Why is abortion wrong, /pol/? Why should we decide what women do with the contents of their own body?
>>68659006
So if a woman is pregnant with a female fetus, whose content of whose body should decide?
>>68659006
At what point does life begin?
That's the debate you need to have, not le muh body.
>>68659227
Who gives a shit? Might makes right. If I had something growing in me I didn't want, you'd better believe I'd cut it out.
Only retarded pollacks are against abortion. /pol should be in favor of 100% free abortions to keep the dindu population in check.
>>68660163
by your logic her stronger neighbor can just rape her or kill her and take all her stuff bc lol might makes right
what you're saying is pretty meaningless, this isn't how civilizations work
>>68659227
When a baby is born and becomes self aware, thus there's nothing wrong with killing fetuses
>>68660363
You can kill dindus after they have been born, too.
>>68659006
Have everyone have it or no one. If women should have the choice to abort their kin, so do men.
>Learn to unhinge bottom jaw
>Go around swallowing peoples heads and strangling them
>Muh body muh rytes
People fail to realize the only people getting abortions are the kind of people you don't want breeding in the first place. They're taking out their own trash. We should be applauding them.
>>68660501
Some people never become self-aware. Have you never met a liberal?
>>68660163
If the ONLY way to get cancer was to smoke, the only way; would you support the chemotherapy of cancer patients?
Keep in mind your insurance premium/medicare/medicaid/obamacare all shift based on your answer.
>>68659006
>Why is abortion wrong, /pol/?
I don't think it is. I already don't care about children, why would I care about destroying a developing baby?
>>68659006
Because if she choose go keep it, the father should act like a father. It's unfair.
Also, women do not produce sperm, the baby is not only part of her body
>>68660405
No, because his act will be punished by the government, so he is not mighty. Therefore, he isn't right.
Abortion is wrong because it kills a baby. I'm pro-abortion. I don't understand pro-choice argument since they made the 'choice' when they opened their legs. Anti-natalism and eugenics need to be adopted globally. Unfortunately, we can't fix stupid.
>>68660669
If by applauding you mean sterilizing lol
Seriously though, we need to kill "free love" and "casual sex" and "hookup" culture and return to traditional marriage,
I used to be anti-abortion then I realized in today's world it's actually a good thing
>this issue is solving itself - high quality men avoid women who have had abortions
>reduces the black population
>reduces the mexican population
>reduces the democrat population
If a girl tells me she's had an abortion I don't even consider her a person anymore - cut all contact instantly. She's worthless to someone who actually wants a relationship.
>>68659006
>why is murdering children wrong?
Totally atheist question OP. Nothing is obviously sacred to you.
>>68659227
Life begins at 60 when you retire.
>>68659006
Abortion is murder.
>>68660813
>Government determines what's right or wrong.
Communist faggot
>>68659006
>>68660866
>this issue is solving itself - high quality men avoid women who have had abortions
What if she dont say nothing
>>68660501
>When a baby is born and becomes self aware
This doesn't happen until about a year old. Do you remember being that young? Would that have made it OK for your mum to poison you because you wouldn't have known?
>>68660829
We're not apes anymore. We've conquered biology and can have sex for pleasure instead of for procreation
Why is killing babies wrong? Are you retarded? Also big corporations take the skin cells from the aborted fetuses and put them in the sodas and food we eat and drink.
>>68661033
>dating someone who lies/hides things from you
You'll find out eventually.
>>68661125
It could be too late...
>>68661122
Source?
>>68659227
>At what point does life begin?
You want to avoid the legal arguments to discuss a moral/philosophical one?
>>68661260
>You want to avoid the legal arguments to discuss a moral/philosophical one?
What's the difference?
>>68661349
One is based upon legitimacy the other is based upon speculation.
>>68661266
ayy lmao
>>68661349
>>68659006
It's obviously not.
>get raped
>lmao just pay the $300k+ to support the child alone top kek, just get laid off like lmao who cares that you don't have a job anymore because the child takes all your time? kek just pay up goy!
>child is deformed and trying to care for it will cost approximately $10m per year
>lmao who cares bankrupt yourself and kill the child because you won't be able to support it anymore that's totally better than an abortion!
/pol/ logic.
>>68661395
I think you mean one is enforced with violence and the other may actually have some moral discussion behind it.
i think abortion is used as a form of birth control among the degenerates, which is wrong.
>>68661395
>implying law and morality are mutually exclusive
>>68661559
>I think you mean one is enforced with violence
Only in dictatorships. But here in the US, where legitimacy is based upon popular consent of the governed it is different. Unless you believe individuals should have the power to disregard the rules of society codified into law simply because the individual disagrees with it and should be punished for conduct that violates the law?
>>68661559
Why ask the question when you can answer it yourself?
>>68660163
>Get creampied
>Gee why is a fetus growing inside me
Holy fuck you liberals are fucking retarded, you're retarded to the point you don't even know how to fuck.
B-but muh rape, abortions by rape are like the 0.001% of the abortions.
Abortion should be only allowed for niggers.
>>68661686
Where did I imply that? Pointing out how two arguments are different does not mean that they are mutually exclusive. A car and a bicycle are two different things but you can put a bicycle in your car, drive over to a local park, and ride your bike through the park.
>>68659006
>Why is abortion wrong, /pol/?
It's not. /pol/ is pro-abortion and anti-circumcision. /pol/ is anti-Christianity, anti-Judaism, anti-Islam.
>>68659006
>>68659006
Why is murder wrong, /pol/? Why should we decide where a knife goes when it was made to cut flesh?
>>68659227
>At what point does life begin?
If you believe libshits, at 5.
>>68661871
By that logic, bacteriae are "people".
>>68661728
They law everywhere is enforced with violence. That's how it works. What you implied earlier is that that is unquestionable and that law trumps everything, even unjustly.
>>68661741
What is the Socratic method?
>>68661981
You're an idiot. When a human male sperm enters a human female egg it develops into a person. Bacteria doesn't develop into a person.
>>68661981
Bacteria don't, if left to their own devices and barring a few billion ears of evolution, become people.
>>68662049
>They law everywhere is enforced with violence
Are you admitting that you are raising a specious point?
>What you implied earlier is that that is unquestionable and that law trumps everything, even unjustly.
Where did I do that? As far as I am aware I pointed out how the OP started by raising a legal point and the response was to avoid discussing the legal point and bring up a moral/philosophical one.
>>68661811
Without the bicycle, you have no ride in the park. Without the car, you have no way to carry your bike. You can't disregard one aspect of this example and assume the other represents your entire outing.
So the morality of the situation is still equally as valid as the medical.
>>68661981
Bacteria aren't genetically human you leaf
>>68659194
>female fetus
Murica ladies and gentlemen
>>68662382
>You can't disregard one aspect of this example and assume the other represents your entire outing.
The one who is disregarding one aspect is the guy who is trying to avoid discussing the legal aspect.
And given how you haven't demonstrated where I implied anything I assume you have abandoned that accusation.
>>68662156
>b-b-b-but IF
>IIIIIFFF
Top kek
>>68662049
Fair enough, but what are you trying to achieve by using it? What are YOU for or against? Pro-abortion or Pro-choice?
We live in an age were it is legal to kill babies.
>>68659006
It's not wrong. It is a crucial step in bringing about the obsolescence of women though Satanic ritual human sacrifice.
The mere possibility of abortion, and without paternal consent, will make artificial uteri the preferred reproductive incubator in the future.
>>68659006
Because it's not only her body
Counter argument
Why should we decide what a person does with the contents of their own property?
>>68662846
>Why should we decide what a person does with the contents of their own property?
Misconception? People and their bodies are not property and haven't been property since the mid-19th century in the US.
Proof they put it in our food and drinks https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pwYeKPH0fWQ
>>68662703
>>68662733
>>68662780
Looks like that shit would make some tasty calamari.
>>68662295
>Are you admitting that you are raising a specious point?
No. When you break the law what happens? You are dragged off by burly men (particularly if you don't comply with their demands), shoved in a van and brought to stand trial which shall then decide whether you should be locked up for a long time or even killed. That's violence and/or the threat of it.
Before you implied that this made it legitimate, when in fact it is only legitimate when backed up my philosophy/morality.
>>68662667
I'm just a faggot that likes to argue the toss. I go with whichever can argue their case better. Currently that's the anti-abortion side for me, but that may change.
>>68659006
I'm personally mixed on the issue.
On one hand, I'm not sure that a fetus should be considered a human at three weeks when it's still not developed properly.
On the other, it will become a human, so it could be considered murder in that respect.
I more or less just say "you do you", and leave it alone, no matter whether I agree or disagree, because I don't a hundred percent think it's murder, but I don't think it's a hundred percent morally fine either.
Women have a right to do what they want with their body. They're just not allowed to use their rights to infringe on the rights of others, particularly the unborn's right to life.
>>68662555
How does "but if" refute me?
>>68663180
>Before you implied that this made it legitimate, when in fact it is only legitimate when backed up my philosophy/morality.
Your philosophy/morality is more important and thus outweighs everyone else's?
>>68663180
Alright, I can respect that. Carry on.
So long as the mother honours Kshitigarbha and prays to him in order to ensure the aborted childs soul does not suffer in Hell for her own selfishness, I'm fine with it.
>>68663008
The point is this "my body my rules" argument is practically the same argument they used to justify slavery: "my property my rules"
The fact is it's not JUST her body in question, there's a body inside her that is a human and should have the same right to live as everyone else
>>68663356
>Your philosophy/morality is more important and thus outweighs everyone else's?
Is yours? Is some judges, or that which is written on some vellum? You are now beginning to understand how the fall of objective morality cuts right to the heart of the rule of law and with it our civilisation.
>>68659006
Murder.
>>68660712
underrated
>>68659006
>Why is abortion wrong
It's fine. Less niggers.
>>68660501
This is one of the two correct hard logical distinctions
The other is conception
But I don't think people would be fine with infanticide
Kind of narrows the choices
>Why should we decide what women do with the contents of their own body?
Because they're fucked in the head and don't realize the ultimate irony of abortion: that they weren't aborted in the first place but feel its necessary to take that action on another being.
>>68663578
>fall of objective morality
>objective morality
Objective morality isn't falling
>>68663548
>The point is this "my body my rules" argument is practically the same argument they used to justify slavery: "my property my rules"
Except for the legal difference, ie. personal autonomy is based upon a different legal doctrine than personal property.
>her body = her body
>baby/fetus body = it's body
how hard is that
>>68663982
explain the rise of moral relativism
>>68663578
>Is yours?
No, nor did I claim it was. Your point seems to predicate upon yours is better than everyone else's though or else your argument is a farce.
So I ask again.
>Your philosophy/morality is more important and thus outweighs everyone else's?
I expect you will refuse to answer the question a second time. Please prove me right.
>>68663982
>Objective morality isn't falling
It has already. It was based on god as a perfect and infallible moral arbitrator.
>>68664142
Well, when it can survive on the outside, that is when you can make the cutoff. Fair enough.
>>68664246
>No, nor did I claim it was. Your point seems to predicate upon yours is better than everyone else's though or else your argument is a farce.
No, my argument was that moral relativism was a sham that laughs in the face of the rule of law.
>>68664474
>No.
Are you answering the question? That was a:
>No my moral/philosophy is not more important than everyone else's?
>>68660813
And abortion is punished by certain countries.
Take the fucking government out, we're trying to decide what it *should* do, not what it does.
>>68664709
I am answering your question, but you just don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.
The enlightenment killed god, and with him went the foundation on which our morality was build objectively. Now it is impossible to justify it in his absence.
Unfortunately this has dire and often unseen consequences as much of our culture and civilisation was based on the concept.
I let the universe handle these things.
If you choose to have an abortion then your preventing a person from existing, and preventing them from living their life. Those who make this choice reap all the consequences that come with their decision. That's the nature of our universe and I wouldn't have it any other way.
We can say it's legal, but if people won't honor the law, then the law is pointless.
This is the one of those threads im losing faith in /pol/ with.
Imagine you are a woman and you realized that you are pregnant during for ex. 4 month advanced pregnancy. you don't want to give a birth and you don't want the baby.
If I were in this situation I would try my best to kill the parasite.
also life starts in the moment of birth, face it faggots.
im a hard right-winger but things like euthanasia and abortion are the only expection. if you want to redpill me on this, go on.
ps. do you really think these pics of dead jellybeans impress anyone?
>>68664228
Moral relativism has always been the controlling morality
>>68664319
>it was based
As if you can't derive objective morality from anything but god
I derive it from the advancement of humanity and subsequently the advancement of my ingroups. Based on objective measures like life expectancy
>>68665013
if it's legal that means it's easier for it to be done
the process should be as difficult as humanly possible because these people are literally choosing to end another human's life. they should be made uncomfortable when making a decision like that, not supported
>>68659006
Because unfortunately my other female peers are cowards. They cannot accept the fact that they do not have control over everything in life. I point out to them that they had control over contraceptives, but they didn't use them, and now that it's too late they want to kill the life inside of them so that they don't have to persevere and so they can continue to be degenerate whores.
Let them rot in the streets for being the whores that they are, smart females get married before they have children like myself and other ladies that have standards.
>>68661070
Sure, if she was a drug addict or too poor to afford a kid
>>68665016
Do us a favor and have your nearest catholic church mercy kill you.
I respect Poland for having a nearly 0% abortion rate. The cancer that is happening in our country (50% of pregnancies ended in abortion... like, holy shit) is horrible.
Just an hero.
>>68663980
This, maybe they would change their fucking minds if the government let them have an abortion only if they are willing to lose their lives after the prodecure.
>>68665323
Till a certain point. When people go against the nature of this universe they get pushed back by those who are aligned with it. It's why we prefer healthy people over unhealthy people. You can't argue against what works. The people who are getting abortions are the people who make mistakes, and people who make mistakes don't get too far in life. The natural order of things will set things right.
>>68665281
>I derive it from the advancement of humanity and subsequently the advancement of my ingroups. Based on objective measures like life expectancy
So if killing or otherwise harming another group furthered the advancement of your in group, that would be moral to you?
>>68659006
The problem isn't abortion per so, but rather a degenerate society where abortion is used as a form of contraceptive. If abortion was only reserved for extreme cases then it would be more tolerable
>>68665362
Now there is some edge. Care to justify that?
>>68664474
But aren't most SJWs and the PC crowd in general Moral absolutists disguising themselves as relativists?
>>68665362
adoption is always an option for these people, pregnancy is not an 18 year prison sentence
there are waiting lists for couples to adopt babies anyway
>>68665393
>nearly 0% abortion rate
topkek
>FEW CELLS STUCK TOGETHER DEFENCE FORCE
forgot to say im also catholic
>>68664968
>I am answering your question
Thank you. You admit that your moral/philosophy is not more important than everyone else's.
So then why do you argue that laws enforced by violence are somehow wrong? If everyone else's morals/philosophy is just as worthy or even more worthy than yours why should you be allowed to conduct yourself contrary to the law? Unless you know of another effective means of enforcing the law other than through the use of violence?
>>68666007
Sort of. They are strict moral relativists who are actively hostile to anyone who tries to take a different stance.
>>68666130
you are literally a "few cells stuck together"
using euphemisms doesn't take the humanity away
>>68659006
the benefits of abortion outweighs the moral dilemma
>>68666134
>You admit that your moral/philosophy is not more important than everyone else's.
If in a vacuum you would be correct. However we are not. Our civilisation is based off of an assumption of objective morality and as such I cannot condone it or risk that structure collapsing, even if I cannot justify it logically in itself.
Believe it or not, but not all human life is worth saving.
>>68660977
noice
>>68666141
I always saw them as moral absolutists but cultural relativists even though their objectives seem to be for both becoming a absolutism on a global level.
They disguise as moral relativists but are absolutists because they can't stand the traditional morals and culture of the society they are living in now.
>>68659006
Because letting women have control over anything is a first step to a big fucking mess, in my experience.
>>68666218
I'm a lot of cells stuck together that does not existing within someone's body without permission
that's the difference
inb4
>hurr permission for existence
inside another human's body? of course!
/pol/ is anti-abortion yet doesn't care about civilian casualties
go fig
>>68666886
>/pol is one person
I'm ok with abortion since it's a legal way to exterminate poor r-selected future criminals en mass
reminder america would have DOUBLE the niggers it has today without abortion
>>68666859
*does not exists
>>68666704
You can look at it that way, but if you take any of them individually they are moral relativists.
The say that no one's view is more valid than anyone else's and will attack anyone who says theirs is.
>>68666506
Yes, but is life that has the potential to be a good life deserve to not be given a chance?
Why can't a female, that's capable of having a child, actively attempt to be responsible instead of giving zero effort, like some women, in being in good circumstances that makes abortions not necessary?
>>68666886
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
>>68666859
>without permission
there's only "no permission" in the event of rape
when you have sex, you are PERMITTING the consequence of pregnancy, even if you use protection
except the fetus depends on living inside of the mother to live, and the mother can at any point revoke consent to have another bring living inside of her
>>68667014
I agree with that. The group hivemind is where it tends to get messed up though.
>>68659006
Because the "contents of their own body" can completely ruin the life of another person without their consent. If a woman tells a man that she's on birth control and isn't and becomes pregnant from that man, she can completely legally fuck that man over.
#stoppregnancyrape
>>68667034
Do you seriously think you can force someone to do something and expect them to do a good job?
It'll be nothing but a passive aggressive lashing back at society by raising a little shithead demon child/future criminal to get back at the society that forced her to care for it.
>>68667145
>when you have sex, you are PERMITTING the consequence of pregnancy, even if you use protection
lol no, when I have sex with protection the only thing Im giving permission to is to have sex
>>68659006
It's not wrong, stop bringing it up.
It's the #1 crime stopper in America.
>>68667493
You're basically proving the person is the problem not the child.
>i'm liberal so i'm pro-choice
fucking retarded millenials i swear
Abortion is cost effective compared to births.
Not to mention the reduction in crime.
>>68659006
>Abortions are literally ape control and /pol unironically wants to ban the practice
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/
>>68659006
The only time it should be allowed is when it harms the health of the mother.
When it's physical harm then there shouldn't be a time window, it's ruthless but you can't force someone to risk their life for someone else even if it's her child.
When it's psychological harm then you go to therapy for a week or two and see if you can made to handle it and if your distress is actually grave, even then there should be a time frame for when it's possible.
Any other reason should be considered irrelevant, if you don't want it for any reason then give it up for adoption.
>>68667347
>The group hivemind is where it tends to get messed up though
Pretty much. The echo chamber is where the real insanity kicks in as their ideas are allowed to run rampant towards their logical conclusion unchecked.
>>68667528
>pregnancy isn't a consequence of sex
>protection is 100% effective
don't be an idiot
I always find it funny these people call themselves pro-life. They are not pro-life; They could not care less about what results in the lives of others from an unwanted baby being born. They are simply pro-birth, and past that everyone involved can go to hell as far as they are concerned.
You are attempting to decide other people's lives based on your feelings. Now of course this does not apply to everyone, but I wonder how some of you feel about other cases where feelings take precedent over rational thinking, such as people defending Islam, or this whole thing with kids being "triggered" by mean words and so want to silence others. Cases where other people are deciding things with feelings, and you are not okay with them doing so. Why is this any different?
The fact is that abortion is never going to stop. Fighting to make it illegal only puts people into pointless danger. I personally think it is an absolutely terrible thing that should never happen, but other's rights do not end where my feelings begin, and ultimately banning it just does more harm.
>>68659006
Only white abortion
>>68668166
pregnancy is the consequence of impregnation, not just sex
and protection isn't 100% effective so this is another reason why abortion should be legal.
>>68659006
The "contents of their own body" is a living human being.
Fetus isn't her body though, it just lives in it.
>>68668443
why is it so important to you that people should be able to have sex with no consequences? even to the extent that you would murder babies?
what this boils down to is "my physical pleasure is more important than this baby's life"
moral deficiency at its finest
And any living being A has the right to not allow another living being B to continue living inside of living being A's body, what's so hard to understand about that
>>68666382
>Our civilisation is based off of an assumption of objective morality
[citation needed]
I never once heard anything like this.
>>68668793
would also like to add that if you don't like the consequences, you could just, you know, not have sex until you're ready for the consequences
>>68662462
you have to look at this out of a feminists perspective, the fetus may identify as a female
>>68668887
any living being A has the right to not allow another living B to kill it due to circumstances that living being A were forced into, what's so hard to understand about that
Abortion is like a voluntary eugenics program. It helps to keep numbers of negros and other people that shouldnt have children manageable.
If anything we arent having enough abortions.
>>68668793
Why is it so important to you that sex requires consequences, 18 years of it nonetheless?
Did your shaman or witch doctor or pastor tell you it was a bad thing?
Or do you think your feelings are more important than the autonomy and private medical procedures of another?
Does abortion trigger you, anon?
>>68669191
Force =/= natural consequences of biology
Sorry buddy nice try
>>68668954
Then read some philosophy. That problem has been facing our society for centuries now as they try and find some replacement to fill the hole that god left. So far they have had limited success.
This guy's good for a summary on the issue (and other things. He's pretty based in general):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton
>>68659006
Under normal circumstances (i.e. not rape, no medical issues) a woman consented to the pregnancy because she consented to having sex. Since she consented to getting pregnant her right to her body is no longer greater than the right of the baby to life.
>>68668793
>>68668969
you started looping
I if wanted the baby i'd just have sex without protection, it's the fault of protection when it fails
>even to the extent that you would murder babies?
Imagine you ate a salad infected with tapeworm eggs and now you have a tapeworm living inside you, would you murder it? dude, it's alive! IT'S A LIVING BEING! YOU CAN'T MURDER A BABY TAPEWORM
>>68669589
>Then read some philosophy.
I've read Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau, Plato, etc. as part of my Poli Sci courses in undergad. I don't recall any of them supporting your assertion.
>>68669589
Oh, and after a quick perusal of the link you provided I did not find anything that supports the assertion of an assumption of objective morality. The only kind of morality listed is "sexual morality."
>>68660501
Tell me all you memories from before you were 4
Can't?
Toddlercide confirmed
Easy, If I, being a male, want the kid and woman dont want the kid, why should the kid be aborted?
#2 Is it ok to kill your kid ever, let say 8? No? Then why is it ok to abort a fetus?
A woman cant produce a kid by themselves,although there are a few exception.
This coming from a guy who want to streamline abortion for BLM, Radical Islam, and stupid religious people, for obvious reason
Why would you ever take away a woman's right to have an abortion?
It would completely change your life from the ground up. College? Gone. Job? Gone.
A baby born by choice has a much better life than a baby born because the mother is forced to. If you want less degenerates, let women choose when they have a responsible man to be the father, not when they're 21 and Mark knocked her up with the condom breaking.
Also, giving birth can fucking kill you.
Am I being trolled?
>>68661200
Autism
>>68659006
Because there is something called accountability. If woman has sex and is impregnated, then she should give birth to the child. The fetus is a genetically unique human that will develop and become sentient if given just a few weeks. I understand there are exceptions (rape, genetic defect, etc). But generally, woman get abortions because:
1. I gotz no money
2. I don't wantz it
They don't really justify taking another human life. Secondly, abortion has been directly correlated with increased child abuse. You can look it up. When abortion is legalized, child abuse always seems to increase, while restricting it led to a decrease. Abortion just devalues human lives. It's wrong
The only good point I see is that it keeps the nig population in check.
>>68659006
>Why is abortion wrong, /pol/?
Because it is murder. Literally child sacrifice to demons like moloch, baal, etc.
>>68670307
I think accidental pregnancies aren't as detrimental as you're making them sound. If getting pregnant ruined your life then why are so many people still having kids?
>>68670464
>Moloch
This is what the Jews worship, but /pol/ thinks it's funny to meme alongside Moloch.
>>68670457
correlation does not prove causation.
obviously unplanned pregnancies happen in uneducated communities, and obviously child abuse happens more in uneducated communities.
herp derp abortions cause child abuse
>>68670771
>herp derp durrr
Did you even look it up yourself, dumbass? Countless articles directly outline why it's the case
>>68670008
It's often not outright said but instead taken as given, especially in older works where the concept was more cemented in society.
It's pretty simple though if you think about it. Objective morality is the idea that there is one perfect moral code and it lies outside man, as such that code overrides personal thought on the subject. This underpins the rule of law whereby everyone lives by a certain set of instructions, whether they agree or not. This is also reflected in law in that changes to the law are still built off of arguments built on common base of morality. If no particular morality is more valid than anyone elses is true, then for this to be the cse with the rule of law becomes a joke, and the law itself when no longer based off of a common understanding of morality becomes a mish-mash of whatever the advocate feels like that may well contradict another advocates. They may contradict each other, but as both are equally valid, both may become law so long as they can marshal enough bullshit in support of it.
>>68670645
because they're at a point where they want to, lol. that's usually after a degree and a job and a committed partner.
tfw master of knowing what life as a single mother is
It's murder but I'd rather be dead than unwanted.
>>68670941
Sorry, that was terribly written, but I hope it was understandable at least.
>>68670941
>It's often not outright said but instead taken as given
>my misinterpretation of philosophy is correct even if no one actually says it like I said they do
Yeah, no.
>t's pretty simple though if you think about it. Objective morality is the idea that there is one perfect moral code and it lies outside man
Let's get this argument straight. There were no universal truths except those found "outside of man?" Then everything covered in Confucianism is wrong even when it covers numerous equivalent concepts?
>>68670926
no, because i'm not wasting my time on the retarded idea that abortions cause child abuse.
you know what prevents your child you don't want from being beaten?
not having him in the first place.
>>68670457
So where does male accountability come into place in your view?
>>68659006
Women's Feelings end where my Penis begins.
>>68663008
No. Children are property of their parents unless and until they are capable of providing for their own needs.
Property rights demand responsibility use in any civilized society. This is why we jail parents who neglect or abuse their own children. Were dependent children not the property of someone bigger than themselves, they would be have no rights whatsoever, just like a fetus.
>>68671217
>There were no universal truths except those found "outside of man?"
In this context yes. This is the difference between subjective (personal opinion) and objective (a rock, is a rock, is a rock when if you call it a chicken).
I'm not saying that it is correct, just that it is assumed to be.
>>68671366
>Children are property of their parents unless and until they are capable of providing for their own nee
[citation needed]
I take it you've never heard of any case in which a child protective service took a child from a negligent or abusive parent?
>>68671451
even if*
>>68671226
>You're so dumb, but I'm not going to do the research myself because HURRRRRRR
Nice logical fallacy, namefag.
http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionkeyissues/childabuselink/
I know it's hard, but use your brain and consider that abortion may influence child abuse rather than just saying I'm wrong without doing research yourself , moron.
>>68671451
>In this context yes.
I provided a counter-example which you failed to address. I'm left to assume you have rejected it out of hand.
>>68671551
>>You're so dumb, but I'm not going to do the research myself because HURRRRRRR
That is a grave mischaracterization of his post. He isn't interested in going off on a wild goose chase and it isn't his obligation to prove or disprove another anon's assertion.
>>68671619
The west is not built on Confucius.
>>68659006
Because it's murder. If someone tied a super-magnet around your neck and a super magnet around someone else's neck with an opposite charge, and stuck you together, you wouldn't say "Oh it's totally not murder if one of them kills the other and cuts off their head in order to separate since it's convenient".
>>68671746
>wild goose chase
It's not very hard to type "Abortion and child abuse" and read articles. Wew
>not his obligation
He is discounting my point without making an effort to understand why I might be wrong. All he said was "correlation does not equal causation," but they may actually linked in some form
>>68671816
>The west is not built on Confucius.
No claim was made that it was. Only that your assertion of "outside of man" is based upon cherry-picking your philosophy. It is clear that there is truth to found not only "outside of man." We could debate of how information was controlled by the church during the dark ages, which the east didn't suffer from, but that would be a tangential argument.
>>68672041
>It's not very hard
Where did I claim it was hard? Arguing a straw man?
>He is discounting my point
I have to disagree as I believe he is rejecting your point partly based upon its lack of support.
>>68672041
Oh, and I should point out nothing in this post justifies the intentional mischaracterization of his post. Merely because you don't like the form of his argument does not absolve your refusal to address its content.
>>68672133
I am not trying to argue whether or not objective morality is legitimate (indeed I have earlier stated that I can't and that's the problem), just that it was the working assumption on which western society is built. Confucius may well have a point, but that's irrelevant in this context.
>>68671551
>http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionkeyissues/childabuselink/
>In the first 10 years after abortion was legalised in America however, child abuse increased by over 500 percent.
I really enjoy the source they didn't provide for this.
Considering it's the basis of the article, I'd love for you to find the stats.
>>68672387
>I am not trying to argue whether or not objective morality is legitimate
Let me get this straight. You asserted:
>Our civilisation is based off of an assumption of objective morality
Now admit you raised a point that you do not even consider legitimate?
Or are you trying to get out from under the burden of supporting your assertion?
>>68671217
>There were no universal truths except those found "outside of man?" Then everything covered in Confucianism is wrong even when it covers numerous equivalent concepts?
The ancient Chinese (including Confucius himself) were strict monotheists, like the ancient Jews, you nitwit.
>>68672223
I encourage you to read the meme article I had to skim just now.
There's a woman who apparently beat her kid to death because she had an abortion. Because society frowns upon it so much she killed her kid.
This, and many other colorful stories, is what makes up his argument.
wew.
>>68672223
>Where did I claim it was hard?
By calling it a wild goose chase. It's not very wild. It takes 5 seconds to open an article
>lack of support
>articles
Not going to type out an essay to prove my point when others can get all the info themselves. I even provided one article to at least get the wheels rolling
>>68659006
Because man has the same rights to embro that woman has.
If you are disagree - you are bisocum and herring whore.
>>68672742
>By calling it a wild goose chase.
Wrong. That was not a conclusion based upon difficulty but upon a disbelief of likelihood of truth. Or to put it in another way, only fools believes the words that comes from complete strangers.
>Not going to type out an essay to prove my point when others can get all the info themselves.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>>68671366
>Children are property of their parents unless and until they are capable of providing for their own needs.
I've never heard of this anywhere
Children are cared for by their parenta or guardians and responsive for their well being
No where is ownership ever implied
Humans can't be property
>>68672742
>Not going to type out an essay to prove my point when others can get all the info themselves.
blast me for not going on a crusade to prove your idiotic point then refuse to argue your point because muh google
you're flat out retarded son and your existence is proof abortion should be legal
>>68672633
No, I am stating that the working assumption was proven to illogical after the enlightenment weakened god's presence in the world by giving mundane explanations for things and that this left the structures based on the concept twisting in the wind. They survive to this day merely due to necessity and not thinking too hard about it, but are freely open to attack by those that do.
>>68672440
My problem isn't with the evidence itself but the egotistical proposition that anyone should believe an anonymous who posts on /pol/. I have no beef with the context of the discussion only its form. This should have been evident when I directly quoted and posted against "he called me stupid" idiocy.
Be man and be pro-abortion = faggot-worm's tier.
Fuck off.
>>68673062
>No [I do not consider an argument I raised was legitimate]
I am no longer taking a part in this farce.
Anybody here against abortion because you think it's murder but for abortion because of nigger population control?
>>68673031
>going on a crusade
Man, using the internet and reading must be really hard for you.
And you didn't necessarily disprove my point in any way. All you said was "correlation does not equal causation," then you bitched about how you won't do the research yourself and that you won't waste your time, but okay
I nonironically hope that all the brainwashed liberal cucks will be replaced by mexicans.
>>68659006
>abortion isn't murder
>person stabs pregnant woman to death
>gets 2 murder chargers
>>68673251
Don't be so rigid. The necessity of a concept doesn't necessarily rely on your ability to logically ground it.
For example, many would argue that religion is necessary for what it provides people, but god himself is largely logically unsustainable.
>>68673413
>>68672440
i'm going to make this simple for you:
find the stats or argue your point you dumb nigger
>>68659006
>their body?
Is it a woman or a plant, kurwa?
>>68659006
Because their decisions affect the country's budget?
>>68673524
Intent matters in crime
And autonomy is also a factor
Fuck Canada with their abortion policy. Anglo occupants.
>>68673579
>The necessity of a concept doesn't necessarily rely on your ability to logically ground it.
You openly admit that an argument you raised is illogical and yet you continue to expect me to address it? Are you insane?
>>68673413
Я бы пocмoтpeл кaк бы ты читaл нa мoём c языкe. C чeгo ты, блять, вooбщe взял, чтo paзгoвapивaeшь c нэйтив-cпикepoм?
>>68674059
*нa мoём языкe
>>68673878
>Are you insane?
Heh. I do sometimes question it.
>You openly admit that an argument you raised is illogical and yet you continue to expect me to address it?
It's based in human needs and through that society's needs. As humans are not purely logical creatures, some of those needs are too not entirely logical. We live in an illogical universe and sometimes that means embracing it for the betterment of the human condition.
>>68674059
Translate:
I'd like to watch how you will read in my language. For what the fuck you'd decided that your are talking with a native speaker?
>>68659006
>contents of their own body?
If it's my child, I do have a say in that matter. Or at least I should.
>>68674341
Ruskiy brat, zdorovo
>>68674309
Hello, Richard Dawkins.
Also true atheist is a far right person. Liberals aren't atheists, because they are cult followers.
>>68674309
>It's based in human needs and through that society's needs.
Are you asking me to disregard the fallacious results because of its underlying cause? That's like discussing how computers work on the decimal scale because of electricity.
So you guys are the first ones I told. My roommate just told me he might have got his crazy bitch ex gf (who I hate) pregs. I have never been more pro abortion than I am in this moment.
>Why is abortion wrong, /pol/?
Because it denies personal responsibility. In the 21th century, with all the contraceptive that exist, you have to be retarded to get pregnant by accident.
There are risks for fertility of women.
It costs money to the healthcare system in socialist shitholes.
If allowed easily women will just use it as a form of casual "contraception" rather than a last resort in special cases (like rape, or if the baby will be sick, or if the mother could be at risk).
From a medical point of view, "casual" should be banned because it goes against Hypocrate oath.
>>68674698
"casual" abortion should be banned*
>>68674592
>Are you asking me to disregard the fallacious results because of its underlying cause?
I'm not asking you to do anything, simply that in my view the logic getting a bit fuzzy at the peripheries is sometimes necessary to not go completely crackers.
>>68674906
>in my view the logic getting a bit fuzzy
You admitted that it was illogical not that it was a bit fuzzy. Are you now backpedaling?
>>68674548
Дoбpый вeчep
>>68674698
> In the 21th century, with all the contraceptive that exist, you have to be retarded to get pregnant by accident.
TIL condoms don't break, oral birth control can't fuck up, IUDs are freely available to everyone, and rape doesn't happen.
>If allowed easily women will just use it as a form of casual "contraception" rather than a last resort in special cases (like rape, or if the baby will be sick, or if the mother could be at risk).
Source required. This argument is complete bullshit to me.
>It costs money to the healthcare system in socialist shitholes
Valid point. What about self paid abortions?
>>68675033
It's logical in situ, in that this illogical assumption is necessary to maintain the mass delusion that keeps society trundling forwards. I assume you too would quite like things such as the rule of law to remain?
>>68670307
I was reading through this thread thinking that this was an elaborate troll.
If you think sex should only be reserved for procreation only then you're a fucking virgin or mentally ill.
Abortion should be 100% legal for anyone. If you think you have the right to control what someone does to their own body then you probably live in a conservative shithole.
>hurr abortion is murder
A fetus is not a sentient being, is not living on its own, and is a parasite living inside a carrier. That person it is inside has every right to evacuate it if they so choose.
>>68670280
A fetus is not the same as an 8 year old child you delusional faggot.
>>68661125
Do you guys really tell about every girl you hooked up with?
>>68659006
>contents of
Finally conceded that semantic point I see.
>>68659006
I personally don't care about it. The type of women that would consider this type of procedure usually would lack the ability to raise a child.
It's allowing liberals to thin their own heard, and I see nothing wrong with preventing a future socialist/blm member/ledit fag/ect.
>>68675402
>It's logical in situ
Yeah, you are backpedaling. It's is illogical except when it suits your position.
Just like when your misinterpretation of "philosophers" say what you say even though they don't actually say it.
Logic and facts are clearly wasted on your closed mind. You even deny your own words so I don't see how mine can have anything but even less effect.
>>68675479
>A fetus is not a sentient being
No, but it will be if given a few weeks. If a pregnant women is murdered, isn't that 2 murder charges?
>Parasite
Liberal degeneracy strikes again. A fetus is not a parasite. They are the same species, a fetus is formed in the mother, and pregnancies are relatively safe. . The fetus is not invading. And doesn't pregnancy actually have health benefits for the mother?
>>68675694
I'm not back-pedalling, I'm just attempting to work within the inherent contradictions present in our world in order to work towards my similarly illogical goal of me and everyone else surviving it for as long as I can.
>>68659006
Abortion isn't wrong, it should be encourage among the minorities and less desirables. Population control is very important when dealing with unsavories.
>>68675243
>TIL condoms don't break, oral birth control can't fuck up, IUDs are freely available to everyone
You don't need all of this. Just pull out when it comes, just to be sure.
>and rape doesn't happen
Rape is a special case for which I don't mind abortion. For the mother and the potential child, the mother will be reminded of our suffering everytime she sees her child, and the child will risk having a shitty life because of having a single mother. Rape is already something terrible of a woman, the least is that she can choose whether she wants to have the child or not.
>Source required. This argument is complete bullshit to me.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1238612/Girls-using-abortion-birth-control.html
>Valid point. What about self paid abortions?
I don't give a shit. But any doctor doing this should have their license removed. Pregnancy isn't a disease. If the mother wasn't raped or isn't at risk regarding her health, nature should just follow its course. That's what you get when you're an irresponsible slut.
>>68676158
>Because we sometimes cannot define certain human actions by logic we cannot discuss what we do know with logic
Yeah, no. Wasn't it you that brought up philosophers? Now you're trying to get out of using the same system that philosophy functions upon when it doesn't suit your position?
>>68676122
>>68673611
>>68672440
Oh you're back.
You find those stats, nigger? I hear google isn't hard and there's tons of research on the subject. Should be easy for you.
>>68676122
Parasite: An organism that lives in or on another organism(its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
I don't believe that murdering a pregnant woman should be 2 murder charges.
>>68676480
Which aspect of philosophy doesn't suit my position that there are illogical aspects of this world that need to be somehow dealt with?
>>68659006
Abortion is wrong because it gives women options.
>>68676366
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1238612/Girls-using-abortion-birth-control.html
> Nearly 1,500 of the 19,000 girls under 18 who had a termination last year had previously undergone one earlier abortion for an unwanted pregnancy – and in at least one case a teenage girl had her eighth abortion.
> Department of Health data for 2008 reveals 74 teenagers had their third abortion and a further 15 girls under the age of 18 had previously had between three and six earlier abortions.
I don't think 10% of only teenagers having two abortions and less than 1% having three is a good indication of abortion being used as a contraceptive.
>You don't need all of this. Just pull out when it comes, just to be sure.
You're right.
Overall I disagree with you but your points are articulated well and i can't find many faults with them. Agree to disagree.
abortion is one of the few things keeping the black population down. Anyone opposed to abortion is pro-Black
Abortion is undeniably morally wrong.
The fact that /pol/ in general support it because it indirectly leads to reduction of minority populations is unrelated to the fact that it is morally wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMwkQVpy98A
>>68659006
>why is killing a baby wrong?
Not her body.
>>68676817
Whoops. Damn I screwed that one up bad.
>Which aspect of philosophy
Aspect? I thought I was clear in stating it was the methods or the system that philosophy functions upon.
>As a method, philosophy is often distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its questioning, critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.
Did you bring up philosophers and philosophy only to disregard logical and rational argument when it no longer served your position?
>>68677258
If you can find me a better one that doesn't logically end with a descent into chaos and death then I will gladly take you up on it.
Abortion's not wrong
If someone wants to have an abortion let them
If someone doesn't want to have an abortion let them
You got pregnant? You're fucking problem now. Either you take care of it, you /take care of it/, or you get someone to take it from you.
>>68677526
>Did you bring up philosophers and philosophy only to disregard logical and rational argument when it no longer served your position?
I don't disregard them. Their logic is impeccable. I just don't like where it ends. I view logic as a means to an end, a way to separate the truth from the bullshit, but not the end in itself.
