[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 70 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!




File: 1168916801244.jpg (24 KB, 320x240)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-roe-wade-1157044?utm_source=engageim

>Republican Congressman Steve King immediately celebrated the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by suggesting that the landmark ruling legalizing abortion will soon be overturned.

>“Soon, babies like this little angel will be protected in the womb by law,” the Representative from Iowa tweeted Saturday evening, together with a picture of a sleeping baby.
...
>>
>>298433
So why is it okay to force rape babies, genetic defects, and people who don't want to be parents to be a thing? Isn't that just going to create more criminals, negligent parents, and people who depend on the government?
>>
>>298435
But Anon, Jesus said... wait no he didn't,... well The Pope said... wait he didn't say that either.. then A Pope said that once a long time ago.
>>
This whole thread is like a poorly constructed CNN story...
"person A suggested something"
Well who gives a fuck stories like this are only written to generate clicks by journalists with to much time on their hands.
And then faggots like OP post the shit tier story here and either wait or use their phone to AstroTurf and generate fake outrage.
>It's happening!!
No it's not faggot
You are a whiny astroturfing ass-spelunking shill
Sad!
>>
>>298439
Wat
>>
>>298441
He thinks we're the same person.
>>
>>298441
It's called English, learn to speak it, Mr Chang Xiao Mai, it's what we use here on 4chan
>>
>>298476
You must be new here.
>>
>>298573
Go back to PF Chang's, Wong
>>
>>298433
>a politician being retarded
>news
It's funny that a Republican bought into Democrat fearmongering I guess.
>>
>>298433
>>298435
Okay. So then let's limit abortion to only rape babies and ones with significant genetic defects, like the one in OP. I am sure Democrats and Republicans could come together on that legislation. For Democrats it would codify the right for abortion into law, instead of by unelected justices. And for Republicans it would eliminate 98% of abortions. Sounds Win win to me.
>>
>>298717
You know. The problem is once you make it ok to kill retard babies, why not make it ok to kill blacks, or homeless. After all. They are just as useless.
>>
>>298779
This anon has my vote
>>
>>298717
For Republicans, and some of the supposed Democrat Christians I've talked to, abortion is an all or nothing topic. Either it's illegal or it's not, anything less than full ban is compromising their identity, their religion, their God.
>>
>>298779

You should be able to kill ANY single celled amoeba you godfag.

I can't imagine being dumb enough to not only be anti-abortion, but pro god.
>>
>>298797
There is no law against killing single called amoebas you absolute shit tier monkey
I'm assuming you meant zygote, which is completely different from an amoeba
I can't imagine being as retarded as you are but it explains your posts
>>
>>298809
amoeba is a sarcastic word you absolute shit for brains faggot.

kill yourself promptly
>>
>>298810
No, amoeba is a biological term that was misused and now your trying to down play the stupidity.
Stick to complaining about Trump you underdeveloped monkey
>>
>>298717
if you believe abortion is murder of babies, how is it okay to murder babies of rapists and babies with genetic defects? This is why the republicans are full of shit. They don't really believe it's a fucking baby because it's not. They just don't want women to have the ability to choose to leave them if they knock them up. That has always been the 2 bit chump's key to securing a family, just gotta trick her into opening her legs enough to get her pregnant and then BAM you can force her into a lifetime sex slave arrangement.
>>
>>298824
>if you believe abortion is murder of babies
I don't believe that was on his post at all.
I'm fact, your argument very much fits the description of a strawman
>>
>>298824
Supporting a law that prevents MILLIONS of babies from being murdered is EXACTLY what someone who believes that abortion is the murder of babies would do. If a cancer researcher discovered a cure for some cancer, do you think he would throw it the garbage because it doesn't cure ALL cancer? Saving millions of babies doesn't make it OK to murder the others, but it DOES save millions of babies.
>>
>>298824
>They just don't want women to have the ability to choose
That's not the issue at hand at all, and I have never heard anyone seriously make this claim except people like you
>>
>>298717
>So then let's limit abortion to only rape babies and ones with significant genetic defects, like the one in OP.
Choosing to abort because of genetic defects would never fly. It's actually more politically correct to be able to abort all babies than to say only healthy/normal babies should have a chance at life.
>>
The problem is lack of contraception, not abortion. We are too easily swayed by bullshit religious arguments that claim it's against their religion to pay for contraception. Sorry. If you provide health care as part of the terms of your employment, you have to provide contraception coverage too.

I am against abortion, but you can't have it both ways.
>>
>>298795
They can say that, but they voted for Donald Trump who's not exactly a church goer. I'm sure many would be okay with splitting the baby in this way.
>>
>>298797
That's not abortion though. That's plan B
>>
>>298935
So wouldn't that make the solution to just not provide health coverage? Who exactly are you trying to help here?
In the Hobby Lobby case hobby lobby Covered 59 of 64 contraceptive options.
Do you want corporations to only care about making money. If so, your statement would make sense. If you want corporations to have a moral compass and think about ethics before profits you should support hobby lobby
>>
>>298940
My understanding was that HL didn't support any contraceptive options. If they did, then, yes, good for them for being responsible. I was unaware.

As to your other point, I suppose a corporation could just not provide health care coverage. Or start adjusting employment to part time positions for which they aren't required to provide health care. Didn't many companies do that in light of the ACA? So, yes, they could cut out all health care and potentially lose employees who seek better opportunities.

My point was that a corporation that otherwise provides healthcare shouldn't be able to hide behind arguments of religious objection when it comes to contraception and I don't believe such arguments belong in the workplace. It's not a church, it's a business founded by people who like to go to church. The business/church model should be separate.
>>
Just in time, too. The rate of illegitimate births was starting to drop.
>>
>>298433
Desu I'm pro choice but I just can't care anymore. Dems knew what they were doing when they ran on misandry in 2016. You can't tell men to go fuck themselves and oppose men's rights, then cry about losing women's rights
>>
>>298974
>Dems knew what they were doing when they ran on misandry in 2016. You can't tell men to go fuck themselves and oppose men's rights, then cry about losing women's rights
I don't remember Hillary ever telling men to fuck themselves.
>>
>>298977
Hillary didn't need to say anything as the "grassroots" movements said everything for her, even the stuff she didn't say.
By not distancing herself from the more extreme views, she became associated with them (much like how many people associate Trump with the KKK, because he didn't explicitly lambaste them).
>>
Meh. Overturning Roe vs Wade would just give back to the electorate of all the states the right to choose instead of just supreme court justices deciding for everyone. Everyone would get what they want. Red states would ban abortion while blue states would allow it. Best of both worlds.
>>
The main lesson of all this mess is that the Constitution should be made easier to amend. The main reason judicial activism and the living document position are a thing is that it seems impossible nowadays to use the normal amendement processus so unsavory methods are used instead. Making amendments easier would also make the supreme court less politicized as there would be less at stake when picking justices. Activist justices could just be smacked down through amendments.
>>
>>298944
I get that. But the foundation of many people's morality is their religious beliefs
Let's say that a company refuses to buy something from China, because that is an industry that is dominated by forced labour, the modern equivalent of slave labour. And their justification is that in the Bible it says that man is created in God's image and to have compelled labour is desecrating the image of God. Is that an okay objection to make?
>>
>>298983
>he thinks the "living document position" is just a fad
It's the reason slavery is illegal and women can vote.
>>
>>298717
That doesn't help with forcing people who don't want to be parents to be parents. Chances are they'll just become negligent best case and worst case abusive
>>
>>298981
That doesn't exactly help people in those states who want the right to choose. Fuck the government this is a people thing
>>
>>298977
Really? You don't remember Hillary saying that the justice system shouldn't treat women the same as men? You don't remember her basically accusing Bernie of sexism because he disagreed with her on gun control? You don't remember her building a platform on women's issues while never mentioning men's issues? Do you remember her making Lena Dunham a campaign surrogate and then having Lena Dunham speak at the Convention? Do you remember Obama creating a White House Council on women and girls but not for men and boys? Do you remember when the Obama administration conducted rape studies but decided that a woman forcing a man to have sex isn't rape? Do you remember the Dems continuing to support VAWA because they don't think men can be victims of domestic violence? Do you remember the DNC getting caught discriminating against men in hiring for staffing positions?

You don't pay much attention to politics if you don't remember any of that.
>>
>Found a nation on religious freedom and the separation of two
>Included in Constitution
>Anthem praises God
>Politicians always talking about God
>Christianity is all but a political party
>Somehow this is okay
Hilarious
>>
>>298985
>He doesn't understand what "living document" means
Living document refers to the philosophy that the interpretation of the Constitution should change over time. That's not how slavery ended or women got the vote, that happened through amendments.
>>
>>298985
But those were guaranteed by constitutional amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to protect everyone. Roe imagined that not only doesn't it protect everyone; it actually (somehow!) requires depriving a whole class of human beings of protection—human beings who happen to have been legally protected by the same Americans who adopted the amendment in the first place.
the purported right is refuted by the very people who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. Many states enacted statutes banning all elective abortions during the same era in which they ratified the amendment. They enacted those laws (contrary to Roe's historically debunked suggestion) for the primary purpose of protecting unborn children from being killed.
The Ohio legislature, for example, ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in early 1867. A few months later, the same legislature voted to strengthen Ohio's abortion ban, with the committee overseeing the bill calling abortion "child murder."
"To reach its result," concluded Justice William Rehnquist in his Roe dissent, "the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

I would hate if any other contract I signed was a living document, that somehow meant the exact opposite of the terms I agreed to when signing it.
>>
>>298992
Unfortunately other been ages since the constitution got last amended. Politics are so polarized that the amendment process is simply unworkable nowadays. It's much easier to get activist justices to de facto amend the Constitution on their own than to obtain the relative consensus necessary to push amendements through the regular process. It's not just Roe vs Wade. Both sides are culprits. Corporate personhood is just as much a constitutional heresy.
>>
>>298795
You can be an evangelical and believe abortion is murder, and also be a utilitarian.
There's even a logic to it. We live in a fallen world surrounded by sinners. Best to make it a better world even if we cannot make a perfect one.
>>
>>298990
First it happened with the Kansas Nebraska Act and the states giving women the right to vote before the federal government did. That's absolutely due to a living document interpretation of the constitution which the founders intended.
>>
>>298996
The Federal Constitution does not specify who is and isn't allowed to vote in state elections; therefore, the states have the power to decide who gets to vote. No originalist or textualist reading of the Constitution would have stopped the states from giving women the right to vote.
>>
>>298435

Anon are you trying to take away the profit that will be made when these poorly educated and miserable people spend their lives throwing all their money at anything that might possibly alleviate the gaping emptiness they feel inside?

Shame
>>
>>298986
If you're barring rape, the government is forcing people who have unprotected sex to have babies, in the same way it's forcing people who eat crappy food to be fat. Or forcing people who ride motorcycles without a helmet to get brain damage. It's their actions forcing them to do that.
>>
>>299000
Tell it to the states who have legalized weed but still have to put up with federal DEA raids.
>>
I'm an Iowa resident of 30 years, and believe me we've been trying to get rid of him for years. I'm a Repub but I know goddamn well he's an idiot.
>>
>>299091
We have had our own version of Trump for years, so it's all just shrugs.
>>
>>298779
Fucking this
>>
>>299019
>Or forcing people who ride motorcycles without a helmet to get brain damage
Solution is obvious. Make not "wearing a helmet" illegal in both cases
>>
>>298987
Indeed that's why the people should decide by voting in state elections, not an unelected Justice. Also if the opinion of the majority of the people in your state is at odd with yours you can move to another state. That's the great thing with federalism, everyone gets to live in the poility that matches the closest with one's worldview.
>>
Fuck abortion choose life faggots
>>
>>299150
The people should get to choose by their vote whether they want to allow it or not. Besides, "choosing" a life as an unwanted kid is maybe not the greatest thing.
>>
>ITT incels who will literally never ever feel the inside of a vagina telling other people what to do with their time, money, and patience
fascerdasting
>>
>>299160
not everyone was a c-section baby like you
>>
>you don't get to live because your life might suck
>yes, I'm choosing this for you
when will pro-"choice" (choice to kill babies, lol) faggots stop pretending they have some sort of logical argument?
>>
>>299177
When will "pro-life" (kill them when they're in prison) faggots stop pretending a fetus is the same as a baby?
>>
>>299208
When will pro-"choice" (it's not a baby if it's inconvenient for me) faggots stop pretending that a new self-replicating life-form with unique human DNA isn't the same as a baby? Maybe they have absolutely no understanding of biology? Well, they do make absolutely retarded "WELL JIZZING IS GENOCIDE, THEN" arguments, so that checks out.
>>
>>299498
>muh dna
It's a non-breathing parasitic organism foreign to the host whether it has human dna or not. It isn't a baby until it's born.
>>
>>299501
I wish we could treat people in society the same way and abort the ones that are parasitic
>>
>>299501
>non-breathing
Not a viable criteria for defining life.

>parasitic
The baby has beneficial symbiotic relationships with the mother. Not parasitic.

>foreign to the host
It has half the host's genetic material, and the vast, vast majority of babies are actually not rape babies. They're babies that are made because you happened to have sex, and you were fully aware that this could lead to impregnation. Stop taking a marginal, rare case and then broadening it as a generality.
>>
>>299510
Hemolytic Disease is a real thing for a reason.
>>
>>298435
>force

Anon...
>>
>>299501
nothing of what you said disqualifies the organism from being alive, you just want to define a point in time where that organism, with human dna, is called a human
>>
>>299520
Didn't say it wasn't alive, only said it wasn't a baby until it's born. Don't worry, in some states you can still be charged with double murder for shooting a pregnant woman.
>>
>>299498

Doesn't your definition have the morning-after pill as murder, too, then? Are you really saying it's the same as a full-grown baby as soon as the egg is fertilized?
>>
>>298433
That is not an angel. That is a fucking demon from hell and it needs to be killed.
>>
>>299177
Nice strawman bro. If you want a logical argument (I know you don't see them often when you're browsing /pol/), then I'll give you one.
The fetus does not have the mother's consent to use her bodily resources, so it is morally permissible to remove it from the mother through an abortion. The fetus forfeited its NAP protections when it starting leeching the mother's resources and affecting her body without her permission, simple as that.
>b-but she consented when she had sex!
No, she didn't. When she had sex, she consented to having sex. Nothing more, nothing less. But even if she did consent to being impregnated, she can change her mind later. Consent to having the fetus in you can be revoked, just as consent to having sex can be revoked, in the middle of coitus. If your partner kept going after you to them to stop, that would be rape, because they don't have your consent anymore.
>>
>>299555
Most morning-after pills simply
-stop ovulation for a short period of time after consumption
-stops fertilization
-stops a fertilized egg from planting itself in the uterus lining

The zygote starts its embryotic functions after its been planted in the uterus, which would signify its beginning as a new, unique, human life form. If its terminated before then, which is what pro-"choice" faggots say when they say something like "60% of all pregnancies are miscarriages, anyway!", then there's no logical case to make that it was abortion. If a pill does kill the zygote after it has started its division, then yes, it is an abortion. It was the intentional termination of a new human being's life.
>>
>>299561
>when you're browsing /pol/
I see you've made a retarded pre-assumption, as good lefties do.

>The fetus does not have the mother's consent to use her bodily resources.
A fetus can't consent. It's a fetus. That's not the same as a freeloader intruding into the mother's womb. The fetus didn't do anything wrong, so it's not morally permissible for you to fucking kill it.

>When she had sex, she consented to having sex.
If you have sex, you, at the same time, accept the risk of having a pregnancy. That's what being a responsible, functioning adult means. This obviously does not apply to rape, so stop applying the rare, marginal case of rape babies into the equation.

>she can change her mind later
You can't, which is why it's morally irresponsible to go stuffing cocks into your vagina left and right.
>>
>>299561
>The fetus does not have the mother's consent to use her bodily resources
It has her implicit consent due to her creating being responsible for making it and subsequently storing it in her body
>>
Why can't we just agree that its immoral to abort your baby, but that you should still be able to do it? I mean shit, I know plenty of people that shouldn't have been born including myself.
Some times the potential child is better off dead than being the product of two dickheads who are too emotionally immature or fiscally incapable of caring for it.
>>
>>298989
The constitution is only followed to make money or bring political power the government doesn't give a shit about what in it
>>
>>299589
Many military service members follow and uphold the Constitution for reasons besides monetary gain
>>
>>299596
And they typically get kicked out for it. They want drones to do their dirty work, the constitution is just guilt to not disobey orders.
>>
>>298779
this. I don't see how the logical conclusion of abortion isn't eugenics
>>
>>299570
>A fetus can't consent. It's a fetus
That's not what I said. I said the mother didn't consent.
>That's not the same as a freeloader intruding into the mother's womb. The fetus didn't do anything wrong, so it's not morally permissible for you to fucking kill it.
That's exactly what it is, a freeloader who has no right to be there.
>If you have sex, you, at the same time, accept the risk of having a pregnancy. That's what being a responsible, functioning adult means
Why? What reasoning do you have for this? It makes no sense to me. If you practice safe sex it is really not your fault if your become pregnant.
>You can't, which is why it's morally irresponsible to go stuffing cocks into your vagina left and right.
Why would she not be able to? Address the analogy to consenting to sex I made. How is this different? Consent is not a one and done thing.
>>298717
>>298779
I'm pretty sure this problem will become obsolete in the near future once we begin editing genetic defects out of the genome.
>>
>>299646
No, it is absolutely not the equivalent of a freeloader, because a freeloader isn't your child, whom you have an inherent responsibility to nurture. You don't call an infant, who will still take resources from a mother, a freeloader, so you don't call a baby in the womb a freeloader as well. A freeloader is someone who is able to take care of themselves, but is leeching off of someone else anyway.

You also didn't address the point that the fetus did nothing wrong, but you're still killing it. Just "being" there is not the fetus' fault.

>If you practice safe sex
No safe sex practices are 100% failproof. Even a condom + pill can still lead to very rare cases of impregnation. You've disconnected sex and conception, and you just want to enjoy the sex part. I know that's the new hip and cool way to think, but that's just not reality. That doesn't mean I will stop you from having casual sex, but it still makes it YOUR fault if you get pregnant.

>It's not really your fault if you become pregnant.
Oh, wow. Really? Whose fault is it, then? Your dog's?

>Why would she not be able to?
Because she can conceive a child she may not want, which would be a tragedy. Why is this so difficult?
>>
>>299646
>If you practice safe sex it is really not your fault if your become pregnant.
I agree with this but most unwanted pregnancies are not from those who practice safe sex
>>
>>299919
You don't have an inherent responsibility to nurture ANYONE, or anything for that matter. And if you have an infant you don't want, it's a freeloader as well, so thankfully there's ways to get rid of it.
>A freeloader is someone who is able to take care of themselves, but is leeching off of someone else anyway.
You pulled that first part out of your ass. I don't see it in any standardized definition of the word.
>You also didn't address the point that the fetus did nothing wrong, but you're still killing it
The fetus doesn't have to have done anything wrong to justify killing it, and fetuses are not aborted because they committed some wrongdoing. They're killed because that is the minimum force needed to remove them from the mother. That they die is an unfortunate consequence. If someone presented to me a way to remove the fetus without killing it, I would support it.
>Just "being" there is not the fetus' fault.
You're right, but that doesn't matter. Not every situation requires assigning blame to someone.
>No safe sex practices are 100% failproof. Even a condom + pill can still lead to very rare cases of impregnation.
Yes.
>You've disconnected sex and conception, and you just want to enjoy the sex part. I know that's the new hip and cool way to think, but that's just not reality
Actually, it totally is, since there are countless mechanisms in place that allow you to have sex without having kids, including abortion. They're not strongly connected anymore, you just want them to be.
>Oh, wow. Really? Whose fault is it, then? Your dog's?
No one's. Why do you always need someone to blame?
>Because she can conceive a child she may not want, which would be a tragedy. Why is this so difficult?
I don't understand this response to my question. I'm asking why the woman can't consent to having the fetus in her, and then change her mind later. Could you rephrase your response or something?
>>
>>299921
More comprehensive sex education and better access to contraceptives would help this, but conservatives HATE that idea.
>>
>>299962
>You don't have an inherent responsibility to nurture ANYONE
So, you don't have to take care of your kid? That's not an assumed responsibility every parent has?

>And if you have an infant you don't want, it's a freeloader as well, so thankfully there's ways to get rid of it.
Yeah, it just doesn't deserve to die.

>You pulled that first part out of your ass. I don't see it in any standardized definition of the word.
Yeah, so we see people go around and saying, "Gosh, I wonder when my 6 month year old baby is going to stop freeloading off of me, that lazy son of a bitch." You must think the term "freeloader" has a neutral connotation? If you're insane enough to think that all children are simply freeloading off of their parents, then I guess I have nothing more to say to you.

>assigning blame
You're actually doing mental gymnastics. It's very simple.
Action -> Consequence
Sex -> Pregnancy
An adult engages in sexual intercourse fully aware of this. It's called being responsible for your actions. Do you HAVE to turn on the signal when you make a turn? No. But if there's a car crash, which has a very small possibility of happening, then do we have to find out the party that's the most responsible? Yes. In the case of a fetus, he's not responsible for anything. Then, who's responsible for the new life that's been created? Your dog? Why do you have to think this in terms of blame? This is not a victim vs. aggressor debate, and in your terms, the mother is a victim and the fetus dead/neglected fetus magically isn't.

>I'm asking why the woman can't consent to having the fetus in her, and then change her mind later.
A fetus doesn't need your "consent" to just simply fucking exist, just like YOU didn't need "consent" to just simply exist. With consent out of the equation, her "changing her mind" is a bullshit euphemism for killing a human because she doesn't want to be responsible for it.
>>
cont. due to word limit:

>>299962
>Actually, it totally is, since there are countless mechanisms in place that allow you to have sex without having kids
I just said they're not even 100% failproof, and you greed.

>including abortion
Killing people so you can have more sex is unacceptable in every single culture that exists and has existed. You're being absurd.

>They're not strongly connected anymore, you just want them to be.
No. I just said all contraceptive measures now are not even 100% failproof. It doesn't matter what I want. Sex is the only way to lead babies, and its primary function is to reproduce. They're incredibly tightly linked, and it will never, ever go away - even with eugenics.
>>
>>299984
>Killing people so you can have more sex is unacceptable in every single culture that exists and has existed. You're being absurd.
Not him but I really hope you see the irony in this
>>
>>299985
No, I actually don't. Please tell me.
>>
>>299982
>So, you don't have to take care of your kid? That's not an assumed responsibility every parent has?
Only if you choose to keep the child under your roof. You can forfeit your parental responsibilities.
>Yeah, it just doesn't deserve to die.
It doesn't deserve to die, but it also doesn't deserve to use the mother's resources without her permission.
>You must think the term "freeloader" has a neutral connotation?
I hate fucking semantics arguments. No, the word freeloader just doesn't say anything about them being capable of taking care of themselves. It just means a person who takes advantage of others for resources and offers nothing in return.
> If you're insane enough to think that all children are simply freeloading off of their parents
Well, if they're offering the parent some intangible emotional comfort or something, they're not freeloaders. An unwanted fetus does not offer this.
>But if there's a car crash, which has a very small possibility of happening, then do we have to find out the party that's the most responsible
With a car crash, a person is done serious harm. In an abortion, we kill an underdeveloped potential human. It's just not comparable.
>A fetus doesn't need your "consent" to just simply fucking exist,
Fucking idiot. The fetus doesn't exist in a vacuum, not affecting anyone or doing anything. It lives inside the mother and acts biologically similar to a parasite in that it hides itself from the immune system and siphons her resources for itself. It doesn't need anyone's consent to just exist, but it does need consent to use someone else's bodily resources.
>With consent out of the equation
Unfortunately for you it's not out. I can't tell if you intentionally strawmanned me or if you just didn't understand, but I think I clarified the consent issue pretty well now.
cont.
>>
>>299984
>Killing people so you can have more sex is unacceptable in every single culture that exists and has existed. You're being absurd.
A fetus isn't a person and isn't granted all the rights a full-grown human is. There's good reasons for this; it's not self-aware, it's not even conscious or thinking. It's about as intelligent as a rock.
>No. I just said all contraceptive measures now are not even 100% failproof
No, but they can be highly effective. This does create some disconnect between sex and reproduction.
>Sex is the only way to lead babies
Not true anymore.
> its primary function is to reproduce
Also not true anymore. That may have been what evolution intended, but as humans we can create our own meanings and repurpose things. The amount of people who have sex with no intention of having children is evidence that reproduction is not its primary purpose anymore.
>They're incredibly tightly linked, and it will never, ever go away
Be careful making those "never" statements. It's quite possible that in the future we'll have 100% effectiveness contraceptives, or that everyone will be sterilized at birth, and all children will be made in a lab. In that society, sex and reproduction will have literally no connection.
>>
>>298866
Banning abortion has been shown to increase the amount of total abortions + mother deaths from self abortion attempts compared to having sex education + legal abortion with family planning counselors who can talk to couples and convince them to change their mind.

You screaming to ban abortion is leading to more death and suffering for others. But I bet you feel really righteous, eh?
>>
>>298866
See >>299990
Banning abortion does not reduce abortion. This has been known for a long time and it's shameful that conservatives haven't realized it yet.
>>
>>299988
>You can forfeit your parental responsibilities.
You "can"? No, you actually can't. The sustainability and survival of the species is dependent on nurturing children, so you actually "can't".
>it also doesn't deserve to use the mother's resources without her permission.
This is an inseparable and necessary function of life. If a person has a right to life, he also has a right to have the necessary resources until he is self-dependent.
>I fucking hate semantics arguments.
I do, too. So stop comparing a mother-child relationship to a host-freeloader relationship. I brought it up first to show you the ludicrousness of claiming that a fetus needs consent to simply be alive, because you would have to think of it in a host-freeloader context to think otherwise.
>It just means a person who takes advantage of others for resources and offers nothing in return.
By your definition, a person with a severe mental disorder or a person in a coma is also a freeloader. I don't want to have a linguistics debate, I want you to have some common sense.
>An unwanted fetus does not offer this.
>The fetus doesn't exist in a vacuum, not affecting anyone or doing anything. It lives inside the mother and acts biologically similar to a parasite in that it hides itself from the immune system and siphons her resources for itself. It doesn't need anyone's consent to just exist, but it does need consent to use someone else's bodily resources.
Having a temporary period of being completely dependent on the mother is a necessary phase in life itself. For a fetus, existence is being nurtured through the mother's bodily resources. Stop doing mental gymnastics - sustaining life requires resources, and it's absolutely stunning that I have to type this out. At one temporary phase in your life, you required bodily resources. Now, you require a lot more resources, but they're not restricted to your mother's body. Whether the resource was bodily or not does not determine your qualification for life
>>
Roe Vs Wade Will NEVER BE OVERTURNED! I am VERY Pro Life, but im also honest. You progressive idiots need to Shut up you are embarrassing!
>>
>>299995
You must have missed the part where it's republicans who are saying it's going to be overturned.
>>
cont.
>>299988
>Unfortunately for you it's not out. I can't tell if you intentionally strawmanned me or if you just didn't understand, but I think I clarified the consent issue pretty well now.
Unfortunately for you, it was never an issue in the first place. I think I clarified this pretty well now.
>A fetus isn't a person
A zygote in planted in the uterus has all the necessary genetic material and function to start the life cycle of a unique human being. This is a biological standard for life. Yours is arbitrary.
>and isn't granted all the rights a full-grown human is. There's good reasons for this; it's not self-aware, it's not even conscious or thinking. It's about as intelligent as a rock.
Granted by whom? Arbitrary. And yes, it may be impossible to exercise any rights. But, it has some. It doesn't have a right to own property, obviously. However, it does have a right to life, as all human beings do, no matter how able or pragmatically useful they are.
>The amount of people who have sex with no intention of having children is evidence that reproduction is not its primary purpose anymore.
What purpose a tool can have has to be demonstrated over time, as its purpose can change. What you described has not taken place long enough to prove that sex has been successfully re-purposed for recreation. We don't know if this is having positive or adverse effects on society, and we don't know if this usage of sex is sustainable.
>It's quite possible that in the future we'll have 100% effectiveness contraceptives, or that everyone will be sterilized at birth, and all children will be made in a lab.
To think that it will out compete sex as the primary means of reproduction seems far-fetched.
>>
>>299993
Does banning guns reduce shootings?
Does banning drugs reduce drug consumption?
>>
>>300007
Does banning guns reduce shootings?
Yes.
Does banning drugs reduce drug consumption?
No.
Does banning abortions reduce abortions?
No.
Different things are different.
>>
>>300044
>>300007

Banning anything will reduce its use. Reduce, but eliminate
>>
>>300044
Ehhhh, the cities with the most gun violence have the most restrictions, i.e. Detroit, New york. And it turns out a doctor is a little more precise and sanitary than a dive down the stairs or the baby mama with a coat hanger
>>
>>300053
No. That's not usually true for alcohol, drugs or abortion for example.
>>300054
Because those cities are in the same country still. The ban would have to be countrywide for it to work. And have competent customs and police.
>>
>>300060
If you hypothetically take the guns away, people will start stabbing each other. Violent people will always be violent, it doesn't matter if they have a gun, a knife, or a stick. If you give the good people the bigger stick and only take the stick away from people that are prone to commit violence, people will feel and actually be safer.
Realistically though too many people would fight for their right for self preservation, they would only ever get them bullets first.
>>
>>299995
You're probably right.
>>299997
I've seen both sides worry/masturbate about it.
>>
>>300060
>No. That's not usually true for alcohol, drugs or abortion for example.
Historically it has actually been true but that doesn't mean it's been a good idea, it's really just caused illicit markets to be created
>>
>>299994
>You "can"? No, you actually can't
Yes, you can give them up to the state.
>If a person has a right to life, he also has a right to have the necessary resources until he is self-dependent.
And this is where we fundamentally disagree. I just can't support that line of reasoning. A fetus doesn't have the right to use someone else's body and put them through a terribly painful procedure.
>person with a severe mental disorder or a person in a coma is also a freeloader
Presumably the person taking care of them wants to take care of them, so they get some intangible emotional benefit from it.
>Having a temporary period of being completely dependent on the mother is a necessary phase in life itself
Only if you want to have the child. If you don't, you don't have to go through that.
>Stop doing mental gymnastics - sustaining life requires resources
Not every potential person has to be sustained, and in fact most shouldn't since we're already overpopulated.
>Whether the resource was bodily or not does not determine your qualification for life
Different resources are different, it's pretty simple. A person has the right to strictly control what happens with their own body more so than they do their money, for example. Your body is considered very sacred.
>>
>>299998
>A zygote in planted in the uterus has all the necessary genetic material and function to start the life cycle of a unique human being. This is a biological standard for life. Yours is arbitrary.
I dont care if it's a life, and neither do you, actually. Bacteria is life. What matters is if it's a person, and yes, that is a definition under contention.
>Granted by whom? Arbitrary
Me, and my government.
>it does have a right to life, as all human beings do, no matter how able or pragmatically useful they are.
Yes, I agree. However, that right is not unlimited, even for adults. Let's use an analogy I've seen before; through some cluster of events you end up in a hospital bed with some other dude. He's connected to you through some tubes, and is using your body's resources to survive. Following your logic, it would not be morally permissible for you to have him disconnected from you. I would disagree, since I think you have the right to decide what happens with your body, and that no one can use it without your consent.
>To think that it will out compete sex as the primary means of reproduction seems far-fetched.
Maybe, but I'm just saying never say never.
>>
>>300044
>Does banning guns reduce shootings?
>Yes.
>Does banning drugs reduce drug consumption?
>No.
>Does banning abortions reduce abortions?
>No.
>Different things are different.
Yes, but their method of enforcement, the government, is the same.
Explain your reasoning. Why does it not work for two of them but does for another?
>>
>>300123
>Why does it not work for two of them but does for another?
Not him but I don't know. These are just empirical facts.
>>
>>300123
It's not reasoning, it's data. You can speculate all you like but that's what the data says.
>>
>>300123
I don't know the full reasoning behind those things because I don't study those things. But I know though that there are studies made for each of those things. Of course they are not clear cut, but if the choice is a yes or a no question, it usually goes like I said.
I can try to guess though. Abortions are a matter about personal freedom and life for women, so they'd do them even if they are illegal. Drugs are fun and addictive so people seek them regardless of if they are illegal or not. Just like alcohol. Most of the people don't actually need guns for anything but self defence. When there are very little guns on a country, people actually feel and in fact are safer, because you don't need gun for self defence against other people with guns.
>>
>>298988
>>298974
This. How hypocritical are Dems to say "we oppose men's rights but demand you care about women's rights?" I don't see anything wrong with abortion but the most of the pro choice crowd is misandrists these days so fuck them.
>>
>>300243
>we oppose men's rights
No dems actually say this except for breitbart boogeyman SJWs which only exist on twitter
>>
>>300252
Actually both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed men's rights. Maybe you should have actually read the post I replied to since you don't bother to pay any attention to politics.
>>
>>298433
That case cannot be over turned for the sake of the country.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-statistics-indicate-abortion-rate-continues-to-be-higher-among-minoriti
>>
>>300257
>Actually both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed men's rights.
[citation that isn't an alt-right forum needed]
>>
>>300257
How so?
>>
>>298717
While sensible on the surface, that reeks of eugenics and even hinting at supporting eugenics in the US is political suicide.

If you go with the argument of
>well its the mother's responsibility since she decided to have unprotected sex
you ignore the societal cost of unplanned children, especially in low-income families. The mom literally can't afford her unplanned child, so she needs state assistance, which ends up costing everyone in the way of taxes.

>but just place them up for adoption!
The foster care system is already hopelessly overcrowded as it is.
>>
>>300261
>>300262
see >>298988
Go do your own research on any of those topic. Off the top of my head I can point to:
>You don't remember Hillary saying that the justice system shouldn't treat women the same as men?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/opinions/hillary-clinton-women-and-mass-incarceration-crisis/index.html
> Do you remember her making Lena Dunham a campaign surrogate and then having Lena Dunham speak at the Convention?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc8cFLME2Qw
>Do you remember when the Obama administration conducted rape studies but decided that a woman forcing a man to have sex isn't rape?
Look at the definition of "rape" in the NISVS, which was conducted under Obama. IIRC it was something like "the penetration of the victim" which means a woman forcing a man to have sex isn't rape. This was based on the view of feminist researchers FYI, in case you think that "feminism" is somehow about equality.
>Do you remember the DNC getting caught discriminating against men in hiring for staffing positions?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/10/30/dnc-email-straight-white-men-need-not-apply-n2402482
And I'll add another one: California Democrats forcing private companies to discriminate against men:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/30/california-signs-law-to-require-women-on-corporate-boards-.html

You can look up the rest on your own or try to find any source to refute it. The fact that I needed to cite anything proves you don't actually follow politics so maybe shut the fuck up and pay attention instead of attacking us for pointing out the obvious. And if you want to learn more about men's issues in general I'd suggest watching a documentary about MRAs:
http://theredpillmovie.com/
>MUH ALT-RIGHT FORUM
I'm left-wing and anti-Trump you brainlet. You live in such an echochamber that you think it's only Breitbart and /pol/ that oppose the Dems but the reality is even pro choice left-wing men are waking up and realizing that Democrats are misandrists
>>
>>300270
So you can't find an single instance of either Obama or Hillary saying the words "i oppose men's rights". That's what I thought.
>>
>>300271
just plenty of instances of them and the DNC actually opposing men's rights.
>>
>>300277
It sounds like you should be writing a MRA blog.
>>
>>300271
Lol Anon literally wrecks your shit and you split hairs
How much are they paying you, or do you do it for free?
>>
>>300278
it sounds like you should be learning about men's issues rather than shitposting on 4chan when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>>300135
>>300136
Data from sociological studies are not acceptable as sociologists are overwhelmingly liberals and are known to routinely fabricate data to push ideological points.
>>
>>300327
You're reaching, there are bad eggs in every field who make up results, and it's scandalous when it happens, to call it a routine occurrence as way of dismissal is intellectually dishonest at best
>>
>>300270
Woah bro, chill out. If you make a claim, you provide evidence. That's how it works. Also, this is all evidence that Hillary and Obama in practice are neglect mens' rights, not that they said they do. Just a little bit of miscommunication, honestly.
>>300281
Not him, but it's not splitting hairs. Reread >>300243. He says
>How hypocritical are Dems to say "we oppose men's rights but demand you care about women's rights?"
>>
>>300330
Reminds me of people who deny climate science by just saying that all the scientists are paid shills. If evidence disagrees with them, they just ignore it.
>>
>>300327
>all sociological studies are unacceptable sources of data because SOME sociologists are LIBRULS
Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.
>>
The morons in here complaining avout abortions are the same people who complain about wellfare programs for those who get abortions. I say this, let the libs have their abortions, let the conservs have their guns. 2 issues with one stone, done. Next topic, niggers
>>
>>300269
>The foster care system is already hopelessly overcrowded as it is.
Fertility is dropping like a rock. Wouldn't the solution be fixing the institution, and have the babies that are being born here, instead of killing the babies of people born here, and importing babies from other countries through immigration?
>>
>>300345
>>300271
Now you're just being obtuse. Obviously "we oppose men's rights" was intended to be a summary of their views not a literal quote.
>>
>>300417
>was intended to be a summary of their views not a literal quote.
This is what usually happens when people criticise Trump and Republicans in general, but I guess that's different because reasons.
>>
>>300409
I was going to come in and say this.
>>
>>300418
>t. brainlet who can't stay on topic
Where ITT are people doing that? If somebody is doing that, take it up with them don't try to change the topic because you got BTFO and can't defend the man-hating Democrats.
>>
>>300415
The solution is almost everyone stop having babies for a while. We're constantly running up against ecological limits of population size. We don't need the vast majority of people and suburbs we have today.
Locally we can limit population growth by reducing immigration, but internationally we have to reduce birth rates. IMO even in developed countries we can do with slowing population growth. Unfortunately in the developing world large families are used as a form of social security.
The best approach would be if all governments worked together to facilitate humane reduction in population growth among the poorest demographics. That will necessitate international aid to make up for smaller family size among the poor in developing countries.
Unfortunately, both the left and right have drawn hard lines in the sand and won't budge on one relevant issue or another, so it seems like there's little hope for an intelligent and coordinated international effort to control humanity's exponentially increasing environmental footprint.
>>
>>299998
>A zygote in planted in the uterus has all the necessary genetic material and function to start the life cycle of a unique human being. This is a biological standard for life. Yours is arbitrary.
A pile of timber also has the potential to be a house. There are an infinite number of potential lives, as much as there is raw material that can form babies. Ultimately the only question of relevance are those of reducing suffering and increasing freedom. Abortions aren't necessarily the direct cause of any suffering. Some folks then argue that they set a precedent for devaluing human life. But if it was never sentient, in what respect is it even worthy of any consideration, more than a disorganized mass of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen?
>>
>>300393
There are more Marxist sociology professors than republican sociology professors
>>
>>300429
Human intervention is a good thing.
We are able to deal with planet effecting problems. Nature is not. 99% of animal extinction has happened before humans moved into cities. If we notice an animal is having a declining population we try to save it. Nature doesn't care and the species is wiped out.
When we are running out of a resource we reduce its usage through prices, while nature is full of the skeletons of species that are their prey into extinction and they soon followed. Nature is full of barbarity, cannibalization of children, Praying Mantis decapitating the heads of their spouses after mating. If you're comparing humanity to nature we're far better, if you're comparing us to some idea that has never and will never exist and think the best way to get there is throwing a wet blanket on the economy you have another thing coming
>>
>>300393
MOST sociologists are SJWs. Not even just "liberals" (I consider myself a liberal), straight up man-hating SJWs control Sociology and they don't care about doing any real research. They only care about furthering their hateful, bigoted agenda.
If sociologists wanted us to take their studies seriously they should have treated their field like an actual science instead of an extension of Women's Studies.
>>
>>300434
>Human intervention is a good thing.
Yes and no. Human intervention to undo other human intervention is usually a good thing. Uncontrolled human interference is just about never a good thing. It's the difference between boiling a pot of soup on your stove and lighting your house on fire. And even then, ecosystems are sometimes incomprehensibly complex; even our attempts to hack them produce unintended results.

>We are able to deal with planet effecting problems. Nature is not. 99% of animal extinction has happened before humans moved into cities. If we notice an animal is having a declining population we try to save it. Nature doesn't care and the species is wiped out.

The natural world ebbs and flows and we rarely have the knowledge, let alone the means and the political will, to try and maximize biodiversity. The best and most workable ideas we currently have are just to curb invasive human influence in the first place, or try and reverse its effects in an immediate context (raising in captivity and releasing into the wild to counter poaching, for example). We just about never have the level of expertise and resources necessary to go in and re-engineer an ecosytem toward its own benefit.
>>
>>300433
Probably because republicans don't care about sociology.
>>300442
>MOST sociologists are SJWs.
No they aren't. Prove that most sociologist are in fact Social Justice Warriors.
>I consider myself a liberal
I don't consider you a liberal
"If sociologists wanted us to take their studies seriously they should have treated their field like an actual science instead of an extension of Women's Studies."
That's your opinion.
But sociologist actually use science. It's not exact science like physics, but it's science. You just threw some own opinions about the scientists themselves. What's it called? Oh yes. Ad hominem, more precisely ad hominem motivum in this case.
>>
>>298433
>Lets kill the disabled!
>Also, ableism is bad!

Make up your mind, commies.
>>
>>300442
>>300448
It's important not to conflate sociologists with the trash-can fields of gender studies, sexuality studies, race studies, and critical theory. Those claim to be social science, but are in fact complete fucking waffle. But sociology still has scientific standards; it's largest problems are p-hacking and replication, but those are still "science problems."

See also the recent hoax in academia, where all the waffle field journals published fabricated garbage but all the sociology journals correctly applied academic and rejected them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
>>
>>300458
what purpose does that actually serve though? the point of abortion is to improve the mothers life. it isn't done for shits and giggles like in the scenario you just described.
>>
>>300458
Probably a kind if "cruel and unusual" idea. Not having a kid isn't either, wanting a deformed kid is the latter, and forcing deformity is the former.
>>
>>300458
What are the medical benefits of doing that? Doctors do not do procedures just for the hell of it and if they did it would be malpractice.

That's not a real medical procedure since it doesn't have any positive benefits and in fact would significantly harm the quality of life of the fetus after birth. Even under the best circumstances birth can cause injury or death to the mother. Modern medical care significantly lowers the chances but sometimes the risks involved with birth are just not worth it to the mother. Women may also choose abortion if the fetus is no longer viable outside of the womb and birth would cause needless suffering to the mother and child.
>>
>>300458
Well if it was never sentient then giving a fetus rights makes about as much sense as giving a stone rights. But worse because society is then also often causing unnecessary hardship for the monther, who can suffer. The reason one shouldn't be allowed to disfigure the fetus is not because it should have rights, but because you're then causing unnecessary suffering to something that will be able to suffer later.
>>
If there is a nonzero chance of death from giving birth, then abortion needs to be legal or you lose any moral ground to stand on.
>>
>>300458
>I'd hazard a guess they'd take fewer fingers than non-existence.
You'd be wrong. We can take a look at suicides, vet's are pretty common. Being disabled contributes to their suicidal desires.
>>
>>300409
Nobody actually wants to take the guns away though.
>>
>>300458
It's not a good argument man.
>>
>>298433
>celebrates
Brett has called Roe v Wade 'settled law.'

Certain fellas are going to be outraged when they go to SCOTUS expecting an overturn only for an affirmation. Point is, don't count your marbles yet.
>>
>>300572

>Brett has called Roe v Wade 'settled law.'

How many times do you have to have your trust betrayed before you stop giving them benefit of doubt? There are genuine conservatives, and then there are Republican politicians. They don't give a shit about anything other than their donors. Lying means absolutely nothing to them.

Republican politicians will never outlaw abortion country wide so long as it's still possible for them to lose an election. It's too much of a wedge issue that can drive otherwise more liberal Christians to the Republican party.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.