>>18484333
I recently became a parent despite being an abortion supporter in my youth, same for my wife. We now are anti abortion.

People who support abortion are immature and young as shit, you are afraid. There is literally no man or woman on Earth who keeps supporting abortion after seeing your baby's face for the first time. You are young and insecure, one day you will either be a happy family man or an extremely lonely and suicidal dude in his 40s unloved and alone like almost all the suicidal anons and redditors who are lonely gamers from their 30s+

>>18484341
I think it's good that you don't want to kill your baby. I wouldn't kill my baby either if I had one.

Abortion as is bad for society and should thus only be practiced when truly necessary.

There is either a soul or there isnt. Either human life matters or doesnt. If you’re fine with abortion you should be fine with genocide since everyone’s just clumps of cells anyways.

>>18484353
>Without magic le nothing matters
And yet we persist...

>>18484333
Still a human life. A fetus is simply the earliest stage of human life and will continue to develop into later stages such as infancy, childhood, adulthood, etc given it does not die naturally or is killed, just as with one in any later stage.

>>18484360
would you save 100 embryos frozen at the very moment of conception or a single infant
trick question, you'd choose the infant, because you also agree that the embryos aren't people

>>18484360
There is a building on fire, inside is a 3 month old baby and a box of 100 fertilized eggs used for implantation. You only have time to save one, which do you save?

File: IMG_0068.jpg (133 KB, 976x549)

133 KB JPG

>It's a human life bro... trust

>>18484363
We are telepathically linked now.

>>18484356
Is there a reason magic can’t exist in your worldview?

>>18484363
>>18484364
I would choose to save a hundred human lives instead of a single human life

>>18484369
It's my worldview so I get to decide what's there and what's not. I decided to leave magic out of my worldview because the only people who believe in it are superstitious third worlders.

>>18484369
Magic isn't real.
>>18484372
So you think it is murder when they throw fertilized eggs away?

>>18484375
So your worldview is formed on the basis of your own arbitrary decisions and not any sound reasoning?

>>18484363
Do you save several 10 year old children or 100 new born babies? You can only pick one group and the others will be considered nonhuman.

>>18484375
argument from consequences

>>18484379
>Magic isn't real.
Why not?
>So you think it is murder when they throw fertilized eggs away?
I think it is murder when living human beings are destroyed yes.

>>18484380
Magic isn't real.

>>18484380
Not including things in your worldview that you'd only share with superstitious thirdies is a sound methodology.
>>18484383
You don't even know what that is, ese.

>>18484387
>>18484388
Absolute state of atheism

>>18484390
You believe in magic lol.

>>18484385
>Why not?
Prove magic is real then.
>I think it is murder when living human beings are destroyed yes.
So if I understand throwing away unfertilized eggs would be fine, but the second a sperm touches one of them it becomes a fully fledged person with all the moral worth typically given to people with personhood.

>>18484381
those both have the brain structures required for human consciousness. not the same, so I pick both. cope

>>18484391
Why don’t you?
>>18484392
>Prove magic is real then.
We are talking about your worldview, and what reason you have to exclude magic from it. On what basis does an atheist believe I could not begin flying right now for no other reason than because I wish to?
>So if I understand throwing away unfertilized eggs would be fine, but the second a sperm touches one of them it becomes a fully fledged person with all the moral worth typically given to people with personhood.
The second it becomes a living human being they are a living soul as divine scripture testifies, and is therefore greatly valuable. Also, can I ask what in your worldview would give “moral worth” to any person? Is there a reason I could not put a gun to your head and brutally murder you? You’re just a clump of cells, right?

>>18484397
>Why don’t you?
I'm not a superstitious third worlder.

>>18484396
Newborn infants have very different brains from grown adults actually.

>>18484402
Argumentum ad hominem

>>18484397
>Is there a reason I could not put a gun to your head and brutally murder you?
You can do that regardless of whose worldview is true.

>>18484397
>We are talking about your worldview, and what reason you have to exclude magic from it.
Prove magic is real and I'll believe in magic, until then magic isn't real.
>The second it becomes a living human being they are a living soul as divine scripture testifies
Magic isn't real

>>18484406
We aren’t talking about ability, but moral law.

>>18484405
No, I'm literally just giving you an autobiographical account of why I don't believe in magic.

>>18484404
doesn't refute my point, cope

>>18484409
So in your worldview the nature of reality is contingent on your personal beliefs?

>>18484410
Then you should have used "ought" rather than "can", retard.

>>18484412
According to your autobiographical account your disbelief in magic is predicated on explicitly irrational grounds.

>>18484414
No. It's just that magic isn't real.

>>18484369
>is there a reason a hypothetical force that emanates from outside the universe and as such is totally unobservable and testable and which has the power to break the unbreakable laws of our reality can't exist in your worldview?
No, but in terms of probability and explanatory power, it's pretty low on the list of things someone would be expected to believe

>>18484417
No, it's predicated on a very solid methodology. You're just taking it personally because you're a superstitious third worlder who believes in shit like palmistry, gypsy fortune tellers or our lady of medjugorje.

>>18484413
It does dispute your point. A new born infants brain structure and consciousness is significantly undeveloped compared to an adults. And just like a fetus, it is undergoing development as time goes on to eventually reach the stage of adulthood and full brain development. A fetus is simply in an earlier stage of development such as an infant is in an earlier stage of development compared to a toddler, and so forth. If you want to use full brain development as the criteria for human life, then no one under the age of 25 is a living human being. Cope.

>>18484424
His point was specifically about consciousness, not brain structure differences in general. But I think you know that and are pretending to be dim.

>>18484424
This dude would let a toddler die to save a box of eggs btw.

>>18484341
No one "supports abortion" people support the right of a woman to choose whether to have a child or not.

>>18484422
>the unbreakable laws of our reality
Who said they were unbreakable? Where does that idea come from?
>totally unobservable
Have you observed every moment of every atom which has ever or will ever exist?
>>18484423
I’m a white American, clown.

>>18484424
it is, however, significantly developed when compared to a fetus before the third trimester. most importantly, it contains a connection between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex, which a fetus doesn't have until that point. abortion doesn't even begin to be a question of personhood until that connection forms, and after that it's a different debate altogether. cope.

>>18484439
Where did the woman get this supposed right from, why is it exclusive to her, and why does she forfeit this right when her child is 5 years old?

>>18484451
>personhood is when thalamus and cortex are physically connected
Under no definition of personhood I am familiar with

>>18484450
>I’m a white American, clown.
Yet you act like a brown mexican.

>>18484458
Yeah Gottfried Leibniz was a brown mexican.

>>18484454
developed higher consciousness = personhood, anything before that is just blindly responding to stimuli, and an amoeba can do that

>>18484461
Everyone at the time was intellectually basically varying degrees of brown mexican, monadboy.

>>18484464
So newborn infants are not persons.

>>18484450
>Who said they were unbreakable?
have you ever broken them? Have you read about someone else breaking them? Have you ever had even a theoretical model shown to you that demonstrated how we could break the immutable properties of our universe?
>Have you observed every moment of every atom which has ever or will ever exist?
no, but we have a model that explains how atoms will work in every given scenario (chemistry) and it is corroborated every time we do actually look to see what atoms are doing.

>>18484467
yes they are because they have a sufficiently developed brain structure, what part of this is eluding you

>>18484453
>Where did the woman get this supposed right from
the social contract
>why is it exclusive to her
she has the superior claim of right to her body relative to anyone else, so the right vests in her
> and why does she forfeit this right when her child is 5 years old?
because the 5 year old has legal personhood and a superior, contravening right to not be killed by another
I'm sure you're going to do the very smart thing and cry about legal bright lines, but they have to fall somewhere, and that somewhere will always be arbitrary, but not having them at all presents a more serious danger to society, like with age of consent. 18 is an arbitrary number that we decided people have to be to consent to sex but if we abolished statutory rape laws because any number is arbitrary then people could legally fuck kids and that's not a world anyone wants to live in

>>18484468
>Have you read about someone else breaking them?
Yes but atheists say those accounts must be false because they are unbreakable. However, the issue here is more to do with your worldview and your justification for the claim they are unbreakable, and “you’ve never seen otherwise” is no justification for any metaphysical claim.
>immutable properties
Who says they’re immutable? Have you observed every moment of every particle of matter to confirm they never changed?
>it is corroborated every time we do actually look to see what atoms are doing.
That’s begging the question. The question is how do you know the laws of nature as you have observed them are universal and absolute, and your answer is because you have always observed them the same way. To put it another way, the question is how you know the future will continue to be like the past, and your answer is that every time in the past the future had continued to be like the past. We have knowledge of past futures but not of future futures, and so the question remains how you know the future will continue to be like the past?

>>18484470
I thought the standard was higher developed consciousness, now it’s brain structure again? A fresh corpse has that brain structure too, it is a person with all the rights of anyone else?
>>18484471
>the social contract
1. How did “the social contract” (whatever that is) confer to the woman any rights, let alone the specific right to murder her own children at her leisure? 2. What is the ground of this “social contract”, I didn’t vote for it 3. Is this “social contract” an absolute, objective, and universal law, and if it is not, why should I care?
>she has the superior claim of right to her body
But we aren’t speaking of her body, but her child’s body, so this is a red herring.
>because the 5 year old has legal personhood
Says who? By what standard?
>a superior, contravening right to not be killed by another
Why does the preborn child not have this right?
>that somewhere will always be arbitrary
I think have license at this point to simply declare victory, as you have now explicitly conceded your doctrine to be arbitrary (and therefore irrational and baseless), but disregarding the complete irrelevance about age of consent, it is not true that this law need be arbitrary. For thousands of years and as it has always stood in the Church it was not arbitrary. Personhood consists in the imago Dei, which exists in the human creature in every instance of its life, therefore, every moment that the creature is a living human being it is entitled to the right to live.

>>18484501
>we have hypothesized that our analysis should yield result X, and every time we've done the analysis, we have indeed received result X, but how do we know that said analysis will always produce result X into the future? It's only been corroborated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, it could easily change at any time
this is borderline bad faith argumentation

>>18484513
No you’re just a midwit. Here is the atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russel, explaining in greater detail why you are wrong and I am right: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Problems_of_Philosophy/Chapter_6

>>18484501
How do you know you aren't a boltzmann brain?

>>18484542
I know it because of the revelation of God.

>>18484504
>How did “the social contract” (whatever that is) confer to the woman any rights
by existing, how are you on a humanities board without knowing basic terminology like social contract?
>What is the ground of this “social contract”, I didn’t vote for it
you are the permissive beneficiary of it, so your assent is implied. If you don't like it, you can leave america and go live somewhere else without a social contract, like north korea.
>Is this “social contract” an absolute, objective, and universal law, and if it is not, why should I care?
do you even know what a contract is, let alone a social one?
Do you go around all day breaking promises and agreements because they aren't universal constants?
>oops, ok yeah maybe I personally agreed to sell you a product in exchange for you tendering money to me upfront, but there's no biblical commandment that I have to give you what you pay for, so I don't care!
>But we aren’t speaking of her body, but her child’s body, so this is a red herring.
what's the child's body attached to and feeding off of? What's the thing that the child's body must exclusively rely on in order to develop and eventually be born? Is it jesus' love?
>as you have now explicitly conceded your doctrine to be arbitrary
every bright line is. The irony here is that you don't recognize that opposing abortion at all stages is also an arbitrary bright line.
>my bright line is different though because it is explicitly endorsed by the god of israel
so your argument relies on an unprovable assertion of faith to be valid, which makes it prima facie invalid.
Imagine I was a defense attorney on a murder trial and I told the jury that there is an alibi out there who could corroborate the argument that my client was not at the scene of the murder on the night in question, but I can't produce this alibi to testify and no one now living has ever seen him or knows who he is. You think I'm securing an acquittal?

>>18484543
How do you know what you have is actually the revelation of God?

>>18484427
And babies do not have the degree of consciousness of adults as babies lack brain development of adults. Separating the two as if it makes a stark difference is illogical

>>18484433
Pro-life equals killing babies? Sounds like projection to me.

>>18484546
>by existing, how are you on a humanities board without knowing basic terminology like social contract?
I’m very well aware, how are you unaware that I am mocking this arbitrary and absurd idea? How does existence bind me to the social contract, by what authority am I so bound? To further press on the point, I simply point out the absurdity that you are applying this concept in a way Hobbes could not have conceived, i.e. that it creates a particular right of women to murder their children. To move from this general principle to this particular application is a great burden you have not even pretended to satisfy.
>you are the permissive beneficiary of it, so your assent is implied. If you don't like it,
But why am I bound to uphold my end of the supposed contract? By what law am I required to do so? Why may I not simply abuse it for my own benefit and pleasure?

>Do you go around all day breaking promises and agreements because they aren't universal constants?
No, but under your worldview there is no reasoning which could imply I have a duty to keep any covenant. Under my worldview, I do have such a universal, absolute and objective duty to keep all of them, namely that our Lord commanded us, saying “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”.
>What's the thing that the child's body must exclusively rely on
What’s the thing the 5 year old child must exclusively rely on? Comparing a human child to a parasite speaks to your extraordinary depravity, you are a foul and perverse beast and no sane society would tolerate such vermin. But here is the difference: if you do nothing, a healthy human child will be born. You must go out of your way to kill it.
>The irony here is that you don't recognize that opposing abortion at all stages is also an arbitrary
No I don’t recognize it and in fact I refuted it. But I notice you contradict yourself, since if our positions are both just arbitrary, yours could not possibly be especially justified by an appeal to rights.
(2/3)

Abortion is objectively good for society. Less unwanted children=less future criminals and sociopaths.

>>18484546
>so your argument relies on an unprovable assertion of faith to be valid
I do not grant it to be unprovable though it is by no means necessary to prove it to you for you to be accountable to it, or for you to be aware of its truth.
>prima facie invalid
By what standard? According to you, in whose worldview arbitrary beliefs are apparently permissible, not only is this equally arbitrary (you say) belief not invalid in particular but nothing could be any more or less valid than any other.
>Imagine I was a defense attorney on a murder trial and I told the jury that there is an alibi out there who could corroborate the argument that my client was not at the scene of the murder on the night in question, but I can't produce this alibi to testify and no one now living has ever seen him or knows who he is. You think I'm securing an acquittal?
You are the one on trial here, and not the Lord.
(3/3)
>>18484556
Because of the impossibility of the contrary.

>>18484587
>we should kill babies to improve basedciety
Posted by an actual present criminal and sociopath

>>18484590
>Because of the impossibility of the contrary
How do you know the contrary is impossible?

>>18484585
>But why am I bound to uphold my end of the supposed contract? By what law am I required to do so? Why may I not simply abuse it for my own benefit and pleasure?

>I want to get the benefit of a preexisting contract but refuse to accept any of the obligations under it
christians not beating the spiritual jews allegations.
Anyways, the serious answer is that the state, which exists pursuant to the social contract, retains a degree of power and authority which they may use to punish for not living up to your end of the bargain. One benefit that flows to the citizenry pursuant to the american social contract is the right of property ownership. One obligation that the citizenry is required to uphold to the social contract is paying taxes. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens to your right of property ownership.
>I simply point out the absurdity that you are applying this concept in a way Hobbes could not have conceived, i.e. that it creates a particular right of women to murder their children. To move from this general principle to this particular application is a great burden you have not even pretended to satisfy.
That's the thing about social contracts, it kind of doesn't matter what hobbes or any other singular person thinks about them. They do not exist to enshrine god's law, they exist at the mercy of the governed.

>>18484592
Because the Christian worldview is able to provide the preconditions of intelligibility and the denial thereof is not, and is consequently presupposed by both the one affirming and the one denying. But ultimately the impossibility of the contrary is a consequence of the fact we are made in God’s image and live in God’s world, and therefore it is impossible for us to think or observe anything which does not testify of Him. Although I think you’re just an imbecile who is saying “How do you know [X]” ad infinitum because you actually believe that’s an argument.

>>18484599
>Anyways, the serious answer is that the state, which exists pursuant to the social contract, retains a degree of power and authority which they may use to punish for not living up to your end of the bargain.
1. What authority? Whence do they derive this authority? As Charles I said, “I see before me a power” 2. The question is not concerning practical consequences of disobedience, but abstract moral principles and justifications. I grant that if I reject the authority of the state and act against it I will be punished, but the question is whether there is any duty by which I am bound to its authority and by which its punishment is rendered just? Is there any difference between the execution of a murderer and his slaying of the victim? Under your godless worldview there is none whatsoever, but both are merely the slaughter of an individual for no other cause than the pleasure of the killer.
>That's the thing about social contracts, it kind of doesn't matter what hobbes or any other singular person thinks about them.
So the reason the woman has such a “right” (which cannot be rightly called a right at all under these terms) is simply because you say so? And yet I still want for any justification at all for your claims to authority.

>>18484586
>No, but under your worldview there is no reasoning which could imply I have a duty to keep any covenant.
in the atheist worldview there is almost always a pecuniary and reputational interest in complying with covenants. If you break a contract to swindle someone, you're known as a swindler, and no one wants to do business with a swindler.
You are also engaging in a cost-benefit analysis, but positioning in the afterlife is included in the cost section of the analysis as well as various other considerations which atheists and the faithful both weigh.
>What’s the thing the 5 year old child must exclusively rely on?
a 5 year old could conceivably feed and water themselves, they just wouldn't be very good at it. Fetuses cannot survive without the mother's body.
>Comparing a human child to a parasite speaks to your extraordinary depravity
very revealing post. No one is calling them parasites but you lmao. I said they rely on their mother's body for everything (nourishment, waste disposal, heat, development) which is literally true.
>yours could not possibly be especially justified by an appeal to rights.
I'm arguing that people ought to receive the benefit of their bargaining. You think they should not because it personally offends you. That is more arbitrary/

>>18484604
>Because the Christian worldview is able to provide the preconditions of intelligibility
How?

>>18484604
Seriously, you are claiming the Christian world view provides the preconditions of intelligibility but this is merely an assertion no different than if I simply asserted that the world just is intelligible.

>>18484615
>in the atheist worldview there is almost always a pecuniary and reputational interest in complying with covenants.
Interests are not duties.
>You are also engaging in a cost-benefit analysis, but positioning in the afterlife is included in the cost section of the analysis as well as various other considerations
No sir, not at all. This is the most common and most erroneous misapprehension of faith among atheists: 1. The real value of faith is not in a distant, unpossessed afterlife, but in a present and active possession of real peace with God right now, whereby we are freed from every curse of the law, both temporal and eternal. While the unbeliever is at this very moment hated by God and subject to His wrath, who is incapable of experiencing God as favorable in any way, and nothing prevents his next step from being into the mouth of hell but the mere pleasure of an uncovenanted, incensed God. 2. Insofar as you construe the basis of my love for God to be His blessings, you are wrong, but it is my duty and desire to love God with all my body, mind, soul and strength because He is God. “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.
>a 5 year old could conceivably feed and water themselves
So conceivably you will be justly charged with negligent homicide if you test this theory.
>I'm arguing that people ought to receive the benefit of their bargaining. You think they should not because it personally offends you. That is more arbitrary/
1. No bargain ever occurred, let alone this one 2. They should not murder their own children, because “Thou shalt not kill”.

>>18484341
This. There’s no way anyone can go through the experience of ultrasounds, following development, and finally birth and think that it’s anything other than a human being in there from start to finish. People that say otherwise are completely naive.

>>18484644
>but it is demonstrated by the fact that it does in fact provide these preconditions
I'm not gonna disagree with that I'm sure it does. The real problem is that you are doing something like this:

P1. If God exists, the necessary preconditions for intelligibility do not exist.

P2. The necessary preconditions for intelligibility exist.

C. Therefore, God does not exist.

Clearly there is a problem here and it's at P1

>>18484653
Not naive, they are dishonest.
>>18484657
If God does not exist, the necessary preconditions for intelligibility do not exist.

>>18484659
>If God does not exist, the necessary preconditions for intelligibility do not exist.
Exactly, we can put whatever we want in P1 to "prove" anything.

>>18484668
“If God does not exist, the necessary preconditions for intelligibility do not exist.” is a non-identical proposition to ‘whatever we want’.

>>18484685
P1: If God does not exist, 4chan does not exist.
P2: 4chan exists
C: God exists
There is absolutely no reason to believe P1 is true just because we have P2. And specifically the part where God is in P1 we can put whatever we want.

>>18484691
>There is absolutely no reason to believe P1 is true just because we have P2
Nobody is saying P1 is true because of P2. Is this how you think syllogisms work?
>And specifically the part where God is in P1 we can put whatever we want.
This only follows if whatever we want to slot in is logically identical to God. You are being obtuse.

It is not so much that these preconditions “exist”, but that they are necessary, necessary to every human thought and act, including this conversation we are having right now, and necessarily presupposed in the same. And we justify this allegation, not through mere arbitrary assertion, but by a worldview comparison in which we place our presuppositions on the table and ask, what are the effects? What are the logical implications of this worldview? Thus we demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary by actually showing the unbelieving worldview to lead logically to its own impossibility on its own terms. And we are not encouraging an inductive survey in which we from a position of neutral ground compare every worldview until we find the one that proves itself to us; the very premise of the argument is that it is necessary to *begin* with the Christian worldview, and that such a neutral evaluation is in and of itself impossible. The presuppositionalist’s answer to the classical question of faith and reason is that faith is the ground of reason. Likewise our purpose is not so much to “prove” that God exists to the unbeliever but to reject the demand for proof and demonstrate its own absurdity and self-satisfaction.

>>18484696
By “this allegation”, I mean the allegation that knowledge is impossible apart from the Christian God.

>>18484333
Well there’s the people who want to make parenthood a punishment. That sort talks about the consequences of sex. Then there’s the bunch that thinks if they take away reproductive rights they’ll get their barefoot trad wife. You also have the people who want a bunch of unwanted babies born because it’ll provide them with everything from cheap labor to safer sexual exploitation victims. The rest do just argue based on magic though.

>>18484696
Well this >>18484691 is your argument. I'm not presupposing God to use 4chan or logic or anything it's just that TAG asserts that I am. There is no reason to agree with the first premise.

>>18484333


IT IS ALIVE, AND IT IS A HUMAN EMBRYO: IT IS HUMAN LIFE.

>>18484713
But is it a person? A skin culture grown from someone's skin sample is "human life" but we don't care about skin cells dying do we?

>>18484702
You forgot about the ones who are against abortion because it is an objectively monstrous act to kill your own offspring due to finding them inconvenient. Nice collection of straw men though.

>>18484716


HUMANNESS IS NOT CONTINGENT TO PERSONHOOD.

>>18484716


ALSO, NO, A SKIN CULTURE IS NOT HUMAN LIFE; IT IS HUMAN MATTER.

A PIECE OF SKIN IS PART OF A HUMAN BODY; AN EMBRYO IS AN ENTIRE HUMAN INDIVIDUAL, A WHOLE ORGANISM.

>>18484719
Are you telling me that you are an embryo? Also stop yelling.

>>18484720

>Are you telling me that you are an embryo?

?

NO.

IMPROVE YOUR READING COMPREHENSION.


>Also stop yelling.

WHO IS YELLING?

WHAT DO THE YELLING VOICES TELL YOU?

ARE THE VOICES YELLING RIGHT NOW?

>>18484720
Embryo definition:
>an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems
especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

A human embryo is a human. And yes, you were an embryo but are no longer one just how you were once an infant but no longer one. It's a stage of development in human life, not a separate being.

If you still can't tell the difference between an embryo and a skin cell, then you are just being deliberately obtuse.

>>18484717
No, no, I listed magic. Unless you’re saying a gob of a few dozen cells is enough to revoke a person’s right to bodily autonomy. I’m going to assume you’re fine with mandatory blood, bone marrow, and kidney donation?

>>18484735
If you can’t tell the difference between a wad of cells and a baby, then you’re being deliberately obtuse.

>>18484739
Are you suggesting intuitive morality is magic? What is a 'gob of a few dozen cells' and when does it become human? After it exits the vaginal canal?
Is it a living fetus one-second before birth?
Atleast acknowledge late-mid term abortions are unsightly. you can discuss if they're a necessary evil later.

>>18484725
>WHO IS YELLING?
YOU ARE YELLING. ᵁˢᵉ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶦnˢᶦᵈᵉ ᵛᵒᶦᶜᵉ ᵖˡᵉᵃˢᵉ

>>18484725
Are you the name fag who is a Christian but also into futa stuff?

>>18484745
Name a surgical procedure that isn’t unsightly. Late term abortions don’t happen for lulz. A chick doesn’t get up one day, eight months pregnant and go ‘golly, what a nice day, I better get this baby scraped!’ Those operations are tragic. Making it worse by tormenting a grieving woman is just … well, more unsightly than the surgery for sure. Unless you’re more in favor of letting whatever happens happen because surgery is unsightly.

>>18484739
The science is firmly against you. Your kidney is you, the fetus is not. Your kidney is not a separate organism that will develop further into a grown adult unless it dies. A fetus however, is. And all mammals are wads of cells btw, since you don't seem to be aware of that. A fetus, being an early stage human, has less cells than an adult. A baby, another early stage of human, likewise has far less cells than an adult. An obese man also has more cells than a skinny one. The amount of cells you have does not determine whether or not you are human.

Question for everyone. A blonde haired blue eyed white 12 year old is gang raped by niggers and Jeets and becomes pregnant.

Should she be forced to carry and deliver the brown bastard, even if it potentially kills her in the process?

Followup question. Should she then be forced to raise the brown bastard herself?

>>18484740
I accept your concession.

>>18484341
>There is literally no man or woman on Earth who keeps supporting abortion after seeing your baby's face for the first time
Apart from the millions of people who never wanted their kid, resent them for ruining their lives and use them as human punching bags and ashtrays.

>>18484755
No, the issue is control of your own body. Not wanting a fetus inside you and being forced to house one is a violation of your rights. The same as coercing a kidney.
>>18484757
There’s nothing to concede. You feel you have the right to impose on others and I don’t think you do. Trying to muddy the waters won’t change that.

>>18484759
The issue is murder. You are intentionally killing someone by getting an abortion. It is impossible to get an abortion and not murder a living human being in the process, otherwise you'd just be giving birth or delivering a stillborn that was deceased prior due to natural causes. Abortion involves murder entirely and murdering your offspring because you regret your own reckless decisions (and yes, the vast majority of abortions are due to simply reckless regret) is morally bankrupt and should not be tolerated.

>>18484750
>Making it worse by tormenting a grieving woman is just … well, more unsightly than the surgery for sure.
more unsightly than kabooshing an 8th month gestated baby??
normalising an unsightly thing how can you play judge and jury on if it's not done for frivolous reasons? If you mother said something akin to 'i brought you into this world I can take you out of it' as tounge and cheek you'd NE, yet you're arguing for essentially the same position here. There is a clear demarcation between that child's life, and its mother's.

You also didn't answer when this little bastard becomes a human? does the doctor stamp it's forehead with 'now you are alive' as it leaves the birthing canal? Or is it after the government recognises it by issuing a certification of birth?

>>18484761
If taking a pill to induce a period is murder, your cum sock is the largest mass grave in history. They’re both potential humans after all.

>>18484763
No one has late term abortions for fun. They happen for medical reasons. That’s the point. Ffs, I get that you saw some fundie gore porn propaganda, but those procedures aren’t done for a laugh. Your choice is one of the following. One, shame and guilt women for procedures that they’ll die without while they’re grieving the loss of a pregnancy they wanted, two, let them die for want of the procedure, or three, fuck off and stop making other people’s lives worse.

>>18484341
>There is literally no man or woman on Earth who keeps supporting abortion after seeing your baby's face for the first time.
There are literally millions of men and women who have killed their babies after birth, there is even an entire syndrome that blames the baby for dying suddenly when a mother decides to smother it.

>>18484356
>le everything matters because i said so
i suggest that you should be hunted down and shot because you, by all means, don't matter at all. now answer this, does my opinion matter?

>>18484871
>does my opinion matter?
No because you're an ugly autistic virgin neet.

your little argument with that picture has absolutely zero weight, it doesn't matter what it looks like once the egg is fertilized it is a human life ready to breathe air and live a long life in 9 months and if you kill it then you have snatched a humans one and only chance at life that they'll never get again, no matter the state of how poor they are or how hard their life may be that human being wants their chance at life even if one day they tell themself they wish they were never born thats not how they began, they started out hungering for life eager to experience it fighting for every moment

>>18484766
KEK

>>18484341
I too have a baby and I was pro abortion in my earlier life however I became anti abortion (except for retards, rape, mothers life blah blah) years back because I resisted the propaganda and realized for 1. it is literally killing baby before their chance at life, and 2. it is not hard to avoid getting a woman pregnant, people need to be held accountable for their decisions. I love my child more than anything now and I'm happy to say my one other friend who has a child is also now a proud chud

>>18484887
Then stop masturbating anon

>>18484439
this is the kind of twisted language abortionists use to make it sound like they're righteous for irresponsibly getting pregnant and ending lives one after the other

How to BTFO pro lifers with a single argument:
If your daughter gets raped, should she carry out the child so you can be a grandpa to a rapebaby?

>>18484333
You'd have to define life. That's either a social construct (flexible) or an intangible substance (like a soul - magic)

For the social construct angle, a fetus or zygote meets all 7 criteria for life that I'm sure you were taught in elementary school. It is also human, genetically speaking. Human life.

>>18484899
you say this like a huge percent of pro lifers (like myself) are not fine with aborting rape babies

>>18484906
>pro lifers
>fine with murder
Lmao guess you're not so pro life after all

>>18484893
a woman loses an egg every month, even if a man doesn't masturbate that doesn't mean his millions of sperm are all going to be born, life begins at conception, try again retard

>>18484341
The irony is that if you hadn't murdered your first child, the current one would never have lived.
Every single human alive is the lucky result of one particular sperm fetilizing one particular egg.
Had the ejaculation that resulted in fertilization happened just one hour later, sperm configuration could have been different and another child than the one you currently have would have been born.
So obviously, you murdering your first child create the necessary butterfly effect for your current child to exist.

>>18484908
>you
pro killing all life before they're born (if they want)
>me
pro saving all life that is to be born except for the extreme minority of rape babies and mentally and physically handicapped

yes I am by far pro life in comparison to you and far more moral, regardless I could care less about the title "pro life" I'd rather women stop thinking abortion isn't murder aswell as own the responsibility of preventing their pregnancy the way most adults do

>>18484333
Human life = living organism (so not cells part of an organism, but individual organisms with their own genetic code) part of the human species.
That's the objective biological definition.

The stage of life the human in question currently is at (zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, baby, toddler, kid, teenager, young adult, adult, elder) is irrelevant.
As for "personhood", that's a different matter.
Personhood is an abstract concept distinct of biology.
300 years ago in America, blacks didnt have personhood despite being biologically human.

>>18484912
anon did not murder his first child, you're using mental gymnastics to try and justify your belief in unfettered acceptance of abortion, you can tell just by the way you type that you don't possess a huge value for human life or at the very least have been propagandized to believe the life that is begging to breathe air in 9 months is not life and that its not taking away a person's chance at life by snuffing it out

File: gpt abortttt.png (226 KB, 1089x4016)

226 KB PNG

lmao even Woke GPT agrees that abortion = killing a human life and then says that it's better to avoid bringing up biology because it would make many people uncomfortable with abortion

>>18484333
The sane argument is not against abortion as a whole, but against frivolously using it as a substitute for contraception. The "My body my choice" retards want to live in a consequence-free safe space.
There are many reasonable cases for abortion, booth medical and moral, but the two usual sides are shouting about two entirely different things, as always.

>>18484375
>I decided to leave magic out of my worldview
Not really, you clearly think you magically get to decide what counts as reality.

>>18484391
You believe you have magically rid the world of magic simply by spelling it out and saying some incantation over and over.

>>18484766
A sperm cell isn't a human, retard.

>>18484906
Why do you want to murder innocent babies just because you are ashamed of them?

>>18484911
The sperm and the ova would develop into a baby, every month a woman isn't pregnant she's contributing to the death of children. And every time you masturbate you're doing a genocide.

>>18484766
The child is an actual human, not a potential one.

>>18484705
>the argument is wrong because I said so
irrational

>>18484546
>what's the child's body attached to and feeding off of?
By this logic a mother should be able to kill a child as long as they breast feed

Pro-choicers should have been aborted.

>>18484341
I hope your next child has a severe mental defect. Then we'll see if you'll still be anti-abortion.

>>18485146
Why are you so murderous, freak?

>>18484946
Silence. Obviously.

>>18484900
Should eradicating cancer then be considered murder? Cancer meets all the seven criteria for life, and is also human, genetically. Human life.
>>18485146
Glorious eugenecist.

>>18485168
You are a cancer.

>>18485064
The mother consented to breastfeeding, Disanalogous.

>>18484955
>The child is an actual human, not a potential one.
An actual human with no mind, no ability to experience, no personality, no memories, no inner world at all.
Few people take "humanity" to be the actual cause of moral relevance, usually the actual cause is some further fact. For instance, a Christian will say all living humans are morally relevant, but only because they are made in the image of God and have an immaterial soul.
Christians trying to convince atheists with the arguments seen itt fail because for atheists, the further fact is usually consciousness, which doesn't appear until quite long after conception.

>>18485149
I hope you get a retard son, one of those tard strength one. Once you hit your 70s and start becoming frail you look back at the decades passed cleaning up your tards shitstained diapers, or wrangling him so he doesn't hurt himself or others. Then one day while tard wrangling he pushes you and you fall, breaking your hip. As you lie in agony you should give praise to the kind and merciful god that created your little ray of sunshine in this perfect world, the best of all worlds.

>>18485174
>consented
Not in areas that do not provide synthetic milk

>>18484341
I love my daughter she is the best thing that ever happened to me
That being said, when my wife and I did our ultrasound we loved seeing our future child for the first time and upon leaving the room we looked at each other and exclaimed how barbaric it was that anti abortion zealots make women listen to that.
Im more pro abortion and contraception than ever and my friend just yesterday asked if I could bring her to an abortion clinic, I told her happily and I would drop everything

Youre a worthless cunt

>>18484957
I accept your concession.

>>18484766
How bout you learn some basic biology, clown?
Human life starts at fertilization, when the male gamete (sperm) and the female gamete (ovum) fusion to create a new distinct individual with its own genetic code.
That's the moment when the genetic code of the new individual is entirely created.
The sex, eyes color, hair color, maximum adult potential height....etc everything is decided at this very moment.

Gametes, meanwhile, are just haploid reproductive cells that carry the DNA of the organism they emanate from.
The zygote is a diploid living organism with its own unique DNA.

Male masturbation is merely the male equivalent of periods (expulsion and renewal of reproductive cells).
Nothing even remotely similar to abortion.

>>18484942
Then neither is a fetus. Retard.
>>18484955
A ball of cells is a potential human.
>>18485456
Seems pretty arbitrary to me. After all a huge number of pregnancies miscarry naturally and a glob of cells really can’t be called a human. Unless of course your argument is based on magic and feelings rather than biological reality. Since if we go with magic and feelings, the stains you leave on your keyboard make the death toll of the average Chinese civil war look minor.

>>18484845
SIDS is not smothering or actual suffocation, there is clinical evidence of the latter normally.

>>18484397
>The second it becomes a living human being they are a living soul as divine scripture testifies
Literal appeal to sky daddy
This is ridiculous

>>18485614
>Seems pretty arbitrary to me. After all a huge number of pregnancies miscarry naturally
How is the fact some humans die naturally even when not killed by other humans any relevant here?
You can die a natural death at any stage of your life, not only during the prenatal stages.

>and a glob of cells really can’t be called a human
Not an argument.
The biological definition of "human being" is a living organism part of the human species.
The current appearance (which is tied to the current stage of life) is utterly irrelevant.
An embryo doesn't look like a newborn, just like a newborn doesn't look like a middle aged man.

>>18485640
Because if 10-30% of them end in miscarriage then aborting another one isn't a big deal. It's not even developed enough to survive on its own. Embryo is more like a parasite.

File: abort.png (186 KB, 1241x1378)

186 KB PNG

>>18484766
>>18485456
>>18485614
>>18485640
Made Grok analyze this discussion, with the "masturbation is genocide" dude being User 1 and the "abortion is murder" dude being User 2.

>>18485640
Fetuses do not live independently. You take a fetus out and disconnect it from placental circulation before 22 weeks and you can throw basically all of modern medicine at it that you'd like, the chances of sustainable life are essentially nil. Even the top children's hospitals in the world won't bother doing any resuscitative treatment before 24 weeks. Most hospitals won't bother before 28 weeks. It's a silly waste of resources before that.

Before 36 weeks, I essentially consider a fetus the same as a tumor in terms of viability - if you separate it from the host, it dies. Doesn't change my view on the woman's right to take it out just because it looks somewhat like a baby starting in the second trimester, the same way that I wouldn't tell a woman not to take out a symptomatic teratoma if it is harming her. It's her choice before the baby is viable as an independent creature. Before that it is not a human.

>>18485653
LMAOing at the towering intellects of the anti-abortion crowd

>>18485651
>Because if 10-30% of them end in miscarriage then aborting another one isn't a big deal

So if I go to some African shithole with a 10-30% child mortality rate and I start killing some local kids, it's "not a big deal" because lot of them already die naturally anyway?
Good to know.

>>18485660
This is why abortion is so good, it prevents unnecessary suffering. These African children shouldn't be born in the first place.

File: abort2.png (281 KB, 1181x1944)

281 KB PNG

>>18485651
>>18485660

>>18485660
Most people don't want to be killed.
A fetus however isn't a person and doesn't have wants or feelings or humanity it is just a clump of cells.

>>18485666
Exactly, family planning is meant to help stop people from having kids for the sole purpose of being farm labor or because they had boredom sex. Of course, these pro-life people will turn their nose up at supporting these children to a good quality of life by giving money to build strong institutions and welfare systems over there that would support them.
After you are born, the pro-life crowd doesn't care how shitty that life is

>>18485666
>hese African children shouldn't be born in the first place.

Why not kill them now anyway then?
Getting out of a pussy doesn't magically make you more "human" than you are during the prenatal stages of your life.
If killing them during their prenatal life in order to prevent potential suffering in the future is "le good", then so is killing them during post-natal infancy/childhood, as the threat of future suffering remains.
As a matter of fact, I should kill you because you might suffer in the future.

>>18485677
A newborn has no consciousness of itself (it comes about 2 years after birth) and can't even comprehend the concept of "being killed" (and is thus unable not to want to).

File: abort3.png (241 KB, 1339x1870)

241 KB PNG

>>18485666
>>18485683

>>18485686
>A newborn has no consciousness
Yeah they do

>>18485704
Why did you cut the quote?
A newborn has no consciousness of itself, it appears two years later.
It has some limited consciousness of its surroundings, but so do prenatal life stages (embryo and fetus).

>>18485697
Nope, the ai is retarded. Most abortions are performed before 12 week when the embryo (not even a fetus) is indeed a simple blob. So it's not about getting out of pussy, but rather about developing a complex brain, nervous system and so on.

File: Screenshot_20260519-153345.png (384 KB, 1080x1398)

384 KB PNG

>>18485707
>Why did you cut the quote?
I didn't. It was redundant.

>>18485720
So you literally only read half of the first sentence of the pic you posted?
Read again and this time to the end:
>....or objects in one's external environment

Consciousness of itself and consciousness of its surroundings are different concepts.
Embryos, fetus and newborns are conscious of their surroundings and can react to it, but they have no consciousness of themselves.

>>18485640
Again, you can draw arbitrary lines and declare them inviolable, but that doesn’t mean anything. Here are the facts. A fetus is not a self aware, self sufficient human being. It cannot exist outside of a human body not its own. It doesn’t even have a brain at all early on. You’re seeking to rob self aware fully formed individuals of basic rights because of a potential future human being.
>>18485653
The whole debate on abortion is based on the feelings of the forced birth crowd. Do you want to debate based off of legal precedent and bodily autonomy, the development of consciousness (for example how a parent or guardian can remove life support in a hospital), the societal impact of mandating unconditional gestation? The only reason I have a chuckle at your spunk rag being the graveyard of billions is because all of this Christian magical thinking is just that asinine. Elon’s lobotomized robot won’t change anything about that.

>>18485679
This is why they’re not pro life, but forced birth.

>>18485679
Except pro-life do support strong institutions. The Catholic Church is the most pro-life institution on Earth as well as one of the most charitable for assistance after birth. You're also confusing pro-life and American libertarianism to be synonymous when no taxes libertarians are rarely ever pro-life and often still believe in private charity anyway.

>>18485782
It's not a potential human being, it is a human being. This is a fact. A potential adult yes, but not a potential human because they already are humans. And again, there's no evidence that new born babies have a sense of self consciousness beyond limited awareness and instinct and they are most certainly not able to function on their own. If a parent can kill their fetus child due to limited brain development and consciousness as well as reliance in their parent for survival, then why can't they kill their new born baby if they decide that the child is too much of an inconvenience after birth or if they decide it better to kill them instead of letting them suffer in poverty?

>>18485189
Everyone ITT remember: this world is the furthest this person will ever be removed from hell and this poster is already suffering so much...

>>18485848
… because you can just give the baby to someone else? If humans laid eggs, this would not be a debate. The trouble is that you want to force women to undergo a difficult, complicated, dangerous biological process THAT THEY DON’T WANT. How is that so hard to understand? Pro choice people aren’t trying to make abortion a spring fashion trend. It’s just about the choice of the self aware person that forced birthers want to coerce.
>>18485836
That’s just a window dressing to avoid the uncomfortable fact that the forced birth crowd votes against things to help/protect children and families.

>>18485867
If it's the woman's choice to follow the spring fashion trend, then she can damn well follow the spring fashion trend! How dare you downplay spring fashion trends, this is so patronising...

>>18485869
Sure she can. It’s just the forced birthers seem to think pro lifers just want as many abortions as possible because they’re evil, and that women get abortions as fashion statements or for social media trends. It’s the silliest thing I’ve ever observed.

File: 1775499143330204.gif (94 KB, 498x469)

94 KB GIF

she's not gonna fuck you bro

>>18485848
>but not a potential human because they already are humans
The existence of implantation failure in early 1st trimester and miscarriage in later times as an evolutionary mechanism to push out hypermutated embryos proves otherwise
Until late into the 2nd trimester, it's not really a sure thing that there's a human growing in you instead of a clump of cells. That doesn't even get into the concept of a molar pregnancy where the fertilization process - same thing that forms humans - instead creates a giant ball of cysts that can grow to the size of a supposedly human fetus before being expelled or rupturing a uterine artery resulting in massive bleeding (which can easily occur to pregnant females with viable pregnancies as well)

Behold, the forced birther's man

File: images(1).jpg (51 KB, 449x598)

51 KB JPG

>>18485968
Picrel my bad
Also late into the *3rd* trimester
>t. MD btw

>>18485782
>A fetus is not a self aware, self sufficient human being
Neither is a newborn, yet you won't agree with killing one

>It cannot exist outside of a human body not its own. It doesn’t even have a brain at all early on
It's funny how the very beginning of your post is a complain about "drawing arbitrary lines", yet you're the one hyere picking a bunch of completly arbitrary criteria tied to stage of development in order to decide who gets to live or not.

The only non-arbitrary line is conception, which is the moment the new individual human being is created.
Any random stage you'll pick further during the development (which lasts from conception to death) of this being will inevitably be arbitrary.

>>18484333
it's the contrary you cant seriously argue its not human outside of some weird heretical belief that the soul only enters the body after birth
inb4 it cant survive outside so its not alive
ignoring super late abortions:
comatose people are human beings
disabled people are human beings
your science consider parasites and single cell organisms to be alive

>>18485998
A baby can breathe and sustain its own basic life functions independent of its mother. A mammalian embryo can't even use its own lungs because they're filled with amniotic fluid - the entire vascular system of a mammalian fetus is built around shunting blood to tissues directly from the placental circulation via the ductus venosus and then ductus arteriosus. When babies have preserved fetal circulation, they die

Sounds like two different levels of alive to me. The fetus is not alive in a traditional sense, the baby is.

>>18485968
>The existence of implantation failure in early 1st trimester and miscarriage in later times as an evolutionary mechanism to push out hypermutated embryos proves otherwise

But it doesn't, you utter buffon.
The possibility of dying naturally (which can happen at any age) doesn't prove a human being is not a human being.

The definition of human being is quite clear => a living organism part of the human species.
From conception (when a new individual being with its own unique genetic code is created) onward, this definition is met, regardless of whether this new human being will die two days later of 100 years later.

The definition of human being is clear and settled, you can't win on this theater.
You should rather try to debate the definition of "personhood" and argue that not every human being is a "person" with rights.
But then again the concept of personhood is arbitrary.
Not too long ago, slaves were not considered "persons" despite being biological human beings.

>>18486021
>new individual being with its own unique genetic code is created
Wow you actually believe that hydatidiform moles are human beings
I did not realize you people were this retarded. Fascinating

I agree that personhood is another fascinating topic, but that is more social than biological. Fetuses originating from intercourse between humans are not human, the babies eventually born are. This is a biological discrimination from anatomy that no amount of sky daddy argument pleading will change

>>18484333
When its literally a clump of cells (such as a blastocyte) then I say its okay, but yes when the pregnancy quickly resembles a life. Very few would be able to crush the 8 week fetus which can fit in your palm without hesitation. Especially a woman, who cry poor baby when seeing a puppy whimpering.

It's not an evil, its just lazy whores running from responsibility plugging their ears when confronted about it.

Atheists advocating for baby massacre is proof freedom of speech was a mistake.

>>18485172
No argument.

>>18485452
Nope, I accept yours.
>>18485614
So you’re only a potential human?
>>18485633
euphoric

>>18486064
It’s not incorrect though
>but what if I literally conflate human beings with cancerous tumors
Doesn’t require refutation

>>18485178
>An actual human with no mind, no ability to experience, no personality, no memories, no inner world at all.
How do you claim to know the content of the child’s mind? I grant their experience is different from yours, but you are not He who searches the heart.
>Christians trying to convince atheists with the arguments seen itt fail
You are mistaken in thinking atheists are the judges of anything

>>18485178
>the further fact is usually consciousness, which doesn't appear until quite long after conception.
And as you’ve arbitrarily limited long after birth too.

>>18486079
There ARE no judges of everything, that's the point of atheism. Believing in a Levantine sand demon is all well and good if you keep it to yourself, it's the imposition of this idiotic Iron Age drivel on the rest of us acting in good faith that is the issue at play here. It is not our place to judge why a pregnant lady gets an abortion. It's nobody's place.

>>18486096
So it’s nobody’s place to judge me torturing you to death with a chainsaw.

>>18486096
>it's the imposition of this idiotic Iron Age drivel on the rest of us
Is it somebody’s place to judge this?

>>18486071
It's mean to reductio ad absurdum that retarded conception. I am not seriously saying they are the same, I'm saying >>18484900 is wrong because it cannot meaningfully distinguish a fetus from cancer.
Can't even be level-headed at the baby murder debate baka.

>>18486115
But you only reduced yourself to absurdity, retard

>>18486001
>>18484333
BTW very few people ACTUALLY believe unborn babies are not humans
They are fine with calling miscarriages ''losing a baby''
They hold gender reveal parties
They pick names for their ''clump of cells''
They try talking to them while theyre still inside the mother
Compare this to tribal cultures who only name kids who lived past 3 because they believe they were not real humans before
They pretend to believe it because the alternative is admitting the ''empathetic good guys'' kill more than Hitler on an almost yearly basis

>>18484341
>There is literally no man or woman on Earth who keeps supporting abortion after seeing your baby's face for the first time
My mom aborted her second pregnancy after me.

>>18486201
She murdered your sibling, and probably wished to murder you as well.

>>18485998
I’m not drawing any arbitrary lines. My line is a person has control over their own body. It’s that simple. The forced birthers are the ones constantly ranting about why women shouldn’t have that right.

>>18486221
Except it isn’t their body, it’s their child’s body. You are arguing in bad faith

>>18486236
No. It’s their body. The fetus is inside of/part of/dependent on that body. The fetus also poses a substantial health hazard to the woman. Removing it is the decision of the woman in question. Not you, or any other forced birther.

>>18486246
It’s the child’s body, its spatial location is irrelevant to whose body it is and the child is not less dependent on the mother for years after birth. You’re a sick puppy and in a sane society you would publicly hang from the neck until dead without trial to serve as an example to other psycopaths

>>18484356
Due to natural instincts forcing us to value our lives, but we’re not talking about individuals calling their own life, we’re talking about those who have no choice in the matter. Would it be better if every Jew who died in the holocaust or every Black that died a slave was aborted instead?

>>18486273
After birth the child does not need the mother to survive. They just need care which can be provided by anyone. If humans laid eggs we wouldn’t have this issue. The trouble is you’re demanding control over a woman who doesn’t want to risk their life and health for a gob of cells that might grow into a human baby. Your odious snarling about violence though at least helps remind me of the cruelty, even the ontological evil of the forced birth cult. I hope you get medical attention and develop empathy for some of the women you want to victimize.

>>18486310
The child depends on the mother, she is their natural caretaker. And the child in the womb does not die unless they are killed. Your whining about “violence” could not be more ironic or dishonest when you are preaching the murder of innocent children. You are human garbage and your life is worth less than the dirt on my shoes

>>18486322
Natural caretaker? So adoption is unnatural? Why do you think the life, safety, and consent of a woman means nothing compared to a glob of cells that might become a baby? I suspect that really is the reason. Why not harm women and force them to obey you? Petty tyrants and unrepentant sadists abound in the forced birth movement. I won’t denigrate your humanity as you do mine and all those you wish to inflict yourself on. I think you need help. Women, people as a whole don’t need you making their lives miserable.

>>18486326
I think your life and safety means nothing, cockroach. Why do you not kill yourself and put yourself out of the world’s misery?

>>18484333
Mandatory abortions for blacks and browns. Imagine how great that would be...

>>18486328
Thank you for representing so honestly the naked truth of your viewpoint. It’s always so deceptive, you know? Lies about poor wittle babies and not just the desire for control. I pray you will get help because there is enough pain in this world, and you can’t be happy feeling such malice. At least though you’re being honest. Better than most forced birthers.

>>18484471
To be entirely fair, the social contract also presupposes that we don't kill other human beings, just like we don't club women over the head and rape them half to death. If the social contract is what gives women the right over their own bodies, its that same social contract that you throw out when you advocate for the death of a fetus, Anon.

You can't pick and choose which humans, be they white, brown, purple, plaid or newborn, have the right to basic human rights. The moment we go down that road, all bets are off.

>>18484341
Thread

>>18486336
Save whatever prayers you send to your dark god freak. Your skull is empty if you think there is a single soul here who does not see through your disingenuous bullshit.

>>18486341
I’m not wishing to see you hanged. I’m telling you that anyone fantasizing about murder because someone tells them they’re not entitled to controlling a woman needs help. That isn’t disingenuous. You’re not well.

>>18486342
No, you’re wishing to see uncountable children slaughtered. It would take great restraint to spare your worthless life if you dared to stand in my presence.

>>18486338
>You can't pick and choose which humans, be they white, brown, purple, plaid or newborn, have the right to basic human rights. The moment we go down that road, all bets are off.
that's why discussing complex nuanced political issues on this website is fruitless. it's been flooded with too many bitter incels that don't want people they don't like to have the same rights/privileges they do. fuck man i can't tell you how many times i've seen in recent years (especially since trump took office) incels say they are perfectly fine with abolishing the 1st amendment because it means people that have differing political views don't get a say. it's sickening to see. i know a number of them are shitskins on the other side of the planet but i also know there's plenty of my fellow americans that want a dictatorship-esque government. Tbh they need to be sent to north korea to see what it's really like when an autocrat runs everything.

>>18486345
So the women whose lives and health you want to threaten mean nothing to you? Or is it just that they don’t matter when you want something from them?

>>18486353
Are you actually so braindead you think I will entertain your meaningless lies, cockroach, or are you just such a deceptive rodent you can’t help yourself?

>>18486361
That’s my whole point. You don’t care about them. You treat it as if I’m advocating FOR abortion instead of just accepting I can’t make a decision that brings serious risks to someone else. You’re fine with making that choice because you want a specific outcome and you don’t care if it maims or kills a woman who wanted or needed a medical procedure. You need help.

>>18486363
You need help holding the rope while they get you in the tree.

>>18486369
You’re very helpful reminding me of the morality of my position on this issue. Have you considered therapy or antipsychotics? Depression often manifests as hostility and aggression in men.

Abortion is not murder, but it would still be morally correct even if it was murder and the fetus could shriek in pain, cry or even plead for its life out loud. You are not entitled to leeching from someone else, simple as. Freedom of association. I can kick you out of my house even if the rest of the world has turned into lava. Not my problem.

>>18486416
You are not entitled to take an innocent life (which a fetus is), no matter how convenient it would be for you to do so.

>>18486416
Your whole world will turn into lava, have fun burning!

>>18486416
>human pregnancy is “leeching”
The perversion of the atheist mind. It’s Christ or chaos

>>18486421
>You are not entitled to take an innocent life
No but you are entitled to refuse to keep it alive if it costs you anything at all. There is nothing wrong about refusing to spent a penny to save a billion people.

>>18486429
>human pregnancy is “leeching”
If it wasn't leeching, the fetus would be able to sustain itself instead of being a lazy welfare queen nigger.

>>18486430
You have to go out of your way to kill a preborn child or they’ll simply be born, moron