Abortion is inherently criminal and violates right to life prove me wrong.
>>80804838
It's the best crime control we have.
>>80804838
If it's "inherently criminal", why are there ways to do it legally?
>>80804838
Kills niggers
>>80804838
If you're talking about the Declaration of Independence, 'right to life' clearly has exceptions, otherwise self defense would be illegal.
>>80804838
Fetuses don't have rights, they are not autonomous, they rely solely on the mother to stay alive.
The life of a mother has more value than an underdeveloped ball of cells. Sure, the ball of cells has potential for more value, but as it stands, it has none.
If a fetus has a "right to life" then so does your sperm. They are both alive on the same level. Stop fapping, you're murdering innocent sperms.
>>80805568
Sperm is genetically an extension of its owner, not an autonomous lifeform. A fetus is genetically distinct from both parents.
I always wondered if we had a hypothetical procedure to transport a fetus into an artificial womb, and this procedure was 100% safe (thus safer than both childbirth and abortion), would it be an acceptable alternative to abortion?
>>80805905
There's already enough gray area when it comes to sperm donation, both legal and moral, that there would need to be a ton of new laws drafted and tested before that would be acceptable.
>>80805568
That is pretty much the same as newborn babies Straya
>>80806075
What's immoral about preventing harm?
This is likely to become a reality within our lifetimes. I'm interested to see how such technology is going to be received, because I think the arguments just cloud the true motivations here. My suspicion is that it isn't really anything to do with rights of bodily autonomy, but rights of convenience. If we can't just dispose of the "mistake," then the women are stuck with the consequences of their actions - and we just can't have that.
>>80805905
Then there is the problem of who is going to take care of the child? I guess during development the parents could absorb the cost of keeping the fetus growing, but what if abortion was because they can't afford to spend money on a child at all?
Who then pays for the development of the fetus?
>>80806611
And what of the consequences of the actions of the man? She didn't just impregnate herself.
>>80806628
So you're saying we should just terminate life for convenience? Now we're being honest. Now lets discuss euthanasia. Not to mention other undesirables who are just a burden on society.
>>80806611
You're missing my point. There's legal precedence that sperm donors can be sued for child support. We don't need another wrench in that system before we've sorted out the system we actually have in place now.
>>80806796
You see there used to be social conventions against this (ie. shotgun weddings).
>>80806796
Men are already fully accountable. Women decide what happens, men are forced to pay for it. This would just equalize accountability. Men can't just surrender their rights and oblations to children they do not want but the mother does. They have to pay either way, whether they wanted to become parents or not.
>>80804838
Life isn't precious, faggot.
Stop crying over fetuses that you didn't make.
>>80804838
I can't because you're not wrong, except maybe the criminal part.
Abortion is the legalized killing of your own child.
the "right" to life doesn't exist
next
>>80807217
yes, it is, which is exactly why self defense is a natural right
I think you should get an additional coupla years after birth to determine whether you think the kid is gonna be a shithead.
>>80806819
Nothing wrong with euthanasia, it's already in the process of being completely legal in some states in Australia.
The thing about euthanasia is consent from the patient.
"Undesirables". Families that really don't want to deal with an "undesirable" simply won't. There are hundreds, thousands, of homeless people with mental illnesses. They don't need to be killed off just because they got unlucky.
A fetus is not the same as a child. A fetus has no thought, no memory.
And what of rape? I'm sure you've heard this one before. But not just obvious rape, what about consensual sex that turns into "I'm going to cum inside of you" "No, don't" "But it feels so good" And then he does it anyway.
If men just controlled themselves, there would literally never be an unwanted baby. Except for the 1% from failed condoms and birth control. I've had sex with 2 different women, I never used a condom with them ever. I just didn't cum inside of them when they weren't on birth control. It's not that hard.
I have no doubt that you don't actually want to consider my point, you just want to prove me wrong or w/e so I'm leaving now.
>>80807892
> They don't need to be killed off just because they got unlucky.
Why not? We're already killing because of inconvenience. Why should I as a taxpayer be paying for people living on welfare all their lives? That money could be going to public services for people who actually contribute.
If we carry this abortion justification to its logical conclusion, we can start purging society of all the burdens with a clean conscience. Utilitarianism doesn't discriminate.
> A fetus is not the same as a child. A fetus has no thought, no memory.
There is no difference between a fetus and a newborn. It's an arbitrary distinction. They're both genetically unique individuals. They're both genetically human. They're both alive. Ergo, killing either is killing human life.
>If men just controlled themselves, there would literally never be an unwanted baby.
The same can be said for women.
I don't see anything ethically wrong with abortions before the first signs of brain activity.
