newsflash: Women aren't always honest.

Apparently it wasn't obvious my post was meant sarcastically. Abortion should only be legal when the mother's life in danger or when the child is disabled enough to have a shit life and/or be too much of burden for its parents/society.

>inb4 what about rape?

The child is not reponsible for the fact its mother was raped. But, I'd be in favour of chemically castrating rapists.

YOU USE A CONDOM. YOU CHOOSE TO USE BIRTH CONTROL. ACCEPT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

When it comes to creating human life, you haven't considered the fact that maybe you shouldn't depend on someone else and just blindly trust them? YOU skipped the birth control, as says.

Birth control is also a pill cocknocker.

I don't have a kid and I got to slam that pussy raw 1000's of times. Who wins now fuckstain?

Yeah I had never met a girl crazy enough to skip BC on purpose. I learned my lesson and I know crazy when I see it.

I don't have a kid, you aren't getting the hot ass pussy that I do.

I actually agree with you 100%, right down to the castration of rapists. That's really bizarre considering almost no one else seems to hold this view.

Great! Adds even less credence to your "argument," not more, though.

>unless you're married you need to wear a condom

Fuckin lol, great argument

You don't 'need' to, but if you don't want to have a child and DO want to have sex, the only way to remove your responsibility is to use a condom.

Male BC is comin up my involuntarily abstinent friend.

"Great argument" says the guy who brings stunning retorts such as "I got to slam that pussy raw 1000's of times" and "you aren't getting the hot ass pussy that I do"
You sound like a 15 year old on Xbox live. You've probably slept with my mom, and smoke weed like every day too.

>if you don't have promiscuous unprotected sex you're a virgin

No really, you guys are naming consequences that I don't have to deal with.

Your arguments are claiming that I have problems which I actually don't.

I don't smoke weed and I haven't fucked your mom, but I do have a history of fucking models and top shelf girls with decent popularity.

>you can't be abstinent if you're not a virgin

Sorry, models with decent popularity and top shelf girls*

>. It gives an out to people who should be responsible but choose not to be, and then use taxpayer-assisted programs to commit what is essentially infanticide.
Wrong.

No tax-dollars go to abortion. Period. It is extraordinarily well-investigated and well-document. It does not happen, in the USA.

If it's tax dollars you're worried about, then you should be pro-choice, since the women who get abortions can also get food stamps.

>3. Saying that ending the life is okay just because there is no pain/no consciousness is a horrible argument made by the pro-choice side
Straw-man much? That isn't an argument made by the "pro-choice side." The woman's body, so she gets to take things out of it. It's not about the baby at all.

>1. Abortion is murder no matter how you put it.
It is killing--not murder. If an invader breaks into your house and shoot him, is that murder? No: it is killing. The woman has a life inside her body that she elects to remove from her body. She is not murdering the baby; she is killing the baby. It is her body, and she has autonomy over it, including the right to eject its contents, same as you have over your home.

>The difference is that it's human life vs other forms of life.
>If you are going to make the argument that human life is not more valuable, then you have to make the argument that murder should be legal, or you must be a vegan/starve to death.
>I'm not religious nor was I raised religious but I see the value in human life.

Did you even read my argument before posting an argument whose counterpoint is the very argument you replied to?

I said that human life is more valuable, but it ISN'T human life until it has the characteristics that make us human, which a fetus DOESN'T have. Why do I have to repeat myself?

>right down to the castration of rapists. That's really bizarre considering almost no one else seems to hold this view.
I'm 100% against abortion and I support executing rapists.