I dont think you cant without appealing to feefees. Nobody cares about feefees these days.
Unless you..promise that you will increase taxes or reduce spending in army or healthcare, and pay a huge montly allowance to children.
Some lefties will stand behind stand that.

>>522065591
You could just say murder is le bad and that killing a baby is murder
It's a lot harder to do it the other way without being explicitly racist

>>522065591
Shouldn't you start asking questions about yourself if you care so much about image and think one side is "cooler"?

>>522065594
I believe in the God given dignity and worth to all people regardless of ethnicity and I am fundamentally at odds with right wing ethos. Righters reject universality. I am a moral realist universalist.

>>522065595
Liberals never thought that though. Liberals knew that God given rights as they understood them only worked in white countries

>>522065596
Objectively not true. Legal statue traditions and democratic principles originate from greeks and Romans which were brown.

>>522065591
Well lets start with this question, why are you against legalized abortion?

>>522065597
*statute

>>522065598
I believe unborn children are humans and it’s wrong to kill any human.

>>522065600
>it’s wrong to kill any human.
Even in self defense?

>>522065600
When do they become human in your view, and why that moment?

>>522065597
Greeks and Romans were centralizers, imperialists. Locke was an anti divine right thinker and divine right came from the greeks and Romans. Enlightenment thinkers were in part rejecting the legacy of the greeks and Romans while taking what was good and trying to make something better. This was mostly just a justification for the glorious revolution against a Catholic king who was seen as an emissary of the broken backwards traditions of the old empires.

In reality what locke and the liberals were fighting was financial corruption and the ideology that Locke espoused was immediately dismantled by the people that orchestrated the revolution by creating a central bank to print infinite money.

So rather that it being an explicitly universal idea, liberalism, it's actually extremely limited in its scope and trying to apply it to brown people is why the US is so degraded is the first place.

>>522065591
It is a unique human, it is alive, it therefore deserves the rights of humans if not full civil rights.

>>522065602
At fertilisation, because that is the point at which a genetically distinct human organism is formed.

>>522065591
Pretty easy. You have to just look at the why of it. Women don’t just get abortions as fashion statements. An abortion is a societal failure. They’re the result of rape, abusive partners, drug or alcohol addiction, poverty, discrimination at work, failure or birth control, or medical conditions. So go from there. The goal isn’t to prevent women from getting an abortion they need. It’s to prevent women from needing them in the first place. Which has generally always been the lefty view. Abortions aren’t nice or desirable things. They’re necessary and we should strive to make fewer of them necessary.

>>522065603
US is degraded because it loosened its control over the top 5% and what we basically have now is not even capitalism it’s a kind of technological fiefdom where the economy is basically owned by 50 people. The naturally inequality, disgruntled masses and whatnot.

>>522065607
Nah the whole world is degraded by socialism humanism. You think it was liberalism that stopped colonialism? It was socialist humanism. You think it's liberalism that desegregated the US? It was socialist humanism. The liberals had slaves, the liberals didn't believe in women's rights, the socialists did

>>522065606
I agree with you these are positive measures, to encourage women to not do it. However it should be complimented with negative measures. Which is the legal restriction.

>>522065605
>genetically distinct human organism
Why is this morally important on your view? From my pov it just seems like cargo cult ethics.

File: gkbhpcrtvwuqmviw.jpg (35 KB, 900x506)

35 KB JPG

>>522065591
The argument is straightforward. Abortion infringes on the right to life. One only needs to hold the principled position that an unborn human should have human rights... a position that is very unpopular in the modern world.

> The Unborn as the Ultimate Vulnerable Class
From this viewpoint, the unborn fetus is the most vulnerable member of the human community. It has no voice, no power, and no ability to advocate for itself. A liberal society's commitment to justice should extend to those who cannot speak for themselves. This isn't about controlling women, but about extending the circle of our moral concern to include the developing human life.

>>522065609
That’s the barrier that you’ll find then. Because until you deal with the causes of the need for abortion you’re just forcing a worse outcome on all parties involved. I guess it also should be asked if you feel a universal ban including in cases of rape or medical necessity is what you want. Ultimately the left wing view point has always been to target the cause of the need and not punish those who need the procedure.

>>522065611
>extending the circle of our moral concern to include the developing human life
y tho

>>522065608
No it was the moral, technological and cognitive superiority of the humanists over the unwashed crusty hillbillies that ended slavery. It was huge burden of the conscience of the nation. Humanism doesn’t create poverty and misery. Disparity does. The earliest philosophers recognised this. You’re behind.

>>522065605
Do you think IVF is murder? It requires the destruction of fertilized embryos but is a procedure that facilitates fertility. There are many parents that brought healthy and happy children into the world through it who would have otherwise have been unable to due to infertility. I think this is where that line of thinking that human personhood begins at fertilization really shows how limited and myopic it is.

>>522065611
It's pretty easy to refute abortion because it's a socialist invention. Brainwashing dumb institutionalized women into a druggy sexual lifestyle in a socialist society and then telling them to get abortions instead of having protected sex is amoral. But ultimately all socialism is amoral

>>522065611
Thank you this was great.

>>522065614
>Socialists pretend slavery was a huge burden on society

>>522065616
The lefties have been supporting birth control being made as accessible as possible for a long time though. No one thinks abortion is a lulzy way to spend an afternoon. The whole point of trying to make the pill, condoms, IUDs, and the like available is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

>>522065617
It's crap because it fundamentally misunderstands the liberal position. The view of lost liberals is that the fetus is not a person period, therefore it cannot be a vulnerable person either.

>>522065619
No the entire point of socialist abortions is to brainwash young women in college into inserting themselves in the socialist institutional apparatus to further socialism anti racist anti white rhetoric and turn the US into a massive daycare of adult minorities.

>>522065611
>One only needs to hold the principled position that an unborn human should have human rights
That's not principled at all. The fetus has violated the NAP, and the mother has every right to evict it from her property. If it refuses to leave after being ordered to then it can be removed by force. If it cannot survive that's its own problem.

>>522065620
I’m a liberal and I think that especially in the later stages of pregnancy when frontal lobe activity is present that the fetus has personhood. I also know that late stage abortions happen when something goes catastrophically wrong and not because it’s a great way for the mother to spend her Saturday afternoon.

>>522065616
Abortion was here from ancient times, thousand years before socialism was even a word.

>>522065624
Modern abortion didn't exist until the socialists, usually Jews, started pushing it so women would stop dropping out of college because they got pregnant

>>522065621
Are you not aware that abortion in the US is overwhelmingly done by black women?

>>522065621
That’s totally incoherent. You’re in two plus two equals potato salad with a side of ham levels of not even wrong. Why don’t you just say ‘everything I don’t like is a socialism?’

>>522065622
> fetus has violated the NAP,
Libertarian ≠ Liberal Centre Left

>>522065625
In ancient times abandonment of newborns was common. That is functionally a post birth abortion.

>>522065615
Yes I think it is a dehumanising practice.

>>522065629
You can't historical materialism your way into pretending modern politicized abortion was the same as leaving some deformed baby in the woods

>>522065620
Well, it's 'human rights' and not 'person rights'.

>>522065631
Baby didn’t even have to be deformed. Might just be the wrong sex.

>>522065630
That is very myopic when it has allowed so many people to become parents and bring human beings into the world, which would otherwise not have happened. How can you call yourself "pro life" if you are against this?

>>522065633
Okay that's a good point, leaving a female baby in the woods, as barbaric as that is, is essential what modern socialist abortion is. Only it's the woman staying in socialist indoctrination college so she doesn't fulfill her role as a mother rather than abandoning a female child because they will be another useless mouth to feed that wont further your legacy.

Society has completely flipped on its head because of socialism

>>522065631
They would abort children if the technology was here. Of course it wasn't possible in Sparta and such to do modern surgeries.

>>522065635
Why are you blaming evils of capitalism on socialism? We could just pay mothers to raise children intead of doing to college, but then right wingers would have metldown about welfare queens...

>>522065633
Or the parents were poor, or father had some doubts about paternity. The Roman male head of the household (pater familias) could kill any of his children and the children of any dependents living in his household (so his own family and slaves) up until the child was 1 year old for any reason or no reason. It was an absolute right that did not require justification.

>>522065637
Women don't need to go to college at all, that's kind of the point. They go to college, have a lot of sex and do a lot of drugs (pushed by jewish socialsits) and then when they get pregnant they get an abortion (provided by jewish socialists). College for women is just a cult

>>522065635
Women want to go to college because learning things is useful and independence is desirable. Their ‘role’ as a parent shouldn’t be their option in life. If you wanted women to have children you’d support stuff like parental leave laws and anti sex discrimination at work legislation.

>>522065640
Women want to go to college because jewish socialists tell them to go to college because they're the most left wing of white people

>>522065638
True. They also got dumped when a family was worried about starvation. Or they could sell them into slavery. That happened rather often as well all throughout antiquity. Too poor to raise your kid? Don’t kill ‘em! Sell ‘em!

>>522065641
Have you ever spoken to a woman? You know they like the same shit men do. Like freedom of choice, prosperity, and security. They don’t like to be property. No one does. So please consider that the next time you randomly blame Jews for basic human nature.

>>522065634
If it’s used to help otherwise infertile parents to have babies it’s ok. But to somehow manipulate and process this thing like giving them options to choose his features and other stuff like that is basically eugenics and it’s wrong.

>>522065643
Women like socialism, they don't even know what liberalism is because they have not actually been told liberalism is. Like 99% of newfags on 4chan being unable to tell you the difference between socialism and liberalism because we live in a largely socialist humanist society. It's so funny watching people say socialism is liberalism

>>522065639
> Women don't need to go to college at all, that's kind of the point.
No college means no decent job, means no money and no decent families

> but what if we hire women without college?
chuddies have meltdown because DEI and sheet
> but what if we give women money without job?
still meltdown because wealth queens and sheet
> just marry a rich man!
men aren't even rich today why? because capitalism
> do the familty without money anyway
you got nigger tier familty and child will be local rapist lmao

We must dismantle capitalism. There is no other alternative.

Well lefties love minorities so you could bring up the fact that since 1973 almost 20 million black babies were aborted in the us alone. Add Africa, Latin and Europe to that and the number is absurd. Compare that to the 12 million black people killed in slavery from 1480-1865.

50+ years of abortion has killed more black people than 400 years of slavery. Worldwide 73 million of all races are aborted yearly. The last three years of sbortion has killed more people than all wars in human history.

If they bring up that those aborted fetus aren’t technically human then just say those are arbitrary classification propaganda designed to dehumanize the victims. They have no response.

They bring up “scientist” say human life doesn’t start until blah blah you just calmly inform them that those definitions are arbitrary cooked up by abortion lobbyists to dehumanize the victims.

Confront them with numbers and the true scale of their evil and when they cope just inform them their only justification was designed by old white men to ease their conscious by dehumanizing their victims.

>>522065646
>you need to go to college to get a decent job
sounds like socialism has failed

>>522065645
It might benefit you if you stopped behaving as if women were a different species than men. They’re not. That being said, the definition of these terms has become extremely muddy in political and social discourse. It’s not far off from calling Christian nationalists Nazis. They’re not, even if they often times display authoritarian and even fascistic tendencies.

>>522065649
You're right christian nationalists are largely liberals

>>522065647
Really, the response to this is just that you’re punishing the victims and dehumanizing them by telling them their basic bodily autonomy is meaningless.

>>522065649
I’m a Christian and I think a sizeable portion of (mostly American) Christians are Nazis.

>>522065652
Socialists call liberals nazis it's not surprising when historically calling everybody that's not them nazi fascists is what they do

File: wojak-fat-thinks-he-is-skinny.png (70 KB, 600x600)

70 KB PNG

>>522065647
So... Considering all of that and such. Why are right-wingers against abortion? Do they want 20 million more blacks and 75 million of races around?

>>522065650
Not really. They lean more towards reactionary authoritarianism. You see this with their phrenetic reactions to any social or cultural change.

>>522065654
The state shouldn't provide abortions justified with socialist social engineering and you should probably kill anybody that says they should

>>522065652
A lot of Christians aren’t Christian nationalists. Just because you believe in Christ doesn’t mean you become an authoritarian brute.

>>522065655
And the "social change" always has to do with socialist jews? Odd. And we're here arguing the morality of socialist jew social engineering? odd.

>>522065653
Anybody who thinks they’re somehow justified in discriminating against another person based on the color of his skin is a nazi. Other details are peripherals.

>>522065658
You must blame Jews every time you stub your toe.

>>522065659
Everybody's racist, you'd have to have your head submerged in socialist rhetoric to not think so

>>522065660
Go look at who pushed abortion for college women, it was the largest socialist jew student org in the US

>>522065662
You know a lot of groups support civil rights, correct?

>>522065663
go look at who pushed civil rights

>>522065664
>someone makes a good argument and wins the debate on an issue is a conspiracy!
Did you ever just think that the people who support civil rights are, well, right? Since a lot of people who aren’t Jews do.

>>522065665
Congress of Racial Equality is one of the earliest largest civil rights orgs in the US
>Yes, Jewish Americans were a disproportionately high percentage of the white participants in the Civil Rights Movement, and were represented within the leadership and ranks of organizations like the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
>Many Jewish individuals, including students, professionals, and clergy, actively participated in CORE's direct action campaigns, such as sit-ins, Freedom Rides, and voter registration drives.
>Jewish philanthropic organizations and individuals were important sources of funding for civil rights efforts, which helped to advance the movement's goals.

>>522065661
Go outside.

>>522065666
What percentage of the US voting public is Jewish?

>>522065651
There is the real crux of the argument. Its seems to be mostly about female bodily autonomy.

Tbh there isn’t really a good counter to the autonomy argument. There would have been one by now if there was one.

My tactic is to inundate them with horror. Inform them abortion the single biggest killer of black people in human history. Even slavery and colonization doesn’t hold a candle to abortion. Inform them abortion was started by a white supremecists who outright stated she started planned parenthood because she felt the black population needed culling. Inform them that to this day statistically white females have the lowest rates of abortion of all races. Abortion affects mainly minorities. Make them associate abortion with white supremacy seems to be the most effective strategic. Eventually the body autonomy argument will fall when they realize that their right to body autonomy supports worldwide white supremacy which is the thing they hate most.

>>522065668
See that's the thing about civil rights, they were largely not passed through congress and if they were the actual function of the legislation was hidden from the public and probably the people that signed it

But I expect this to go over the head of people that think liberalism is socialist humanism

>>522065669
I could see that being upsetting, but as you said, there’s the barrier of bodily autonomy. That’s why I consider myself pro choice. I don’t like abortion. I just don’t think it’s fair to force someone into a pregnancy they don’t want.
>>522065670
Well there was the civil rights act. Still, it really goes back to the core idea that the general public things racism is bad because the anti racists won that debate. Even the right wing in America right now is trying to make an argument that deportation isn’t about race and just about legality.

>>522065671
Except civil rights has nothing to do with racism and if you think it does you're applying socialist humanism to a liberal society and are thus a socialist. So yes, if you think the civil rights movement was a bout racism and was about making brown people happy, a core tenant of socialism, you're a socialist. And the supreme court which ruled alo9ng socialsit humanist lines is also socialsit.

Meaning if you're a liberal basically the last 100+ years of legislation is bogus nonsense

>>522065632
Arguments via linguistics never work. Like yeah they might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside when you make them, but you can't convince anyone they should change their conceptual understanding based on flawed terminology because the person in question will always choose to do it the other way around and change their flawed terminology to fit their conceptual understanding.
Like seriously it doesn't take 120iq to figure this shit out.

>>522065673
Naturally the end result of moralizing socialism is that all abortion is murder, just like any sort of conflict between a pseudo western puppet state with brown people is genocide. An actual socialist would instead argue the child should be taken out of the women and put in a machine to gestate and then be made a ward of the state

>>522065674
What the fuck are you even talking about you freak.

>>522065675
I'm talking about actual socialist solutions to abortion, not the version jews sold the US in the 70's. The actual goal of socialism is to make everybody happy, so by taking the developing fetus out of the woman and essentially gestating it on a government conveyor belt would obviously be the best solution

>>522065676
Whatever schizo shit you're babbling about has absolutely nothing to do with my post that you replied to.

>>522065677
The unborn child does have rights and is able to feel happiness so if a monther is unhappy carrying the child full term the state would step in and put the baby in an artificial womb to maximize happiness. Then when it was of age it would be given perfect socialist happiness indoctrination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqvtO79Z9kA

>>522065678
Are you utterly retarded? Read back through the exchange and take your meds.

>>522065679
I'm good I already read it
https://youtu.be/zUsBFfbl_aM

>>522065680
Then you're completely illiterate. Not watching your youtubeslop when you can't even respond to what I'm writing and instead shadowbox with some argument that only exists in your head.

>>522065681
>you can't convince anyone they should change their conceptual understanding based on flawed terminology
>he says in a thread where the OP argument is based on flawed terminology
>he says in response to a post talking about how a developing child isn't a child
The only reason they claim it's not a child is so they can kill it

>>522065682
>he tries so hard
>still can't get it right
Let's forget the child for a second, are YOU even human? lmao
Let me remind you that my point was about "human rights" being a somewhat flawed piece of terminology because what the lib means by human rights is "the rights of human PERSONS", and he does not consider the fetus to be a person even if it's human.
None of the schizoshit that you posted at me is even remotely relevant to that specific point I made.

>>522065683
What if they know their argument is flawed and knowingly claim something isn't alive when it clearly is alive because they have ulterior motives?

>>522065684
That has nothing to do with my point, hence me saying that you're a shadowboxing schizo.

>>522065678
> The unborn child does have rights
What rights does it have? Can it i dunno inherit property from father (if father dies before child born)?

>>522065685
Because your point is retarded, of course their argument is wrong, the question is actually WHY is it wrong. Because they have ulterior motives

>>522065687
>Because your point is retarded
Can you restate in your own words what my point is, shadowboxing schizo?

>>522065688
Well you're wrong in that it's not liberals that claim an unborn child isn't actually alive, it's socialists. But apparently asking you to think about why they would claim something like that is impossible for you.

>>522065689
>it's not liberals that claim an unborn child isn't actually alive
I never said they claim that, or that anyone claims that. You're shadowboxing.

>>522065690
>nobody claims an unborn child isn't actually alive
really?

>>522065687
> Because they have ulterior motives
You can be correct in an argument but have ulterior motives for a claim.

File: nice towers you got there.jpg (85 KB, 387x516)

85 KB JPG

>>522065591
You're philosophically illiterate
Find what your principles are and apply the law of non contradiction

>>522065692
I propose they're both incorrect in their claims and have ulterior motives, which makes the abortion issue pushed by scheming liars

what race were the people again that pushed abortion?

>>522065691
You literally can't read, can you? I didn't say nobody said that. I said that IT WAS NOT MY CLAIM that people say that.
Now that we've settled that, can you go back and restate in your own words what my claim was?

>>522065695
Isn't the fundamental socialist claim that it's okay to kill an unborn child because it's not alive in their eyes? (they're lying)?

>>522065696
I didn't ask you about your schizo ideas of what some "fundamental socialist claim" was. I asked you to restate in your own MY claim, you illiterate subhuman.

>>522065697
If you don't know what socialists (you call them liberals) are actually proposing with abortion then how can you make the claim that their definition of rights is incorrectly applied because they don't believe an unborn child has rights? Doesn't that mean the socialist justification is the incorrect statement that a fetus isn't alive?

>>522065591
A non-religious argument against abortion is very simple as long as you also believe murder is bad:
>Human beings are distinct by their dna
>at conception, a new human being with distinct dna is created that is a separate being from its mother
>but for intervention or a tragedy, that embryo will become a fully formed human
>all humans go through this process, no human exists without going through the embryonic stage
>you are ending that human beings existence when you abort, you are the but for cause of it never becoming a fully grown human.
>this fits the definition of murder in every other scenario
It doesn’t matter if it is at the earliest stages of life and development, it is still a human life that is being brought to a premature end. The only way to actually justify abortion is to accept that it’s worth ending that life because the mom wants to (or there are other niche reasons why like rape or medical issues, but that’s a whole other discussion). If you have kids too and went through the process of birth with a pregnant woman, it’s so obvious that the fetus is a distinct human being that even has its own thoughts and reactions at different stages. The development of a fetus from start to end is fascinating.

>>522065698
Schizo-kun... This conversation will not move forward until you correctly summarize what my claim actually is.
Go, have another try.

>>522065700
You said their definition is wrong but you lack any critical thinking capacity to think beyond that

>>522065701
This is not a correct summarisation of my claim. Try again.

>>522065702
What race historically uses semantics? oh sorry I forgot you can't think

>>522065654
You sound like a reddit tourist. Pro-life is a stance that only Christian conservatives and groypers hold. Atheistic and pagan right-wingers tend to be pro-choice because of eugenics and the race angle. This is common knowledge
>>522065651
The response to this is incel Marxism wherein sexhavers are a privileged class and not "victims"

>>522065703
That is not a correct summarisation of my claim either. Keep on shadowboxing, schizo.

>>522065705
Post anything at any time that indicates you shouldn't be aborted

>>522065706
That is not a correct summarisation of my claim either, shadowboxing schizo.
Remember, your current predicament is entirely caused by the fact that you can't read.

>>522065669
>Tbh there isn’t really a good counter to the autonomy argument.
If you believe abortion is murder why would you care about autonomy?
This is like claiming it's okay to kill your sick grandma because you don't have to care for her anymore.

>>522065707
My current predicament?

>>522065669
>female bodily autonomy.
It literally isn’t her body she’s dealing with anymore. The embryo is a completely distinct being. Also, she could have done an infinite number of things to avoid getting pregnant in most cases—that’s her bodily autonomy.

>>522065710
Yup, if you start breaking it down it completely comes apart, it's just socialist jew justified murder. The case they created to pass abortion through the supreme court was also entirely fabricated

>>522065591
There is no logically sound pro-choice argument that also isn't sociopathic, the left just has to take the L on this one.
The atheistic/Nazi/eugenic pro-choice RW-ers are more logically consistent than the pro-choice LW-ers on this issue.

>>522065712
yup lol, you know you fucked up when eugenics is somehow less radical

>>522065709
Yes, your inability to actually engage with my point and subsequently get me to watch your favourite youtube videos.

>>522065714
oh you have a very short attention span, that explains it

>>522065715
No, I just don't seriously engage with content in replies by people who have not read or understood my posts.
If you respond to what I'm actually writing, I'll watch your videos. If you instead choose to shadowbox, I'll just repeatedly ask you to respond to my actual point and ignore any links you post.

>>522065591
One argument I like to use is the argument of conjoined (Siamese) twins. They share many of the same aspects the unborn do.
>require the other twin’s body to survive
>are often underdeveloped or developmentally stunted compared to the other twin
>cause major medical complications for the other twin
>are major societal and mental stressors for the other twin
>being conjoined is a nonconsensual situation
If you were to ask someone if a conjoined twin should have the right to kill their other conjoined twin, the majority wouldn’t agree, because of how visible such a killing would be as another person’s murder, despite its similarities to abortion. It ends up showing that the only substantive difference between murdering a conjoined twin and abortion is the size/visibility of the killed party. It’s much easier to justify killing when the victim isn’t easily visible.

It’s best used as a supplementary argument but I think it’s still pretty strong on its own.

>>522065716
And you think somebody perceiving colors in a society that deemed colors dangerous because it showed differences in people is not applicable to a thread discussing the dangers of socialist thought

>>522065718
Aaaaand you're shadowboxing again.
What is my claim?

>>522065591
Trump's argument in the debate was correct, it was one of the first things he said. "Send it back to the states and let them decide" The balance of forces is your word against hers. Becky doesn't want kids, there are arguments either way but they don't matter in your specific case, emotions will decide. No specific case is a moral argument against the whole, which includes so many different cases.
The only large-scale argument is there are other people out there, women who are pro-life, and Becky doesn't represent all of them, just her own demographic. You can argue against a federal law by questioning what standard could apply to every different state, where all the matters of degree come into play. Even pro-choice people don't support unlimited conscience-free abortions.

>>522065717
>It ends up showing that the only substantive difference between murdering a conjoined twin and abortion is the size/visibility of the killed party. It’s much easier to justify killing when the victim isn’t easily visible
Yeah this is also the argument veg(etari)ans use, that far less people would eat meat if slaughterhouses were glass houses

>>522065719
Your claim is that you're a dumbass

>>522065722
That is not my claim, try again.
Btw are you pretending to be retarded or are your literacy skills actually so low that you do not understand what my claim is?
Either is fine by me, both are quite funny.

>>522065723
You claim is so insignificant if you brought it up now it would look stupid

>>522065724
Then why are you shadowboxing in replies to my posts? Why did you pick specifically me as the figure that you pretend you're fighting with?
Your mind is bizarre.

>>522065591
Yes

>>522065725
Because you were slightly right so I thought you'd be receptive to education but instead you cry about having to think

>>522065727
Slightly right in saying what specifically? ;)
Don't worry, I know what you're doing. You desperately want to debate your pet topic so you try to make people debate the other side of it by any means necessary. You often see unskilled autistic conversationalists doing something similar by clumsily shoehorning their obsession into a conversation.

>>522065728
No I was just bumping an interesting thread

>>522065729
Yeah it's quite bumped now that most of the thread is me asking you what my claim was :)
Nice of you to admit that you were deliberately not engaging with my point this whole time though.

>>522065730
>>522065724

>>522065731
>actually I chose a post making an insignificant claim and replied to it as if it was making a completely different claim
>but I didn't do that to talk about that different claim, I just did it to bump the thread
You're mentally ill lol.

>>522065732
You not understanding what I post doesn't make it wrong

>>522065733
Interestingly enough, I did not claim that what you posted is wrong.
You're shadowboxing again lol. Let me guess, you're doing it on purpose because the thread needs more bumps?

>>522065734
>I don't understand how what you posted is connected to what I posted and I refuse to repost what I posted because I don't understand, but I'm going to say what you posted doesn't make sense
okay, I don't care

>>522065735
>I'm literally incapable of simply restating what youe claim was
>but trust me what I replied with was totally responding to your claim
>btw what I said earlier about just wanting to bump the thread was a lie I was totally responding to your claim
lmao
Btw I did not fail to notice how you now switched from saying I claimed what you said was wrong to saying that I did not understand what you said and therefore did not see how it was on topic. Peak comedy.
I accept your concession btw.

>>522065721
I’m not a vegetarian or vegan, but I find the difference between those cases to be that one argument is over killing members of other species while this is about killing members of our OWN species. May seem arbitrary but we naturally have an affinity for our own species that’s reflected in our laws primarily affecting our own species.
They’re similar arguments in different contexts. In-group vs out-group and all that.

>>522065736
I thought you understood what I posted but it seems you don't even understand what you posted. My mistake

>>522065738
>I thought you understood what I posted
That's interesting given that earlier you said I did not understand what you posted. Your story keeps changing with every reply lol.

>>522065736
>>522065738
disinterested observer here: saying human rights instead of person rights makes no difference to the leftist argument that some human derived things are not people and don't have human rights. He's right. Stop shitting the thread

>>522065717
another case specific, matter of degree argument. Some conjoined twins will kill both siblings if left attached.

>>522065740
Because the fundamental argument that human rights is based on life socialist's argument hinge on the child not actually being alive. This was some thrown together logic they created to validate the federal legalization of abortion. They knowingly lie about the nature of abortion because the ability for women to kill their own children so they could stay in college and not start a family was their explicit goal.

>>522065741
>Some conjoined twins will kill both siblings if left attached
Not denying that. I was addressing the moral argument of if they *should* be allowed to kill the other if they wanted to, then extending that to abortion through the similarities in each case’s participants.

>>522065742
>shadowboxing
lmao

>>522065744
>Human rights are granted by God when you become alive
>Babies are alive after conception
>Meaning fertilized human eggs actively splitting is life granted by God
>Meaning socialists need to argue it's not actually alive to justify killing it
>This is because they're not liberals, they're socialists trying to justify child murder using liberalism

>>522065745
>more shadowboxing
I've come to the conclusion that you're simply low iq.

>>522065746
Oh so you do actually understand what I'm saying you're just damage control spamming

>>522065742
Why would human rights be based on life? Not all life is human. Not even all human life is human. If you get a cut on your hand that's not a human rights violation

>>522065743
yes, most people would say medical professionals should have the option to save critical cases. It's a matter of degree which means some people will statistically be exceptions, it's not a structural argument for abolishing Roe.

>>522065748
Because God is the creator of all. Meaning conception is divine in nature. Killing an unborn child is killing God's creation as well as the parent's. Do you guys not understand liberalism is fundamentally based on Christianity?

>>522065747
I understand that what you're saying is not a response to my claim. That has been my position all along, schizo retard.

>>522065593
>It's a lot harder to do it the other way without being explicitly racist
You can be pro-eugenics (or just say that it's inefficient for a society to force people who dont want kids or are unable to support kids to have kids) without being explicitly racist. If someone implies that certain races are more likely to abort for whatever reason then that's on them not me

>>522065591
I think a simple description of the procedure of an abortion let alone pictures and videos are enough of an argument. It's morally indefensible

>>522065750
Concession accepted.

>>522065754
>He doesn't know that liberalism is about the equalizing nature of God's creation explicitly from the perspective of highly racist 17th century revolutionary sycophants

>>522065606
>>522065612
What if it is impossible to completely eliminate all of those things, and those things have been arguably lowered as much as feasibly possible within material and social constraints of the present reality, and someone still needs an abortion? What then? Are you still gonna stop them?

>>522065704
I thought groypers were supposed to be racist nazis? Or did they get absorbed by the christcuck crowd
t. atheist right winger

>>522065749
Maybe I’m not being clear enough.
>I was addressing the moral argument of if they *should* be allowed to kill the other if they wanted to
(((They))) in this case are the conjoined twins themselves, not medical professionals. It’s supposed to show the absurdity of abortion through the example of letting one twin kill the other, despite the many commonalities conjoined twins can have with human fetuses in each respective situation >>522065717.
>most nations wouldn’t let a twin kill the other merely because they want to (murder)
>when medical complications arise effort is made to save both twins despite any difficulties
>the nonconsensual nature of being conjoined is remedied by physically separating the twins (when possible) so both can live healthy lives, not by killing one for the convenience of the other
Thus fetuses should be treated likewise, respecting both lives instead of abandoning one for the other.
>don’t let people get abortions just because they don’t want to have a child after having sex (murder)
>if medical complications arise make efforts (where possible) to save both the lives of the mother and unborn child
>physically separate them so they may both live healthy lives instead of killing one for the other’s remedy when nonconsensual acts are involved (rape, incest, etc)

>>522065600
>and it’s wrong to kill any human.
Does that extend to self-defense, capital punishment, authorities exercising force against criminals and nation states waging war against each other? What about taking someone off life support?
>>522065605
>At fertilisation, because that is the point at which a genetically distinct human organism is formed.
Why is that significant?

>>522065759
>Why is that significant?
christcuck.exe always crashes at that point

>>522065759
>Why is that significant?
Because that means it’s not her body and shouldn’t be her choice.

>>522065759
>>522065760
Because that means there’s a separate entity to consider at that point. The whole “my body my choice” thing breaks down if you acknowledge
>the fetus is genetically distinct from your body with its own human DNA
>thus it is not actually part of your body that you have choice over, but a distinct human
So then you have to either stick your head in the sand or come up with justifications for killing another human being that isn’t just because you want to.

>>522065762
>the fetus is genetically distinct from your body with its own human DNA
>thus it is not actually part of your body that you have choice over, but a distinct human
Why is that significant?

>>522065757
They want a white America and hate Jews but they're Catholic and oppose abortion. It's a white nationalist antisemitic Catholic movement

>>522065764
it's actually a facade CIA op to try and peel mexicans away from the republican party with vague socialist promises while pointing out things like illegal immigration ethnically replacing white people and ruining cities

>>522065761
>>522065762
Why is that supposedly separate entity worthy of consideration?

>>522065766
Do you consider a human life to be an entity worthy of consideration?
If yes, then that’s why. And anticipating our next point: No, you cannot remove from a fetus its status as a human being. That would simply be a falsehood and illogical, as explained.
If no, then the argument can stop here because we will never agree if you don’t consider a human life to be an entity worth consideration (we have such different fundamental understandings that there’s no bridging this gap).

>>522065767
>If no, then the argument can stop here because we will never agree if you don’t consider a human life to be an entity worth consideration (we have such different fundamental understandings that there’s no bridging this gap).
Nta but this is why the debate is stuck like this and will never move forward. Once side values human dna while the other values consciousness. That's the whole debate summed up.

>>522065767
>Do you consider a human life to be an entity worthy of consideration?
I consider human PEOPLE to be entities worthy of consideration. Personhood and the conscious experience is why we value human life. I don't think a single celled organism that was just conceived is a person yet.
>No, you cannot remove from a fetus its status as a human being.
You can remove their status as a person though.

>>522065768
I think trying to draw the line at consciousness is foolish, or at worst a res herring. If you took someone whose a vegetable off life support without consent or authority to do so, then you’d be charged with murder and few would complain. This situation is even more egregious because the embryo will become a human being with consciousness but for a medical issue or the abortion. That doesn’t even get into the arguments that are always brought up in this, like whether or not a retard should be euthanized because “consciousness” is a vague and poorly understood concept.

>>522065770
>This situation is even more egregious because the embryo will become a human being with consciousness
The operative word here being "will", i.e it is NOT YET a human being with consciousness.

>>522065770
>If you took someone whose a vegetable off life support without consent or authority to do so, then you’d be charged with murder and few would complain
You mean actually brain-dead? I would complain. At that point it's just a bunch of meat.
>the embryo will become
Not if you kill it before it does. If I thought the way you do, I'd think stopping cum from dripping into a high-tech artificial womb with a viable but not yet fertilizer egg inside is murder.

>>522065769
The entire concept youre putting forward of “personhood” is illogical with no clean line. It either is a human being or it isn’t (it obviously is which is why you have to bend and twist basic concepts to make any of it make sense). And I should have been clear: you could legally make someone “not a person” as they did with abortion, and the law did this with slaves, or 3/5 a person for censuses. It’s a completely arbitrary and fake distinction.

>>522065773
>The entire concept youre putting forward of “personhood” is illogical with no clean line. It either is a human being or it isn’t (it obviously is which is why you have to bend and twist basic concepts to make any of it make sense).
I'm not denying that it is a human, or at the very least a human fetus. I am denying that it is a conscious person worthy of consideration from the moment of conception.
>And I should have been clear: you could legally make someone “not a person” as they did with abortion, and the law did this with slaves, or 3/5 a person for censuses. It’s a completely arbitrary and fake distinction.
For me the concept of personhood is tied to the conscious experience in this discussion. It's not as simple as the government being able to say "everyone named John is no longer a person," for the sake of the abortion argument we just distinguish between consciousness and non-consciousness, like >>522065768
said.

>>522065771
>>522065772
With this logic, you can justify the death of anyone for your own preferences. There’s no point to continue because we will never agree.
>I'd think stopping cum from dripping into a high-tech artificial womb with a viable but not yet fertilizer egg inside is murder.
The key is whether or not conception has occurred. If conception has occurred, a human life exists.
>I'm not denying that it is a human
>I am denying that it is a conscious person worthy of consideration from the moment of conception.
Consciousness is not even a concept that can be satisfactorily defined, not even by people much smarter and more learned than either of us. If you can do whatever you want to someone just because they don’t have consciousness, then there’s nothing stopping you from doing what you want to anyone if you consider them to be little more than an unconscious automaton reacting to inputs.

>>522065775
>With this logic, you can justify the death of anyone for your own preferences.
I actually can't though.
>The key is whether or not conception has occurred. If conception has occurred, a human life exists.
But if you don't interfere in any way, the cum and the egg will become a human.
>Consciousness is not even a concept that can be satisfactorily defined, not even by people much smarter and more learned than either of us. If you can do whatever you want to someone just because they don’t have consciousness, then there’s nothing stopping you from doing what you want to anyone if you consider them to be little more than an unconscious automaton reacting to inputs.
This argument is akin to saying that you can redefine australian aboriginals as nonhuman or some shit like that. It's not like biological classification is same ironclad set of rules that fell from heaven, what you define as species is a matter of convention.

>>522065775
>Consciousness is not even a concept that can be satisfactorily defined, not even by people much smarter and more learned than either of us. If you can do whatever you want to someone just because they don’t have consciousness, then there’s nothing stopping you from doing what you want to anyone if you consider them to be little more than an unconscious automaton reacting to inputs.
You are overthinking it. I am talking about the conscious experience. A person walking around, talking, interacting with the world around them, having preferences, that sort of thing. You don't need to be a smart person to figure out if someone is doing that.
Thought experiment: you have to decide between terminating one of two humans. They are of equal height, weird and cellular mass. One is capable of interacting with the world, it can see, hear, feel, talk, etc. The other has no brain activity whatsoever. It can't take any conscious action, but the body is being kept alive. Which of these get to live and why?

>>522065777
Not him but liberalism doesn't take into account conscious experience, it is who is on this plane of existence. And since liberalism is inherently Christian this plane of existence is defined by God's creation. And since creation is the most sacred thing, even to the point that a virginal birth is prophesized, then conception is one of the most sacred acts one can perform. Meaning that God's natural rights are present at conception.

People think universal rights are divorced from Christianity which is the main problem with the interpretation of liberalism. The race/sex/outcome blind application of God's rights are not liberalism. People do not get to choose who was created by God. They just are. There's no "were you created by God" reaffirmation ceremony after birth. This is ultimately the problem with socialists professing to be liberals trying to socially engineer a liberal country. They are liars

>>522065778
You're a fan of Dyer, aren't you?

>>522065779
I don't read a lot of philosophers I find them too verbose for simplistic concepts. I'm not religious either but to deny the fundamental Christian nature of liberalism is ultimately the goal. Because you don't have to go back too far until we're just monkeys bashing shields killing in the name of God. And they don't like that

>>522065780
Dyer is not a philosopher, he's a youtuber.
You can't magically make people believe things that you want them to believe by prescribing that certain classifications must include certain beliefs.
Saying that liberalism is fundamentally christian will not make people who call themselves liberals subscribe to christian ideals. Stop with the magical thinking.

>>522065775
No point in even debating this. Pro-choicers arrive at their stance because they're either 1) coomers who want to coom into women irresponsibly or 2) women-worshipping libs who repeat feminist talking points because it's culturally coded as high-status and smart as opposed to low-status chuds, incels, Bible thumpers and other villains

>>522065781
The mindfuck is that the people that think they are liberals aren't actually liberals, and it's a psyop by the government. So yes. You can tell a population they are something they aren't and they will believe they are or vice versa

Basic sociology

>>522065783
Stop being retarded. You can make people call themselves a certain word but you can't make them switch their other beliefs just by pointing at the word that they're calling themselves.

File: 6f5ra5j6dfr81.jpg (26 KB, 622x348)

26 KB JPG

>>522065784
The entire education system was remodeled at the same time they changed the definition and the mode of government turned into a welfare state

There would be more blacks to worship if they stopped aborting their babies.

>>522065785
Are you actually retarded? So people in your shithole country changed their views because they were suddenly being fed different shit in schools, not because someone pointed at an identifying term.
Like if there's a guy who calls himself a nonce because he thinks it means something like "dummy" and then you tell him it means pedo, he'll start raping kids? There's something wrong with your brain m8.

>>522065622
Why does this apply to the fetus and not the newborn baby?

>>522065787
Basically in the US if the government did anything everyone called it socialism and the faction that liked infrastructure spending were usually overt criminal types skimming off the top. So when Democrats introduced social democracy to the US people naturally called it socialism. These people were also pushing for huge centralization of schooling trying to make a bunch of so ial worker types they theorized would travel around the world being hippy emissaries and spreading peace. That's kind of what the US is today, just a bunch of social workers being paid by the government. But the propaganda at the time was this wasn't socialism, but actually it was liberalism. And since then Democrat socialism in the US has been called liberalism and that's where you get the uni-party because both are socialist. If we had an actual liberal party in the US it would delete several possible realities

>>522065789
But it doesn't fucking matter what it's being called, you glorious retard. If you tell these people that they're not acting like liberals but rather like socialists, do you think it's more likely they'll start acting like liberals or start calling themselves socialists?
Ffs you have some advanced autism.

>>522065790
It does because they're framing liberals as socialists, the bad kind (the Bolsheviks are good apparently)

>>522065791
IT'S LITERALLY JUST NAMES YOU AUTISMO
YOU CAN REPLACE THEM WITH "GOLGBEYLT" OR "364538" THE CONTENT DOESN'T CHANGE

>>522065792
Oh you're one of them post modernists

>>522065793
>knowing how words work is postmodernism
Neck yourself, subhuman.

>>522065794
The entire point of calling Democrat socialism liberalism for 100 years is because liberalism is the main identifying factor for American society. So if you change the word and dedicate and shift society incrementally you can change reality. Social engineering

>>522065795
*and reeducate

>>522065778
Appealing to Christianity or God doesn't work unless you're talking to other believers so I'm not sure what you think you're getting at here.

>>522065797
If you refuse to engage the entirety of a philosophy that hinges on Christianity just because you don't like it you're not actually going to understand it.

>>522065798
It's more that what you said is irrelevant to the point I was arguing.

>>522065799
It has nothing to do with scientific definitions for consciousness because consciousness is irrelevant to the state of existence. Is a rock conscious?

>>522065800
>It has nothing to do with scientific definitions for consciousness because consciousness is irrelevant to the state of existence.
But is it extremely relevant to the idea that human value stems from the conscious experience, an idea that is common in the abortion debate.
>Is a rock conscious?
No.

>>522065801
Is that why we bury people? Because once they're no longer conscious they have no value. Should we keep people awake 20 hours a day so they live a more happy life?

>>522065802
>Is that why we bury people? Because once they're no longer conscious they have no value.
We bury them for many reasons, a ritualized way of saying good bye to someone, to dispose of a body that will become a sanitary issue if left unattended and we symbolically attribute some level of respect to the memory of a person by treating their remains well.
>Should we keep people awake 20 hours a day so they live a more happy life?
Not getting adequate sleep is directly at odds with living a healthy, happy life, but to clarify: sleeping is not an issue because you have been conscious at one point and once you wake up you will once more become conscious. It is not the state of being conscious that is important but rather the capacity of being so. It is immoral to kill people who are sleeping or unconscious because we expect them to eventually become conscious again, in the opposite way it is moral to take a person in a coma off life support if we never expect them to wake up again because at that point their life loses value, even if we dispose of their body in a respectful way. Fetuses are different because they have yet to become conscious in the first place.

>>522065803
If consciousness is what matters the most out of human existence then we should kill anyone in a coma

>>522065804
If we don't expect them to wake up from the coma then yes, ending their life is preferable to wasting limited medical resources that could better be spent elsewhere.

>>522065765
>>522065764
I personally believe the pro-life stuff is because the chuds need some sort of victim they're defending to make themselves look better, same as how leftists have trannies and nonwhites. Most normies are less likely to respect you if you just say you want to kill all minorities and enslave all foids, but making impassioned pleas for "tens of millions of unborn lives" makes you sound more virtuous

>>522065806
>Most normies are less likely to respect you if you just say you want to kill all minorities and enslave all foids, but making impassioned pleas for "tens of millions of unborn lives" makes you sound more virtuous
No because pro-life policies create more minorities.
I honestly don't think there's anything cynical here. Christians actually believe abortion is murder, just as vegans honestly believe meat is murder

>>522065806
Legalistically roe v wade was the weakest thing the jews passed. The woman admitted she lied about being raped in order for them to have a case. It was extremely common for jews to keep making up claims to try and get supreme court court cases so they could de jure legalize whatever they wanted and bypass congress during civil rights. That's why Rosa Parks is just a patsy for the naacp, a political agent sent out to get into fights with bus drivers to try and get kicked off. The entirety of civil rights was a psyop and they claim they were "activists".

>>522065808
>Due to the dangerous and secretive nature of civil rights work, a comprehensive public list of donors was often not kept, and the names of donors were not made public
>The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this right in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), stating that forcing disclosure could expose donors to "economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility"
>prominent Jewish philanthropists like Jacob Schiff and Julius Rosenwald were significant early donors to the NAACP. Their support, along with other Jewish figures like Henry Moskowitz, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and Lillian Wald, helped fund the organization's early development and activities
>Schiff was an international financier who supported Jewish illegal immigrant resettlement in the interior US, while Rosenwald, the head of Sears, Roebuck & Co., was a major philanthropist who funded numerous causes, including Jewish agricultural settlements
>Schiff helped finance revolutionary propaganda during the Russo-Japanese War and Revolution of 1905,

What I don't understand is how people on the right reconcile being so pro self-defense and shit like stand your ground laws but then end up being anti abortion

Let's say you leave your door open and someone sneaks in, or you even willingly let someone into your house, then they refuse to leave and they ate some of your food and their mere presence made you sick, tons of people would say that you have a legal and ethical right to kick them out even if they starve or to kill them.

How is that not analogous to abortion?

Also, why don't super anti-abortion people ever frame bodily autonomy that way? That's such an abstract phrase and I think framing it more in self defense terms is more intuitive and relatable, even to moderates and left wing people, let alone to right wing ones

>>522065788
>>522065708
Because the same people making a bodily autonomy argument don't believe that defending property justifies killing, but defending your own body and life is, and when the baby is born (or it's your grandma) it is merely an indirect financial strain rather then an active health risk to the mother.

But many anti abortion people do think that you should be able to kill to defend property, hence the intellectual contradiction

>>522065710
>>522065711
Hence my analogy where the squatter still depends on you to live and not starve, and you took steps that allowed them to enter the home to begin with. So is it ethical to evict or kill the squatter? If so, why not a fetus?

>>522065810
>How is that not analogous to abortion?
Because the real analogy would be if you deliberately let the door to your house open and then make a surprised pikachu face when people start entering it to steal shit.
This particular pro-choice argument makes women look like total retards who can't grasphow babby is made, which is funny because feminists keep using it

>>522065811
But I literally set the analogy up as saying it's you leaving the door open or letting people in.

Even in that scenario plenty of anti abortion people would still say it's ethical to shoot people if they refuse to leave

>>522065810
>when the baby is born (or it's your grandma) it is merely an indirect financial strain rather then an active health risk to the mother.
Who says it's necessarily a health risk? There are statistics about reasons why women get abortions, and the "health concerns" thing is some single digit percentage. Like over 90% cases is stuff like "I didn't feel ready for motherhood/just didn't want a baby".
How is that different from not wanting to raise a newborn and then killing it?

>>522065759
Even self defense is strictly speaking morally wrong it’s just the last measure to prevent an attack on life on the cost of the attacker which in itself is regrettable. But that person who actively threaten a life puts himself in a situation where one has no other choice to kill him. This does not mean at all killing is bad. In fact it means killing is so bad, that if someone attempts to kill you or others you should neutralise his attempt even at the cost of his life if necessary, which is obviously not the same as killing.

>>522065812
But the premise makes no sense. When you let people enter your house, you expect them to leave after a while.
When you get pregnant, you *don't* expect the fetus to magically leave.

>>522065813
The process of giving birth itself is a health risk, even if there's not a concern about health risks or complications as part of the pregnancy

>>522065816
Raising kids is also a potential health risk because of the stress, why not just kill your kids then?

>>522065807
I dont doubt that the low level footsoldiers genuinely believe they are saving lives, but I'm saying the more cynical higher ups / politicians probably understand that even if it's an economically inefficient thing, it is a useful rallying call for their side

>>522065810
>What I don't understand is how people on the right reconcile being so pro self-defense and shit like stand your ground laws but then end up being anti abortion
Aren't libertarians generally pro-choice?

>>522065818
That goes for every political standpoint though.
The only politicians who aren't cynical grifters are the insane fanatics like Hitler or Hong Xiuquan

>>522065820
Hitler wasn't a grifter? He wasn't even a socialist. He read the center party's paper. He was military intelligence

>>522065820
I mean yeah, it's like how progressives HAVE to be soft on crime even if it's retarded to let the same violent criminals out repeatedly so they can set people on fire or stab people on public transit

>>522065814
>In fact it means killing is so bad, that if someone attempts to kill you or others you should neutralise his attempt even at the cost of his life if necessary, which is obviously not the same as killing.
"neutralizing his attempt even at the cost of his life" is literally killing him.

>>522065823
No it’s not. Killing is violating a law. Killing is self defence is not really violating any law the consequent events after the attempt to kill someone is basically the attacker’s own responsibility. Because the violating action is freely acted upon by the attacker. Same thing with wars, the invading country is exempt from claims to right not to be invaded.

>>522065824
>Killing is violating a law. Killing is self defence is not really violating any law
You directly contradict yourself here. Anyway, the term "murder" is typically used to distinguish unlawful killing versus lawful killing, like self-defense, fighting in war or carrying out a capital punishment.

>>522065591
haha OP I love froggo XD

>>522065825
I don’t believe in capital punishment. I don’t even think killing in self defense or in war is really “right”. Because you have no other choice. So you it’s excusable even though wrong. You’re forced into it. Capital punishment is not a last possible choice. It’s wrong. I don’t believe in eye for an eye.

>>522065824
> Killing is violating a law.
So... Abortion shoold be okay because law allows?

>>522065827
>So you it’s excusable even though wrong.
This is just another way of saying it is indeed justifiable.

>>522065829
No not really it’s different it’s on the level of guilt not rightness. You can do a un-right act but not be guilty of it. The guilty-ness is the blameworthiness of the act. You cannot be blamed for killing in self defense because the blame is on the attacker. This is the case in “vis compulsiva” which being forced to do something because otherwise you’re dead. Any law regarding this should be based on the principle of vis compulsiva.
The state is not forced to do capital punishment for its survival or the betterment of society it’s not the last resort.

>>522065830
>You can do a un-right act but not be guilty of it.
If you are not guilty then by definition your action was justifiable.
>You cannot be blamed for killing in self defense because the blame is on the attacker.
In other words, killing in self-defense is justifiable.

>>522065831
>murder someone and claim self-defense
By your logic it's automatically justifiable because you "don't feel guilty".

>>522065832
Do you unironically think that I believe person A can walk up to person B who is sleeping, shoot them in the head without provocation, then claim self defense and that immediately absolves them of all moral and legal responsibility?

>>522065833
That's what 'self-defence' loophole is all about.

>>522065831
No in the legal tradition of the european continent these two are not the same. Anglos tend to mix and obscure all the rigid concepts in their common tradition to make it feel closer to everyday understanding and practicality. But I’m an idealist and in law we should be as precise as possible.

>>522065834
I don't understand how you can misinterpret something that much unless you are intentionally trying to.

>>522065835
We can ignore any discussion on actual law and just focus on morals if you want to, regardless of what the law says do you think there are instances where killing can be morally justifiable, such as self-defense?

>>522065835
cont.
If a guy puts a pistol on my head and forces me to stab someone to death and I do it I still do an un-right act that is not justified in any way, killing cannot be justified. It’s just that the blameworthiness is on the guy not me, because he takes my freedom away to act and leaves me no other choice but to die which is not a choice at all because it’s not better or more rightful in any way than the alternative. You need to have a real freedom of action to be able to be guilty at some point.

>>522065837
No even self defense is not morally justified, it’s “justified” in law as far as the other guy bears the guilt or responsibility. But it cannot be held as a kind of plus in morals or a virtuous action. It’s still wrong but the guilty guy is not me.

>>522065839
>It’s still wrong but the guilty guy is not me.
So killing someone in self-defense is not morally wrong because the responsibility lies with the attacker?

>>522065840
I think morality and responsibility are different. Morality is objective natural law that if being committed by anyone for any reason, it’s violated. But responsibility is on the level of guilt and blame and ultimately punishment. That’s why sometimes doing a immoral act does not necessarily constitute the need for punishment, not because moral law is not violated, but because I’m not blameworthy.

>>522065840
In short, it’s morally wrong but it’s justified.

>>522065842
That statement contradicts itself. It's either right (justified) or wrong (unjustified). It cannot be both at the same time.

>>522065843
Justified in the sense of guilt. It’s not objectively justified. Meaning, it’s better to say excusable.

>>522065844
>It’s not objectively justified.
Meaning self-defense is not actually justifiable, and if you are ever attacked then your objective morality should prevent you from defending yourself. Does that extend to other crimes, e.g if someone wants to rape your or a family member of yours you are morally compelled not to make any effort to prevent it if that runs the risk of killing the perpetrator?

>>522065845
I’m morally compelled in two direction at the same time, to protect the lives of my family and to not kill the attacker. If both cannot be fulfilled I will feel and be un-guilty of killing the attacker even though the killing itself was wrong.

>>522065846
>I’m morally compelled in two direction at the same time, to protect the lives of my family and to not kill the attacker.
The lives of your family members are not in danger. The intruder will only rape them and they will survive. Your only hope of preventing that is to confront him and possibly, highly likely kill him in the process. Are you morally in the right to defend them, or to defend yourself if he wanted to rape you, or is it better to just endure a little rape to spare the sacred life of a rapist?

>>522065847
I will try to my abilities to apprehend him without killing. But if he leaves me no other immediate choice and resists or I cannot apprehend him I will kill him but the killing is still wrong. I’m just excusable,

>>522065848
>I will kill him but the killing is still wrong. I’m just excusable,
Once again, these positions are mutually exclusive. If killing him is wrong then you are NOT excusable.

>>522065849
Have you ever seen a kid that does something wrong and mom forgives them? Becsuse they’re kids. Their area of freedom (ability) is restrsined,

>>522065850
That is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. Being forgiven for something implies that you did something wrong. What we're talking about is not if lethal self-defense is something people should be forgiven for, we're talking about if it should be wrong in the first place. If it's not wrong then you don't need to be forgiven.

>>522065851
It’s wrong but you can be forgiven is my opinion.

>>522065852
Cool, does that extend to abortion? It's wrong but we should just forgive the women who do it?

>>522065853
If he has no other reasonable choice. Like if she is a drug addict, raped, or her life is in danger, or that the child is extremely deformed or genetically damaged which makes life torture for him. All of these are reasonable grounds. But this is a very small minority of abortions. Most abortions are done by middle class white privileged women who have no other reason than wanting to keep living a childless life. Most abortions are completely healthy babies.

>>522065854
>Most abortions are done by middle class white privileged women who have no other reason than wanting to keep living a childless life.
Source?

>>522065855
In absolute numbers poorer women do more abortions but relatively the abortion per unwanted pregnancy among richer women is actually higher due to better access to contraception. Which is kind of the whole point.

>>522065856
What's your source for these claims?

>>522065857
https://www.vox.com/2015/2/27/8118411/unintended-pregnancy-income-contraceptives#

Now the question are why middle income white women who basically have no real problem in their lives compared to the rest of the world be more likely to abort once pregnant? Doesn’t make sense.

>>522065858
Your own source doesn't state that, it states that the highest income bracket in the sample were more likely to have an abortion, which can simply boil down to accessibility. In the CDC's data white women actually have the lowest rates of abortions.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7209a1.htm#T6_down

>>522065859
Well they shouldn’t. Poor people have some excuse at least. White women should have no excuse at all. It should be close to 0.

>>522065860
Why?