Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice

Anti-Life.

Doesn't matter how you feel about the subject.

If you want a free society you need to allow pro-choice.

Does not matter about terminology, it's not the same as conventional murder, as people claim it is.

If you want choice, abortion is a side effect of a free society.

>>1670198
Pro life.

If you support abortion AKA the systematic genocide of black children you are racist and need to go back to /pol/.

>>1670207
Yeah slavery is an awful comparison. A more accurate one (in the same context) would be forcing the slave master to give his kidney to the black man, because he has a "right to life."

File: 1470261550772.jpg (471KB, 1024x1459px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1024x1459px

>>1670198
Personally I'm inbetween

Abortion should be permitted in cases where the child was conceived through rape or incest, the mother is too young to safely give birth, or if the fetus is discovered to have defects within the womb

Otherwise, it should be forbidden.
Birth rates are low enough as it is and abortion should not be treated as a form of birth control.

>>1670198
A foetus is not a person, it should not have rights

>>1670230
Again, it doesn't matter how YOU feel about this option.

You have no right to say what others can and cannot do. You cannot term something to be what it is not, unborn babies are not born human beings. They cannot be viewed as the same.

Saying it's okay for them to abort but it's not okay for them to abort is literally retarded.

Simply can be summed up as saying not all those who are pro-choice would abort an 'unwanted' baby. Like, I'm all for choice, if I were to ever have an unplanned child though I wouldn't get it aborted, wouldn't even cross my mind.

It's about the fact that you want to live in a 'free society' you need to have the choice to do what ever you want, within reason, and this IS within reason. Aborting babies affects literally no one but the person aborting the babies.

Hell, if you live in a town with little jobs, an abortion clinic creates work. It has it's bonuses, albeit a tiny bonus in this respect.

Pro choice only if both parents agree.
"My body my choice" tagline is pure garbage.

>>1670252
>Individualism
Not even once

>>1670269
>aborting is bad because babies are so fucking cute!!!!!!
Your mother should have aborted.

There are plenty of good arguments for abortion that don't have anything to do with individual liberties, but are "taboo" for other, non-political reasons.

>>1670198
Apart from an instance where the mother's life is in jeopardy it shouldn't be allowed.

Maybe in cases of rape or incest it should be allowed during the first trimester, I'm still divided on that.

But if some bitch just HAD to fuck and gets pregnant, under no circumstances can she kill the kid just cause she don wanna take care of it.

>>1670252
I really love how pro-abortion people try to frame the right to kill a living thing that you created as a personal choice issue.

I don't care if you legitimately believe that people should have the right to kill fetuses, but please don't paint it as a "don't tell THEM how to live THEIR lives". Even though you somehow think a human isn't a person, it's still definitely alive.

>Aborting babies affects literally no one but the person aborting the babies
Really? You can't think of anyone else that decision might affect?

>and this IS within reason
You haven't demonstrated that. Your whole fucking argument is that people should be able to do whatever they want within reason, you cannot simply state that abortion qualifies, make an argument as to why abortion is reasonable.

Actually, I just realized you replied to a thread asking which position on abortion is more reasonable, and your "answer" is held up by the blanket assertion that it is. If that's all you were going to say, you could have just said "it IS within reason", and saved yourself a lot of time.

File: 1414768746556.jpg (46KB, 501x369px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 501x369px

Deontologically, I kind of favor pro-choice. It has all sorts of obvious utilitarian benefits, and I'm unconvinced that it's unethical. After all, we don't condemn the killing of animals or disease-causing bacteria for the material benefits that those give us, so this should tell us that we don't really value -lie- proper. Instead, i think, it seems obvious that we value person-hood, that is, a being with the status of sentience and identity. Certain animals, like elephants or dolphins, it's become common to condemn killiing, because they qualify as "persons." in contrast, the vast majority of unborn children do not qualify as people. they have sapience, no identity discursively tethered together by memory or continuity of any kind. It seems that killing an unborn fetus is no different than killing a chicken.

File: Oliver Wendell Holmes.png (954KB, 1019x1491px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 1019x1491px

>>1670198

Pro-life and pro-choice are both unreasonable. I tend towards pro-choice, but Buck v. Bell still applies and we should be preventing imbeciles from breeding regardless of what their "choice" is if society and government are required to pay to keep their crotchspawn from dying after they are, in fact, born.

>>1670198
MULTI
AMENDMENT
DRIFTING

File: 1473130632423.jpg (128KB, 447x475px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 447x475px

>>1670198

Here is the abortion paradox.

Either God sends aborted babies to heaven or to hell.

If he sends them to heaven then it means, that in order to save as many souls as possible as God commanded you have to abort as many babies as possible.

Because if those babies grow up there is a chance they will become degenerate and go to hell.

So if you have to choose 100% change the child will go to heaven or a less than perfect chance they will, would not the logical choice be to abort every time?

Sure it makes you a murderer, but you can ask for God's forgiveness on your deathbed.

Now if God just sends all the aborted babies to hell, then he is an asshole.

PS. Twins only have one soul since life begins at conception.

>>1670292
>You haven't demonstrated that..........

Well, why is it unreasonable? If you cannot effectively prove it's unreasonable, you cannot, then it's safe to assume it is in fact reasonable. All you can do is supply these grand romantic statements as to why unborn babies shouldn't be aborted, yeah sure, you cannot argue against ideologies though, without another ideology. That's what this is, a battle of ideologies, but you want a free society no? If you want a free society this is an after effect, if you don't want a free society (which is fine) then you can argue abortion cannot be allowed, but in a free society you literally, literally have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do so long as it's not impacting you. And you have no right to say abortion affects you, it fucking doesn't. I don't see you arguing against veal, I don't see you arguing against slaughtering animals. They are living, no? But you now see how it's unreasonable to get so angry about those points, they are needed.

>I really love how pro-abortion people try to frame the right to kill a living thing that you created as a personal choice issue.

I really love how you say this broad statement without providing any reasoning to back it up. You can't, it's simply a romantic idea, it's not effective reasoning.

>Really? You can't think of anyone else that decision might affect?
No? Keep in mind, as you've projected, the mother and father is obviously included in this choice. Again, obviously both cannot always make this choice.

>"answer" is held up by the blanket assertion that it is.
If that's what helps you sleep at night.

>abortion is wrong.....
>BECAUSE

I don't see you giving any actual reasons apart from subjective ones as to why it's wrong. Just admit you can't and let's fucking move on. Abortion is sickening, taking away a person's choice because you don't like it in regards to a 'free' society is even more sickening.

>>1670332
>PS. Twins only have one soul since life begins at conception.
fucking kek

>>1670217
>Yeah slavery is an awful comparison.

No it's not. Neither have any responsibilities, neither have any rights.

>>1670198
>Pro-Choice

This, the only reasonable option. If you believe in Individual Rights you must be Pro-Choice. Getting pregnant cannot deprive you of individual rights. If the baby is truly "someone else's body" than is should be removed and live on its own.

The forever contrarian will say Pro-Life ofc, just disregard their opinion.

>>1670441
Yet one is a concious human being and the other a humanoid lump of cells.

>>1670580
And?

>>1670595
Well in the case of slavery there are 2 conscious human beings

>>1670580
Yes "consciousness"....a totally well defined scientific concept that we can easily circumscribe and measure and are assured the unborn do not possess. Yes. Sure my friend.

Yessss, 'humanoid' my friend. Are humans 'humanoid'? Or just the humans you don't care for?

>>1670609
I still don't see what your point is.

Some folks here need to read a little of basic embriology. Just grab a Moore's, it is probably 20 bucks somewhere. Studying embriology made me completly pro-life.

Mainstream pro-lifers* don't actually think a fetus is a full human. They say they do but they don't. They'll want to ban abortion, but if you really believe that it's a human then everybody involved should be charged with murder.

*I don't read crazy pro-life corners of the internet but I assume there are people out there who do want women who abort to get the death penalty

>>1670619
It wasnt my point and I dont see what it was either

>>1670634
Odd it was the precise opposite for me. Embryology really hammered home just how much a foetus is not a person

File: image.png (26KB, 345x504px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 345x504px

>>1670252
>You have no right to say what others can and cannot do

wait a sec are you trying to spook me again?

I think abortion should be legal but all the people arguing about how fetuses aren't human beings or whatever is ridiculous. It's not really murder but is still definitely the killing of human in my eyes.

>>1670665
>It's not really murder but is still definitely the killing of human in my eyes.
If they are people then its murder, not really any way around that, unless you go to extreme lengths to remove the feotus while still alive and then leave it to die of natural causes

>>1670198
Abortion is the logical one. Not neccesarily the moral choice, but the one that's most beneficial to society.

I think abortion should be banned, allowed but discouraged, or outright encouraged on the basis of ethnicity and class. Eugenics is a fundamentally good idea.

>>1670595
well, if you can't tell the difference I can't help you

>>1670613
you're an idiot. leave /sci/ forever

>>1670613
>Are humans 'humanoid'?
Well humanoid just means shaped like a human, so yes

>>1670681
Of course there's a difference, but what's yer fuckin point blowhard?

>>1670207
abortion is infanticide, parents killing their offspring as soon as they can because instead of being a benefit, they are a cost.
Infanticide has been extremely common through human history.
Abortion is simply the Infanticide technique with the least emotional trauma for the killer.

I oppose abortion because I consider it an anthropological defeat (mankind advanced when infanticide disappeared, abortion isnt progressive, it is ancestral), and because I have less sympathy for women who kill their offspring because they want to be young adults with no problems (first I get my degree, then a good job, and I will get married in my thirties, so I will have to "get rid" of this mistake that would derail my ideal life plan) than some tribal woman who killed her offspring because of food scarcity.

>>1670198
Pro-Life

>>1670332
Original sin m80

>>1670695
>mankind advanced when infanticide disappeared

Advanced right into a dysgenic toilet.

>>1670695
And? I literally do not care what you think, no one does in this subject. That's the fucking point, literally the point of the post you are quoting. When you can only argue subjectively there is something flawed in your argument.

>than some tribal woman who killed her offspring because of food scarcity.
Kek, because you've witnessed countless children die due to starvation, right? You've lived in a time where parents had many many children because most didn't make it to adult hood, right?


tl;dr, you're a fucking moron.

>it's bad because I think it's bad
>here are my reasons for why I think it's bad
That's all you did. Good job.

>>1670695

Personally this could all be avoided with permanent birth control.

We should incentivize degenerates getting sterilized.

Problem solved.

>>1670245
Why isn't it a person?

>>1670725
No mind

File: no-lives-matter-cthulhu-decal.jpg (40KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x600px

>>1670198
Neither case went far enough.

>>1670708

this is kind of true
you will often see on /pol/ or /int/ world maps of birth defects rate.

They show the Islamic world very high, because they dont abort and are highly inbred (generally because of women marrying the son of their uncle), the first world as the lowest, and Latin America, and some very catholic countries like Poland in the middle.

The only real difference is between the Islamic world (perhaps, without South East Asia), and the rest of the world.
If France has far less people with birth deffects than Chile, that is because in France parents get their fetus screened, and abort it if they discover they will have a child with Downs Syndrome, while in Latin America, that same kid would be born.

Abortion is defended by feminists all over the world, but the first countries that legalized abortion did it for right wing reasons, for eugenics.
I suspect that for every leftist who loudly defends abortion, there are many right wingers who silently are glad it exists because it prevents black and brown people from having numerous families.
When Bill Gates donates money for abortion in El Salvador or Honduras, I dont think he loves women, I think he wants less spics.

Also, worldwide one of the main uses of abortion is killing women. In China, in which until recently people could only have one child, families would repeatedly get abortions until they were able to produce a male heir, and even in India, which doesnt have those legal restrictions, getting abortions because you want a son and not a daughter is also common.

>>1670712
abortion isnt subjective. It is a surgical procedure. It is biology.
The fetus is a member of the homo sapiens species.

>>1670198
extract baby from womb.
grow externally.
????
huge loss to the state as it must now find a method to care for the child unless a tombwomb will take it.

>>1670774
>The fetus is a member of the homo sapiens species.
True, but thats not the same thing as being a person. Anencephalics shouldnt have rights either

>>1670774
>abortion isnt subjective
Kek.

>The fetus is a member of the homo sapiens species.
Right.

You have literally no points past subjective reasoning. Capitol punishment is legal murder, people kill people in wars - killing humans has never, ever been the issue.

The fact that it's human is literally retarded. You've simply convinced yourself it's not right, although when you really think about it there is no actual reasoning to come to that conclusion.

You're whole argument is now literally based on what it means to be a 'human being' - you're argument is literally based on semantics. Not weather nor not abortion is wrong, but weather or not unborn babies are humans.

You are not arguing abortion (because you can't) you are arguing murder.

Why do people use the rape or incest exception when it's still an abortion?

As if having a baby was a punishment spared to girls who didn't have control over getting pregnant?

As if that were different than getting pregnant by accident?

>>1670198
There are no other circumstances where a woman is obliged to use her body as lifesupport for her children. Why should we make an exception for this one?

>>1670815
>legal murder
Contradiction in terms there mate

99% of 4chan users should've been aborted.

In the end, the mother should decide, no one else should have a say in this.

>>1670831
Yes, that's the point.

>>1670815
Is this an ad hominem criticism?

Well clearly the issue of whether it's right or wrong for this guy depends on if a fetus is a person; that's the qualifier for his opinion so he must resolve it first.

>>1670845
If it's not okay to abort babies, why is okay to kill in wars, why is okay for capitol punishment?

Killing people is never the issue but a simple subjective reasoning you use to hold firm.

It's wishy washy at best.

>it's okay to kill these
>it's okay to kill that
>not this
>or that

What if the government in power was to term, for arguments sake, Chinese as not humans. Would you be fine in exterminating them? This has nothing to do with me, you can swap Chinese to be what ever group of humans you want.

You have to refute the point.
>inb4 they won't do that
It's a thought experiment.

>>1670725
No autonomy
t. Kant baby

>>1670637
They DO believe everyone should be charged with murder.

>>1670862
>wars and execution are ok
I didn't say that

>>1671041
Again, I don't care for your reasoning. The government says it's okay, that's all that matters.

>didn't answer the question
Nice.

I'm willing to bet that there's a significant overlap between pro-lifers and death penalty supporters, after all they are both conservative stances.
Which means that this has nothing to do with the value of a human life (even though a featus has none) but with a hypocritical and entirely ideological aversion.
So everyone can drop their false pretenses now.

>>1670695
>because instead of being a benefit, they are a cost.
Looks like we need COMMUNISM
Get to it pro lifers

>>1671070
This is a terrible argument. A fetus is incapable of doing anything. Those on Death Row are there because they chose to go out raping and murdering

>>1671131
>Those on Death Row are there because they chose to go out raping and murdering
Unless they were framed or falsely accused

>>1671134
Ya everyone in prison has that spiel. With DNA evidence most of the retards on Death Row are there because they went out and earned it

Pro-choice. This is because the life is not conscious, and if the baby were born, it would be among the many flooding orphanages. It's best to eliminate the cost. We should knock down the numbers of abortions by giving sex education (especially in low income areas) and by giving desperate teens better counseling. Abortions are hard to do, but are sometimes needed.

>>1671149
>most

I personally support abortions wholeheartedly. Pro-Lifers are just ignorant and easily led. I mean just go into any hospital is any city in the world and you will find babies galore! Despite the best efforts of viruses, weather, and big tobacco we are currently bringing more people into the world then are going out. Just go to a Walmart and in five minutes you will find a genetic disaster that will make you start to think abortions should be mandatory. Think about how crowded everyplace is anymore. We have too many people and not enough room. So the next time you are stuck in a traffic jam, in a long checkout line, or having blows rained down on you for wearing the wrong jersey to the wrong sports bar just think, if more people had abortions this might not be happening.

>>1671156
Every rule has exceptions

>>1670198

While I'm against abortion, it's in-enforceable in this day and age. Every miscarriage would make the womb a crime scene. Plenty of women would get them illegally in more dangerous ways because "my body, my choice" shit. Single moms flip out cuz they need more financial help.

It's shitty but it's something I'm okay with living with it. If my child is ever aborted because the mom doesn't want it, then she better get a fucking restraining order on me.

>>1670210
Except unborn babies are not people, I mean should people be punished for wasting their sperm?

>>1670725
A person has free will. Babies are completely reliant on their parents so therefore no free will. Personally I wouldn't mind parents killing babies, I mean what's the difference?

>>1670269
Filthy communist.

>>1671070
I'm willing to bet that there's a significant overlap between pro-choicers and those against the death penalty, after all they are both liberal stances.
Which means that this has nothing to do with the value of a human life (even though scientifically speaking life begins at the moment of conception) but with a hypocritical and entirely ideological aversion.

It's really easy to make shitty strawmen.

>>1670332
Haha, nice try. No where is abortion prohibited in the bible. Just jargon about how life is important and shit. And even that has exceptions.

Weather a fetus is a person I think depends highly on how it was conseaved and who is caring for it. Some girl who spreads her legs for fun or cash isn't really going to raise a child properly. But if two people or even just a woman with a willing doner decide to create a life then from the moment of conception it is a person. Context is very important to this. A child intended to be brought into the world is a person, a child created by accident and not wanted is just a waste anyway. If the abortion doesn't finish them then it will be drugs, alcohol, or general bad choices because they were not raised properly. Abortions should be legal by all means but parents should also be able to register once an egg is fertilized to give the proto human full protection under the law. This may not be a perfect system but at the very least it seems like a solid groundwork for finding a solution.

>>1671207
actually somewhere in the old testament there is a part about how a temple priest was to give an adulteress a potion that would kill her unborn child.

>>1671229
Yeah, and God told the temple priest to do it.

>>1671238
So God isn't even pro choice, he is pro abortion.

>>1671246
based god.

>>1670333
>If you cannot effectively prove it's unreasonable, you cannot, then it's safe to assume it is in fact reasonable

>makes claim
>"please demonstrate the truth of your claim"
>w-well, if you can't disprove it, surely it must be true!"
I literally can't disprove your blanket assertion, simply because it is in fact a blanket assertion.

>grand romantic statements as to why unborn babies shouldn't be aborted
"It's wrong to kill a human being to avoid responsibility" is a grand, romantic idea?

>literally have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do so long as it's not impacting you
*as long as it's not impacting others. If you're robbing someone, me stopping you doesn't make our society less free just because I told you what to do when it didn't affect me personally. Plus, it could have affected me, isn't it even a bit of a shitty idea to openly say that you would've been fine with your mother choosing to kill you just cause?

>I don't see you arguing against veal, I don't see you arguing against slaughtering animals
Probably because I don't think those things are wrong.

>They are living, no?
Yes... when did I say that killing anything living is wrong? If you're referring to "Even though you somehow think a human isn't a person, it's still definitely alive", I was more referring to how you thought only one entity was affected by an abortion, as if somehow you went from "the fetus is not a person" to "the fetus is an inanimate object".

>without providing any reasoning to back it up
It's literally what you're doing right now, what further evidence do I need that a thing occurs that having the thing occur in front of us?

>as you've projected
What?

And the other party affected by the choice is the fetus itself, dumbass. I see we've moved from "the fetus is an inanimate object" to "the fetus does not exist".

"I don't see you giving any actual reasons apart from subjective ones as to why it's wrong"
It's wrong to kill another human being.

Call this an edgy opinion, but I really dont care if a baby dies.

File: Ow_the_edge.jpg (63KB, 400x366px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 400x366px

>>1671266

>>1670815
Not only is your refutation a convoluted adhom, you write like a retard. Capitol punishment? Weather or not? KYS

>>1670198
Abortion is objectively killing an infant, you are stopping an already forming fetus/baby from being formed and thus killing a human being

It's necessary though, 1. Are you going to make the irresponsible cunts raise the child they tried to murder to get out of responsability? Putting it up for adoption would equal a lot of fucking orphans, and most women would just half assedly raise their accident causing a shitton more Jamals who dindu nuffin with no father figure
2. If it was rape, incest, life threatening to the mother or a failed contraceptive, it should be allowed OBJECTIVELY. You cannot sort out this shit in a reasonable fashion, how do you judge if the woman was raped? Do you take her word? If that's the case, then any woman could say they were raped. Do you have to rely on a court case? Will take months, the infant could start forming enough to MOVE by then, and late stage abortions are the most despicable of all.
How do you judge if the child is of incest? Or if it was a failed contraceptive?
Absurd.

tl;dr It's objectively murder but it's objectively necessary no matter how ya stretch it, both as a woman's right and to prevent child abuse.

>>1670724
Literally this. The moment anyone is recognized to have any sort of mental deviancy or possibly genetically transmitted illness, they should be sterilized

>>1671266
Edgists and feminazis are the comedians of the modern world. Literal faggots lmao.

>>1671814
I wouldn't mind adopting kids. Putting them up for adoption isn't a bad idea. Everyone likes kids.

>>1671829
Not that many people are willing to adopt, anon. Most who want kids want to raise their own.
We have enough orphans already without homes.

And as said that's half the issue.

>>1670198
Pro-Life, easily.

File: image.jpg (150KB, 400x750px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 400x750px

>>1671823
>mental deviancy
>sterilized
Ripe for abuse

>>1670198
Not /his/ take your /pol/shit elsewhere.

>>1671841
I bet there's many single men that are willing to adopt. The problem is that they aren't allowed to because people think only women can take care of kids.

>>1671163
This. Both parents should be fine with aborting the baby, if they actually want to

>>1671874
Why don't they just give me their baby?
Why would you destroy something instead of giving it to someone else?

File: 1442945385396.png (668KB, 979x802px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 979x802px

I'm pro-abortion, mostly because the vast, vast majority of babies killed are minorities and white trash.

I also think there should be financial incentives to get sterilised, and forced sterilisation for criminals, the mentally ill and disabled people.

Strelisation incentives, sponsored by the WHO in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia would also only do good.

Of course, in countries with low birthrates these would be coupled with tons of natalist polices.

>>1671858
There wouldn't be nearly enough for the amount of orphans around.

File: 2179389-sackboy_russia.png (251KB, 418x600px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 418x600px

>>1671814
I agree abortion is objectively killing the infant but I see no reason to say it's necessary. If we were to discuss rights, there's no reason to put a limit at the time the human is deprived of rights and then receives them nor a reason for the rights of the mother to deny the rights of the infant. However, if we were to not get into rights things get a bit more complicated. Namely the justification ethically would have effect on other ethical decisions and thus struggle to defined by the state what need be protected. In response to your comments:

>1: This defense relies on being an orphan or being in poor upraising being a worse scenario than death. Further, this ignores the social effects that would extend from upholding a right to life of the unborn. Allowing abortions and contraception basically enabled the Sexual Revolution so we cannot think society is static to these laws. And for practical reasons, promoting the sexual revolution's view of family planning has damaged society in a practical sense by not being able to provide a replaceable population, damaging its economy and promoting immigration policies to protect the country's welfare.


2. Your initial claims generally relies on the right to bodily autonomy but one's rights should not be used to deny the rights of others, particularly the most innocent in this scenario.

>>1671846
Well, I guess. The first thing that comes to mind, to me, are sexual deviants, or anyhow people inclined to rape someone, and Down people. Autists too, I guess. There ought to be some form of regulation tho.. there's no way such a system would be as vague as the fucking Youtube community guidelines

>>1671922
Shit, forgot to greentext the second one.

>>1671846
What abuse ? What's the downside if all mentally ill people are sterilised ?

>>1671885
Because from my perspective, if they were to abort, the child would either be ill or life-threatening to the mother, if not result of rape from someone with unfavorable eugenics. I'd gladly give it away in any other case

I fail to see how I, as a man, should have any say in this matter.

Whether or not abortion is allowed should be strictly for women to decide, since they are the only ones affected by it.

>>1671969
>I fail to see how I, as a man, should have any say in this matter.

The core of the argument for one side is about the right to life of the unborn. Discussion of rights is a unisex discussion.

>>1671969
A woman deciding to get abort without the man's consent is no different than the man giving consent while the woman doesn't. Saying your own partner's pregnancy doesn't affect you at all as the man is plain wrong and doesn't reflect what a relationship is at all

>>1671978
But saying that it affects a man just as much doesn't reflect what a pregnancy is, either.

I think that on a personal level women should respect their partners enough to discuss it with them before having the operation conducted. If they love their partners, they will listen to their side.

But in my view, that's also all you can really expect. The pregnancy is only carried out by the woman, so it should ultimately be her decision.

However, men should also have the right to exempt themselves from any responsibility in regards to parenting or child support, if the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion.
>>1671976

> The right to life of the unborn

Personally, I believe that laws and rights should be, and ultimately are, instrumental. And from an instrumental point of view, protecting the concrete rights of existing individuals is more important than the abstract rights of potential individuals.

>>1671993
Sounds reasonable enough to me. Ideally, you'd only get an abortion when both parties agree to, but it is true that the pregnancy is ultimately carried out by the woman. Uh, I guess that settles this little section of the argument, eh?

File: A Hard Night with Kirby.jpg (58KB, 648x648px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 648x648px

>>1671993
Sort of outright ignoring the previous discussion on leaving the abortion discussion to women, no?

>And from an instrumental point of view, protecting the concrete rights of existing individuals is more important than the abstract rights of potential individuals.

The belief of a "potential individual" is core to your claim. However, that's not backed by any scientific claims and thus simply falls flat.

And in your view of instrumental rights, it seems given the poor effects of the sexual revolution on western countries at large that there would be reason to protect the unborn involved.

>>1671969
>only ones affected by it

We'll see if you if you still say that when your girlfriend kills your baby without even telling you about it beforehand, hides it from you for two years, and then only admits it to you while completely drunk, after you proposed to her, expecting to be forgiven.

>>1672009
Or maybe we'll just ignore the human killed by the mother and say only the mother was the only one affected by it.

>>1670198
Pro-life label is misleading. It's pro-gynaecologists as they will get more money out of blackmarket abortions.

>>1672014
My that logic, Pro-Choice is actually just Pro-Sexual Liberation as it was promoted precisely for those political goals.

But both are shitty judgements and we shouldn't try to antagonize those we disagree with.

>>1672011
>tripfag is a cuck who let's women kill his children

What a fucking shock

File: de cant spot mi but de can spot mi sweg.jpg (4KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 100x100px

>>1672018
>this anon

I know it's late but you shouldn't have this much trouble reading, Anon.

>>1672009
should have found a better girl, then.
>>1672007
I ignored your comment because I don't see your contribution. You simply called it unisex and moved on, how am I supposed to deal with that?

> The belief of a potential individual is core to your claim

None of what I am saying is based on beliefs. That a woman is an autonomous subject whereas a fetus isn't, but potentially could be, is a fact.

Looking at it from an instrumental/pragmatic point of view, I fail to see how outlawing abortions would solve any problems. It would serve no purpose other than to satisfy the hurt feelings of third parties.

On the other hand, it would create a turn of problems with shadow clinics, undesired babies (with all that that entails of crime and welfare expenses), dangerous half-assed abortion jobs and uneven gender rights. It would also make poor sense economically, because women would be forced off the labour market.

It really doesn't seem worth it.

>>1672016
Perhaps. The point is that pro-gynaecologists are doing it for money and greedy people should be executed, their spawn should be used for medical experiments their property burned, ploughed and salted.

>>1670774
It's not because of abortions, it's because people are more inbred in the third world, and they are more exposed to other causes of birth defects (dangerous chemicals, certain diseases, etc)

>>1670862
There's a difference between killing someone in a war because they are an enemy combatant and want to kill you, killing a convicted criminal who has committed a crime bad enough to warrant execution, and ending the life of a person who literally hasn't done anything yet, who hasn't even left the womb.

>>1672023
>I ignored your comment because I don't see your contribution. You simply called it unisex and moved on, how am I supposed to deal with that?

Meh, my claim was that your view relied on a limited grasp of the whole discussion. I shared one major thing you're leaving out and you decided to stop talking about the initial claim. It's no big deal, but I found it worth noting how you did the transition.


>None of what I am saying is based on beliefs. That a woman is an autonomous subject whereas a fetus isn't, but potentially could be, is a fact.

Now you use the word "subject". How are you defining the words "subject" and "individual" and why aren't you using words such as "human"? It seems quite a lot like picking and choosing when to deny rights from them.

If you were to claim autonomy was the defining point in gaining rights then how you define "autonomy" would regardless be for the pro-life position of overturning Roe v. Wade. Either autonomy is fetal viability, which happens before birth, or autonomy in a strict socioeconomic+biological sense, from which the autonomy is years down the line. Regardless, there's no non-arbitrary reason as to value autonomy over other options nor a reason given to not protect the rights of "potential individuals" when their protection could be instrumental to society's welfare on a psychological and socioeconomic perspective.


>I fail to see...

Given the socioeconomic collapse in the west through the sexual revolution in the 60s, outlawing abortions would aid in reversing that, to say the very least.


>On the other hand...

Please don't try to defend "equal gender rights" after trying to defend killing humans for instrumental purposes, that's just silly. Further, there is no gender inequality there and undesirable babies are a better alternative to the spread of broken families we got. And yes, people do break the law despite it existing.

File: Comfy Gaming.jpg (130KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1000x1000px

>>1672027
And I think the pro-choice people are some mix of anti-scientific, ignorant, ultimately self-serving, and wholly antagonistic to dissent because they're so terribly entrenched within their own mindset.

You're helping towards providing at least one of those right.

>>1672068
> Subject, individual

I'm using them interchangably. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

> If you were to claim....

This reasoning only further proves my point. Any demarcation would ultimately be arbitrary, hence, in my view, we should go with the most pragmatic approach.

> Given the socio-economic collapse

What socio-economic collapse? The longest period of sustained growth in economy and living standards? That one?

Also nice job completely ignoring all the economic arguments I presented, I guess that makes it a whole lot easier for you.

> There is no gender inequality there

The fact that unprotected sex means nine months of pregnancy for the woman and nothing for the man isn't unequal?

>>1670333
Your logic means that I shouldn't care if you go off and murder, torture, or rape someone. Unlike you, I have some fucking moral integrity, and I care about whether people do the right thing or not, even if it doesn't directly affect me.

>>1672100
Not that guy, but you certainly should care if people can murder, torture and rape ARBITRARILY, because that has the potential of affecting anyone in society.

But abortion isn't arbitrary, so you are just a retard for comparing the two.

>>1672111
I don't care if some form of cruelty only affects a certain subsection of society that I'm not a part of. Cruelty is always fucking wrong, regardless of whether it affects everyone, or if it affects only a small group of people.

You are still showing your total lack of compassion, and your insistence that I should only care about injustices that might affect me is revolting.

>>1672121
This is my biggest gripe with you pro-life idiots. You seem to believe that because we are able to take a step back and acknowledge that society has to accept certain unpleasant facts, it must also mean that we condone and even celebrate those facts.

I shouldn't even have to say this, but I consider abortion immoral and I wish it wouldn't have to be carried out, but I can also see the many reasons for why it is a necessary evil. Society shouldn't build laws around my feelings and my sense of morality, but around what makes life the easiest for everyone.

> your insistence that I should only care about injustices that might affect me is revolting

I fail to see that. In fact, I think you are kidding yourself for thinking that you don't operate by precisely the same means.

What other reason would there be to care? Compassion, as you call it, exists precisely because the horrible things that happen to others might also affect us, and we understand that.

I don't know about Anglo-Saxon law but common law recognises the unborn child as a living person in cases when he or she would be an heir. In such cases, abortion would be seen as murder out of self-interest.

And even discounting law, abortion is clearly an act of taking a life. I don't see anything controversial in prematurely ending the lives of the crippled.

>>1672073
t. my uncle totally isn't gynaecologist

File: ItemIcon032.png (5KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 320x320px

>>1672098
>I'm using them interchangably. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Yes, and you're not defining them. You're using them as a byword, in my eyes, to the common pro-choice topic of personhood when what we should be talking about is humans and their rights.

>This reasoning only further proves my point. Any demarcation would ultimately be arbitrary, hence, in my view, we should go with the most pragmatic approach.

Any demarcation besides based on humans themselves would be arbitrary as our history of natural rights extends from a study of things in nature rather than randomly-chosen goals to achieve. Your pragmatic approach ultimately relies on some arbitrary designation to get off the ground.

>What socio-economic collapse?

The growth in broken families by a massive, massive extent which has led to much smaller economic mobility and one of the largest (but definitely not single) thing to destroy the middle class, influenced minority economic growth, and the like. That one.


>Also nice job completely ignoring all the economic arguments

You have me there. I outright missed that one argument you had. But, regardless, this does not help much. Female migration into the labor market made for individuals in the market to have less competitive power and allowed businesses to be less competitive. Doubling your labor market in a 5-10 year period or so doesn't seem like the market unless there's more business to accommodate it.


>The fact that unprotected sex means nine months of pregnancy for the woman and nothing for the man isn't unequal?

I was not aware nature could be sexist, my apologies. To accommodate this, the west had for more than a millennia supported the man sticking with the mother in marriage. That defense has gotten only weaker as abortion and such has enabled views of sexuality to take prime attention rather than that of family.

And you seem to ignore how abortion has led to a gender inequality for men then?

It's late. I'm out.

>>1672143
>this guy

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-09-09 10:14:25 Post No.1672161
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-09-09 10:14:25 Post No.1672161 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/88172578