A bill passed the Senate in Oklahoma that would classify abortions as "unprofessional conduct", and subject doctors to one year in prison. The law makes no exceptions for cases of rape, incest, developmental disorders, or danger to mother.
Multiple sources below for people who are picky :
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/opinion/oklahomas-unabashed-attack-on-abortion.html?_r=0
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160426-forget-the-constitution.ece
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/23/this-is-our-proper-function-oklahoma-advances-measure-to-revoke-licenses-of-doctors-that-perform-abortions/
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/27/oklahoma-republicans-signature-banning-abortion.html
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/04/26/oklahoma-abortion-law-would-criminalize-doctors.htm
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nathan-dahm-oklahoma-abortion-bill
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=drdR3X6as0l6u-MqXN7W9grEWAb4M&q=oklahoma+abortion&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw09XKgLLMAhXMSiYKHSR5CTAQqgIIKTAA
Thoughts, /pol/?
>Your virgin, 16 year old, pure, chirstian, conservative dressing and acting daughter gets raped by nigger with developmental disorders that are passed on to children
>She is forced to carry it to term, even though the child will be half nigger, retarded, and a danger to her
>She dies during birth
>You are forced to pay for childcare until it dies, which will be after you die
>>72348567
guess they will have to drive 20 minutes to another state to do it
Bump for sliders
They should give black men like 1000 dollars for a voluntary vasectomy if they don't already have kids. Convince them to get it with the fact that:
-No need for condoms
-Can't get a girl preggers.
-Is reversible
-1000$
It's more important to defuse guys dicks than convince girls to take birth control. Since a dude can bang an infinite amount of other chicks in the time a woman is pregnant with one child.
>>72348567
Okay cool. It'll pass then get struck down by a federal court 2 days later
>Consertives
>get really fucking angry when you try and restrict their rights and emphasize freedoms
>but think they're entitlted to controlling a uterus of another person
and then they get upset when people don't agree with their stances and values
yup, more christian shariah
>>72348567
Based. I don't even care about that shit, I just want to see butthurt.
>>72350006
No one cares about your uterus, you disgusting whore.
>>72349746
This is a good idea, I can see some charity starting up in the future to do this. Funny thing is feminist and SJW's will be all for this, at least till stats come out that show black men are the majority partaking in these programs and is some how racist.
>>72350006
protecting the person inside another person
>>72350006
can the goverment control murder? yes
>>72350172
>>72350272
>murder
>person
/pol/ going feels over reals once again
>>72348567
It'll be knocked down by the end of summer. Or, just go out of state.
>>72350006
>Muh uterus
Fuck your uterus maybe if you women took care of It and didn't open your legs to whatever asshole you meet abortion wouldn't even be an issue as all women would have a good man to have children with.
>>72348567
Never forget anti-abortion is anti-white.
>>72350006
While I disagree with this action.
>>but think they're entitlted to controlling a uterus of another person
This argument is so fucking annoying. Please, for the sake of arguing get new material.
Just start calling them thin prick control freaks, something, anything.
Doesn't this violate Roe v Wade?
>>72348567
Can't she go to another state where abortion is legal? What's the big deal? I don't get it.
>>72350422
just because its incontinent for you to see it for what it is does not change the reality in your favor
its a human being
>>72350647
Women want abortions to happen anywhere, anytime, any place.
Roof tops, pool parties, church basements. It's there 'UTERUS' don't you understand?!!?!?!
>>72350610
yes, but it doesn't surprise me that an Oklahoma judge doesn't realize this.
>>72350610
Yes; it's not even debatable like the last Texas bill (I think they'll probably shoot that one down, but we'll see).
Good start, even though I do not agree with if it has servere deformations and a danger to the mother. To OP, if you taught your daughter to be aware of her surroundings and actions and to be able to defend herself, she would not have gotten raped in the first place.
>>72350647
There's internet in Somalia?
>>72350121
>implying I'm a woman
I just fucking hate the republican/conservative parties need to control everyone.
>>72350172
the problem with that argument is when the hell do you determine when a fertilised egg that's grown into a fetus qualifies as a person? And half the time this "unborn babies getting murdered" argument is brought up it's always only as a talking plint for some wrinkly ballsack trying to get re-elected.
>>72350272
see the above argument, when does a fetus qualify as a person, why do fundies stop giving a shit the moment the women pops the baby out?
>>72350647
The problem is their taking away the option. which, is always something conservatives love; freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of press, freedom to own 50 anti-tank rifles. something that if they really valued freedom they wouldn't flinch at a woman wanting to remove a baby from their body
pretty sure there is a morning after pill for such "rapes".
Obviously bringing up one scenario where Abortion would be desirable doesn't condone the other 99% where it isn't.
Of course abortion is mostly done by liberals, single moms, & shitskins, so anti-abortion is a cuckservative philosophy
A true right wing person recognizes the fact that some people must die for the greater good.
>>72351043
>>implying I'm a woman
No one cares about your wife's or your wife's daughter's uterus.
>>72350610
Roe v wade ruling doesn't even make any sense
That was one of those many progressive rulings where, they have the decision picked before hand, then they invent the reasoning afterwards.
>>72350997
Probably posting from a ship sailing nearby. Or a proxy.
>>72351292
Yeah, they based it off the 14th amendment or some bullshit like that. It makes zero sense constitutionally.
Abortion is the most effective way of combating crime long term because it limits the pool of potential criminals.
Guess what kind of people who have the most abortions? Blacks and latinos. Generally, the people who have abortions in America would have been crime factories if they had children.
It is well documented that abortion is great.
Why conservatives would oppose it is beyond me.
>>72350006
>functional civilization
>freedom for women
pick one and only one
>>72350837
Kekkk
>>72350997
Yea bro, the future looks man.
>>72351043
But I thought conservatives are strongly against abortion despite their love for freedom, what has changed?
>stop nigger population control
For what purpose? A kike told them God wants it?
>Be me
>Waiting in line for a burger
>Almost late for work
>Women in front is taking forever
>Put out 9MM and put one in the back of her head
>Get my order and arrive in time for work
>SWAT comes in and arrest me
>Given death penalty
>Darn the government for not allowing me to kill those that are an inconvenience
>>72348567
>The law makes no exceptions for cases of rape, incest, developmental disorders, or danger to mother.
The law never makes these distinctions for other people either. I couldn't kill a person just because they're the product of rape or incest, or are disabled.
Posing a danger to the mother, I guess that's more of a grey area.
>>72350610
Legislatures can pass laws that contradict court rulings. Court rulings only have force to the extent that they show an interpretation of constitutional rights, but the government can limit even constitutional rights when it's justifiable to do so. For example, every gun regulation could arguably violate the second amendment.
>>72348567
What kind of shitty doctors do you have? And did they also ban adoption in oklahoma or something?
>>72351773
Prove you're from Somalia FAGGIT
>>72352108
>Be me
>Sitting at home, watching the evening news
>Nigger breaks in unwanted, starts stealing things
>I shoot him, he dies.
>Cops arrest me, given death penalty
>Damn the government not allowing me to kill unwanted invaders that leech off of me!
More realistic.
>>72348567
I love the completely insane scenarios you pro-abortion fags come up with.
Also, people who support abortion: remember that every time you try to focus this conversation on the "woman's body," you're talking gibberish as far as the other side is concerned. The issue at stake from a pro-life perspective is the fact that innocent human lives are being terminated. Unless you are willing to debate the topic of prenatal rights, you won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
>it doesn't even have consciousness
Does a baby? Does a two year old?
More importantly, does a temporary lack of consciousness justify killing a person if they will certainly develop consciousness with time? Just because someone is unconscious doesn't give you the right to end their life when there is a reasonable expectation they will recover.
>what about sperm, do they have rights?
Sperm aren't human organisms as a matter of simple biology. Embryos and fetuses are.
>it's a clump of cells
So are you.
>>72348567
Good. I've always hated the fact that women are unilaterally given the power to destroy the children of men.
If my girlfriend decides to abort a pregnancy, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. Yet if she has the baby, she gets to sue me for child support for eighteen years.
>>72352727
>God, I've always hated the fact that men have the power to ruin my life by making me pregnant without having to deal with any of the pregnancy problems.
>>72350006
>libtards
>naive, no self control, no thoughts for the future, no self respect, against personal responsibility
>get pregnant by Jamal, Jamal leaves, MUH FUCKHOLE RIGHTS
>>72352727
Yeah this is extremely fucked up.
>>72352838
Rape is illegal. Birth control is legal. You have no legitimate complaint about the state of the law.
>>72352630
It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the fetus is classified as a human or not.
The fetus is feeding off of the mother, forcing her to feed it, carry away its waste, suffer discomfort, and reducing her physical abilities while it is inside of her. Under Castle Law, the fetus is an invader who is doing harm.
>>72352412
Are you a newfag or something, I been posting in /pol/ for a month now, I have had multiple threads reaching 500+ replies riddled with timestamp, if you want the link to the archived threads just ask for it politely and stop being an edgy neckbeard teen.
>>72352945
Birth control requires a prescription, and to get that prescription, most women must submit to an unnecessary, expensive, and dangerous pelvic exam. This alone makes birth control difficult to obtain.
>>72353006
By that logic, parents should have zero obligation to their children whatsoever. Kids are just invaders in their home, after all, freeloading and stealing things.
>>72353115
I wasn't aware of that. In that case, I support changing that area of the law in your jurisdiction. I don't think legal abortion is the answer.
>>72350610
Roe v Wade is a precedent, furthermore, States have authority over the Federal Government in every way except unless specifically outlined in the Constitution. and since 'muh uterus' isn't mentioned, this is a State's issue.
Unfortunately, through interstate commerce laws and clauses, the Federal Government holds states hostage through economic terrorism if they step too far out of line. They should have been violently removed a long time ago.
>>72352838
I'm saying that it doesn't logically make sense for men to be financial liable for something that women insist they do not have a say in. "My body, my choice" should also mean "my responsibility."
>>72352630
Of course, liberal arguments are dumb. I'm cool with abortion because it's effectively eugenics. Less blacks = good.
>>72348567
>The law makes no exceptions for cases of rape, incest, developmental disorders, or danger to mother.
And this is why I am pro-abortion and in favor of eugenics. Niggers, Incest, and Retards.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/25/doctors-respond-to-indiana-banning-abortions-because-of-down-syndrome/
And what I fucking hate is when Christ Fags fully support flooding the world with retarded children. Seriously, if my wife has a tard fetus, I'll want it aborted asap. I do NOT want to take care of a parasite nor do I want it around.
>>72352943
>personal responsibility
key word m8.
if conservatives truly believed in personal responsibility above all they would not have the notions of trying to enforce Anti-Abortion laws. Because it's the perconal responsibility and personal choice of the person who's pregnant. not some control freak in congress
>>72350108
>christian
>sharia
t. libcuck
>>72353301
I agree about that. Men should be able to have an obligation 'abortion' to a child that he doesn't want.
ANTI ABORTION IS ANTI WHITE
>>72353490
yeah we should just let murders walk, i mean, most likely they did a good thing, got rid of a bad person. what is laws? sounds like some archaic desert voodoo. we lolbergtarians now!!!~~!!!~
>>72353697
Instead of welfare, we should subsidize abortion for "disenfranchised minorities" and single mothers.
>>72353697
B-BUT MUH CHRISTIANITY!!!
I hate when I'm accused of being a liberal by bible thumpers in the Midwest since I'm for abortion despite that my reasoning for being for abortion is to limit bad gene pool. Because we all know, that if there are more blacks crime will rise even more and more voters for Democrats.
Do Christfags know that?
>>72353163
If that is how the parent chooses to feel, they can dump a child off for adoption and be rid of it.
>>72350006
no one cares about freedom dumb faggot
>>72354103
Yep, I agree. Adoption is a perfectly good solution and way better than killing the child.
>>72353766
>abortion is murder
this argument relies entirely on assuming that a fetus that is unborn counts as a human being. no one is able to actually prove fertilized egg and a fetus become countable as a "human"
This argument is shit and you know it's shit.
>>72349746
This is such a waste of resources. Are you not paying attention, the same Chads and Tryones are knocking up all the chicks.
No, it needs to be mandatory tubal ligation for women as a precondition of receiving welfare benefits.
>>72354021
I with they would realize that liberal filth get abortions, while good upstanding Americans raise conservative children, we need abortion to let this cycle continue.
There is concrete evidence of crime falling massively 15-20 years after abortion is legalized because it lets niggers get killed in the wombs instead of on the street when they grow up.
>>72351935
>stop nigger population control
>For what purpose? A kike told them God wants it?
holy fuck how wrong you can be.
if there is only one thing the elite (what I assume you said when you said kike) is behind is population control
>>72354299
>no one is able to actually prove fertilized egg and a fetus become countable as a "human"
This is actually a matter of scientific fact. It only gets confused by people who try to justify the presumption that it is untrue.
A fetus is alive. A fetus is a living organism with its own DNA. As a matter of biology, it is a human, and it is also a different human from its mother.
I'm sorry that this matter of common sense is inconvenient for your position, but if you want to contradict that, then the evidentiary burden shifts to you.
>>72354278
>Yep, I agree. Calling the cops to take the home invader away is a much better solution that defending yourself by killing him.
No, depositing your spawn into an overcrowded system that breeds criminals is worse than killing it. When a baby or fetus dies, Christfags believe that they get a free ticket to heaven, at least many do. Is this not better? Also, I don''t have to risk dying during birth, destroying my vagina, perpetual illness while pregnant, and feeding a parasite and carrying away its waste.
>>72354566
So are you also changing your opinion on whether it should be legal for parents to kill their unwanted children?
>>72354535
I did not actually know this and I will take this into consideration next time I make an argument. about the subject. Thank you.
>>72354535
Ok, but I don't want it FEEDING off of me, and I don't want to carry away its waste. Its making me physically ill having it inside of me, I wake up sick every day and I'm putting on a bunch of weight. Can we take it out of me? Right now.
>>72354614
It should be legal for a mother to remove an unwanted, unborn fetus from her uterus. If it can't sustain itself, not her problem.
>>72354716
"I don't want" isn't sufficient grounds for terminating a parent's obligations towards its children. As a matter of law, parents are obligated to care for their children unless they make legal arrangements to convey that obligation to another person. The reason this is important is to protect the innocent young who have no way of fending for themselves.
Laws like these protect children from the actions of harsh or uncaring parents. But programs also exist to allow parents to relieve themselves of such obligations, though some obligations (like child support, for instance) are impossible to voluntarily discharge, because of how fundamentally unfair that would be.
Yes, you have a legal obligation to bring your child to term and to give birth to it. That is because you are its parent. There are support programs that can help you through this period. If you were raped, I'm sorry, but you can't blame the innocent child for the harmful actions of another, and it's certainly not grounds for sentencing the child to the death penalty.
>>72354299
i know m8, how many times as a fetus turned into something other than a person? LIKE A BILLION AMIRITE?!?!?!?!?
SWEEEET ARGS BRO
>>72354833
according to your logic, this situation must be legal
>mom go to a jungle with son
>leave the car with him
>tell son "I will just get something on the car"
>leave her son there alone
>"If it can't sustain itself, not her problem."
COATHANGERS!
GET HEY YER COATHANGERS HERE!
>>72353044
Could you post the archive link please?
>>72354833
Except it's not "If it can't sustain itself, not her problem." They literally rip it out with a vacuum and forceps. They HAVE to kill it in order to remove it; it comes out in pieces.
>>72355007
Incorrect. I can just go where abortions are legal and they will vacuum it out. I never signed a contract with the fetus stating that I would take care of it. I never signed ANY contract with anyone stating that.
>>72352838
If 9 months where you can still do pretty much you did before except be a massive whore (and not even that, plenty of dudes want to fuck pregnant sluts) ruins your life, you have bigger problems.
>>72355202
It shouldn't have nested itself so far up inside, then! Fucking tapeworm.
>>72355329
My mistake, I shouldn't have said you have a legal obligation, because that depends on your jurisdiction. I meant that you have a moral obligation, and that I believe it ought to be a legal obligation.
Surely you understand that there is a difference between what's legal and what SHOULD be legal.
>>72355329
Parental rights aren't a matter of contract. A deadbeat dad never signed a contract saying he would pay child support, but the law obligates him to and gives him no means of discharging this obligation. Parents are legally obligated to their children and it is right that we have such laws.
>>72355415
Fetuses violate castle doctrine. It is stealing nutrients and giving me waste, and making me sick. It is an invader. It must be removed.
Much a like a nigger that breaks in and steals, it should be put down.
Now, if I had INVITED that nigger into my home to steal my TV, money, and deposit his feces and trash, it would be different. But I never did that.
>>72348567
>Your virgin, 16 year old, pure, chirstian, conservative dressing and acting daughter gets raped by nigger with developmental disorders that are passed on to children
>blatantly making up situations that will never happen
>>72348567
>woman is pregnant
>something goes wrong with fetus
>mother needs abortion
>can't get abortion
>both mother and baby die
Good job, Oklahoma.
>>72355565
You're not reading any of my posts. "Castle doctrine" (I'm not sure if that's actually a legal term of art or just shorthand for "muh guns") does not apply to the relationship between parents and children. That is a special relationship that contains many exceptions intended to protect children from their parents. Parents can't treat their children like invaders in their own home. Nor should they be legally able to. Your position is morally inconsistent unless you think parents should be able to completely abandon and neglect their children.
Case gets ended the moment it reaches a federal court due to Supreme Court decision, any doctor who was arrested files for unlawful arrest/imprisonment and violation of civil rights, Yokelahoma has to pay out big time with tax money, state continuous to be poor and stupid. Repeat ad infinitum.
>>72355565
How can it violate castle doctrine if it isn't human?
>>72350108
>Regarding human life as sacred
OR
>death penalty for adultery
Careful, your lack of morality is showing.
>>72348567
Ahh. Common law. Judges make the law. Legislators decide whether or not they like them. Fucking retarded. Only legislators should be making law and judges can shut the fuck up and sit down. Write down everything. Muh precedent. Muh who cares about finding out what happened, only who listens better. But you need Roman law for that
To try and keep this conversation from getting stale, what do you guys think of this?
http://www.disclose.tv/news/The_Artificial_Womb_Is_Born_Welcome_To_The_WORLD_Of_The_MATRIX/114199
If we could raise children in artificial wombs, would that completely end the abortion debate? Would people try to argue that they should still be able to completely kill the fetus with the "it's my body" argument? Would this technological hypothetical change your attitude towards the morality of abortion?
I think if people could be guaranteed that the child would still survive, they'd probably agree to it, or maybe even be willing to undergo a more complex procedure, in order to soothe their own conscience. Of course it would mean eventually having the child adopted and cared for. Or maybe raised in some kind of state facility called something spooky like "The House of the Unwanted." Actually this might be a cool sci-fi story or something.
But moreover I think this hypothetical thought experiment is a good litmus test for the integrity of pro-choicer beliefs as it can help them determine how strongly they really feel about the termination of fetuses being morally neutral.
>>72355502
*crickets*
>>72356341
Judges decide on the interpretation of the constitution, and the constitution limits legislators to some extent. Other than that though, you're right. When the constitution is not the topic, the legislatures can act freely.
This is true in Canada, too. We have the "notwithstanding" clause and Section 1 of the Charter, but outside of these, the legislatures must make laws that are consistent with the constitution.
>>72355502
He shouldn't be forced to pay. If he doesn't want anything to do with the child, he should be able to have an obligational abortion, aborting any rights of access to raise the child, along with any obligation to pay for it.
>>72357154
I'm surprised you believe that. First of all, that would render all child support laws completely worthless because they'd be "opt in." Nobody in their right mind (or with a decent lawyer) would voluntarily sign up for child support, even if they didn't mind paying it. If they wanted to give their child money, they could send money to it without subjecting themselves to legal compulsion.
Removing child support would certainly be bad for children, especially ones in poverty, and for single mothers. I don't think you're really considering the consequences of what you're proposing. But I commend you for taking this analogy so far just so that you can still stand by your position on abortion.
Can I convince you that it should also be legal for parents to drive their children out to the woods and abandon them?
>>72348567
They need to let blacks and hispanics get abortions for free
>>72357447
Why drive your child out inna the woods and abandon it when you can abandon it at a local hospital or police station? No, I don't believe that should be legal, as you are putting an already fully formed, birthed, sentient being in danger. Just drive it to the police station to abandon it.
I don't belive in high taxes or strong social programs, but I believe if a parent wants to dump their child, they should be able to, whether it is unborn, 6 months old, 10, or 17.
>>72354666
Thanks for being reasonable. If you're interested in more of the science-based argument for pro-life I recommend the website secularprolife.org which has some good and well-sourced articles.
>>72350006
It's a tough one for me as on one hand hating women is fun. God knows there's 1001 reasons too.
But abortion restrictions don't hurt women, they hurt men. Men are the ones paying child support, men are the ones who get called faggots and losers for being stay at home dads, men are the ones expected to be parents but never appreciated for it in media or at home...
There is no good reason for a man to start a family in the hypergamus culture. Let women think they're the ones getting a choice when really it's men having the shackles upon their ankles slightly loosened. I tell women upfront if I fuck'em and they get pregnant they better be ready to pay for an abortion or get some cuckold to raise that kid Because I'm not.
And I'm not wrapping a 16th century balloon around my dick either. That's what birth control is for. Further proof of misandry women have an ultra convenient, easily accessible pill they can take but no... I gotta stick plastic wrap around my dick instead. Fuck that. Women have no idea how privileged they are in Western society but these Cuckstians are not helping at all.
>>72348567
Here comes your increase in autistic and downsyndromed niggers
>>72348567
The issue with your green text is I wouldn't let my daughter get raped due to raising her properly and not living next to nuggets.
>>72357894
The thing is, adoption IS an option for pregnant women, but it is only an option after the child is born. So in this case it is perfectly reasonable, given the physical impossibility of fetal adoption, to obligate a mother to care for her child until such time as it is physically possible for someone else to care for it. That is the very reasonable position of pro-life advocates.
>>72357935
Birth control requires a prescription, and to get that, you usually need to subject yourself to an expensive, unnecessary, and dangerous pelvic exam.
End the war on drugs, make birth control over the counter to discourage abortion.
Ending the war on drugs will result in less absent fathers, reducing abortions. Making birth control over the counter will greatly increase availability.
Fix abortion by reducing the need for it, not by banning it.
>>72358268
But the problem here... I don't want to BIRTH the fetus. The damage caused by pregnancy and birth is what I want to avoid.
>>72348567
Why in God's name do they do this, in a fucking election year no less. It's like they want a Democrat president and, if they're successful in banning abortions, more fucking Democrats running around to boot.
>>72352630
>>it's a clump of cells
>So are you.
No, a clump of cells is tissue, a clump of tissue is organs, a clump of organs is me. And even that's simplifying it.
A fertilized egg that hasn't grown past a blastocyst is not human and doesn't have any rights.
>>72357935
Except in extremely rare situations, men are very much in control of whether or not they cause pregnancies. Men know the consequences of sexual intercourse. Men are not uncontrollable rape machines that involuntarily impregnate women. It is perfectly reasonable to obligate men to care for the consequences of their decisions.
>>72358328
Why is it better to use birth control than to have an abortion, in your opinion?
>>72358328
>you usually need to subject yourself to an expensive, unnecessary, and dangerous pelvic exam.
No you don't. They're not necessary anymore; they'll only give a pelvic exam if there are legitimate symptoms that warrant it, like abdominal pain.
Aside from that, I generally agree that conditions that naturally reduce the demand for abortion should be encouraged.
>>72358468
>is not human
That is scientifically untrue.
>doesn't have any rights
The only reason anyone has rights is because of philosophical criteria that are posited by consensus. You can't just state that as an absolute claim without any reasoned basis for it. For example, women didn't always have the right to vote, but that doesn't mean there was never a moral imperative to grant them that right.
>>72355565
Castle doctrine does not apply because it's your fault it's there to begin with. It'd be like you kidnapped a nigger, but than get mad he's taking your shit. I'd do more than that if you kidnapped me.
Not that I'm even prolife, that's just a stupid argument. Than again you are on 4chan so I can't expect much...
But it's an argument that derives from tired conservative concepts of illegitimate authority. "I'm your parent and therefore" therefore nothing. No one told you to have a kid, and for all we know I was happy surfing the quantum flunctuation waves in a state of euphoria before my parents decided to have sloppy fat people sex.
No one is born into this world of their own accord, they're just forced into it. Being prolife is simply saying you don't have the right to kill that which you've summoned. The issue is more complex than that but it's suffice to say they deserve some free stuff basically being a hostage.
the only people against virgins are old people or virgins
>>72358750
Why are you namefagging on a board with post IDs?
Also don't post anime images here, it's bad manners.
>>72354535
Well duh, single cell bacteria are considered alive as well. Just because something is living doesn't make it special.
It's not so much a scientific argument as it is an argument of ones values. At what stage does one considered a fertilized egg of human value? Or is it not until it develops into a fetus, etc.
>>72358535
Abortions are more risky, cost more money, are less convenient.
>>72354103
>parents don't have a responsibility to care for children
>not all children are adopted
>the state has to care for these children
>the state is funded by taxpayers
>therefor, people have a responsibility to care for other people's children
Either drop your 5 year old in a trashcan or accept that your ideology is illogical.
>>72358626
Where the fuck do you live?
My wife had to doctor hop five times before she could get one that would prescribe birth control without a pap smear.
>>72348567
It doesn't make sense to have exceptions. Why would it matter if the fetus was the product of rape, if the argument is that it has the right to be born?
>>72358750
Even if the castle doctrine comparison is bad, the fetus is still harming the mother.
>>72358535
>Men have to be responsible
>Women can have abortions
Fuck you. I'll fuck your hockey-puck sister and you can raise it faggot. I'm not lifting a God damn finger.
The problem is men want stability even more than women do so they go along with this bullshit. I'd love to see a court try and pin me down for child support. First they have to prove it's mine, which means expensive dna testing, than court settlements, assuming I can't just wiggle out that and you actually confine me to paying child support or jail time I guess I'll suck it up at that point but I'll find ways meanwhile to lessen my responsibilities.
All the while costing tax payers thousands. Congratulations conservatives. You could've spent that money on feeding starving Africans, or finding cures for cancer, instead you forced a man to "take responsibility".
I'll take it when you drag my fat ass to court and make me take responsibility. Not a moment sooner.
"She got punched late at night by someone on the street, who then ran away. Baby got aborted. Oops!"
>>72358957
Adoption centers should ideally be funded by charity. If we reduce taxes, people will be more likely to donate to charity, as they won't have 40% of their income stolen.
>>72348567
Based Oklahoma
>>72358681
Well then how to do you define human? It has human DNA, but so do skin cells and gametes.
>>72359002
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/ask-dr-cullins/birth-control-qa
Literally Google "Do you need a pelvic exam to get birth control."
Your wife has shitty doctors.
>>72358866
You're right that this is the substance of the actual debate. Determining when an individual develops rights is at the heart of this whole issue, which is why so few people actually have a nuanced opinion on abortion. As soon as the topic gets a little philosophical, people either turn to some kind of authority (most pro-lifers) or construe the ambiguity in a way that is optimally convenient for their position (most pro-choicers). It's rare people actually dispassionately discuss the topic of human rights, especially when most of these discussions are simply people trying to defend their own positions.
For me, I think the idea that fetuses do not have rights is a convenient fiction that has been created to deal with the practical problem of pregnancy being irreversible. Human rights should carry as few criteria as possible in order for them to be properly absolute. People with mental disabilities, for instance, ought to have human rights, even if there are lingering questions about their degree of mental sophistication. A person in a coma with an uncertain prognosis whether they will recover ought to have some kind of human right, usually in the form of a medical directive.
But when it comes to children, they are the most in need of protection. Most fetuses have an excellent chance of survival unless they are forcefully killed and removed from a uterus. They are human organisms that are living and growing and developing. There is a specific point at which the organism becomes alive, distinct from its parents, and human. That is the moment of conception.
Yes, pregnancy is inconvenient and often happens against the wishes of the parents. That inconvenience is not grounds for killing an innocent life.
>>72359227
What happens when there's not enough money for all the children, which will certainly be the case? You think people will want to throw their money away raising some other person's child?
>>72359254
Biologically, the fetus is a stage in the life cycle of a human. Skin cells are not capable of reproduction.
>>72359130
>I'll only go to jail for murdering that guy after you all pay thousands in court and hundreds of man hours searching for me! You could have let me off the hook and fed Africans!
>>72359109
The mouths to feed after they are born is worse, tbhfam.
>>72359443
Planned Parenthood. Yep. She literally had to go to bomb target Planned Parenthood to get her birth control.
>>72359676
Should have aborted them.
Increase access to birth control, end the war on drugs, reduce taxes to increase charitable donation. Ways to solve the abortion problem.
>>72358468
>No, a clump of cells is tissue, a clump of tissue is organs, a clump of organs is me. And even that's simplifying it.
>A fertilized egg that hasn't grown past a blastocyst is not human and doesn't have any rights.
No nigger, try to learn human development first.
A genetically unique human is created on the moment of fertilization. It's the specific moment that can be stated as the biological origin point of a new organism.
Genetically, and in a few weeks, morphologically, that cell is human. Not "lel cell ;D", because from the first step the cellular machinery is activating in a human and uniquely human way.
You're asserting that it's not human which is demonstrably false.
how about:
>“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”
>Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)
or
>“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”
>Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55
But then you assert that is has no human rights.
Tell me, under what law or system of governance in the US, aside from abortion precedent, is it possible for one innocent human to not have the right to live, while another does?
PRIOR to Roe v Wade, there was no precedent for the obstruction of human rights that occurs during an abortion. You are spouting fucking nonsense on a medical and legal basis.
The growth of the body occurs from conception to adulthood. According to abortion logic, murder of any human not yet reached adulthood should be legal, because the process of development is continuous from conception
>>72359794
>Tell me, under what law or system of governance in the US, aside from abortion precedent, is it possible for one innocent human to not have the right to live, while another does?
Human that is not capable of sustaining itself, such as someone in a vegetative state. Someone has the choice to pull the plug. And its legal.
>>72359946
So can I stop feeding a 1 year old?
>>72359794
Fetus isn't innocent. It is a borderline parasite feeding on the mother and forcing her to carry away its waste.
>>72359946
>Someone has the choice to pull the plug. And its legal.
Are you assuming this or can you provide citations for this? What you're describing is a situation where a person presumably has no chance of recovery. A fetus has a very good chance of reaching that state of "consciousness."
Also, people in a vegetative state are, depending on your jurisdiction, still protected according to their own wishes. Situations like the one you have in mind occur when there is reasonable speculation about what the person "would have wanted" in lieu of medical directive.
>>72360130
If it is in a vegetative state and on live support, the parent/guardian has the right to pull the plug, aka, 'stop feeding'.
>>72360204
Is that true even in cases where the child will probably survive?
>>72360143
kek
>>72359946
http://healthcare.findlaw.com/patient-rights/brain-death-vs-persistent-vegetative-state-what-is-the-legal-difference.html
You need a DNR (do not resuscitate), signed by the patient, or you go through the court. Abortion, as it is today, requires neither, thus placing it out of precedent again.
also
>Human that is not capable of sustaining itself
is false. A fully conscious person who requires, say, dialysis, cannot be legally killed w/o their permission.
>>72359130
>All the while costing tax payers thousands.
I don't even know why I'm still responding to you since you're obviously some kind of mental retard.
Removing child support would cost tax payers far more than keeping it legal would.
And yes, abortion probably saves the government money in the long run, practically speaking. Mass murder of dependents would accomplish that also, like killing all the country's children, or killing all the people who are on welfare. That doesn't make it alright.
I hope the fact that you're a namefag doesn't mean you're going to stick around and defend your ego. Don't bother because I'm ignoring your next post.
>>72360347
By 'survive', do you mean, recover fully, or remain 'alive' but vegetative?
>>72351580
Cuz jezus.
>>72348567
Wow. All dem christfags swallowing the jew savior blu pill being against easy access to abortions which helps stem the dindu crime rate.
>>72360771
I mean recover fully. And I'm also not sure what you're saying is true, depending what you mean by "vegetative." That seems to imply that parents get to decide whether their disabled children live or die, which isn't the case here in Canada. I think you're positing hypothetical infant Terri Schaivos.
However, I hope you'll at least agree with me that your example is fallacious because most fetuses have an excellent chance both of survival and of "recovery."
>>72360911
I'm talking Terri Schaivo vegetative, as in severely damaged by an external force.
But here is my real opinion...
Abortion should be legal until the fetus can survive being birthed. Once the fetus is large enough that it can survive outside of the womb with basic care, abortion should become illegal, as performing an abortion at this point will not save the mother from the problems that giving birth present anyway. Partial birth abortions should be illegal. Once a child is birthed, the parents should be able to hand it over if they want, and have no further obligation toward it. Men should be able to have obligational abortions to unwanted children, since they cannot decide whether to abort the fetus or not. At the very least, there must be extremely solid proof that he is the father. If he is paying child support, he must be allowed visitation or custody, no exceptions, even if he is a serial pedophile rapist killer. This will encourage people to not seek child support from deadbeats. We must reduce the need for abortions as well. Ending the war on drugs will decrease absent father rates, reducing the need for abortions. Making birth control over the counter will reduce unwanted pregnancies. Reducing taxes will increase charitable donations to orphanages and adoption centers.
>>72361570
I think vegetative states like those are exceptional and raise their own unique philosophical problems that only rarely apply to normal pregnancies.
It sounds like you really view abortion as a necessary evil rather than something morally neutral. I hope you keep that at the forefront of your consideration on this topic. You might come to see my point of view that a state-imposed parental obligation is a better answer than terminating innocent life.
At any rate, thanks for discussing this with me so openly. I'm at work and I should probably stop procrastinating. I think I put all my cards on the table in this thread already. It's nice to be able to have a rational discussion on this topic and I find it both interesting and important which is why I always make a point of posting in these threads when I see them.
>>72349217
This
>>72362132
>state-imposed parental obligation
Invariably results in criminals.
>>72362733
Abortion invariably results in murder.
>>72351580
So would killing all the 6 year old blacks and latinos. I guess conservatives don't think murdering pre-criminals is the right way to deal with these problems. I'd suggest cutting off welfare or something else instead, but that's too inhumane for liberals.
>>72361570
>hand it over if they want, and have no further obligation toward it.
No one else wants to raise your kid either. So are you trashing it or caring for it? Is trashing it murder? Then why isn't abortion murder?
>custody, no exceptions, even if he is a serial pedophile rapist killer.
Ideally he would fall under corporal punishment. Anyone who isn't a reasonable threat to the safety of the child and is paying child support should have reasonable visitation and custody.
>reducing the need for abortions
There is no need for abortions. That's like having 20 children and saying well I can't feed all of them, I better off the fatties.
Make abortions illegal, charge the doctor and woman with murder, cut welfare and foster care except for extreme cases. If the parents won't care for the child, charge them with abuse and neglect.
>>72362842
Defending yourself against a hostile invader that is robbing you of nutrients =/= murder. Justified homicide, at worst.
>>72362962
>No one else wants to raise your kid either.
There are plenty of people who adopt, and plenty of people who love the occupation of caring for unwanted children.
Abortion is defending yourself against a hostile invader that is robbing you of nutrients. Justified homicide, at worst.
>Anyone who isn't a reasonable threat to the safety of the child and is paying child support should have reasonable visitation and custody.
No custody, no child support. Period.
>There is no need for abortions.
The need is very very present. If we end abortions overnight, end welfare and foster care, we will have a crime mega explosion, at an ever increasing rate. The world as you know it will cease to exist in 30 years.
>>72363266
>Abortion is defending yourself against a hostile invader that is robbing you of nutrients.
Do you think this actually crosses the mind of people who are pregnant? "Oh no, a hostile invader is robbing me of nutrients!" No, this has nothing to do with the reason people get abortions. People get abortions because they want to be un-pregnant, because they want to get shitfaced on the weekends, stay skinny, and not have to push something out their vagina in 9 months.
>>72364059
Also true. More reason to get the abortion.
>>72362967
>hostile invader
>willingly invited in
You must be from yurope
>>72364431
I willingly invited my husband's penis inside, not the baby.
>>72364510
Babies are like vampires. They only get to come inside if you invite them.
>>72364562
Baby didn't exist when we had sex, how could I invite it in?
>>72364510
>>72364740
>I never heard the birds and the bees story
Not surprised
>>72363266
>There are plenty of people who adopt, and plenty of people who love the occupation of caring for unwanted children.
450,000 in the U.S. foster care system.
Average wait time for adoption is 3 years.
30,000 turned 18 and left the system without a family.
There are not enough people adopting, and the numbers would skyrocket if abortion was illegal. In the meantime, taxpayers are paying for these children when it should be the parent's responsibility.
>Abortion is defending yourself against a hostile invader that is robbing you of nutrients. Justified homicide, at worst.
Fetuses are not hostile or invaders by definition. They are created in the womb. It is not robbing the nutrients because the body is actively and willingly providing them. You would have a better argument for abandoning the child after it is born.
>No custody, no child support. Period.
Allowing a violent criminal with a clear and present danger to the child custody is child endangerment. You can't give your baby to the crackheads in the alley, either.
>The need is very very present. If we end abortions overnight, end welfare and foster care, we will have a crime mega explosion, at an ever increasing rate. The world as you know it will cease to exist in 30 years.
Criminals are a product of poor education and low income. If it essentially becomes illegal to have children without being able to provide for them, then the children are guaranteed improved conditions of income and education. There would be more abuse and neglect charges at first, but not charging people with their crimes is not a solution. I'm sure there were also more criminals at the start when they made murder illegal, too.
Abortion should be allowed.
When your political opponents want to kill their own offspring, you should let them. It's a luxury problem, not a serious problem.
I wish muslims would kill their own offspring as well, but we don't have that luxury over here.
>>72365362
Ending the war on drugs will greatly reduce the need for abortions and the abortion rate. It will also reduce the number of kids in the foster care system. Making birth control over the counter will reduce unwanted pregnancies. Lowering taxes will increase wealth, making charitable donation and adoption more likely.
>Criminals are a product of poor education and low income.
Thats not the entire story. The are a product of children being born into that kind of environment. Poverty is increased by the war on drugs and public school.You cannot make it illegal to get pregnant while poor, that is such an absurd violation of human rights. That is something I would expect from a dystopian future movie.
>>72366018
>Ending the war on drugs will greatly reduce the need for abortions and the abortion rate.
There is no such thing as a need for abortion unless the mother is going to die, then there is a case for self defense. I refuse to settle with just a decrease in abortion. All abortion should be illegal because it is murder.
>You cannot make it illegal to get pregnant while poor, that is such an absurd violation of human rights. That is something I would expect from a dystopian future movie.
If they are too poor to adequately provide for the child then the parents should be charged with abuse and neglect. You can't say the parents don't have to feed their child because they can't afford it. Having a man use a condom or pull out or using birth control that prevents ovulation is not a human rights violation, but not caring for your children is.
