How can leftists, in general, be against the death penalty but for abortion?
It's OK to kill a baby, but, it's not OK to kill a pedophile...........I don't get it?
>>77233067
A fetus isn't a baby.
>>77233067
>Fetus
>kill
It's not a human so it can't be killed, it has no human rights
>>77233067
It's funny how they twist it back on us.
>"Well, you're 'pro-life' yet support death penalty. not very pro life!!! pol btfo"
I don't want people to have the right to abort a child, and I don't think someone who rapes a child deserves to live. Very simple.
How can anyone be against abortionew?
More black babies are aborted than the top 10 causes of black death kills combined.
It's self imposed population control. Liberals and minorities get abortions while conservative families reproduce.
You have to be a fucking retard who likes his country to be flooded by shitskins to oppose abortion.
>>77233436
>>77233491
I'll agree to abortions if, and only if, everyone admits that it's murder and they are forced to live with the shame of killing a human for the rest of their lives because they were lazy and they wanted some childish bull shit
>LOLZ THIRSTY THURSDAY WITH THE GIRLSSSS!!!
>>77234114
They wouldn't care, and I don't care.
Conservatives don't typically get abortions, while liberals and minorities are always in line.
Let the undesirables kill they babies, why would you want to stop them? Banning abortions only mean that we will have more and more undesirables shitting out their undesirable children.
>>77234376
>can you imagine america without black abortions
>>77233067
>>77234710
Top Kek, send image to Wiz the games lead designer to make this a standard starting race.
>>77234710
>repugnant
topkek
>>77234114
I have the exact same mentality about this. How can someone who hit a pregnant woman in her car and killed them both, be charged with double manslaughter if a fetus isn't considered a living thing?
>>77233067
who said it's okay to kill a baby?
>>77234968
This is a weird loophole in ideology to me. Leftists also support feminism, LGBT rights and Islam though so I just don't give any credance to these retards anymore
>>77235145
Hitler and Stalin.
>>77235248
When did Hitler say that?
>>77233491
>not a human
>>77234727
>unfertilized egg
Of course it's not a chicken, but fertilize it and then break it and ASPCA will be fucking all over you if you're anyone with some sort of publicity.
The acorn is not a tree, but it's also not a human life nor a conscious being.
A dress is just an inanimate object made from worm poop. Not a conscious being - nor does it have the potential to be a conscious being.
A fertilized egg has much potential to be a person, a human being. Anyone who says otherwise is pandering.
However, I am in support of abortion for niggers, because niggers are sub human garbage.
>>77235629
Killing Jews.
It's a public service to kill the undesirables and their offspring. Especially if its completely voluntary and they're STILL participating.
>>77235816
it was a fertilize egg
i don´t see a chiken
>13% of the population receives 37% of the total abortions
Now I'm a #SpookScrambler
>>77235844
k then, what's that got to do with the thread?
>>77235950
The chicken egg does not look fertilized.
And regardless of if it is, I'd eat it, and I'd have no remorse. Because it's not human. It's an inferior being.
>>77236022
Oposing abortion is objectively wrong.
>>77236074
mate, what the fuck are you talking about!?
>>77233067
How can /pol/, in general, make completely generalized statements?
It's OK to make general claims about one thing, but, its not ok to make general statements about another thing...........I don't get it?
>>77233436
You weren't and probably aren't a human then hijo de puta.
>>77233067
>expecting logical consistency from a leftist
lol wut r u doing op
>>77236067
this bacteria can kill you
and It's an inferior being
and it is more powerful than your
what doo you think you will be?
>>77233067
If you don't regard an unborn child as human then there is no reason to see any immorality in aborting it - holding this view is in no way logically inconsistent with being against the death penalty.
Similarly it's perfectly reasonable for someone to be both pro-life and pro-death penalty: the former deals with ensuring a (in their view) innocent human being is protected and allowed to live just like any other while the latter deals with the punishment of a guilty adult human being.
Of course very few people are genuinely 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' - most are hypocrites who lean slightly one way or the other depending on what is politically convenient or acceptable in polite society - hence the changable cut off on when you can have an abortion at 22 wks or 26 wks or whatever - because every single foetus magically becomes human at this arbitrary point while being subhuman prior to it.
If someone is 'pro-life' and regards an unborn child as fully human then they must (to be logically consistent) be against abortion in ALL cases regardless of rape or whatever - either a foetus is human and worthy of protection or not and the manner of conception is wholly irrelevant.
This thing where people go "well, I'm against abortion and I think it's wrong, but I'm in favour of the woman's right to choose" or "I'm totally against abortion except in instances of rape" is retarded and, frankly, morally repugnant. Pro-choicers who say the first thing are basically stating "I think abortion is wrong but it's politically inconvenient to go against it so I'm going to let them continue even though I think it's murder" while Pro-Lifers who say the second thing are saying "I think the foetus is a human being with right to life but remaining consistent and banning abortions even when the manner of conception was a bit icky is politically inconvenient so I'm going to allow certain exceptions even though I actually regard any abortion to be child murder."
>>77236543
Penicillin. And a lion can kill me, a car can kill me.
Just because it can kill me does not make it superior, nor stronger.
Fact of the matter is, aborting an unborn child is denying it's right to live. It is human. The stage of development is irrelevant. May as well kill babies as they come out of the womb, what difference does it make?
I am of the opinion that abortion should not be legal, because I believe that the fetus inside at a certain time would become a human life.
It is immoral to end this human life.
To people who say a fetus isnt human, I would like to ask you to define what a human is.
A 13 week old fetus seems pretty human to me.
>>77233067
Because most of those on death row are POC.
Why are Americans so obsessed with paedophiles?
>>77236907
What is your opinion on those who allow abortion in the event that the mothers life is endangered but the child's life is not?
Which life should be saved?
>>77238412
that situation doesnt exist. if mother is dying and fetus is already old enough you can get a preterm induction. if not old enough the death of mother is by defaul killing kid too, so you save 1 of them by abortion
>>77237990
>human
this is a fetus and is not human
>>77238081
Race trader burn in hell.
>>77238916
How is it not a human?
>>77239652
because is an elephant fetus
>>77239742
I assumed it was human.
>>77240094
fetus is a fetus
fetus is not a human, or an elephant
is just a fetus
>>77240480
biologically true, but i think everyone is talking under the assumption that human life is more valuable than elephants. which can be agreed with or not but thats something else
>>77238916
I fail to see how that image is relevant. It's the fetus of an Elephant. So what? It's an unborn animal, and it is just that. An animal, not a human. If it was the fetus of an endangered species and someone aborted it somehow, they'd probably get in a lot of trouble for assisting with the destruction of an endangered species.
If a pregnant woman gets shot, it's considered double homicide.
So what's your point?
>If it was the fetus of an endangered species and someone aborted it somehow, they'd probably get in a lot of trouble for assisting with the destruction of an endangered species.
>If a pregnant woman gets shot, it's considered double homicide.
Shitty points.
In both of these cases it is assumed the mother wanted to keep her child.
>>77233067
It's actually OK to kill anyone. The left simply wants everyone to be childless so they can advocate unlimited third world immigration.
>>77241227
>implying a wild animal is capable of deciding whether or not it wants to keep it's baby
In regards to the mother, you're saying it's no longer human as soon as she decides she doesn't want the baby? So with that logic, any pictures of a fetus are irrelevant, life has no meaning unless the mother says so? It's all about feeling at that point.
Exactly, ultimately we can't know and for that reason we accept the status quo; that it wants to keep its child.
For the same reason fucking an animal is illegal even though there might be a case in which the animal might want it.
See also: retards and children.
To the rest of your post, IDK what you're talking about.
I only read your post and saw that you presented poor arguments.
We need more of these threads. And 9000 more about gay rights and feminism. Really important politics.
>>77241561
If all you can do is say my arguments are poor without saying how I'm actually wrong, then clearly you have no argument.
Some pro-choice folk say life begins after the baby is born, some say life begins by the third trimester. Some say halfway.
But you're saying that life begins as soon as the mother decides she wants to keep it. That isn't an argument, that is just silly. No one has the right to decide if an innocent child should live or die.
It costs too much. Aborting a kid only costs a coathanger.
>>77242789
Jesus Christ you are stupid.
I explained to you why your argument was shit, are you blind? See: >>77241561
AS FOR THE REST OF YOUR POST YOU COMPLETE IDIOT.
I don't fucking care, I'm not the guy you were arguing with you low-IQ person.
I only demonstrated to you why your specific arguments were SHIT, not why your stance was wrong.
>>77233067
I'm pro choice and for capital punishment. Fuck everything.
It's not about whether it's morally right or wrong to kill a child, but whether citizens should have the freedom to remove undesired parts of their body. A fetus is part of a woman's body until it's detached from the woman's body.
>>77233777
>I don't want people to have the right to abort a child,
If it's a child, it is already born and can't be aborted.
>>77240480
I didn't know we were living In a world wre a fetus just transmutes into its parents species
>>77240480
A fetus is merely a stage of development.
A human fetus is still a human.
Thanks for playing
>>77243571
I miss Libertarian /pol/, which respected people's freedom even if they were using their freedom to be degenerates.
>>77244595
tell me the difference between human fetus and an elephant fetus
>>77241227
>>If a pregnant woman gets shot, it's considered double homicide.
The right-wing conservatives radically changed the fetal protection laws in the last 10 years, but for the past 10,000 years, life has begun at birth
>>77244595
>A human fetus is still a human.
human tissue yes, like your arm or leg
Not a human being.
>>77241227
>the mother wanted to keep the child
That doesn't mean it's a homicide. The Bible was right about how feticide should be handled: the perpetrator pays a fine. Property damage, not murder.
>>77243284
And I was talking about the rest of my arguments that you ignored. You know, talking in caps lock and name calling like that would imply you lost your argument.
And we aren't assuming that it wants to keep it's child, we aren't assuming anything. Because it's life, regardless of if it wants to keep it's child, it should be born - free of external influence. The animal doesn't understand "want" and doesn't under stand anything else other than giving birth and caring for it's young. It's not capable of any other coherent thought.
The animal in terms of fucking, once again, doesn't really understand the concept of "want", it just does. It'll take getting fucked. Dogs will fuck things not because it wants to, but because it's purely instinct. So your argument has no basis.
>>77245270
And now we've "progressed" in our understanding of it.
Considering a baby can be born prematurely, why can't we say life begins when it's capable of living outside the womb?
>>77245397
>I am medically and biologically illiterate
>>77246384
Some laws do but that only means that the acceptable time to get an abortion is an ever shrinking microcosm of medical ignorance
