[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Abortion
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /adv/ - Advice

Thread replies: 353
Thread images: 24
File: image.jpg (64 KB, 526x701) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
64 KB, 526x701
I'm about to have an abortion at Planned Parenthood and I was wondering, when I'm about to take the first abortion pill, will I have privacy? Or will they at least give me some time to take it?.
>>
>>16801675
You don't take the pill there. You take it at home.
>>
>>16801678
not true.

it goes down like this.
first you get one medication. it's a hormon that will make your body shut down the pregnancy. you HAVE to take this pill in front of your doc. they need to make sure that YOU took it. (otherwise you could get it and bring it somebvbody else).
then you go home. after 3 days you go back and you get another mediaction that will cause contractions. it wil lhurt like a motherfucker and you will bleed A LOT. you stay at the shospital for a few hours, till the "baby" is out. they will check that. you will have to show them your panty liners and you are only allowed to pee inside a pot.
they will check your blood pressure from time to time and you might get pain killer.
after that, you will get an ultrasound to make sure everthing is gone. you can go home then and llikely have check up a few weeks later.
>>
>>16801678
Depends on the laws of the state. Some states require that the pill be taken at the clinic. Yes, you will have privacy, OP.
>>
>>16801696
>Yes, you will have privacy
when i had my abortions i never had absolute privacy. i was in a room with other women.
>>
>>16801694
>after 3 days you go back and you get another mediaction that will cause contractions.
Not in my state.
Both pills were supplied at once with instructions given for how to take them, 3 days apart. Agree with contraction pain description 15/10. Huge blood loss. Then it's over.
>>
>>16801701
Obviously it differs on the exact type of procedure, the laws of the state, and how the clinic operates. Sometimes even your own mindset at the time of abortion makes a difference too. Some women feel so alone even though they never had true privacy. Some people like you believe you never had "absolute privacy".
>>
>>16801737
having privacy and feeling alone are two entirely different things.
first time i felt absolutely abandoned. second time there was a very caring nurse (probably also because i had to have an abortion because of medical reasons, not just because i fucked up). it made me feel way better.
>>
You should commit suicide instead.
>>
>>16801827
maybe you hould fuck off to r9k instead
>>
>>16801675
Don't do it yet op think about it more
>>
>>16801832
nah, she should do it. i had both, an abortion and an unplanned child. you will feel less shitty about te abortion. raising a kid under such conditions is just not fair
>>
>>16801832
I did think about it. My family is putting huge pressure on me to keep it even though I'm only 19. Saying they'll call the cops if I do and arrest my boyfriend or some bullshit because it's "illegal". They're very religious. So I flew to MA to meet my partner and get this done here. We're from the U.S btw. But yeah, I can't have a kid now. Don't even know if I want one in general.
>>
>>16801832
Literally the only thing I think about is "oh, maybe this baby will be cute". And if I'm thinking about only that, then no. I can just hold someone elses baby or something haha.
>>
Do adoption maybe your child will do something great
>>
>>16801857
Yup, you are very mature anon. You'll be good. Stand your ground. 19 is too young. make your bf come with you for emotional support. It helps a lot. Especially if he truly cares about you
>>
>>16801701
> abortions
> s

Plural? You're fucking disgusting.
>>
>>16801946
Your mother is fucking disgusting for not aborting you. Hope she gets cancer.
>>
>>16801969
I do too, because she's a piece of shit. Nice fucking meme, kid.
>>
>>16801830
Wrong insult you child murdering psychopath
>>
>>16801837
>raising a kid under such conditions is just not fair
Yeah you're right, death is preferable. Why haven't we slaughtered the homeless yet? Their lives just aren't fair.
>>
>>16801976
They aren't fair to the mother.
I've got a job. If my partner forced me to quit my job to raise kids, which is something I don't want to do, I would beat the life out that piece of shit kid.

A child is a lot of time and expenses one shouldn't be forced to take on if they don't want. When unwanted or not gotten in the right conditions t's a cause of pain and suffering and it's the mother's right to protect herself and get rid of it.
>>
>>16801985
Yeah and it's not fair that poor people exist and we have to support others with welfare, so why don't we slaughter all of them?
I mean it's our right to protect ourselves from that unwanted burden like you said, correct?
>>
>>16801675
You won't have any privacy in hell.
>>
>>16801991
/thread
>>
>>16801989
I don't have to deal with the poor personally or waste an unacceptable for me sum of my money for them.
>>
>>16801675
Sure, it kind of hurts to read that you're doing this, but I applaud you for being responsible. Too many people have children they can't raise, and those kids end up having terrible lives and grow up to make other people's lives worse. Thank you for being mature enough to do this. In a way, you might actually be granting the child a type of mercy.

Don't worry about privacy. It'll be over quickly. You're brave enough to make the choice to go to PP, a few peeping eyes can't hurt you, love.
>>
>>16801999
Oh really? Your taxes going into welfare programs aren't an unnecessary burden? That money could be going to a bunch of other things, but instead it's burdening you for other people. According to your logic, it's fine to kill the source of that burden.
Also, why can't we be justified in killing our relatives or friends that burden us in some way? Why is it objectionable to kill your children at any time in their life, I mean they're a burden and if you decide you don't want them what's wrong with chopping your 14 year old up and throwing it away? Hell, it's not even a fully developed human yet.
>>
>>16801999
This.
With the poor the burden is collective, so it's only a small deal because a small input from many makes a big input in the end.
Whereas with a baby it's personal, you're expected to give all the input yourself even though it's too much to ask of you and didn't want this burden in the first place. An analogy here makes no sense.
>>
>>16801991
/thread
>>
>>16802008
Because you're talking about collective things while babies are just lumped entirely on the mother, retard. She's the one risking her life in more ways than one carrying a pregnancy to term. Her boss could fire her. Medical complications could arise. And even if everything goes smoothly she has to ruin her life wasting time and resources on it she does not want, destroying the quality of her own life. Adoption? Once he's an adult he will come bitch at her like the majority of adult adoptees do since they grow up defective and it's her right to protect herself from a likely loony. Do you hate women so much you want them to destroy their own lives for your idiocy?
>>
>>16802026
>She's the one risking her life in more ways than one carrying a pregnancy to term. Her boss could fire her. Medical complications could arise. And even if everything goes smoothly she has to ruin her life wasting time and resources on it she does not want, destroying the quality of her own life.
And this justifies murder? Then why is it wrong to kill people that burden me in these way or in ways similar?
>Once he's an adult he will come bitch at her like the majority of adult adoptees do since they grow up defective and it's her right to protect herself from a likely loony.
Yeah, her right to kill people to cover for her mistakes overtakes the right of a human being to life, right?
>Do you hate women so much you want them to destroy their own lives for your idiocy?
Not only is this completely fallacious, it also completely ignores that the person who's life is getting "ruined" is in that position because they're irresponsible and couldn't control themselves. How can you possibly say that it is justifiable to end a human life to cover up for your mistake, just because you want to run from what you've done and would rather keep your convenient situation?
>>
>>16802026
Jesus Christ, look at how you're talking about people who were adopted and you come here to talk about hate.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I was adopted. Fuck you.
>>
>>16802042
So much fucking this.
>>
>>16802040
>And this justifies murder? Then why is it wrong to kill people that burden me in these way or in ways similar?
Because those people aren't literal parasites leeching off you from the inside of your body, therefore you have the possibility of getting away from them if they bother you so much. Not so with a parasite literally inside you.

>her right to kill people to cover for her mistakes overtakes the right of a human being to life, right?
Her right to decent human life overtakes that of an unborn parasite. It's inside her body, she has full right to dispose of what's inside it.

>they're irresponsible and couldn't control themselves
Sure because the unexpected never happens. Rape never happens. Innocent mistakes never happen.
Fuck off with your attempts at controlling bullshit. Your mother should have aborted you.

>you want to run from what you've done and would rather keep your convenient situation
It's called exercising on your right to life. You have no right to deny her her life just because you hate women.
>>
>>16802070
>Your mother should have aborted you.

This is the kind of person we're talking to here. You tell me if you're going to take this poster's opinion seriously.
>>
>>16802070
>Because those people aren't literal parasites leeching off you from the inside of your body
Developing fetuses are not parasites. Read a biology textbook.
>Her right to decent human life overtakes that of an unborn parasite
Yes it does, but it does not overtake the right to life of an unborn human being.
>It's inside her body, she has full right to dispose of what's inside it.
Not if that results in the death of another, equally alive human being for no reason other than convenience.
>Innocent mistakes never happen.
You mean being irresponsible or too horny to care and that slaughtering your children because it's just too much work to do your job as a parent and take responsibility for your actions? Yeah, just innocent mistakes.
>Fuck off with your attempts at controlling bullshit. Your mother should have aborted you.
More fallacious bullshit. I guess I should have expected this when I started arguing with someone who has no understanding of ethics, common decency, medecine, or basic biology.
>It's called exercising on your right to life
A right that apparently is arbitrarily decided and given to whoever you deem deserving of it without any logical basis.
>You have no right to deny her her life just because you hate women.
More fallacies. There is no denial of a right to life except that of the child being killed.
>>
>>16802088
I would happily abort a baby I didn't want.
I'm very careful with contraceptives so an unwanted baby could happen only in two cases: 1) rape or 2) my partner deceiving me. >>16802040 thinks I should have my life ruined for some evil that was acted on me.
>>
>>16802095
I'm a white libertarian atheist male who was on the fence about my position on abortion, but you've moved me. I'm now fully for legislation against abortion.

Nice job.
>>
>>16802103
No, don't put words into my mouth or attack straw men.
I'm saying that murder is a completely disproportionate response and much more "evil" than being raped or deceived.
>>
>it's a babies aren't human they're parasites thread
>>
>>16802095
>Developing fetuses are not parasites.
They leech off an host and cannot survive without it. Until they can survive outside the host, they are parasites.
>Yes it does, but it does not overtake the right to life of an unborn human being.
In that case the unborn human being can find another body to be born to, since it's her right to protect the sanctity of her own body and not have unwanted things grow out of it.

>Not if that results in the death of another, equally alive human being for no reason other than convenience
Yes, even in that reason too. You cannot deny another human being right to full body autonomy just because it upsets your feelings.

>You mean being irresponsible or too horny to care and shit shit more shit
Confirmed for not knowing anything about accidental pregnancies and why they happens, always just wanting to control women's sexuality. As usual.
She is taking responsibility for her actions btw by not bringing a child she cannot provide for into this world. Those irresponsible are those who don't abort and then raise defective children because, guess what, being a parent is not a job where a company pays you and you have vacations and fixed hours and all the other shit a job has. It's sacrificing your life for another and no one has the right to demand that of anyone.

>It's called exercising on your right to life
A right that apparently is arbitrarily decided and given to whoever you deem deserving of it without any logical basis
There's more logical basis giving someone who's out of the womb right to decide what to do with their life than someone who's literally still a parasite, especially is the parasite put the human's life or quality of life in danger.

>There is no denial of a right to life except that of the child being killed
Fetuses aren't children.
>>
I'm praying for you baby. I don't know about your question. Is the guy in question coming with you?
>>
>>16802152
>They leech off an host and cannot survive without it. Until they can survive outside the host, they are parasites.
So how are they any different when they come out of the womb? Do you think women keep hunter-gathering guides in their vagina?
>>
>2016
>having an abortion
>getting preggo in the first place

You gotta be stupid
>>
>>16802121
So you're saying I should have my life ruined for an evil that was acted on me? Are you for real? That's disgusting and I refuse to accept that shit. Since I am condemned already to suffer I might as well kill that horrible baby after it's born as it's the source of all the torment and pain you would subject me to for shit I am a victim of.

>much more "evil" than being raped or deceived
How is killing an unfeeling fetus not even aware of being alive yet more evil than raping or deceiving a woman who gets to suffer everything instead?
>>
>>16802158
>So how are they any different when they come out of the womb?
They can survive, for a while. One of the favorite experiments of the Nazis was taking newborns away from their mothers to see how long could they survive. Also out of the womb someone else can take care of them, which cannot be done inside the womb.
>>
>>16802152
>They leech off an host and cannot survive without it. Until they can survive outside the host, they are parasites.
No they're not. Read a biology textbook.
>In that case the unborn human being can find another body to be born to, since it's her right to protect the sanctity of her own body and not have unwanted things grow out of it.
Protect the sanctity of her own body by killing her child that's growing inside it? It's not the child's choice to be in that position, it was put their by it's parents and killing it is doing nothing but punishing an innocent human being.
>You cannot deny another human being right to full body autonomy just because it upsets your feelings.
You can if it means doing the opposite is allowing them to slaughter others as they wish. That's why murder is generally frowned upon.
>Confirmed for not knowing anything about accidental pregnancies and why they happens, always just wanting to control women's sexuality. As usual.
Even more fallacious bullshit
>She is taking responsibility for her actions btw by not bringing a child she cannot provide for into this world.
No, she's killing a child that she refuses to care for because she screwed up. That's not being responsible, that's being a sociopath.
>It's sacrificing your life for another and no one has the right to demand that of anyone.
You are the one that put yourself in that position, and you can always put it up for adoption. You're right though, no one has the right to sacrifice the life of someone else, especially not a mother butchering her children.
>There's more logical basis giving someone who's out of the womb right to decide what to do with their life than someone who's literally still a parasite, especially is the parasite put the human's life or quality of life in danger.
No there's not, you're just incapable of proper reasoning and refuse to view this scenario objectively.
>>
>>16802152
>Fetuses aren't children.
They are literally human life.
>>16802167
>So you're saying I should have my life ruined for an evil that was acted on me?
No, stop it with the straw men. I'm saying you have no right to kill others because something bad happened to you.
>I might as well kill that horrible baby after it's born as it's the source of all the torment and pain you would subject me to for shit I am a victim of.
First of all, this is legitimately concerning from a mental health standpoint. Secondly, it's not the source of torment or pain, the source of torment or pain is the person that raped or deceived you. They are the ones deserving of punishment (though still certainly not death), not a completely innocent bystander that you decide to project all of your problems onto in order to justify murder.
>How is killing an unfeeling fetus not even aware of being alive yet more evil than raping or deceiving a woman who gets to suffer everything instead?
Ending a human life is more evil than raping or deceiving a woman. If you can't see that then there's no point in further discussion because you're incapable of understanding basic ethical conduct or viewing things from any angle other than an extremely angry, emotional one.
>>
>>16802178
I'm pretty sure life isn't judged on how well someone other than their mother can take care of them during gestation. I ask: have you ever felt the abdomen of a pregnant woman? Felt her baby kick? It's a beautiful experience. If you haven't, you're missing out.
>>
>>16802167
I think people are giving you shot because you are talking like this isn't a big deal. You simple call it a lump of cells and leave it at that.

You have every right to an abortion, sure and I even understand what you're saying but you're treating the while matter as lightly and casually as going to the mall to get your nails done.

Just my two cents and this is my first and last post regarding this topic.
>>
>>16802167
>unfeeling fetus not even aware of being alive
How do you know? Did you ask?
>>
>>16802186
No they're not
They are. Your feelings do not matter.
.
>Protect the sanctity of her own body by killing her child that's growing inside it?
Yes, since it's an unwanted alien body.

>It's not the child's choice to be in that position
Of course it's not, parasites aren't developed enough to be aware they're alive yet. Doesn't change that its existence is hurtful to the mother and the mother has the right to protect herself.
>You can
No, you can't. Her body, her choice. You have no right to control another living human being's life, and living human being is someone who's born already. Unborn people do not count as humans.

>Even more fallacious bullshit
Yeah nah. I was right.

>No, she's killing a child that she refuses to care for because she screwed up.
That's you assuming bullshit because of your hatred for women. Also, it's her right to deny care to those she does not want to give it to.

>That's not being responsible, that's being a sociopath.
You're the sociopath here who would subject people to miserable existences just because of upset feelings.

>You are the one that put yourself in that position, and you can always put it up for adoption
Again you're making it too simple. What if the baby makes her lose her means to live? What if complications arise and her life is literally in danger? You have no right to demand someone put themselves that much at risk for a literal parasite.

>a mother butchering her children
They're not children. They're unborn parasites and so long as they're inside her body it's her right to get rid of them.

>No there's not
Yes there is, and you're the incapable of proper reasoning and of foreseeing long-term consequences. Just don't abort! It doesn't matter if then you'll have 18+ years of hell, poverty and misery to regret your choice. Just adopt! It doesn't matter if you'll have a stranger in your future coming to stalk you and claim things from you. Consequences be damned, my bawww feelings are all that matter!
>>
>>16802234
shut the fuck up you fucking retard
if only stupid tests weren't unconstitutional, Obama would have never gotten elected.
>>
Tbh its not even really an abortion at this point. Better now then later.
>>
>>16802234
>They are. Your feelings do not matter.
Those aren't my feelings, those are basic biological facts. Seriously, google it or as I've suggest twice now, read a biology textbook.
>Yes, since it's an unwanted alien body.
It's an unwanted living human being. You do not have a right to kill other people out of convenience.
>Of course it's not, parasites aren't developed enough to be aware they're alive yet
This is just getting ridiculous. It's not a parasite, so this entire line is completely baseless.
>You have no right to control another living human being's life, and living human being is someone who's born already. Unborn people do not count as humans.
This is demonstrably false from an objective scientific perspective. You can say it all you want to try to justify your views, but it's the exact same thing as evolution deniers or members of the flat earth society.
>Yeah nah. I was right.
More fallacious bullshit.
>That's you assuming bullshit because of your hatred for women.
More strawmanning
>Also, it's her right to deny care to those she does not want to give it to.
Yes, but denial of care does not equal murder or the ending of a human life. Adoption is the justifiable alternative here.
>What if the baby makes her lose her means to live?
Being pregnant wouldn't cause this.
>What if complications arise and her life is literally in danger?
That is a completely separate scenario. It is morally objectionable to kill your child to save yourself, but at the same time it is reasonable from an objective viewpoint to say that if giving birth means certain death for the mother, then it is somewhat ethically defensible to abort in this situation out of nothing but absolute necessity and not convenience.
>literal parasite
Have you taken high school biology? They should have gone over this.
>hey're unborn parasites and so long as they're inside her body it's her right to get rid of them.
Again, no they're not. Read a biology textbook. They're human life.
>>
>>16802202
>They are the ones deserving of punishment (though still certainly not death)

I disagree with this. They deserve death all right. You do not decide for me.

>the source of torment or pain is the person that raped or deceived you, not a completely innocent bystander
It is my source of torment and pain too since its existence forces me to make unbearable sacrifices I am not willing to make, therefore causing me torment and pain. I should not have to suffer like that for something I did not want.

>Ending a human life is more evil than raping or deceiving a woman.
That's disgusting. I do accept it. Ending a human life can be perfectly justifiable, see euthanasia or people killing criminals to protect themselves, their families and their properties. Rape and deceit are done exclusively with the intent of evil so they are far worse than ending a human life. You are a psychopath who does not care about others.
>>
>>16801989
Poor people
>people
>fetuses aren't people
>:3
>>
>>16802234
>Yes there is, and you're the incapable of proper reasoning and of foreseeing long-term consequences.
I have completely taken long term consequences into account. Don't attack strawmen.
>Just don't abort! It doesn't matter if then you'll have 18+ years of hell, poverty and misery to regret your choice.
Adoption.
>Just adopt! It doesn't matter if you'll have a stranger in your future coming to stalk you and claim things from you
This isn't even true. You're just making up a scenario. You can cut off all ties to the child upon adoption, assuming they'd even want to find you anyway. Even if they did end up becoming your stalker by some astronomical chance, that still doesn't justify killing them. Murder is not proportionate to stalking.
>Consequences be damned, my bawww feelings are all that matter!
Every point I've made has come from a scientifically backed, ethically objective viewpoint. You're the one making emotional appeals and relying largely on fallacious arguments.
>>
>>16802271
Why are you replying point by point to an abloo bloo bloo I'm right you're wrong post? Just ignore him or call him a retard. The fucker has a beard.
>>
>>16802271

Life initself isnt important, quality is. So killing something prematurly to reduce overall suffering is reasonable.
>>
>>16802281
what an incredibly liberal arts post
>>
>>16802040
How does one mutder a bundle of cells?
My abortion was literally a fucking pea-sized glob of cells. No nervous system, bones, brain, muscles. Stop saying "baby". Late term abortions are illegal. Nobodies killing a baby. Use correct terminology and discourse please
>>
>>16802291
cells are alive you dummy
why didn't you check your biology book when anon asked?
>>
>>16802271
>muh they're not parasites
They are.

>You do not have a right to kill other people out of convenience
I have the right to kill parasites in my body.

>Being pregnant wouldn't cause this.
Yes it would. Bosses fire pregnant women. An unemplyed woman doesn't have the means to sustain herself let alone another person.

>Adoption is the justifiable alternative here
Not really, since adoption leaves the room for the unwanted parasite to come bother you years later, thus making the mother's will disrespected.

The rest is just objectively bullshit.
>>
>>16801991
hell is not real friend
>>
>>16802302
I bet you believe the wage gap is not a myth either.
>>
>>16802272
>I disagree with this. They deserve death all right. You do not decide for me
That's just stupid. To take someone's life because they violated you is disproportionate and unreasonable. Why don't we just start killing any criminal then?
>It is my source of torment and pain too since its existence forces me to make unbearable sacrifices I am not willing to make, therefore causing me torment and pain. I should not have to suffer like that for something I did not want.
No you shouldn't, but as I've stated many times, that does not justify murder. A person being raped is a terrible thing, but to end a human life that does not have an part in that morally incorrect action is even worse than the original action itself. If someone raped a man up the ass, the reasonable reaction would not be to shoot the nearest bystander in the head. That's nonsensical.
>Ending a human life can be perfectly justifiable, see euthanasia or people killing criminals to protect themselves, their families and their properties
The problem with this argument is that the criminals are at fault and are being killed because they acted in some morally objectionable way. Euthanasia is in many cases objectionable for the same reason abortion is. Comparing killing a criminal to killing an innocent human life is simply crazy.
>Rape and deceit are done exclusively with the intent of evil so they are far worse than ending a human life
So it would be worse for someone to rape you than to murder your entire family? Are you intoxicated by any chance. There's no possible way a rational, thinking human being could say that the murder of innocents is less morally objectionable than rape or deceit.
>You are a psychopath who does not care about others.
More strawmen. I'd like to point out that I'm the one arguing for the preservation of human life and that you are arguing that it is justifiable to end the lives of innocents purely out of convenience. What is more psychopathic?
>>
>>16802310
At this point I'm sure you're just being baited.
>>
>>16802296

They aren't human though. We kill cells every day. le librual mutderer tehe xD go to hell u feminist slime!!!
Literally google what abortions look like, do not use a biased source or some rare energy late term.. I'm talking typical, few weeks into pregnancy.
>>
>>16802307
I bet you would think the abortion was justified if you knew the baby would grow up to be a feminist
>>
>>16802296
Cells aren't human beings, retard.

>>16802310
To take someone's life because they violated you is disproportionate and unreasonable
You have no idea how horrific rape is, do you? Typical male. I would gladly kill my rapist, rape is the worst evil there can be.

>No you shouldn't
But you'd force me to anyway? You're contradicting yourself.

>The problem with this argument is that the criminals are at fault and are being killed because they acted in some morally objectionable way
An unwanted fetus is at fault of being unwanted. It acted in the morally objectionable way of existing when the parent did not want it to, and the parent has no way to get rid of it in its later steps without an immoral sacrifice to make.

>There's no possible way a rational, thinking human being could say that the murder of innocents is less morally objectionable than rape or deceit
An unwanted fetus is not innocent. It's not wanted. It shouldn't even exist. The fact it exists is an offense in itself and that makes it not an innocent.
>>
>>16802280
I normally wouldn't but this shit infuriates me. I don't understand how people can support murder on a large scale and I view it as a kind of ethically duty to at least try to explain to them why their way of thinking is incorrect.
>>16802281
>Life initself isnt important
There's not point in arguing with a subjective nihilist who does not acknowledge inherent value.
>>16802291
One murders a human life. Humans are a species characterized by a certain genetic makeup as are all species. The definition of life acknowledged in the sciences is "A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution" that exhibits metabolism, growth, evolution, differentiation, communication, genetic exchange, and motility on a cellular level.
Going off those two definitions for "life" and "human", abortions are by definition ending a human life.
>Use correct terminology and discourse please
See above. I'm not the one who doesn't understand the terminology here.
>>16802302
>They are
Google it if you're too lazy or poor to get a textbook.
>I have the right to kill parasites in my body.
Yes, but not human beings.
>Bosses fire pregnant women
Again, you're just establishing off the wall scenarios that aren't likely to happen in order to support your poor arguments. It is illegal for this to happen.
>An unemplyed woman doesn't have the means to sustain herself let alone another person.
Adoption.
>Not really, since adoption leaves the room for the unwanted parasite to come bother you years later, thus making the mother's will disrespected.
As explained before, not necessarily, and that doesn't justify murder even if that is the case.
>The rest is just objectively bullshit.
Oh look, more fallacious bullshit.
>>
>>16801989
Are you implyig we shouldn't abort niggers?
>>
>>16802323
Anything that remotely resembles a human would be what you would call 'late term'. Human cells are human. Human fetuses are alive. You only believe otherwise because it makes your murder easier to deal with, if you're a woman, but I'm still convinced you're a white knight nu-male.

>>16802334
We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men (and women, according to the 19th Amendment) are created (not born, creation happens before that) equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable (babies aren't aliens) rights, including life (which starts before birth you tard), liberty (for the baby and for you), and the pursuit of happiness (do you think the baby would be happy dead?)
>>
>>16802314
I must be, there's not possible way people could be this blind and unwilling to see reason.
I'm done arguing.

>>16802336
You people can kill your children all you like and lie to yourselves that it's somehow justified by an reasonable standard, but hopefully none of you are so weak as to actually block out the objective and completely logical case against abortion that's right in front of you. You're demonstrably morally evil in your murder of innoncents.
>>
>>16802344
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men (and women, according to the 19th Amendment) are created (not born, creation happens before that) equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable (babies aren't aliens) rights, including life (which starts before birth you tard), liberty (for the baby and for you), and the pursuit of happiness (do you think the baby would be happy dead?)
>written by a man who owned slaves
>>
>>16802338
>Yes, but not human beings
Fetuses aren't human beings.

>Again, you're just establishing off the wall scenarios that aren't likely to happen
Nope, I'm just presenting real life to you which you are all too happy to ignore.

>Adoption.
Once again, adoption leaves room for the unwanted parasite to come bother the parents years later, thus making the mother's will disrespected. It is fallacious and highly volatile compared to abortion and therefore less preferable and efficient.

>not necessarily
But possible. And it does justify abortion. I want to make sure the unwanted piece of shit does not bother me.

The rest is, again, bullshit.
>>
>>16802355
At that point slaves weren't men. But according to the 13th Amendment, now they are. Don't you love this country? I hope you do. If not, Germany is doing an open doors thing right now.
>>
>>16802344
>(do you think the baby would be happy dead?)

I know it would not be happy with me because I would make his life hell out of spite.
>>
>>16802365
Better than being dead.
>>
>>16802369
But it should be. I would kill it myself. It doesn't have the right to ruin my own life with its existence, and its existence is an evil against me.
>>
>>16802378
And evil should be destroyed.
>>
>>16802378
>It doesn't have the right to ruin my own life with its existence
Point to that bit in the constitution pls.Or the United States Code, though I don't think anyone has bothered to read that.
>>
>>16802162
>>16802162
this so much
>>
>>16802385
I don't live in your third world country, retard.
I can point you out to this though:

>Advocates of Roe describe it as vital to the preservation of women's rights, personal freedom, bodily integrity, and privacy. Advocates have also reasoned that access to safe abortion and reproductive freedom generally are fundamental rights. Some scholars (not including any member of the Supreme Court) have equated the denial of abortion rights to compulsory motherhood, and have argued that abortion bans therefore violate the Thirteenth Amendment:

>When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.[59]
>>
>>16802156
Yes I just got the first pill over with. He came with me, paid it for me and now we're having a late lunch :)
>>
>>16802399
>Involuntary servitude or Involuntary slavery is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.
>>
>>16802385
It is literally involuntary servitude which is illegal and a violation of basic human rights.
>>
>>16802385
13th Amendment, involuntary servitude. Eat shit, bitch.
>>
>>16802399
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers
Neat paper. Not sure about the supreme court decision. Non-leftist justices would have ruled differently, since the constitution doesn't actually guarantee a woman's right to murder their young.

>>16802422
>>16802426
>involuntary servitude
>>
>>16802429
>the constitution doesn't actually guarantee a woman's right to murder their young

It guarantees her right not to be forced to labor for the benefit of another against her will, which is wanted an unwanted pregnancy is.
>>
>>16802429
>Non-leftist justices would have ruled differently
Nope, that would have been unconstitutional.
>>
>>16802434
>the constitution doesn't actually guarantee a woman's right to murder their young

De facto it does, since the fetus forms inside the woman's body and must be therefore forcibly removed. Forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term would be forcing her to labor for another against her will and that's illegal.
>>
>>16802438
The article points out that the thirteenth amendment case was thrown out, because it is a silly case to make. They made the 14th Amendment decision, arguing that the States can't take away any rights the federal government gave them. It's a great amendment, since it means if I go to New York and yell the word nigger I could get the mayor in trouble for violating my 1st Amendment rights, but in this case it seems that the justices forgot that a woman isn't actually guaranteed a right to abortion in the constitution. It's a botch ruling. You think it isn't because you're actually for abortion you dummy.
>>
>>16802445
13th amendment is void if the person is convicted of a felony. Attempted murder is a felony. The 13th amendment case is a dumb case to make, hence why it isn't made, save for the thesis of a nu-male law student.
>>
>>16802454
>The article points out that the thirteenth amendment case was thrown out, because it is a silly case to make

I didn't know that, but in that case I must say I disagree, it makes perfect sense to me. I should not be forced to labor for the benefit of another against my will.

>a woman isn't actually guaranteed a right to abortion in the constitution

She's guaranteed a right to not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term as that would be involuntary servitude.
>>
>>16802470
Involuntary servitude is the 13th amendment case that was thrown out you dipstick. Pregnancy is only involuntary servitude in the minds of white knights and irresponsible women.
>>
>>16802460
Abortion is not attempted murder, it's a protection of the woman's right. A felony on the other hand is attempting to force someone to labor against their will. The baby is criminal of this.
>>
>>16802478
But women aren't given the explicit right to abortion in the Constitution. If the woman wasn't a victim of rape, you cannot make the case that the labor is against the woman's will, since the woman should know where babies come from.
>>
>>16802476
>Pregnancy is only involuntary servitude in the minds of white knights and irresponsible women

Ad hominem bullshit.
Involuntary servitude is being forced to labor for another against your will. Pregnancy is a form of labor and therefore unwanted pregnancy is involuntary servitude. That makes the unwanted baby a criminal and killing it morally justifiable.
>>
>>16802484
You're not exactly giving the baby due process under the law, even if its existence is a violation of the 13th Amendment, which it isn't you dumb son of a bitch.
>>
>>16802482
>you cannot make the case that the labor is against the woman's will

How do you know that? She might have been deceived, lied to by her husband or someone else of trust, been made unable to access contraceptives herself, coerced, tricked, threatened or blackmailed into unsafe sex. The possibilities are endless. And in all those cases the labor would be against the woman's will.
>>
>>16802487
>You're not exactly giving the baby due process under the law

You cannot give due process to an unfeeling undeveloped lump of cells that's a literally a piece of meat like those you find at the butcher. Logically, the mother takes priority.

>even if its existence is a violation of the 13th Amendment, which it isn't you dumb son of a bitch
Except it is.
>>
>>16802490
The crime of rape is explicitly defined in the United States code. The deception is not a crime, since the woman as a consenting adult should know better than to willingly let an untrustworthy person inside her. The lack of contraceptives could be a point if her local police station refused to give her any, and she could use that if they decided to prosecute her, but this would be the fault of the station and not the baby.
>>
>>16802012
You have no family. You have no partner. You have absolutely nobody who can help you raise your child. That saying that "it takes a village to raise a child"? Total bullshit. You're in it all alone.
>>
>>16802496
If you can't give due process, you can't hold them accountable for federal crimes. Just like you can't arrest a dog for jaywalking, or kill it without being convicted of animal cruelty.
>>
>>16801969
>How dare you question my life choices
>I hope your mother gets cancer, you should have been killed in the womb for upsetting me
>>
>>16802499
>The deception is not a crime
Except it is.

>Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions.

>The media may also refer to this type of rape as "rape by fraud",[1] "rape by impersonation" or "rape by trickery".
>>
>>16802513
>The media may also refer to
That's intro to the fucking Wikipedia article. Cite a law or fuck off.
>>
>>16802506
Therefore you are implying the unborn baby is not a person and can therefore be killed, as if it cannot be held be accountable for federal crimes since it is akin more to a dog to a human (your own example) it is also not subject to human rights for the same reason it is more akin to a dog (which is not a human being) than a human.

Also you can kill a dog without being convincted if that dog puts your existence or that of another in danger. Try again.
>>
>>16802513
>[citation needed]
The two cases listed in the article are of people who penetrated sleeping women. Of course sleeping women can't give consent. Unconsentual sex is rape. Oops I don't have a condom but I'll make sure to pull out ok sweetie ok isn't.
>>
>>16802500
Technically you are, since no one has the responsibility to look after a child except for the parents. Everyone else can just pull out fine.
>>
>>16802529
>Earlier this month, state Assemblyman Troy Singleton (D-Burlington) introduced the bill (A3908), which would create the crime of “sexual assault by fraud,” which it defines as “an act of sexual penetration to which a person has given consent because the actor has misrepresented the purpose of the act or has represented he is someone he is not.”

Therefore
>Oops I don't have a condom but I'll make sure to pull out ok sweetie ok
is rape all right. And rightfully so. A bastard that betrays his wife's trust like that deserves just punishment.
>>
>>16802543
You have no idea how US law works.
>>
>>16802527
Yes, you can kill a dog if your life is in danger, and you can abort a fetus if your life is in danger, but you're not allowed to shoot a dog for eating out of your garbage. This is implying that the unborn baby is not a person as you imply. Non-people can't be convicted of crimes or punished for them. People can, if you're willing to admit that fetuses are people so that your involuntary servitude case holds water.
>>
op i wish i was there to help you through this.

whatever happens just don't let any bullshit you, and maybe wear headphones if there are protestors to keep from hearing their bullshit
>>
>>16802534
One, just because they can doesn't mean they will. People generally don't tend to bail out on a child. Two, you said "parents". As in, plural. You know what two people are? Not alone. And three, the state has an obligation to the child and will take care of the child if you can. That's what foster care is for.
>>
>>16802545
You'd sure hope that rape wouldn't be made a crime, rapist.
>>
/adv/ is so sad today
>>
>>16802555
Looks like I win. State legislature means very little and only applies in one state... but means nothing until it is applied in court. This is where a lot of "laws" actually become a law because this is how enforcement and interpretation is established. It's also where a lot of laws go to die.
>>
>>16802555
Well as it is rape by fraud isn't a crime in the US, because under the Constitution women are citizens of the United States and are deemed responsible enough to not make stupid decisions.
>>
>>16802476
>>r9k
>>
>>16802568
But how's it wrong? You do know how the courts work, don't you?
>>
>>16802547
>This is implying that the unborn baby is not a person as you imply.
Nope, you implied that with your dog analogy.

>Non-people can't be convicted of crimes or punished for them
And people cannot be convicted or punished for killing non-people, since murder is against people and non-people do not enjoy human rights. Therefore, if you see babies as non-people, the woman has the right to remove the foreign organism from her body if she wishes so.

>People can, if you're willing to admit that fetuses are people so that your involuntary servitude case holds water.
In that case, the baby is criminal of forcing the mother to involuntary servitude, and therefore it's the mother's right to abort it.

>>16802552
>just because they can doesn't mean they will
But they can. You're reasoning on a just world fallacy. That's not how the real world is.

>You know what two people are? Not alone
Explain single mothers then. The father can just run away or deny fatherhood.

>the state has an obligation to the child and will take care of the child if you can
That just creates more social problems further on as foster care children are full of psychological issues, more likely to become criminals and be a danger to society.
>>
>>16802593
>Explain single mothers then. The father can just run away or deny fatherhood.
No, this is not true at all. Almost all divorces are initiated by women and women are almost exclusively given custody by the courts. Men are required to pay not only child support but an amount that enables the woman to live according to her "previous lifestyle."

More often than not children are just plain taken from men. The federal government doesn't like to give fathers custody for any reason and men aren't really allowed to adopt either. The only group with significant fatherly abandonment is blacks at something like 80% of children growing up without a father. In all other groups this isn't the case at all unless the wife intentionally tries to get rid of the husband.

A lot of people reinforce the idea that single mothers are a perfectly acceptable family setup and that men contribute nothing to child-rearing, so mothers have no worries for the children and face no social backlash for doing this.
>>
>>16802565
>>16802563
>State legislature means very little and only applies in one state... but means nothing until it is applied in court

Seems like it's already applied in more than one and been applied in court too. Get on with the times, rapist,
http://rapebyfraud.com/state-by-state-information-on-rape-by-fraud/
>>
>>16802593
>fetuses are not human
>therefore they cannot be held accountable for human crimes
>but fetuses are human
>therefore they are given due process of the law and are innocent until proven guilty
>but they can't be given due process because they're not human
Can't you just admit that killing is wrong already?
>>
File: 1416507139443.jpg (101 KB, 300x269) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1416507139443.jpg
101 KB, 300x269
>>16802612
>rapebyfraud.com
>help help help he's disagreement raping me!
>he's stress raping me! i'm getting so upset and raped!
>>
>>16802550
Thank You! There were protesters and one kept following us but we just ignored them.
>>
>>16802612
>"And the act of misleading a person in order to elicit love and affection, emotional rape, is never penalized at all."
Yeah, this source sounds entirely reasonable.
>>
>>16802565
>rape by fraud isn't a crime in the US
Except it is.

>>16802611
Why are you bringing divorce in out of the blue? That's got nothing to do with abortion per se. It just outs you as a MRA shill. Married women often have abortions without being necessarily divorced.
>>
>>16802612
ignoring the fact that you just posted a wordpress site that doesn't cite sources, none of these have been tried in a federal supreme court, and if they were, this entire thing can be put to rest for being ridiculous.
>>
>>16802614
Nope. Killing fetuses is not wrong.

>fetuses are not human
>therefore they cannot be held accountable for human crimes
Therefore they also do not enjoy human rights, therefore it is legal to kill them. Do not skip that passage.

>>16802629
>>16802616
Misogynists showing their misogyny.
>>
>>16802630
You made the claim that single motherhood was caused by fathers abandoning their children. The inverse it true.

You brought it up, but I don't know what I expected, you people are insane. You'll bring up any emotionally-charged subject to claim that men are evil and women can do no wrong. Keep in mind that you're insulting all men here and by refuting your point I'm an "MRA shill" just because the reality makes women look bad. This is all politics to you, but this thread is about executing babies because you don't want to take care of them.

It would be one thing if you argued that yours and the child's life would be worse off, but you're actually just arguing that babies aren't human and that men are pigs.
>>
>>16802643
>Misogynists showing their misogyny
Okay. How does that invalidate anything we've said, though.
>>
>>16802643
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals
dumbass
>>
>>16802642
How is it ridiculous? A man who frauds a woman is a criminal and must be punished. A man who sexually frauds a woman is a rapist, since she did not give consent to the sex she actually got but to a sex different than occurred, and sex which you gave no consent to is rape.
>>
>>16802652
According to the law or according to you?
>>
>>16802652
>A man who frauds a woman is a criminal and must be punished.
That's ridiculous. since she did not give >consent to the sex she actually got but to a sex different than occurred
so is that
>>
>>16802648
So you're saying a baby is an animal and can be owned and sold as such?
>>
>>16802661
No, you were saying that they aren't "human" so they don't have any rights. This is fundamentally inconsistent with the laws on the books. Non-humans do have basic rights.
>>
>>16802661
I'm not. I am however allowed to make arguments based on viewpoints other than my own. Your views from either perspective are not right though.
>>
>>16802646
>the child's life would be worse off
Already said early in the thread.

>that single motherhood was caused by fathers abandoning their children
But that's true. They're called deadbeat fathers. The inverse is not necessarily true since a divorced father still has the right to visit his kid every given amount of times.

>>16802657
Again, how is it ridiculous? A man lies to a woman. The woman trusts she's getting a situation where sex is defined by specific characteristics, but that is not the case. Therefore what actually happened was not sex she consented to, therefore she was raped. Unless you want women not to trust men at all.
>>
>>16802662
>Non-humans do have basic rights.
Not all non-humans. Killing a dog is animal cruelty but killing a mosquito or a cockroach isn't, since those are harmful to humans. Just like an unwanted baby is harmful to the mother.
>>
>>16802673
>They're called deadbeat fathers.
This is your reason? They must exist because you have a name for them?
>The inverse is not necessarily true since a divorced father still has the right to visit his kid every given amount of times.
Not true. You don't know anything about divorce courts. Stop making shit up just because you heard about it once or twice on television. Just copying what other people say doesn't make it true.

Single motherhood is caused by women pushing away men. The only exception is in black communities where fleeing fatherhood is the trend. It doesn't hold up anywhere else in the world.
>>
>>16802673
Or you know the woman could not open her legs to a man she doesn't trust. Or we could amend the constitution again to shelter women from those mean men who won't pull out. The end of women's suffrage is a cause worth fighting for.
>>
>>16802690
>This is your reason? They must exist because you have a name for them?

Are you seriously denying deadbeat fathers exist? You don't know anything about real life.
>>
>>16802673
This has got to be a troll. Dear God, please turn me gay.
>>
File: 1416360686384.gif (1 MB, 400x225) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1416360686384.gif
1 MB, 400x225
>>16802695
Your retort is just copying what I said?
>>
>>16801969
Ayy Lmao
>>
>>16801976
XD well when you put it that way
>>
>>16802693
>Or you know the woman could not open her legs to a man she doesn't trust

Actually fraud is most successful when it's done by someone you do trust, like your friend or your husband. Being those people trustworthy, they can deceive others more easily and better. Are you saying women shouldn't trust their husbands?
>>
>>16802202
>They are literally human life
>Unborn
>literally human life

Yeah ok. I'm a mass murderer then.
>>
>>16802702
>Are you saying women shouldn't trust their husbands?
Of course. I mean, men don't trust women, right? Right? I mean surely... Right? It's only fair, right? They start it, right? I mean, "deadbeat dads..."

Surely child support, alimony, and 50% of the breadwinner's belongings don't play into this at all.
>>
>>16802702
They should use their heads.
>it's not a safe time of the month for me
do you want the baby?
>no getting pregnant will ruin my life
is he wearing a condom?
>no but he was so nice to me promising to pull out
you dumb bitch
>>
>>16802698
I'm astonished you are this ignorant.
Pic related is a deadbeat dad, child support evader, white.
>>
>>16802713
Condoms break and can also be sabotaged, he could make little invisible holes in it to deceive her into thinking he's using protection. Or he could replace her pill with a pill that looks similar but is not her pill at all. Or he could prevent her from taking contraceptive at all by force or coercion. These are all acts of criminal intent that fall into rape by fraud and a criminal mind can think more.
>>
>>16802714
>anecdote disproves trend
Sure, sure. Ignorance.
>>
>>16802336
>An unwanted fetus is not innocent.

Women.
>>
>>16802731
Racism doesn't prove anything, r9k.
>>
File: pillpack.jpg (360 KB, 2048x1536) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pillpack.jpg
360 KB, 2048x1536
>>16802721
>Or he could replace her pill with a pill that looks similar but is not her pill at all.
Birth control pills come in blister packs. How you would possibly replace that without it being readily apparent is completely beyond me.
>>
>>16802735
>shut up you rapist! you're a rapist! get your hatefacts out of here you rapist!
>you're a racist! i bet you just hate black people, you're a deadbeat dad and a racist! everyone, don't listen to his opinions!
>no, stop, don't listen to him no no no no no he's wrong please give me free shit
>>
>>16802733
If you want to see it as a human being, it is criminal of forcing the mother to involuntary servitude.
>>
>>16802741
Keep them coming, screencapping these posts. You heard it from a woman folks, a fetus is a criminal.
>>
>>16802738
Simple. She takes out her pill to take, then goes in another room to take a glass a water to take her pill with trusting her husband isn't a criminal, as is logical and reasonable to do. While she's filling her glass, he replaces her pill with one apparently identical but different in content. Thus the crime is committed, easy and simple.
>>
Why aren't you getting married and having kid yets OP? Do you want to die alone or married to a brony in your 30s?
>>
>>16802721
A woman has the right to consent to sexual intercourse with the implication that she is sensible enough to make sure these things don't happen. If a man goes through your purse and swaps your pills or pokes a hole through condoms, that's not rape, that's destruction of property. But these things shouldn't be an issue because a woman should know better than to have sex on a dangerous night, or use a condom that has been out of her sight and may have been tampered with, or take a pill that she isn't 100% sure is hers. I would draft up a flowchart if it weren't a waste of time and effort for your stupid mind.
>>
>>16802752
And what about the obviously violated package, genius?
>>
>>16802751
Well technically it isn't since it's a glob of cells and therefore not a human being, it doesn't have a nervous system, bones, brain, muscles, anything to make it human. You're the one who insisted it was, but if it is, then it is also subject to human laws and human laws make it a criminal due to the involuntary servitude it subjects its mother to.
>>
>>16802752
And she doesn't take the pill with her? She just leaves it out in the open lying on her nightstand while she fucks off to fill a glass and bring it back to ingest the pill? Something tells me that doesn't happen.
>>
>>16802769
I can picture it happening. Apparently having sex with a dumb bimbo is a crime both you and your child are guilty of.
>>
>>16802778
And the punishment is summary execution.
>>
>>16802768
Except its the mother who brought it to this world, and thus, using your own stupid logic here, the fetus did not ask to be brought to this world. You are bringing him involuntarily and ypu are the criminal.
>>
File: coffee.png (40 KB, 718x507) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
coffee.png
40 KB, 718x507
>>16802785
>bringing a baby involuntarily into the world is a crime
>you liferaped that baby
>you raped him alive
>he didn't consent to you activating him
>evil rapist
>>
>>16802765
>>16802763
>violated package
>She takes out her pill to take
How can there be a violated package if she takes out the pill herself?

>If a man goes through your purse and swaps your pills or pokes a hole through condoms, that's not rape, that's destruction of property
It is rape the moment the man has sexual intercourse with the woman frauding her into thinking it is a certain sexual intercourse (safe, for example) when it isn't.

>use a condom that has been out of her sight and may have been tampered with
or take a pill that she isn't 100% sure is hers
When you are married or engaged or in a long-term relationship with a man, it is reasonable and logical to expect him to be a good person and not a criminal, since normal people don't live in paranoia. If he has been deceiving you to gain your trust, the guilt is his for committing fraud. Unless you're saying women should just never trust men.
>>
>>16802769
That normally happens when you're with people you trust. Have you never left your belogings around a friend trusting him not to temper with them since he's a normal, good, civilized person? Or are you paranoid about everyone?
>>
>>16802796
No, we're saying a woman should take care of her shit, glasses.
>>
File: bernie-sanders.jpg (34 KB, 577x374) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
bernie-sanders.jpg
34 KB, 577x374
>>16802796
All penetrative sex is rape, you fucking shitlord.
>>
>>16802796
My point was that usually people take the pill out of the package right at the moment they are going to take it. People usually already have the water to swallow before taking the pill.
>>
>>16802799
Again how is trusting someone who should be trustworthy not taking care of one's shit? You're implying women should be paranoid with men since men cannot be trusted.
>>
>>16802798
TAKE CARE OF YOUR SHIT
It's not hard. If you really don't want a baby, you should guard your contraceptives with your life. Or you know if you love the guy enough to trust him with your shit you really ought to just give him the baby because you know that's how life works.
>>
>>16802798
I have. However, I have never left a pill on the table while getting water to wash it down, even when I was alone. If I have ever not had a glass of water already with me, I have simply, you know, taken the pill with me. It's not like a pill, or even a bunch of them, are too heavy to carry around.
>>
>>16802759
I'm too young. My boyfriend and I aren't thinking about marriage at all but I wouldn't mind. I don't see myself as a mother in the future though.
>>
>>16802785
How do you know that? Did you make a poll or something?

>>16802785
Abortion easily remedies that.
>>
>>16802162
Shit happens and I just dealt with the consequences. Now to just move on.
>>
>>16802819
>I'm too young.
If you are old enough to get an abortion you are old enough to have kids.
>I don't see myself as a mother in the future though.
That doesn't even make sense. Everyone is born to have children.

It sounds like you fell for the sexual liberation meme. You're planning to just have boyfriends until 35 because 21 is "too young," right? Well this is actually a lie, people usually have children at 18-24 or never at all. Waiting is how you cause autism and major deformities.

It is normal to get married and have kids, the destruction of this practice is part of the reason people are all angry and depressed nowadays. Kids need young parents and both of them to grow up properly.
>>
>>16802821
The same way you know that the fetus 8s a criminal. I'm using your own logic.
>>
>>16801675
>can I hide the fact that Im a murderer
>>
>>16802819
Just give the child up for adoption
>>
>>16802817
>you should guard your contraceptives with your life
So you're saying men are untrustworthy.

>you really ought to just give him the baby because you know that's how life works
Ew no. That's not how life works. Just because I trust him to be a decent person doesn't mean I'm going to subjugate myself to a baby.

>>16802812
That's nice, but it can happen also by any circumstances one doesn't have the glass of water with them readily, and that isn't permission for another to commit a crime. Otherwise you're also justifying thieves and banksters by virtue of them preying on the unsuspecting.
>>
>>16802835
The fetus is a criminal by the fact it's putting the mother through involuntary labor if the mother does not want it.

That's different from a common everyday action like taking your pills, which anyone can do whichever way they want it and you're bullshitting about.
>>
>>16802847
>So you're saying men are untrustworthy.
Why are you pushing that line? If you don't trust men to not put a baby in you (which would be kind of hard since you are also a man), become gay. If you really want to have sex with men, you must be prepared to take the responsibility of childbirth, which is part of becoming an adult.
>>
>>16802847
I have no idea what you're trying to say there (also, it seems that you're not responding to the posts you're replying to there), but my point is that leaving a pill on a table instead of just taking it with you seems unrealistic.
>>
>>16802852
Sex isn't necessarily for childbirth. Sex is also for pleasure. That's why humans have always used contraceptives to avoid unwanted children and abortion when contraceptives where not available (due to people like you) or defective.
>>
>>16802847
>subjugate myself to a baby.
>Ew
>That's not how life works
This IS how life works. You learned to be disgusted with life because you want to be a child forever. This is exactly what life is about, but you never grew up.
>>
>>16802866
I bet you eat a lot of cake and alcohol.
>>
>>16802866
>why humans have always
Because the world began in 1960.
>>
>>16802852
>take the responsibility of childbirth
HAHAHAHAH
No. The way you say this makes me believe that's all you believe a child is: a consequence.
>>
>>16802864
You don't know how real life works then.

>>16802852
>Why are you pushing that line?
Because it's what you're saying.


>>16802867
>This IS how life works
Nope. Just because it's how it works for you doesn't mean it's how it works for me. If you weren't a tantrum-throwing brat you'd understand that.
>>
>>16802866
>Sex is also for pleasure.
It literally isn't.
>>
>>16802885
>Food isn't necessarily for sustenance. Food is also for pleasure.
>That's why I eat what gives me pleasure and my diet is killing me.

Pic related, it's your sex life.
>>
>>16802881
Women induced and prevented childbirth much earlier than that! In the middle ages women would drink pennyroyal tea to induce abortion. Medieval Muslim physicians documented detailed and extensive lists of birth control practices, including the use of abortifacients, commenting on their effectiveness and prevalence. The use of abortifacients was acceptable to Islamic jurists provided that the abortion occurs within 120 days.
In English law, abortion did not become illegal until 1803. English folk practice before and after that time held that fetal life was not present until quickening. "Women who took drugs before that time would describe their actions as 'restoring the menses' or 'bringing on a period'."
>>
>>16802897
Nice citations.
>>
>>16802889
It literally is. That's why men and women feel pleasure and have orgasms.
>>
>>16802900
You can look it up yourself, it's on wikipedia.
>>
File: racism.jpg (84 KB, 917x672) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
racism.jpg
84 KB, 917x672
>>16802897
>Medieval Muslim physicians
There is no such thing as a Muslim physician. This actually happened in the Christian Middle East which was conquered by Muslims.

>>16802901
>orgasms
>literally the exchange of genetic material
>>
>>16802901
Why do you think semen comes out of a man's penis when he orgasms? Or a woman's cervix pushes outward when she does? What the fuck have you been doing all your life?
>>
>>16802901
Male orgasm is literally intended to impregnate. Female orgasm literally doesn't exist.
>>
>>16802906
>denying history and basic biology facts
R9k virgins sure are getting more and more pathetic each day.
>>
>>16802904
oh
>>
File: my own criteria.png (40 KB, 825x635) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
my own criteria.png
40 KB, 825x635
>>16802915
>history isn't real
>biology isn't real
>babies aren't real
>this is why i have sex with literal armies of men at a time and eat ice cream and cookies every day
>>
>>16802911
>Female orgasm literally doesn't exist
My clit says otherwise.
>>
>>16802922
Let me remind you that the Muslims you love so much actually remove the clitoris of girls when they are born. This is the female version of circumcision.

I bet you think male circumcision is "normal" and "fine" though, right?
>>
>>16802909
Because sex also can have reproductive functions, but not necessarily. That's why humans have sex for pleasure too.
>>
File: grief.jpg (16 KB, 333x322) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
grief.jpg
16 KB, 333x322
>>16802906

I dont know about that, but he probably is right about the birth control.

Afterall, theres even data bout the Mexicas (Aztecs) consuming a plant that went by the name ''Barbusco'' or ''Barcasco'', along that they even had other methods for birth control, since it was a key component in their society.

We're talking 1500's here.

So hes probably right.
>>
>>16802931
>Let me remind you that the Muslims you love so much

What?
I don't know what you're talking about. All thread you've been doing nothing but spout ad hominem bullshit at me accompanied with le epic meme pictures.
>>
>>16802932
And that proves that pleasure is the point of sex... how exactly?
>>
>>16802935
But that has nothing to do with what I said. I could comment on Greek and Roman birth control but you'd have no idea what I'm talking about. But of course, we remember them as frilly gays whose moral degeneration and sexual liberation cause the downfall of one of the greatest civilizations in history.

>>16802939
>spout ad hominem bullshit
No, I've argued against your points. If your only defense is FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY without any proof then you're pretty obviously wrong.
>>
>>16802943
The fact that people have sex for pleasure and not for children.
>>
>>16802943
That's the same person who spent 30 posts insisting that human conception is a violation of the 13th Amendment I hope you remember.
>>
>>16802948
That doesn't prove anything other than people are misguided on what their genitals are for.
>>
>>16802948
>doing that is wrong
>but i do it! that proves it's right!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
>>
>>16802947
>No, I've argued against your points. If your only defense is FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY without any proof then you're pretty obviously wrong.

You've spent half the thread saying FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY without any proof and now you whine when someone points out you're not making any sense?

>Let me remind you that the Muslims you love so much

What the fuck? Do you think citing an historical fact = loving Muslims so much?
>>
>>16802834
I can have kids but I won't. If I'm not financially stable there's just no way I'm going to have children. If I kept this thing I would have probably never moved out of my parents house and continue doing good in college.
>>
>>16802959
>>16802957
How is it wrong?
Why would it be wrong? If it were wrong, humans wouldn't have evoluted to feel sexual pleasure unrelated to procreation. I want sensible reasons not your bullshit.
>>
>>16802972
>unrelated to procreation
semen literally comes out of ones penis
do you not know what semen does?
>>
File: disgust.jpg (52 KB, 1024x1094) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
disgust.jpg
52 KB, 1024x1094
>>16802947

>you'd have no idea what I'm talking about

But I would.

>frilly gays whose moral degeneration and sexual liberation cause the downfall of one of the greatest civilizations in history

Probably. Hedonism can prove to take an important part, not only in the degeneration of the Soul, but also on Society's downfall.

Just like it happens today, and hence why you have all of these people discussing this topic.

Dumb whores/ladies hitting the other raging dudes with the umbilical cords of their failed sons.

In reality, desu senpai, this is just sad. Most of you are.
>>
>>16802947
>we remember them as frilly gays whose moral degeneration and sexual liberation cause the downfall of one of the greatest civilizations in history

Please, actual people don't care for your /pol/ bullshit.
>>
>>16802972
>sexual pleasure unrelated to procreation
It is literally related to the act of procreation. What other way of procreation have we "evoluted" into?
Sex feels good because of the evolutionary pressure to procreate. That doesn't mean that the point of sex is pleasure, it only means that the point of the pleasure is procreation.
>>
>>16802982
>actual people don't care for your /pol/ bullshit
you say in a thread about abortion
>>
>>16802982

Nigger get the fuck out and stop getting triggered so easily by words you dislike.

Grow the fuck up already.
>>
>>16802962
>You've spent half the thread saying FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY without any proof and now you whine when someone points out you're not making any sense?
Sure, provide an example. Seriously, point one example of this out to me.

>>16802966
>I can have kids but I won't.
We know, but this is because you are a whore. Going to college is basically pointless and all hires are handled through nepotism nowadays. The only exception is if you are black because they are basically required to hire you. A college degree means nothing because everyone has them and the only way employers can really distinguish between graduates is by already knowing and trusting them. Your grades don't matter, your friends do.

Even this is a moot point because having career is directly contradictory to having a family and you will die alone and unfulfilled.

>>16802982
Every time you bring them up people comment on how they were gay or how they were sexually liberated as proof that they were wise and advanced. Most people know very little about them so will ignore almost any proof they provide in general to the contrary.
>>
>>16802978
Semen comes out the penis when the prostate is stimulated by another man's penis too. Or when the penis is stimulated by a hand or a mouth or just any part of the body that's not a vagina, even though neither is a viable way to procreation.

Women's orgasm is induced by the clitoris, which is external and cannot lead to impregnation.

Are you familiar with the human body and how it works?
>>
>>16802999
Apparently you don't but you think you do so it doesn't make much of a difference whether or not I do since you wouldn't accept my word either way.
>>
>>16802999
>Semen comes out the penis when the prostate is stimulated by another man's penis too.
You're either a woman or retarded. This is caused by FORCING it out the same way pressing on your bladder causes you to pee. Liquid tends to come out when you press on a sac of it.
>>
>>16802990
>the point of the pleasure is procreation
But the most pleasurable points in the human body, the clitoris and the prostate, do not lead to procreation.
>>
>>16802995

Its probably better for her to have aborted that child.

We dont need more poor attempts of single mothers raising fuck ups.

What sort of education can you expect from this dummy to provide to her child? What life experiences? Theres nothing.

Unless she had given in adoption... but oh well its easier to flush it like shit out of your vagina I guess.
>>
>>16803004
Nope. Just because someone buttfucks you doesn't mean you will ejaculate.
>>
>>16802999
>Semen comes out the penis when the prostate is stimulated by another man's penis too. Or when the penis is stimulated by a hand or a mouth or just any part of the body that's not a vagina, even though neither is a viable way to procreation.
Sure, and I can type on my keyboard with my dick, however hard it may be. It doesn't mean that it's the intended way to do it, just that there is a way to do it wrong.

>Women's orgasm is induced by the clitoris
Not exclusively. Vaginal orgasm is achievable even without clitoral stimulation. For someone who presumably owns a vagina, you sure know little about it.
>>
>>16803014
A small amount does come out when you press on the prostate because it's literally a sac full of seminal fluid. It is produced there.

I didn't say ejaculate, I said
>FORCING it out the same way pressing on your bladder causes you to pee
>>
>>16802995
>Sure, provide an example
I already did. The whole upper half of the thread is full of you claiming FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY with no proof. Ctrl+F it.
>>
>>16803021
Yeah, provide an example. You didn't give even a single one, so do it.
>>
>>16803018
But we were talking about ejaculation and men ejaculate most powerfully when another man buttfucks them and hits the prostate dead on.
>>
>>16803005
>prostate
Not meant for external stimulation. That's why it's, y'know, an internal organ.
>clitoris
Which gets stimulated naturally during normal intercourse.
>>
>>16803023
I did. If you can't read...
Also you are avoiding the question. Why did you spout FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY when I pointed out you weren't making any sense?
>>
>>16803027
That's not even true. That does not even cause ejaculation.
>>
>>16803033
b-but muh anime called boku...
>>
>>16803031
>Which gets stimulated naturally during normal intercourse

No it doesn't. That's why women have to stimulate it themselves or tell men to perform certain specific acts unrelated to penetration to stimulate it.
>>
>>16803032
>I did.
You didn't. Stop trying to deflect. You made a claim, prove it. Point out examples.
>Why did you spout FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY
I didn't and you've declined to provide even a single example of me doing this. I get the feeling that you have no idea what a fallacy is and you're trying to avoid giving an example because you don't know.
>>
>>16803037
>No it doesn't.
Yes it does. Vaginal sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation is set up to do this.
>>
>>16803033
>That does not even cause ejaculation
Homos would like to have a word with you.

>>16803015
Eh not really. The vast majority of women cannot have an orgasm without clitoral stimulation.
>>
>>16803037
They have to stimulate it when they do degenerate positions like the fucking reverse cowgirl. Not during natural missionary.
>>
>>16803042
>Homos would like to have a word with you.
Most homos have told me that they prefer to avoid anal sex and only do oral. This is an obvious lie but so is ejaculation from anal.
>>
File: anime called boku.jpg (30 KB, 640x360) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
anime called boku.jpg
30 KB, 640x360
>>16803036
>>
File: 103987451321.jpg (30 KB, 352x344) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
103987451321.jpg
30 KB, 352x344
>>16801991
Any proof of hells existence?
>>16801994
>>16802024
samefag
>>
>>16803039
I did. As I said, if you can't read or refuse to, that's your loss. I told you: CTRL+F the whole upper half of the thread. And you still haven't replied to this:

>Do you think citing an historical fact = loving Muslims so much?

>>16803040
No it's not, because my clitoris is not stimulated at all.
>>
>>16803054
That's because your clitoris is a penis.
>>
>>16803044
That's bullshit though. Missionary doesn't stimulate shit.

>>16803045
>Most homos have told me
Proof please.
>>
File: citation needed.png (3 KB, 486x30) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
citation needed.png
3 KB, 486x30
>>16803054
>the whole upper half of the thread
You accuse me of whining about fallacies. Provide examples. You made a claim and you're demanding I prove that I didn't.

>>16803063
It was a joke that obviously passed you by. There were a lot of studies a few years ago claiming that gays only did blowjobs to "dispel this fiction" that HIV mostly affects gays due to buttsex being the primary vector of infection. If you ever talked about this before now it was brought up all the time. Pretty sure it's out of fashion now because the claim is just plain silly, but...
>This is an obvious lie
I even said it was untrue.
>>
File: coital-diagram.jpg (41 KB, 600x490) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
coital-diagram.jpg
41 KB, 600x490
>>16803063
Literally five seconds on Google.
>>
>>16803072
>that screenshot
>being this much of an autistic retard
>>
>>16803084
Insults? I did exactly what you told me to, but you won't provide any examples for me.
>>
>>16803088
Now this time do the same thing but for "involuntary servitude". Then realize what you're dealing with and close the tab.
>>
>>16803074
But that's not how it is in reality. When my bf and I have sex in the missionary position he does not stimulate my clit enough to have an orgasm or feel pleasure just with what your picture implies. Only my own hand or my Hitachi Magic Wand can do that.
>>
>>16803089
I'm aware that OP and their roastie horde are fucking nuts. No offense intended but you can leave if it's that bad, you'll gain nothing by staying behind to shoo us out.
>>
>>16803092
Well it's not my fault that you two don't know how to fuck.
>>
>>16803088
>gets told to ctlr+f the word "fallacy" in a specific part of the thread
>he searches for that instead

No you didn't do exactly what you were told to, you acted like a retard.
>>
>>16803103
The only example of the term prior to my use of "FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY" was this post:
>>16802593
Nothing to do with me, I was actually called a rapist for disagreeing.
>>
>>16803096
But you said it was all evolutionary and natural and shit, you're saying now it's not and therefore has nothing to do with procreation bullshit?
>>
>>16803109
The only example prior to my use of "FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY" in this thread is
>>16802593
I was actually called a rapist for disagreeing with them.

However:
>>16802484
>>16802939
>FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY
>>
>>16803111
>you're saying now it's not
Oh I would like to see you explain how I'm saying that.
>>
>>16803109
Not that anon but are you just pretending to be retarded?
Ctrl+F "fallacious", highlight all, 9 matches. All within the first 50 or so posts.
>>
>>16803118
You said pleasure is because of procreation. But pleasure comes from the prostate and the clitoris, which are unrelated to procreation. The missionary position does not stimulate the clitors enough for pleasure, even though you said it's the position for the purpose of procreation. Therefore sex for pleasure is not for procreation.
>>
>>16803136
>But pleasure comes from the prostate and the clitoris
Not exclusively. Pleasure comes from basically the entire penis and vagina.
>The missionary position does not stimulate the clitors enough for pleasure
Yes it does.

Your logic doesn't hold water.
>>
>>16803118
>has nothing to do with procreation bullshit
I can think of a few examples, actually.

>>16802819
>Women are not meant to be mothers
>>16802847
>Having a baby is not normal. That's not how life works.
>>16802866
>Sex is actually for pleasure, it's an internal mechanism for fun and to waste time
>Pregnancy is not normal, it's a disease
>Having babies is GROSS, EWWWW
>>16802885
>Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's natural to have babies, life does not work that way
>>16802901
>Orgasms prove babies are not natural
>>16802915
>Thinking sex causes babies means you are just a dumb uneducated virgin, you're ignoring biology by saying this
>>16802922
>I have a clitoris, this means sex is not for babies
>>16802943
>Procreation is not the purpose of sex
>>16802948
>Procreation is not the purpose of sex
>>16802972
>Procreation is not the purpose of sex
>>16802982
>If you think sex is for procreation you are a Nazi, fuck off to /pol/

Someone's doing the raping. Someone has been claiming this for the entire thread.
>>
>>16803144
>Pleasure comes from basically the entire penis and vagina.
Only my clitoris makes me feel enough pleasure to orgasm, anywhere else is a passing risible sensation more like a tickle, not enough to be pleasure.

>Yes it does.
No it doesn't. I can only orgasm from stroking my clit with my fingers or with the Hitachi Magic Wand stimulating it. A sexual position alone does not stimulate me.
>>
>>16803154
Nice anecdote. You got any actual evidence?
>>
>>16803146
>Women are not meant to be mothers
Women are meant what they want to be, if a woman doesn't want to be a mother you cannot force her to.

>Having a baby is not normal. That's not how life works.
Having a baby should be a responsible choice and be done only when one's ready for it. It is not necessarily the only point in someone's life.

>Sex is actually for pleasure, it's an internal mechanism for fun and to waste time
I'm worried that you think fun = wasting time.

>Pregnancy is not normal, it's a disease
>Having babies is GROSS, EWWWW
No one said that. What's been said is that one shouldn't be forced to something they don't want.

>Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's natural to have babies, life does not work that way
It's natural to have miscarriages too. It's also natural to shit in the woods but humans have progressed above that because natural doesn't necessarily mean good. That's why humans have always employed birth control.

>Orgasms prove babies are not natural
Again, no one said that.

>Thinking sex causes babies means you are just a dumb uneducated virgin, you're ignoring biology by saying this
Well it kinda does. Sex isn't necessarily to make babies.

>I have a clitoris, this means sex is not for babies
Twisting words again.

>Procreation is not the purpose of sex
>Procreation is not the purpose of sex
>Procreation is not the purpose of sex
It isn't, if someone doesn't want it to be.

>If you think sex is for procreation you are a Nazi
Nah that's you thinking that because you know you're guilty.
>>
File: 1417305731072.png (396 KB, 640x480) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1417305731072.png
396 KB, 640x480
>>16803173
>Sex isn't necessarily to make babies.
>>
>>16803161
https://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html

>like nearly all other internal body structures, poorly supplied with end organs of touch. The internal entodermal origin of the lining of the vagina makes it similar in this respect to the rectum and other parts of the digestive tract. (Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p.580.)

>The degree of insensitivity inside the vagina is so high that "Among the women who were tested in our gynecologic sample, less than 14% were at all conscious that they had been touched." (Kinsey, p. 580.)
>Even the importance of the vagina as an erotic center (as opposed to an orgasmic center) has been found to be minor.
>>
>>16803198
It isn't.
>>
You never provided an example.
>>
>>16801871
Djeez. Women are more than baby carriers. This makes you feel sick for 9 months. Paying for doctor visits every few weeks. You can actually fucking die while giving birth. Emotional component of giving up your child.
>>
>>16801675
You should ask to get your fucking tubes tied too because you're obviously not responsible enough to have sex, and you have no regard for human life.

No, you should be FORCED to have your tubes tied, emergency surgery right now.
>>
>>16803598
Sure, right after all those people who fanatically believe thousand year old fairy tales are sent to the furnace, we'll get right on that
>>
>>16803605
>implying im religious
Guess what, i'm not. Now kill yourself.
>>
>>16803154
>only rubbing clit makes pleasure
>sex doesn't rub clit
wait, are you saying that sex is not actually for pleasure at all?
>>
>>16803615
no its pleasurable to make you want to have offspring, its your bodies natural response to telling you that this is agood thing to do. You know have your seed carry on and what not.

Having sex isn't to feel good. It feels good so that you want to do it a bunch so that your seed can carry on
>>
They take an ultrasound to confirm pregnancy before the procedure.

A friend of mine said they left the image on the screen during the abortion. She cried about it for two weeks afterwards because she had nightmares about killing her child.
>>
>>16802109
You think women give a shit about the number of men who don't give a shit about women?
>>
>>16803627
:no its pleasurable to make you want to have offspring
But sex isn't pleasurable. Masturbation is. I'm a woman and I don't orgasm or feel much pleasure if I have sex, only if I masturbate.
>>
>>16803615
Sex doesn't rub clit enough for most women to feel pleasure or orgasm.
>>
>>16803596
>This makes you feel sick for 9 months. Paying for doctor visits every few weeks.

Women's health, safety and financial security does not matter to men. They do not care they are ruining the woman's life.
>>
The baby is criminal of hurting the mother with its existence and forcing her to labor, pain and financial expenses against her will. If you want to force the woman not to abort, the baby should then repay the mother the labor of pregnancy and childbirth. The state representing the adopted baby or the adoptive parents should pay the mother for the months she was pregnant against her will. If they cannot do that, they cannot force to carry the pregnancy to term.
>>
>>16802271
The U.S. is one of only five countries out of 173 in the survey that does not guarantee some form of paid maternity leave; the others are Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea.
>>
>>16804660
>>16804662
So if sex doesn't cause pleasure, then it logically follows that pleasure is not the purpose of sex. Therefore this post
>>16803173
and all the posts it defends is full of shit. Q. E. D.
>>
>>16804910
>So if sex doesn't cause pleasure
Sex does cause pleasure, but the sex that causes pleasure is not the sex for procreation. Kissing, licking, caressing, cunnilingus and rubbing the clit with your fingers, licking the asshole, anal (for those into it) is what causes pleasure, those things are all sex and they don't lead to procreation. Penetration leads to procreation but penetration alone doesn't cause pleasure. Do you consider non-penetrative sexual acts not to be sex? If you do, you should be okay with your girlfriend givings blowjobs left and right and getting her pussy and ass eaten and pounded by other dudes, since none of that counts as sex to you.
>>
>>16804950
Not to mention using sexual toys. I'm glad you are so understanding, now let your gf go get her vagina rammed by a strap-on wielding lesbian since that's not sex to you.
>>
>>16804950
Also, penetration only leads to procreation when unsafe. Condom and/or pill or female condom and not even penetration is for procreation anymore.
>>
>>16804950
>>16804964
see
>>16804660
Sex involves penetration. Masturbation doesn't.

>>16804975
So if safe sex is neither for procreation nor for pleasure, then what IS it for?
>>
>>16804984
>Sex involves penetration
So logically your gf giving a blowjob to some random dude or getting cunnilingus from him or having anal with him shouldn't upset you, since it's not sex, and therefore no cheating happened.

>So if safe sex is neither for procreation nor for pleasure
Well, if you only go for penetration it's a waste of time. That's why normal couples do lengthy foreplay and non-penetrative acts before getting to the penetration. It's just the cherry on top of all the other things which are the foundation.
>>
>>16804993
>So logically your gf giving a blowjob to some random dude or getting cunnilingus from him or having anal with him shouldn't upset you, since it's not sex, and therefore no cheating happened.
Sounds to me like you're just trying to find a way to justify your whoring out. Well, one, I don't date whores, and two, who's to say that I can't take issue with my gf's performing mutual masturbation with other guys. Or chicks, for that matter.

>Well, if you only go for penetration it's a waste of time. That's why normal couples do lengthy foreplay and non-penetrative acts before getting to the penetration. It's just the cherry on top of all the other things which are the foundation.
So safe sex is just mutual masturbation, right?
>>
>>16805000
I'm only applying logic to your reasoning. If only unsafe penetration for procreation purposes is sex to you, then none of the other sexual acts are actually sex, therefore you have no right to feel cheated when your gf acts on them. Masturbation, as you call it, is fulfilling a basic human need and something you can't deprive one of without damaging their health and well-being, and is not considered basis for cheating.
>>
>>16805000
>I can't take issue with my gf's performing mutual masturbation

You can't actually. Masturbation is not sex and if there's no sex then there's no cheating.
>>
>>16805000
If you take issue with your gf masturbating, then you take issue with all masturbation, including men who masturbate to anime girls.
>>
>>16805025
Or men who watch porn. That's masturbation too.
>>
>>16805013
>>16805016
Clearly your definition of cheating is different from mine, and I feel sorry for your poor boyfriends. Your logic also implies that I shouldn't take issue with my girlfriend flirting with, kissing or fondling other men, as it isn't sex and therefore "cheating".

>>16805025
Who's to say that I don't?
>>
>>16805036
You're the one says sex is only for procreation and everything else is masturbation. If you say that but then take issue on your girlfriend masturbating, denying her right to fulfill a basic need because you feel "cheated" even though no sex occurred, you are a hypocrite.

>Who's to say that I don't?
Ah you're just a psycho who hates other people being happy and fulfilled. Figures, with your sociopathic notion of "cheating".
>>
>>16805054
Masturbation, or even sex for that matter, is not a basic need. You don't need to have your special place rubbed in order to live.
Also, may I please direct your attention to this post
>>16805000
, specifically the part that says
>my gf's performing mutual masturbation with other guys
Yeah, the word "mutual" is there for a fucking reason. If she wants to flick her bean all day long, that's fine by me. I start having a problem the moment she tries to involve somebody else in that activity.
The "Who's to say that I don't?" line was a joke playing off of "including men who masturbate to anime girls". Incidentally, my deepest condolences for your lack of sense of humor.
>>
>>16805084
>Masturbation, or even sex for that matter, is not a basic need
Actually it is. See the bottom part? The "sex" there stands for masturbation.

Yeah, the word "mutual" is there for a fucking >reason. If she wants to flick her bean all day long, that's fine by me. I start having a problem the moment she tries to involve somebody else in that activity
Why? It's still masturbation and involving someone else is only a way to maximize its efficiency. Men who masturbate to anime girls or women who masturbate to Edward Cullen are involving someone else too, in their minds if not in physical presence. Why would you be okay with mental mutual masturbation but not physical mutual masturbation? What about involving dildos and other penetrative sex toys?
>>
File: qi.jpg (9 KB, 300x291) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
qi.jpg
9 KB, 300x291
>>16805109
>http://larrybridwell.com/Maslo.pdf
>Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theory has received little clear or consistent support from the available research findings
That's neat, I can provide pictures that mean jack shit, too.

>Men who masturbate to anime girls or women who masturbate to Edward Cullen are involving someone else too, in their minds if not in physical presence.
>in their minds
>not in physical presence
Gee, I wonder if there's a difference.
>Why would you be okay with mental mutual masturbation but not physical mutual masturbation?
Well, one, because "mental" "mutual" masturbation is not mutual masturbation. The things that you're imagining are not real. And two, because "physical" mutual masturbation can and often does to actual sex, and therefore, according to your definition, cheating. You don't see cops excusing drivers for not wearing their seatbelts just because it didn't cause them harm.
>>
>>16805155
>"physical" mutual masturbation can and often does to actual sex
But not necessarily. You said sex is only for procreation so even if penetration occurred, so long as it was safe it still wouldn't be sex according to your logic, since sex for you is only for procreation, hence no cheating would occur. Protection and contraceptives in your example would be the seatbelts required to drive, so your logic doesn't really hold water.
>>
>>16805172
>not wearing a seatbelt = masturbation
>crashing and dying = sex
How dense are you?
>>
>>16805185
*MUTUAL masturbation
D'oh.
>>
>>16805155
So your excuse is mere paranoia? That's the sign of a deranged mind.

>You don't see cops excusing drivers for not wearing their seatbelts just because it didn't cause them harm
Doesn't make sense because safe sex is driving with your seatbelt on and masturbation is not driving at all since it doesn't lead to babies. Cops do not arrest one for simulating a F1 race on his computer which is closer to what masturbation is than your example.
>>
>>16805198
>paranoia
>risk prevention
Sure, okay.
Also, see
>>16805185
>>16805193
>>
>>16805193
>>16805185
But masturbation is not sex. They are two different activities. While driving is still the same activity whether you have a seatbelt on or not.

Masturbation is to sex like a shooting videogame is to a school shooting, just because one engages in the former doesn't mean they're engaging in the latter. If you think one necessarily leads to the other, you have mental issues.
>>
>>16805202
What risk is there with masturbation? It's not sex. They're two different things. It is paranoid to see risks that aren't there.
>>
>>16805205
>but [not wearing a seatbelt] is not [crashing and dying]
Again, how dense are you?
>>16805210
>mutual masturbation can lead to sex
>YEAH BUT MASTURBATION IS NOT SEX
It's like you only read what you want to read and ignore everything else.
>>
>>16805202
What risk would there be exactly? Your gf uses protection, so even if another man's penis enters her unfertilizable vagina it still is not sex since you said sex is only for procreation.
>>
>>16805216
I'm not gona look for it right now, but some dipshit earlier in this thread went into a whole spiel on how protection isn't worth shit because it can be easily tampered with. Also, who's to say that they ARE going to use protection? Those are the risks I am talking about here.
>>
>>16805212
>mutual masturbation can lead to sex
And leaving the gas on can lead to your house getting destroyed but that doesn't stop people from cooking, since cooking and leaving the gas on aren't the same thing and you aren't cooking anymore when you forget about the gas. Whereas seatbelt or no seatbelt you're still driving, and that's why you're at risk. hen you're mutually masturbating with a friend you're not having sex with them, therefore there's none of the risks of sex, and it can well stop there. Just like the gas stops flowing when you're done cooking and you don't risk getting your house destroyed. You're talking about two different activities as if they were the same thing when they're not.
>>
>>16805233
>mutual masturbation can lead to sex
>can lead to
>lead to
>You're talking about two different activities as if they were the same thing when they're not.
>lead to
A leads to B, therefore A is B. Who knew?
>>
>>16805230
>protection isn't worth shit because it can be easily tampered with
That just makes the one who tampered with it a criminal, it doesn't take inherent value off protection itself. Do you think money ain't worth shit just because it can be easily stolen from you?

>Also, who's to say that they ARE going to use protection?
Are you saying you don't trust your gf?
Sounds like the beginning of a controlling, abusive mindset to me.
>>
>>16805250
"Can" doesn't mean "will". A may lead to B but it also may not. And considering we're talking about sex here, you presuming it will is only the product of your paranoia.
>>
>>16805254
>BUT WHAT ARE THE RISKS?
>explains risks
>WELL YOU'RE JUST A PSYCHO
So do you admit that I'm right or do you have any actual counter-arguments?
>>
>>16805268
So by your logic, we should not penalize driving without a seatbelt, because it may lead to crashing and dying but it also may not?
>>
>>16805269
The risks are only in your mind buddy. You see risks because you don't trust your gf to know her boundaries, which you've made clear are unsafe penetrative sex at risk of a baby. If you were a good partner, you'd recognize she is a normal person too, sober and responsible, who can do everything except get an unsafe dick in her vagina since that's the only thing that's sex to you. If she is not drunk or drugged you have no reason to doubt her word.
>>
>>16805279
No, we should penalize having unsafe sex instead, since it leads to babies which are the crashing and dying in your example. Safe sex should be OK just like driving with a seatbelt on is OK too.
>>
>>16805301
Except if safe sex is mutual masturbation, which you seem to agree with, then safe sex is driving with your seatbelt off, as per
>>16805185
>>16805193
Nowhere have I said that "seatbelt = protection" in the analogy, that's just your inability to understand it.

>>16805291
>The risks are only in your mind buddy.
>That just makes the one who tampered with it a criminal, it doesn't take inherent value off protection itself. Do you think money ain't worth shit just because it can be easily stolen from you?
You completely ignored half of my argument.
>>
>>16805324
>Except if safe sex is mutual masturbation, which you seem to agree with, then safe sex is driving with your seatbelt off
How? The crashing in dying in your example is babies since, according to you, sex is only to make babies, therefore logically the seatbelts in your example would be protection to prevent babies from happening. It's not sex if a baby won't come out of it, your words buddy.

>You completely ignored half of my argument
What half? Are you implying if your gf goes to have some sweet mutual masturbation with her friends someone will necessarily tamper with her protection? Are you saying you do not trust her to be responsible with her belongings and the people she associates with? Sounds like paranoia to me buddy.
>>
>>16805363
>The crashing in dying in your example is babies
>>16805185
No.

>someone will necessarily tamper with her protection
>will
There's that word again. What is "risk"?
>>
>>16805379
Yes. If babies don't come out of it, it's not sex. That was your stance until now. Therefore crashing and dying is not sex, but having a baby, since everything that does make babby is not sex.

>There's that word again. What is "risk"?
Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Your gf assures you her friends are good people and she is responsible with her protection, and you have nothing to suspect her on except your biased perception of the world and women, which is paranoid and irrational. In this case? Your "risk" is the projection of a paranoid mind.
>>
>>16805400
*everything that does not make babby.
>>
>>16805400
Coincidentally it's also the same thought process of abusive men who want to deprive women of a life. My wife wants to go out having fun with her friends? Unacceptable! She might cheat on me! Better lock her in make her live in misery instead, who cares about her happiness I am the only one that matters.
>>
>>16805400
>If babies don't come out of it, it's not sex. That was your stance until now.
Okay, please point me to where I said that sex is 100% going to result in conception every time. If you can't do that, please read
>>16805250
again until you understand it. Or are you saying that unprotected sex is also not cheating as long as it doesn't result in having a babby?

A couple problems with that little scenario of yours. One, my gf doesn't tell me when she's going to cheat on me (and mutual masturbation IS cheating, that is my entire point here). I trust her not to cheat on me at all, and if she does, well, she's not gonna be my gf for long. Two, just like I don't know everything about my gf, she doesn't know everything about her "friends", therefore her assurances that they're good people don't mean shit to me. I trust her, she trusts them, that doesn't necessarily mean I trust them.
>>
>>16805433

>>16803627
>>16803144
>>16803074
>>16803044
>>16803031
>>16802990
>>16802957
>>16802889
>>16803146
If that's not you, you are defending their stance that sex is for procreation and not for pleasure, therefore logically what doesn't lead to procreation but is only for pleasure is not sex.

>Or are you saying that unprotected sex is also not cheating as long as it doesn't result in having a babby?
That's exactly what it is according to your logic. If sex = procreation, then no possible procreation (penis not in vagina, condom and pills to make conception impossible even with penis in vagina) = not sex. Simple as that. Call it masturbation if you want. Cheating = to be sexually unfaithful, so safe penetration that won't lead to babies = not sex = not cheating.

>mutual masturbation IS cheating, that is my entire point here
No it's not, unless you consider sex to be also for pleasure and not exclusively for procreation. But then that contradicts everything you've said until now.

>that doesn't necessarily mean I trust them
And that means jackshit since you don't dictate her life and her friends are part of her life, not yours.
>>
>>16805462
>sex is 100% going to result in conception every time
None of the posts you highlighted say that. Just because B is the point of A doesn't mean that B happens every time A happens. Or rather, A leads to B does not imply that A will lead to B every time.

>Cheating = to be sexually unfaithful, so safe penetration that won't lead to babies = not sex = not cheating.
My entire point is that mutual masturbation is sexual in nature because it often leads to sex.

>And that means jackshit since you don't dictate her life and her friends are part of her life, not yours.
So what? What I define as cheating is my problem, not hers. By your logic, if she decides to suck twelve dicks at a party, I'm fully justified in dumping her, since I don't want that person to be part of my life.
>>
>>16805502
>Just because B is the point of A doesn't mean that B happens every time A happens. Or rather, A leads to B does not imply that A will lead to B every time
So you admit there well is the possibility of it not happening, and it depends on the other being responsible (which someone can normally be) and that yours is mere paranoia? Congrats.

>masturbation is sexual in nature because it often leads to sex
Not true. Often? Proof please, I want certified statistics. Otherwise yours is just paranoid bullshit just like those who say shooting videogames lead to mass murder, there's no proven link between the two just like there's no necessary link between masturbation and sex.


>So what? What I define as cheating is my problem, not hers. By your logic, if she decides to suck twelve dicks at a party, I'm fully justified in dumping her, since I don't want that person to be part of my life
Good for her, no girl should be subjected to a hypocritical, contradictory abusive piece of shit.
>>
>>16805518
>B is the point of A
But sex isn't the point of masturbation, mutual or otherwise. The point of masturbation is pleasure, the point of sex is babies, that's what you've been saying. They're two different things. The point of B is B. The point of A is A. A conscious choice or irresponsibility can shift the point of B to that of A, but that implies a specific action on the part of the actor, which isn't assured to happen and depends entirely on the person's will. That's where your example falls apart.
>>
>>16805518
>So you admit there well is the possibility of it not happening, and it depends on the other being responsible (which someone can normally be) and that yours is mere paranoia? Congrats.
A may lead to B, but it may not, therefore it is paranoid to say that it may.

>Not true. Often? Proof please, I want certified statistics. Otherwise yours is just paranoid bullshit just like those who say shooting videogames lead to mass murder, there's no proven link between the two just like there's no necessary link between masturbation and sex.
Do you have certified statistics that it doesn't? We do know that violent videogames don't lead to real world violence because there have been studies made that refuted that claim.

>Good for her, no girl should be subjected to a hypocritical, contradictory abusive piece of shit.
You mean
>no boy should be subjected to a cheating, STD-ridden whore

>>16805526
>But sex isn't the point of masturbation
>But [crashing and dying] isn't the point of [not wearing a seatbelt].
I'm getting real sick of having to repeat myself over and over.
>>
>>16805518
Even if he had statistics it still wouldn't matter shit to the responsible individual t b h.
>>
>>16805541
>A may lead to B, but it may not, therefore it is paranoid to say that it may
Exactly, that's why you're paranoid to jump to the idea that someone's cheating on you even though they assure you they aren't, especially if it's someone you're supposed to trust like your girlfriend.

>Do you have certified statistics that it doesn't?
You asked the question first buddy, the onus of proof is on you to demonstrate that it does. Which you cannot, obviously.

>no boy should be subjected to a cheating, STD-ridden whore
Nope. No girl should be subjected to controlling, contradictory, abusive piece of shit.

>But [crashing and dying] isn't the point of [not wearing a seatbelt]
Crashing and dying = babies, since it's only sex if babies end up involved. No babies = not sex. Means to prevent crashing and dying = means to prevent babies. You are retarded if you cannot understand your own example.
>>
>>16805551
>Exactly, that's why you're paranoid to jump to the idea that someone's cheating on you even though they assure you they aren't, especially if it's someone you're supposed to trust like your girlfriend.
Except that I do trust her not to cheat on me. I do not trust someone engaging in mutual masturbation not to engage in sex. You're confusing two different threads of reasoning here.

>You asked the question first buddy, the onus of proof is on you to demonstrate that it does. Which you cannot, obviously.
You equated my claim to the "videogame shooting leads to mass shooting" claim which is ridiculous. There's plenty of research on the non-relationship between games and violence, there's pretty much none on the relationship between masturbation and sex. Do you also believe in God because nobody can prove that he doesn't exist?

>Nope. No girl should be subjected to controlling, contradictory, abusive piece of shit.
Nope. No boy should be subjected to a cheating, STD-ridden whore.

>Crashing and dying = babies, since it's only sex if babies end up involved. No babies = not sex. Means to prevent crashing and dying = means to prevent babies. You are retarded if you cannot understand your own example.
You're ignoring basic biology. Even reproductive sex rarely results in an offspring for a number of reasons. That doesn't mean that the point of it is reproduction only when it succeeds.
>>
>>16805581
>I do not trust someone engaging in mutual masturbation not to engage in sex
Why? One does not necessarily lead to the other. Someone can be responsible and respect boundaries. Do you have any substantial proof for your mistrust or is it just irrational fear?

>You equated my claim to the "videogame shooting leads to mass shooting" claim which is ridiculous
Not at all, it was to show how two things do not have necessarily have a link between them even though someone would like it to be. The onus of proof is still on you, btw, to show that someone engaging in mutual masturbation will infallibly lead to sex, and by sex you mean babies. Harder to prove with lesbians and anal and blowjobs and cunnilingus and responsible use of the condom/pill, but you can try.

>Nope. No boy should be subjected to a cheating, STD-ridden whore.
Nope. No girl should be subjected to a controlling, contradictory, abusive piece of shit.

>You're ignoring basic biology
Basic biology doesn't mean shit when one just wants pleasure and not babies. Just because sex isn't infallible doesn't mean its purpose is, according to you, not having babies. It just means you'll have to try again. Whereas if someone doesn't want babies they won't have sex, since any act that cannot lead to babies is not sex in your idea, including safe penetration.
>>
>>16805610
The entirety of your argument seems to be hinging on the premise that "A may lead to B" and "A will invariably lead to B" are the same thing. They are not and you are intentionally committing a fallacy of false equivalency by doing this.

>its purpose is, according to you, not having babies
It's purpose is having babies, that's what I've been saying the entire time. The purpose of betting on horse races is winning. It doesn't mean that it will always happen, it means that you expect it to. "Purpose" means "expected result", not "actual result". Just like safe sex may result in accidental impregnation doesn't mean that the purpose of safe sex is impregnation.
>>
>>16802281
I agree with this. Being alive is pretty useless if you're living a poverty-filled and unstable life.
Even if someone like parasite anon had a kid can you imagine the resentment?
It's shitty, but if one doesn't want kids they shouldn't have them. And, if by chance one unintentionally gets pregnant, one should have the option to get rid of the fetus early.
>>
>>16802460
>attempted murder

Don't mind me, just a curious anon enjoying the discourse~

This is actually a very good point to bring up! Although, it would be best to illustrate what conditions fall into the parameters of "attempted murder".
For example, one could argue that since most abortions happen before the fetus has a heartbeat/organs/etc, it couldn't be murder because medically speaking the "fetus" isn't alive, but is actually more like a potato with no brain.

Just throwing that out there because your contributions to this discourse seem based on the outrage of destroying "potential" life.
>>
>>16802499
Discourse anon here. I think you could benefit from doing a bit of googling on "reproductive coercion". It's an abuse tactic that doesn't fall under most state's explicit parameters and definitions for rape, but it is still recognized as a crime. Just another scenario to consider.
>>
>>16802611
>No, this is not true at all. Almost all divorces are initiated by women and women are almost exclusively given custody by the courts.

While I'm sure this stereotype holds true in a significant number of states, I find this hilarious only because I work in California where the literal opposite is the norm.
>>
>>16802657
In contracts--my personal favorite part of law--this would be fraud. If what you receive does not conform to whatever conditions were established/there wasn't a "true" meeting of minds (I.e. Dude tricks girl into thinking she's getting A but
she's really getting D) then the court would remedy he situation. For the sake of staying on topic, I believe OP is saying a similar right should be applied with unwanted kids--whether they were an accident or conceived under deceitful conditions. In her case the remedy would be to be rid of the fetus
>>
>>16805629
>It's purpose is having babies
But it's not. It's having pleasure. That's why take I precautions not to have babies. I don't want babies. You are committing a fallacy by presuming the purpose of something is what you arbitrarily decide it to be when other people can and do arbitrarily decide it's something different.

>"Purpose" means "expected result"
And the purpose of safe sex is pleasure, not babies. If babies happen, they are an unfortunate accident to get rid of with the least expense necessary.

>The entirety of your argument seems to be hinging on the premise that "A may lead to B" and "A will invariably lead to B" are the same thing.
Absolutely not. You're the one that thinks so, being paranoid that your girlfriend going for a round of lesbian sex with her girlfriends (masturbation) will lead to cheating (sex to make babby).
Thread replies: 353
Thread images: 24
Thread DB ID: 513228



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at wtabusse@gmail.com with the post's information.