=====================================
WHAT PRO-CHOICE IS
Scenario 1
-------------------------------------
derpina: i'm pregnant
derp: i want babby from you
derpina: i don't want babby from you
result: babby is kill
-------------------------------------
Scenario 2
-------------------------------------
derpina: i'm pregnant
derpina: i want babby from you
derp: i don't want babby from you
result: babby is live
-------------------------------------
=====================================
WHAT PRO-CHOICE SHOULD BE
Scenario 1
-------------------------------------
derpina: i'm pregnant
derp: i want babby from you
derpina: i don't want babby from you
result: babby is kill
-------------------------------------
Scenario 2
-------------------------------------
derpina: i'm pregnant
derpina: i want babby from you
derp: i don't want babby from you
result: babby is kill
-------------------------------------
=====================================
>>81449302
I don't think guys should be able to decide whether she has an abortion or not, but they should be able to get a financial abortion.
>>81450494
I do. Because even though the child is in her body, it is their child, not only her child. If the mother has the right to abort it, so should the father.
>>81450754
What difference does it make if he doesn't have to take care of it anyways?
>>81450950
He doesn't get to control her. It's always about control with these faggots. They can't comprehend that one sex requires a gestation period in order to reproduce while one doesn't, and isn't biologically wired to give a shit about the child.
>>81450950
Because even though you don't have to take care of it. I think the fact that it is your child, will always leave you with a sense of responsibility. If you know that the mother is going to raise the child in a way you don't agree with, for example.
>>81451301
>implying fathers don't give a shit about their offspring
nice.
>>81451301
>Isn't biologically wired to give a shit about the child
Bullshit
>>81451301
It's not about controlling her, it's about equal rights when it comes to controlling your own reproduction. There's nothing wrong with that.
>>81451722
>>Isn't biologically wired to give a shit about the child
Mothers lose their "maternal instincts" around the time the child is 4 or 5. Men have none. Don't fall for the parental instincts meme.
>>81452441
Yeah right, that's why Men are the ones who fight to illegalise abortions and women kill their child more often.
Fuck off, their is a reason why single fathers raise better children than single mothers.
>>81452633
*there is
>>81452441
This is absolutely absurd... I know fathers who worry about their children's performance in school way more than the mothers for example.
How would they know whose child it is before it's born if the woman has had sex with multiple men? They could end up aborting someone else's kid.
>>81452633
>that's why Men are the ones who fight to illegalise abortions and women kill their child more often.
No, it's because they want to control women. Most of society revolves around controlling women, which is why they like to do stupid shit.
> their is a reason why single fathers raise better children than single mothers.
The mother has to be a serious fuck-up to lose custody to the father, so that there are very few times where this is not the case.
>>81452841
That has nothing to do with instincts, it's sociological. You like to see your child succeed because it reflects on your success in society. It's sick how people live vicariously through their kids accomplishments, just like it's sick for them to project their own shortcomings onto their kid's failures.
>>81453199
A paternity test? But yeah, if the father cannot be identified then I would say he cannot appeal to his rights and the mother gets to decide.
>>81453374
>No, it's because they want to control women.
I think you're paranoid.
>>81453503
Can they do the tests before birth?
Fathers may not be "hardwired" (pop sci thinking anyway) but people are not reducible to their neural functioning (there are reasons why philosophy and linguistics are also neuro sciences) most abortions are related to poverty and pro life movements would be a lot more successful if they addressed the underlying issue
>>81451301
>isn't biologically wired to give a shit about the child.
maybe niggers, but not normal decent men
EQUAL RIGHTS NOW
>>81453646
>I think you're paranoid.
I think you're fucked up for thinking a dude shouldn't be satisfied with the ability to walk away-scot free from a pregnancy they had just as much control over as the other party. It's really vile, seriously.
>>81453663
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=paternity+test
>>81453663
Yeah, a few weeks after conception.
Men shouldn't be able to force a woman to abort her child you complete fucking retard
But they should be able to absolve themselves of financial responsibility for it.
>derp
>derpina
jesus christ
>>81451301
Dads are better parents
>>81453374
Great, just some narcissistic roastie who think only women have morals.
>>81449302
You can't give people the power to force medical procedures they don't want. It's not happening and it's a stupid idea. The only way this could work is if artificial wombs become a thing. But if we have artificial wombs there isn't much justification to abort.
Father's absolutely should have legal surrender to all rights and obligations though.
>>81453921
Screw that! The fact that women have more control over their own reproduction than men is sending a message to fathers everywhere that fatherhood is less important than motherhood. That's sexist and backwards.
>>81454093
>only women have morals.
Who said that anywhere ITT?
>>81453842
Why don't feminists care about the majority of women who feel compelled to abort vis a vis poverty? Because feminism is dominated by white privileged women and 3/4 of abortions are performed on women of color
>because equality
Is akin to
>Because it's 2016
Nobody should be given access to abortion because abortion is evil
>Derp, derpina
>>>/Reddit/
>>81454145
>Fatherhood is less important than motherhood.
That's not what it means at all. It's just that pregnancy doesn't physically affect the man. Abortions aren't 100% safe and no one should be forced to undergo a medical procedure against their will.
>>81454215
You literally just said dads only care about their children's performance and well being as a vicarious extension of their own.
>>81454347
What about the person who is aborted you psycho hypocrite?!
>>81454341
Abortion is not evil, it kills millions of nigger babies.
So women claim ownership of the baby because it's "part of their body" and don't want their male partner having a choice in the matter?
Seems fucked!
>>81454347
>It's just that pregnancy doesn't physically affect the man.
But having the child does, regardless of how many legal obligations you free him from.
>>81454422
>It's sick how people live vicariously through their kids
That's what I said. In reference to parents, not fathers. Learn to read.
>>81454530
Justifies infanticide with racism
This is why stormfaggots will never be conservatives
>>81454530
Killing any baby is evil
>>81454492
This thread isn't even about pro-life. It's about the father's right to force an abortion on the mother. No one here is suggesting the life of a fetus is more important than that of the people who are expected to raise them.
>>81454108
The mentally retarded and insane are both sterilized and lobotomized on a very regular basis. What the fuck are you on about?
>>81454609
>But having the child does
>Physically affect him
No it doesn't.
>>81454347
>Abortions aren't 100% safe and no one should be forced to undergo a medical procedure against their will.
Not even if this freedom undermines equal rights?
>>81454922
I'm fairly sure they don't do that anymore.
Let me rephrase. You can't force medical procedures on mentally competent people against their will.
>>81454986
Ok, yeah I read over the physical bit... but it affects him that's the point.
>>81454622
Nope, you're lying
Here's what you said
First
"isn't biologically wired to give a shit about the child"
Then
"You like to see your child succeed because it reflects on your success in society"
When
>>81452841
Said he knew fathers that cared more about their child performances.
So either you're saying good parents wont necessarily care about their child success, or your saying father only care because of their social status.
Go fuck yourself.
>>81452441
Niggers like you have no maternal instincts, that is true.
>>81454882
The life of a fetus is equally as important as the parents'
This is a human rights issue but idiots discount the developing life because it is vulnerable and also because most people are to dense to see through the being/becoming paradox
t. existentialist Marxist who's also pro life
>>81454664
More like why you should go the fuck back to redit
>>81455132
>but it affects him that's the point.
That's entirely subjective, there are enough men in this world who are perfectly okay with being deadbeat dads of a dozen kids for me to think you're full of shit and pandering to feels. Crocodile tears. Disgusting.
>>81455438
Those are niggers. Deadbeat dads among other races are relatively rare and socially ostracized.
>>81455438
Bullshit, it would affect me I can tell you that.
>>81455386
Racists like you are pathetic you are controlled by emotions you are the same as the jihadists get fucked
>>81455293
Why would I? I know too much. This entire abortion debate is a disgusting spectacle, why would you expect anyone to want to raise kids in this fucked up society where men are more worried about having full control over anything they can viably label as their property than fixing the underlying issue of poverty and welfare culture?
>>81455315
Well either you believe there's an intrinsic value to human life or you don't. That's what it comes down to. A fetus is undoubtedly human life. Any talk of "person-hood" is just arbitrary, social constructs people use to justify killing human life.
That's why even if we had artificial wombs this argument would continue.
>>81455739
You are right in that I do have some pretty strong emotions, but the facts speak for themselves.
>>81455768
Men don't really believe they should be able to force abortion on a woman...some petulent children might think so
>>81455285
It was an entirely separate point I was making, from the one where I said men aren't biologically wired to have parental instincts. Pull your head out of your ass, and learn to read, instead of reshaping these events in your head to suit your narrative.
>>81455438
So, there are so many deadbeat fathers that men don't deserve equal control over their own reproduction?
>>81449302
>derp
>derpina
>>81455768
No, women destroyed the family. They gave more importance to gibs and "women power huuuuuurrr" then actually taking care of their kids. That's why so many women use child support money to by themselves shit instead of using it for the child, and that's why they abuse/ kill their kids.
I would say your delusional for saying that the reason things are this fucked is because of men wanting to control things (when 80% of them are cucked as hell), but honestly it's more likely that you're just evil.
>>81455865
Person hood is the basis of rights and you can espouse a nihilistic deconstructive stance all you want but the fact is that you depend on these "social constructs" for protection..if you would deny that a fetus should be afforded the same protection it can only be from base selfishness and not a critique of rights as such (since you are materially undermining such a position by hypocritically availing your self of what you claim are baseless falsehoods)
>>81456039
Hey, here's one that does. Feel free to argue with me, that's why I'm here.
>>81456060
No, you're just backpedaling now that everyone here realized just how batshit insane you were.
>>81456031
Facts cannot speak for themselves
"The truth is always simple
Is this not doubly a lie?"
-nietzsche
>>81449302
Abortions should even be allowed in the first place. Neither the mother not the father should have the right to kill a third innocent party.
They accepted the consequences when they agreed to have sex with eachother.
But you're right that currently it is "unfair" that the mother can decide to have an abortion when the father cannot. The reason why this is the case is because it is also "unfair" that the mother has to carry around the child in her womb for 9 month.
as long as the mother is the one who will have to sacrifice her body, she'll be the one who holds the power
>>81456533
Okay well my question to you is why don't you wish for all murders to be legal? Certainly we should not be subjected to the inconveniences of other people?
>>81456440
Actually the entire basis of our rights to life is based on the premise of an intrinsic value to human life. Personhood is a relatively new concept along with universal "human rights." The problem with concepts like personhood is that this is how we end up disqualifying certain kinds of people from "personhood" and end up with genocide and slavery, as a few examples.
This is why these arguments make no appearance in Roe v Wade. They justified it under a weak legal argument about the right to privacy - because the right to life argument would have inevitably lead to another result.
>>81455768
>Men only want control.
I'm only arguing that men deserve to have more control over their own reproduction. Control your paranoia.
>>81455865
Ugh I argued with you but I didn't need to I'm sorry this issue makes me rage
>>81456857
Eh? Can you go step by step there because I've lost you.
ELI5 pls
>>81450494
And leave your children for Society to pay for? No, fuck you. Don't knock the bitch up if you don't want to give her a pension.
>>81449302
If you do not want to have a child with someone, do not have unprotected sex.
How about wear a fucking condom or better yet don't go around fucking girls you aren't ready to impregnate?
>>81457117
People always say that men should be more responsible. But in an egalitarian society both men and women should be held equally accountable. So either you say that to women too, or don't say it at all.
>>81456958
I see your point I didn't at first but there is an inherent weakness to person hood. Human life must carry intrinsic value when it does not society actually collapses
>>81449302
i never understood why conservatives were against abortion. Its almost always niggers and we need less of them anyways. 5-6 abotrions later(I hope but unconfirmed ) and we dont have to pay for anymore thanks to uterine damage.
Its fucking basic economics. Conservicunts are confirmed retard on this point.
>>81457275
If a women keeps a child it's ultimately her who has to keep the stupid baby if you just leave her. Oh boo hoo you have to pay a little money but that's just stupid tax.
>>81449302
This is literally what happens OP, stop being a moralfag.
>>81457100
Why should abortion be legal and murder illegal ?
>>81449302
kill yourself
If babies were delivered by the stork thinks would be different, but it grows inside of the woman's body for 9 fucking months, that's a god damn while.
You know how dehumanizing it is to say "You don't have control over your own body, we're going to kill this thing growing inside of you against your will". Do you realize how that would feel? It would be bogus. The sane thing to do is to let the woman decide what to do.
>>81457464
Right, so I've already explained my position on that argument. Pls read up.
>>81457110
No, the women pay for them herself, or abort, the later being the more probable outcome.
Ideally I don't disagree fellow leaf, but I was responding to OP's suggestion.
Neither abortion of abortion should be legal (except in special cases).
>>81457545
Ok, here's the thing. My point is EQUAL RIGHTS. Either both men and women have access to abortion, or neither should. Equal rights, equal control over your own reproduction. I'm not going into the pro-life pro-choice debate. All I'm saying is the way pro-choice exists now, is unjust.
>>81457730
*woman
*neither abortion or financial abortion
>>81449302
If the man doesn't want to have a baby, he should be able to sign off on his parental rights in the timeframe an abortion is possible and legal. If the woman wants to keep the baby, that's okay, but no child support
>>81457591
Yeah it's the typical "b-but white men have issues too boohoo" garbage. Men and women are biologically different and that's why women get to decide on abortions. Until you grow ovaries you'll have to suck it up.
>>81457838
But the fetus has equal rights too and its not his fault his parents are murderers
>>81457417
Because it's a moral (for them a moral/religious) position. Considering the vast majority are blacks, and the woman who started planned parenthood was a huge racist, I think this was the intended result though.
>>81457574
Do you think the development of artificial wombs will end this argument?
Suppose we could transfer a fetus out of a woman and into an artificial womb. Suppose this procedure was safer than both abortion and natural childbirth. Do you think this would be considered an acceptable alternative to abortion? I very much doubt it.
>>81457838
The way to give you equal rights is to give you legal paternal surrender. The law can't change the fact that your reproductive system works differently to that of a woman.
>>81456060
I support legal abortion too, and even I think you are crazy, or just evil
>killing children
Why are liberals so convinced that killing children is a good idea?
>>81458364
It isn't just liberals anymore the right is losing its sense of values as well hence OP and the people who are like hurr durr it kills niggers
>>81452299
your "right to reproduce" means shit when you're not going to carry a baby inside you for 9 months
if you decide not to abort, consequences and obligations are notoriously harsher on the woman - for almost a year. you're not on equal footing AT ALL, so it makes sense she would have the last word on the matter
>>81449302
Abortion should be illegal except in extreme cases like severe deformities, or rape.
Obviously the man cant force the women to kill or carry the baby.
What he should be able to do is 'abort' his legal responsibilities, mainly alimony. Ask yourself what happens then: Not one stupid man gets punished for fucking a slut and impreganting her but ALL men then have to feed the bastard and his mother. I thought we're against marxism.
>>81459013
Not if you slash single mother welfare. People would be a lot more responsible if there were no safety nets like that left.
>>81459013
Jesus you fucking cucks can't take a bit of responsibility. Just because society has wrongly overridden a child's right to life and given women an out doesn't mean we should expand that stupidity for men as well
>>81459335
Good point.
>>81459344
It's likely you're going to lose access to the child, the child support will mostly be used by your ex, so your kid is fucked anyways.
>>81459762
It's not a good point. I've seen a webm of a woman in India giving birth right in the streets, a 3-4 month old baby falling out of her skirt like a Monty Python sketch, only to be kicked around and eaten by wild pigs. She probably got raped, which is why she had a look of utter apathy on her face when all this was happening. Is it really so important to you to be triggered by feminism that we would let things get to that point instead of choosing the lesser evil?
>>81460085
Being disadvantaged is better than being murdered in the womb imho
>>81449302
I feel that some stipulations need to be put in place for a woman to get an aborion. Allowing men more equal rights when it comes to the fate of their unborn child(ren).
>A woman may abort if the biological partner is present and both must give consent.
>If the child is a result of rape, she may abort. The unborn child must be proven by supporting police and medical records.
>If the unborn child is proving to be an immediate danger to the life of the mother, she may abort.
>>81460279
India is for all intents and purposes, a third world country.
When you have access to birth control and abortion, there is no reason for single mother welfare - and scrapping it would force people to be more responsible. Feminism is all about women being treated equally to me, that is literally equality. Taking responsibility for your own actions.
>>81460279
Society should value life and promote social welfare..I hope you don't mean abortion is the lesser evil?
>>81460660
>India is for all intents and purposes, a third world country.
One of the reasons for that, is because of it's unsustainable population of poor uneducated people and as a result, shit infrastructure. It's so bad, that people offer their children to wild animals. The most effective safety net for all parties isn't foster care, or welfare, or prostitution just to put food on the table, it's abortion.
>>81460660
What is "single mother welfare"?? Any single parent can get it
>>81457110
Why is it so unthinkable that women be forced to support the children that they have merely to please themselves? Women have babies because it makes them feel good. They are happier with a child than without. Logically, who should pay for her to do what she wants to make herself feel good?
>>81449302
men are smarter than women and therefore have more responsibilities. Prochoice as it is is fair.
>>81456764
Get rid of child support. The woman accepted the consequences when she chose to have sex. Baby makes her life more fulfilled and happy, she should pay the bills, too. Women get to keep the child AND the guy's money. The guy is robbed of his money and child.
>>81461183
>blue pill alert
women have babies to trap men and/or suckle off the government for more welfare
>>81456700
Nietzche is a faggot and so are you. America would be much better off without blacks, because of their shitty culture and bad decision making. That's why I hate them. That's why you should hate them.
>>81461183
>women have children to please themselves
t. A virgin
>>81459344
>Just because society has wrongly overridden a child's right to life and given women an out doesn't mean we should expand that stupidity for men as well
It literally does. Why does "equality" never count when we're talking about men?
>>81460923
I wasn't talking about abortion with the German fella. If you want to justify things under the reasoning of a balance of evils, why not consider mandatory sterilization and "baby licences?"
>>81461058
True but it's disproportionately single mothers. It's probably the single biggest scourge of western society at the moment. Single mother households produce disproportionately more serious criminals, more poverty, and more single mothers to perpetuate the cycle. I think it's insanity to incentivse it. Single fathers don't get sole custody unless the mother is an irredeemably bad parent or dead.
>>81461837
>why not consider mandatory sterilization and "baby licences?"
I fully support these things, but never bring it up in threads like these because I know the general consensus is that applied eugenics are unethical and everyone is a special snowflake.
>>81453374
>it's sick how some people live vicariously through their childrens' accomplishments
Unless they are forcing their kid to go into something they intensely dislike, no, it isn't.
>>81461511
America wouldnt be better without blacks...the moral decay is universal.
>>81451301
>isn't biologically wired to give a shit about the child
Is a nigger*
Ftfy
>>81462016
Then at least you're true to your convictions. A respectable position.
It is easy to see that men should not be able to force women to undergo abortions against their own will simply because the baby shares some of his genetic material. That is a moronic suggestion. Thankfully, most of society and government agree with me about how obvious this is and we needn't worry about what autists think.
>>81461620
Men and women are both free to not have unprotected sex. Abortion is an infringement on the right of the unborn person no matter who initiates it
>>81449302
>abortion
>reproductive right
how logically impaired can one be
>>81461837
We aren't incentivising the problem of single motherhood with welfare we are trying to alleviate it
>>81455119
>implying accidentally pregnant women are mentally competent
top kek m80
>>81462016
You really trust the state with those things? You realize they'd just sterilize their political adversaries and itd be entirely dysgenic right?
>All these idiotic men who don't understand basic equality.
Men should have the right to wash their hands of any given pregnancy. It's absurd to put all the onus on the male in today's' modern egalitarian society. Whether or not we're gonna force abortions on women is a whole other thing though. I think if the man disagrees with the pregnancy within the first 2-3 months, he should be able to force an abortion. Any time after that, the mother can refuse an abortion and choose to absolve the father of any legal and moral obligations to herself and the child.
>>81462160
Without blacks our murder rate would go down over 5 times. Other violent crimes and incarceration rates would go down by similar amounts. Less theft would reduce overhead of retail commerce and thus result in lower prices for consumers. Spending on social welfare per capita programs would drop tremendously without a change in benefits, the extra money could be used for tax breaks, put back into more comprehensive social welfare programs, or put towards the debt. Our obesity rate would plummet, reducing healthcare expenditure both private and public, and reducing the toll that obesity takes on our infrastructure. Our education rates and performance would skyrocket. It would just be so much better if they were gone.
>>81450494
Exactly this
A financial abortion is the only way to get equality here
In the current situation, women can abandon all responsibility but the man can't
>>81462147
There's nothing wrong with being proud of your kids, but people go way overboard with the whole virtue signaling aspect of it these days when they post baby's first shit/scraped knee/flu vaccination on facebook. It's incredibly forced and unnatural.
It's hard to see people like that as having genuine interest in anything but their own validation. Note how people who have their kids spaced apart by 5-10 years tend to raise each one in a completely different way, depending on the social climate at the time.
We're almost at the point where children are raised communally anyway, by the school system and the internet.
>>81462496
The post you were responding to calls not for men to be able to abort, but to be able to declare themselves not financially responsible for an unborn child.
Additionally, first trimester pregnancies aren't people.
>>81449302
Pro choice is essentially eugenics, right?
Qui Bono? Which race has the highest abortion rate?
>>81462884
>You really trust the state with those things?
No, not really. I like the idea in theory, but in practice I think abortion rights as they are harm the least people and cost taxpayers the least amount of money.
Make abortion illegal. That way all these retarded sluts and douchebags will think twice about fucking each other so carelessly. Abortion just isn't healthy for a society
>>81463458
>Which race has the highest abortion rate?
You already know it's niggers
I think there should be a legal procedure that men can obtain to be financially and legally declared not responsible for the well being of the child.
It's the same thing as the draft, if feminists truly want equality then they should want it to work both ways, women get drafted and men can opt out of the pregnancy same as the woman
>>81462496
Your sperm are unborn people. You might think "well haha, sperm doesn't have both sets of chromosomes yet, so it's not the same as a zygote." But it is the same in that it has the potential for life, it is not alive yet, it is unconscious, it doesn't care about its existence, it has never been conscious previously, it has no contracts or obligations or duties or entitlements set up in the world, and it has no capacity to suffer. Two sets of chromosomes is a cosmetic difference that is decided ad hoc to be an "important" difference because it allows you to maintain your irrational position.
i think we need to raise more animals as children. and kill them and skin them and eat them. learn to value life. learn what procreation is really about.
the baby game is tilted in womens favor because men gave women freedom in merica to see what would happen. then people like ruth ginsberg passed roe vs wade and in the court filing said this is good enough eugenics for now.
>>81463502
They don't think twice, they are too stupid, that is the problem.
>>81463502
>That way all these retarded sluts and douchebags will think twice about fucking each other so carelessly.
This is the hopeful thinking of a child. People would rather fuck, and let their offspring suffer, than not fuck. Animals have stronger parental instincts than humans, mice will eat their young knowing they can just have another litter in a few weeks when they actually have a sustainable food source.
>>81463890
>i think we need to raise more animals as children. and kill them and skin them and eat them. learn to value life. learn what procreation is really about.
True, work on a farm, then come back and discuss the inherent value of life.
Equal rights is a meme.
Freedom is all that matters.
When your freedoms infringe on others freedoms, there is a problem.
Fetuses do not have any freedoms.
>>81453374
Fuck off back to Tumblr.
>>81463720
i like this. if a woman can file for abortion, a man should be able to file a petition to not abort and instead take ownership of child at birth if female wants to abort.
if female refuses to abort and man wants to abort, man should be able to file petition to be free from financial obligations.
and this is why we invented abstinence
>>81455739
By using that stupid word, you light yourself up as a shill.
Racism is loving your race. The true publicly racist people are everyone but whites. especially blacks and muslims. muslims are already at war with us and the niggers are trying, but they're not so smart.
>>81458823
Yeah 'cause carrying the baby for 9 months is so much more work than raising it for 18 years... It's negligible imo.
>>81463731
No. Sperm is genetically an extension of its owner. A fetus is a unique genetic entity, different from both the mother and the father.
Abortion is killing human life. Either you believe it's justified or you don't, that's where the argument is. Some think it's justified on utilitarian grounds, a lesser evil. Others think it's justified as a matter of rights to bodily autonomy. But denying that it is killing human life is the irrational position.
>>81463731
>two sets of chromosomes is a cosmetic difference
Troll harder sport.
>>81463384
>first trimester pregancies are not people
This is entirely arbitrary reasoning.
>>81463253
I think an option for a legit abortion matters too. What if I'm morally opposed to the use of my DNA for reproduction? Maybe I've got hereditary diseases that I don't want to share with an innocent child. I should be allowed to prevent that.
>>81464732
>Maybe I've got hereditary diseases that I don't want to share with an innocent child. I should be allowed to prevent that.
>What is a vasectomy
>>81458823
dont open the legs if you cant commit the time. slut. you are a slut. do you understand the concept. slut?
what you're doing is a crime that you're unwilling to do the time.
>>81464907
We aren't talking about birth control anon, we're talking about unwanted pregnancies. Your argument is flawed from the very start.
>>81464907
What if you didn't know before your first impregnation...
>>81460517
The partner has to be able to take care of it. So if he wants to keep it he should have a good source of income or else his choice doesn't matter.
>>81464988
>sleeping around is a crime
You should move to Turkey you unamerican shit
>>81462355
Half of his genetics.
Man should have a financial abortion and no contact with the child.
>>81465037
>>81465051
I'm just saying, if you DO know you have fucked up genes, it's not like you can't prevent this from happening. If you don't, chances are you won't know until it's too late. But once the pregnancy has already happened, it's kind of pointless to ask "what if"
>>81465037
as a former dog breeder thats won AKC blue ribbons, i must say, when my bitches are in heat, i keep them locked up. i don't let studs near my bitches. you are a child if you use sex for pleasure and don't acknolwedge you're creating life. and if you're a child, your rights are revoked.
end abortion now. it's eugenics.
>>81465129
what is welfare. TANF. are you saying men shouldn't get the same gibsmedat as women?
>>81465320
No it isn't! And yes you can prevent this from happening, if men also have the right to abortion!
>>81465395
Sex is for pleasure. Using it as procreation is optional. Your argument is hilarious flawed. I also love how you threw in some non-sequitur about dog breeding and bitches in heat as if that added anything to the argument.
>>81463127
White culture is in a tailspin m8 and it isn't because of our skin color it is because of moral relativism the result of a consumer society and decadence
>>81465803
coming from the leaf. every canadian ive met is sex obsessed. keep it in your pants leaf.
>>81465803
>sex is for pleasure
No, pleasure is for sex
>>81465503
Are you saying gibsmedat is ok in general you nigger?
Why the fuck would the US want more welfare babies?
If that lazy fuck can't take care of the child went the Hell should he have one?
>>81465522
No one in their right mind is going to support forced abortions on other people anon. It's really not a death sentence for men to just try harder to avoid baby-crazy poorfags who want gibs.
>>81466006
learn some english spick
>>81464675
I never said anything about human life. The label is irrelevant. I am talking about content, not labels. No one has a convincing argument for why it should matter that a zygote now has both pairs of chromosomes.
Thought experiment. The womb is designed differently and nurtures the sperm and egg in two separate sacks for 8 months and merges them in the last. That's what a pregnancy is in this universe. In this universe, you've committed yourself to saying that it's ok to abort up until that period. But I'm pretty sure people that reason like the pro-life movement today would still be against abortion prior to that point. Because the true motivation is simply the fact that the pregnancy is in progress and disrupting some vague notion of "the plan" or "what is meant to be" is immoral to them.
>A fetus is a unique genetic entity, different from both the mother and the father.
Why does this matter?
>>81466106
Right, just like it's not a death sentence for women to get back in the kitchen. Fuck that.
>>81466292
Who are they cooking for in this scenario?
>law change
>both male and female parties have to approve abortion
>female: I want an abortion
>male: ...
Bitch had a one night stand and fathers done a runner
>I'll get a beta male friend to say yes to abortion as if he's the father
>actual father finds out
>YOU MURDERED MY CHILD
>>81466184
Here's your >((you))
>>81466239
We can't continue this line of discussion when you fundamentally misunderstand the reproductive process.
> Why does this matter?
Because this is the only objective definition for what a human is.
>>81466423
I don't know, what does it matter? To you all men are only interested in world domination.
What I'm really saying is, where are you going with this?
>>81450494
This. Men should be able to opt out. Women have health and protection services available free of charge. There are no more excuses.
And the burden should not be on the tax payer. If you keep the babby you need to pay for it yourself. The adjustment period would be very harsh. But it is necessary to emphasize the severity of the situation.
>>81449302
NO KILLING BABIES REEEEEEEEEE
>>81466767
I'm suggesting letting would-be welfare queens die childless instead of implying should be forced to sully the gene pool even further by being achmed's fifth wife, or whatever you meant by that kitchen joke.
>>81464692
No functional higher nervous system activity, IE no mind.I suppose this point is "arbitrary", but so is every other point. We pick one that's morally acceptable while maximizing utility. If you want to outlaw abortion on the basis of "life begins at fertilization", then you must also outlaw the day after pill and birth control, which destroy embryos and prevent implantation respectively.
>>81449302
>derp
>derpina
I want rebbit to fuck off
>>81452441
Bullshit, that mother instinct and mommy knows best shit is all a fucking farce to make mothers seem all high and holy
>>81449302
Who cares, you're an idiot if you knock up a women who doesn't want a baby
>>81465848
Your vague notions about the quality of white culture don't change the extremely large quantifiable negative effects that blacks have on america.
>>81466936
lmao you're turning this into a race thing now.
The kitchen joke was meant to ridicule the idea that "it's not so bad that men don't have access to abortion" because you can just as well say that "it's not so bad that women don't have access to the labour market". It's not a death sentence...
>>81450494
Thank you. You repeated what I have been saying. The woman controls her body. Fine but if I declare I cant support the child, then she and the state should not hold me liable and garnish my wages.
>>81467151
My mother lied about her taking birth control to trap my father into marriage. Then later she found a guy that makes more money and traded up, all while continuing to demand child support.
We have no rights in this matter.
>>81467145
The mother has attachment when the baby is very young, but once it begins to develop a personality they lose interest and can't wait to haul it off to school. The rest of what you said, I agree with (but not once did I say anywhere that you don't need instincts to be a good parent, like some were quick to assume)
>>81466239
>>i dont care about a lump of cells until it affects my lump of cells.
muh vagina!
>>81466721
>fundamentally misunderstand the reproductive process
I think I understand it fine. I think you don't understand the importance of attributes and content over labels. Zygotes don't have important attributes that contribute to the morality of killing them that sperm don't have. You might disagree. And I'd like you to explain why.
>Because this is the only objective definition for what a human is.
Oh, I thought you were talking about content. Again, I don't care about labels. I thought you were saying:
>A fetus is a unique genetic entity, different from both the mother and the father and therefore we should care about it
and not:
>A fetus is a unique genetic entity, different from both the mother and the father and therefore we can apply the label "human" to it
>>81467567
>the state should not hold me liable and garnish my wages
>get gibs for being a baby daddy on top of paying for WIC and breast implants for her
>>81467347
>"it's not so bad that women don't have access to the labour market"
And you accuse me of bringing irrelevant shit into the argument? Dude, just give up.
>>81449302
If there's nothing wrong with abortion then why do liberals refuse to call it abortion?
>>81468052
If you can't see how what you're saying is just like saying THAT, then you're the one who should give up.
I'm just going to take the opportunity to reiterate my position.
Financial/legal/whatever you want to call it abortion is not enough, because men deserve to have just as much control over the birth of the actual child as women. It doesn't matter that it's in her body, it will always remain their child, not just her child. Either both can physically abort it or neither can.
>>81468416
>Either both can physically abort it or neither can.
There was no point making the thread if you are just going to deal in absolutes instead of looking at things logistically, which nearly everyone else ITT is at least attempting to do.
>>81467728
You can call a tree a rock, but it's still a tree. You've just labeled it something different. Nothing has changed in reality except what you're calling it.
I'm saying a fetus is a unique genetic entity, its genetic material identifies it as human, and it is alive by biological standards. Therefore, killing a fetus is killing human life. Either you believe there is intrinsic value in human life, or you do not.
Arbitrarily setting qualifiers to personhood is the same thing the US Supreme Court did in 1857 to legally justify slavery, because blacks weren't really people. It was the same thing the Reichsgericht did in 1935, because Jews, gypsies and gays weren't really people either, just a label.
>>81468560
Yeah, you're right, I guess I'll just go back to the kitchen.
PLS DIE
>>81468843
>>81468784
It does not have the necessary capacity for thought to make it a human.
Babies are capable of learning.
Fetuses are not, despite what pseudoscientific maternity magazine articles will tell you.
>>81469213
There is no material difference between a later term fetus and a new born. Fully grown adults can lose their capacity for thought and learning, do they lose their humanity when that happens?
>>81469453
Arguably, yes
>>81468784
I never attacked your labels. I ignored them completely. Because I'm talking about attributes that matter. The attribute "human life" in your mind is not important to me. Your definition has holes that I could pedantically point out, but I understand your meaning. I don't think all lives ought to be protected by your definition since your definition includes things that don't have attributes X, Y, Z that I've already stated.
>Arbitrarily setting qualifiers to personhood is the same thing the US Supreme Court did in 1857 to legally justify slavery, because blacks weren't really people. It was the same thing the Reichsgericht did in 1935, because Jews, gypsies and gays weren't really people either, just a label.
>Here is a bad thing that happened when people did X. You agree that these things were bad because it caused conscious, autonomous, developed humans with obligations and contracts and relationships in the world to suffer. Therefore, you should also think X is bad even when it doesn't cause these things.
>>81469719
So suppose you're knocked into a total coma and lose your higher brain function. You're no longer human in this state? What if you wake up? Humanity can be revoked and restored?
The only objective measurement is genetics. You can look at my DNA and know what I am. You can compare my DNA to a dog's and know we're different. You can compare my DNA to a zygote and know we're both human.
>>81467845
Your right in the State offers much already, and in the fungibilty of money.
>>81470083
Then you do not attach intrinsic value to human life. That isn't objectively wrong, but you're making our disagreement more difficult than it needs to be.
>>81455768
>underlying issue of poverty and welfare culture?
The underlying cause of that is low intelligence.
As far as this discussion goes, it's fair to have women be in control of the physical pregnancy and whether to abort. It's likewise fair for the man to be able to have a "legal abortion" whereby he gives up all rights and responsibilities to the child.
HOWEVER.
Because women can't have an abortion after 6 months, men shouldn't be able to have "legal abortions" after 6 months, so that a guy can't wait until just before birth and abandon a woman to have a child alone.
It's much more fair in that scenario but, the problem you get into here, is that the woman knows when she's pregnant long before the guy does. So she could conceivably keep the pregnancy a secret until it's too late for the man to abort his legal rights and responsibilities.
How would you get around that?
Who would have to prove what (in court)?
Also, adoption should be made far easier on all people involved, and the state shouldn't subsidize single motherhood.
Even with the confusing "what if she keeps it a secret" bit, this scenario is much more equitable to everyone involved.
>>81470177
*in that the
>>81470087
>So suppose you're knocked into a total coma and lose your higher brain function. You're no longer human in this state? What if you wake up? Humanity can be revoked and restored?
Yes. That's exactly how these situations are handled. When a person goes into a deep coma, they spend a while monitoring for nervous activity, and if there aren't signs that the person is going to recover, they pull the plug.
>The only objective measurement is genetics. You can look at my DNA and know what I am. You can compare my DNA to a dog's and know we're different. You can compare my DNA to a zygote and know we're both human.
I'm a master's student in medical research. In the incubator at school I have human preadipocytes which continuously live, grow, and multiply. They are several months and dozens of generations separate from separation from the donor, and we can basically continue to grow them and use them as long as we need to. Every single one of them not only has human DNA but human genetic expression, which is why they're so useful, we're doing drug screenings.
But are they people? Do they have rights? Of course not, they don't think, they don't speak, they don't do anything but sit there and grow. First trimester pregnancies are the same.
>>81470402
>it's fair to have women be in control of the physical pregnancy and whether to abort.
How is it fair that a woman has more control over the decision of who is going to be the father of her children than a man has over the decision of who is going to be the mother of his children?
>>81470402
>So she could conceivably keep the pregnancy a secret until it's too late for the man to abort his legal rights and responsibilities.
This is why I don't support the financial abortion "window" option, the same thing can happen if a guy lies about a vasectomy. If it could be proven that either party meant to entrap the other, they should get 20 years minimum. But it couldn't be proven and it's ridiculous to think that it ever could be without spying on people 24/7 through their smartphones, that's why it's better for everyone if the woman is under no pressure to have the baby, and has no financial incentive to keep it.
>Also, adoption should be made far easier on all people involved, and the state shouldn't subsidize single motherhood.
The main problem here isn't that people can't adopt. It's that they don't want to. Orphanages aren't full because of gatekeeping, trust me on that one
>>81468784
Youre calling a bit of cells a human being.
Thats like calling a rock a "tree".
>>81470263
Well, I don't know what you mean by intrinsic value, which is why I said "I don't think all lives ought to be protected by your definition." It is your definition and it's not "correct" in any objective way. If it can be applied "objectively," that doesn't mean it isn't still arbitrary. So I would say that human life has no intrinsic value in your words and that this doesn't affect anything I initially said.
>>81469213
fetuses cover unborn babies.
>>81471082
> But are they people? Do they have rights?
This is what it comes down to. Either you believe there's intrinsic value to human life, or you don't. Which position is correct is subjective. If you have a medical background than you understand that it is, unquestionably human. The notion of "personhood" is an arbitrary qualifier.
> But are they people? Do they have rights?
There are dolphins and apes with higher levels of intelligence than some humans. Are these animals more of a "person" than those particularly unintelligent humans? There are people in homes as we speak who are conscious, but with practically animal levels of intelligence and self-awareness. Are these people not human? How much thinking do you need to be doing to be a person?
>>81471532
You and I are just cells anon. We just have more cells than a fetus.
>>81471772
It means that something has value by virtue of its identity as human alone. Its status as human is an end-in-itself.
>>81471082
Ameribro, your reasoned argument and multiple relevant points, based in fact and evidence and experience
is irrelevant, because babby has soul from Jebuz. You should have kept your legs closed, slut!
(this message is satire)
>>81472706
If your definition of "human life" includes the fat cells I keep in the closet in school, then no, "human life" has no inherent value beyond its utility. It is human consciousness which has value.
>>81473181
Out of curiosity, where do you get the genetic material to grow the cells? Is there a living donor out there somewhere?
I ask because the fat cells are similar to the sperm cell argument. They're not the entire entity, just an extension of the owner.
It's pretty simple. Child support should only be required for legitimate children whenever a married couple gets divorced.
>>81462355
I'm not sure you see it yourself since you are not backing it up with any actual arguments. Appeal to authority is not an argument. Come on...
>>81473502
>Out of curiosity, where do you get the genetic material to grow the cells?
Liposuction. Then some company filters out the pre-adiopocytes (which are somatic stem cells) from the terminally differentiated fat cells (which do not multiply nearly as fast, so we don't use them much) and sells them to us. To grow them we literally just have to let them sit in a pool of nutrient media, and they'll multiply themselves with no other intervention. In the case of what we're doing, we have to be careful and suck out most of the cells every couple of days or they'll start to differentiate on their own.
But the point is, a clump of cultured fat cells is not inherently different than an early pregnancy. They both contain and express a complete humane genome, they both do nothing but sit there, absorb nutrients, and grow, and they both have no consciousness or personhood.
>>81472706
We also euthanize animals for terminal illnesses, for overpopulation, for not receiving a home, for biting etc.
>>81449302
>The right to have the government tax money from me at gunpoint to pay for your abortion because you're irresponsible and didn't use contraceptive
FUCK
YOU
>>81474101
But when you dispose of your culture of fat cells, you do not kill the owner who had them sucked out. They're just an extension of the owner, like a toe nail or indeed, sperm cells.
>>81471772
>Well, I don't know what you mean by intrinsic value,
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
>>81474454
What if I was raped by a psychopathic abusive woman and she got pregnant?
>>81474101
>But the point is, a clump of cultured fat cells is not inherently different than an early pregnancy.
That's all well and good but the left wing these days literally wants abortions up to the last day of pregnancy, some of them unironically advocate for infanticide with post-term abortions.
>>81474748
She can pay for it? Actually yes, this gives me an idea, since leftists so often use the "WELL WHAT ABOUT RAPE?!" arguement. Just make the rapist for the abortion.
>>81475021
Well why not use rape as an argument? Isn't it often used as an argument for why women should be allowed to abort children?
>>81474603
A pregnancy itself is merely a cell from the mother which has absorbed external genetic material and begun to multiply. She is normally not killed in the act of pregnancy. A human is not whole cloth formed in the either and implanted into a mother, humans grow out from other humans. I say the line is drawn between one person and the next when the pregnancy reaches a point of consciousness and thought. It is an arbitrary point, but a good one I think. Yours is no more rooted in truth.
>>81474914
Which is indefensible, I agree.
>>81449302
OP AND EVERYONE
JOIN OUR MRA SKYPE
WE'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU
https://join.skype.com/qIInpvQlJOSM
>>81475273
> A pregnancy itself is merely a cell from the mother which has absorbed external genetic material and begun to multiply
Yes, you're right, but at that moment a third genetic entity exists which is neither the mother nor the father.
> reaches a point of consciousness and thought
I hope you at least refine your line a little bit because that's how we ended up with this in medical ethics journals.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
>>81475877
That journal is wrong because infants are already thinking months before they are born unless they suffer from a severe brain deformity, in which case they will never think and ought to not be kept alive.
>Yes, you're right, but at that moment a third genetic entity exists which is neither the mother nor the father.
So? Genetically, and to a much greater extent epigenetically, you are not the person you were 10 years ago. And yet, you would consider yourself the same person as you were then. It is not genetic lineage which determines when a person is or is not, but his mind.
Consider also the existence of identical twins. Same genetic code, same epigenetics up to the point of birth and probably for a good while afterward, and yet you would not consider them the same entity, but two distinct.
>>81449302
What it should be:
>Don't kill things unnecessarily
Baby should never be kill unless it's an abomination that would hate living.
Having it should be punishment for the sexually promiscuous.
Infact - ban contraception. You keep that baby as punishment.
Your crazy sex drive spreads disease and kills humanity slowly.
>>81476527
Oh, reading more thoroughly, the article argues in favor of killing permanently brain dead infants, which I agree with. Though he expands this line of thought to down syndrome, which is obviously completely different and indefensible, as they are just mentally stupid, not an empty shell.
>>81476688
Mothers can and do just abandon the children. All you're doing is punishing everyone else for her mistake. Better that she doesn't pass on her bad habits than let another shitter run around and continue the cycle.
>>81476688
This is such a misanthropic way to see things idk how anyone can paint it as a corrective measure.
>>81477038
This is correct, the mother suffers the least in this scenario because she can play the poor mommy card. My best friend is a guy, oldest son, lives like an animal, his mother threatens to kill him and tells him he was born of rape and there is no way of knowing if she's lying or not because all she has to do is make shit up to the family or the cops and she always comes out on top, even though everyone knows she's a full of shit asshole. She would get away with murder if she did it, just because "poor me having kids is so hard i'm CRAZY XD"
>>81477038
>Mothers can and do just abandon the children. All you're doing is punishing everyone else for her mistake
Not an excuse.
That's a crime. If not then it should be.
Infact if they get caught, the child is taken off them and the mother is put in prison.
What a pathetic, disgusting individual to do such a thing.
>>81478164
>This is such a misanthropic way to see things
I don't even.
>wanting to prevent a person's death is misanthropic.
If anything it's aborting them that is misanthropic.
>>81478164
>This is correct, the mother suffers the least in this scenario because she can play the poor mommy card
that needs to stop.
The punishment must be harsher.
>>81475228
Rape pregnancies are not exactly common, yet its by far the most used argument.
>>81476527
> determines when a person is or is not, but his mind.
That's where we differ. I attach value to human life (I'm not religious btw), you attach value to personhood. The issue I have with personhood is we can arbitrarily decide exactly what that is. It means different things to different people as this argument reveals. That ridiculous ethics article shows how easy this reasoning is to abuse.
> Consider also the existence of identical twins.
This is a good point. They are different people even with the same genome, but this doesn't really change my position. I don't deny personhood exists as a construct, I just ascribe value to one's "humanhood" when it comes to the right to life.
Anyway thanks for the engaging discussion, I have work to do!
>>81478533
>If anything it's aborting them that is misanthropic.
It's misanthropic to want them to be punished for another's mistakes, it's like inheriting your parents' debt and dooming the entire genetic line to slavery because this woman in question fucked someone other than (you)
>>81478665
You can't punish someone for being a fucking cretin. Just *don't fuck them*
>>81475756
found the discord instead skype sucks
