Abortion Ban in Poland

>>74405
Someone should make a Poland ball of this event.
Also
>Poland
>Civilized
Pick one

>>74405
>When you think world is moving forward into the brighter future
How stupid do you have to be to think things would ever get better.

>criminalize miscarriages
Top kek.

I smell a set up.
Did I pass the minimum required Intelligence test to not fall for this?
Do I win a prize?

>>74420
The article also says, of course, there are automatically exceptions like health risk, rape, etc

>>74420
Have you had your head up your ass?
Have you not been paying attention?
Even in the great U S of A you can do time for have a miscarriage.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/arrested-having-miscarriage-7-appalling-instances-where-pregnant-women-were
https://thinkprogress.org/this-woman-says-she-had-a-miscarriage-now-she-could-face-70-years-in-prison-c62d73ba32e1#.r8tteqg4q
http://now.org/resource/criminalizing-miscarriage-purvi-patel-case-reveals-growing-pattern-of-prosecutions/

>>74425
Did you read the infographic?
Did you read the article and compare the two?
Did you notice the hashtag is similar to #blacklivesmatter?
Did you think 'what does #blackprotest have to do with this?'

This is either a troll, or an attempt to hijack #BLM.

Also, cunts have been getting away with drinking, doing drugs, and dumping babies in trashcans (as in the articles you linked) since forever.

Nothing more progressive and civilized and respectful for human life than sluts having their "accidents" sucked out of their womb by a vacuuming device and then thrown into the garbage.

>>74430
While forcing someone to have a rape baby is the civilized approach?

>>74405

To be fair, if you oppose abortions on the argument that a fetus has the same legal personhood as a new-born baby, then banning abortions in all cases -- no exceptions -- is the only logically consistent conclusion.

>>74437
And the only way to truly end world hunger among humans is to just kill every last one of them.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I just felt like taking the piss.

>>74441
Or feed them all.

>>74405
OP should have been aborted for being retarded.

Either you ban abortion in all cases where subjectivity is involved or you keep it legal on demand for any reason: there is no middle ground.

If you give 'exceptions' to the abortion ban you will just create a black market of lies. If you have a rape exception: prepare to have a spike in false rape accusations. If you have a deformed fetus exception prepare for doctors who will set up a practice solely upon the diagnosing of 'deformed fetuses' and charging some extra fees for the 'correct' diagnosis. If you don't criminalize miscarriages, then prepare to have perfectly healthy young women flooding the ER with 'spontaneous vaginal bleeding.' (and those bitches when questioned will turn on the crocodile tears and claim that she had already picked out names and everything).

I point this all out because it should be obvious to anyone, but OP's post proves otherwise.

Abortion is an all or nothing game: one that women demand be all. Women love being god and deciding who lives and who dies. Women are collectively the antichrist; they are the false gods/whores of Babylon.

Don't get me wrong: abortion should remain legal so long as 1/2 of all abortions are black. Margaret Sanger is a hero. Eugenics, Eugenics for a better future.

>>74449
Nice utopian delusions fucktard.

The first thing a population does (especially a poor as shit population) upon getting food in abundance or even just enough food to live for a few more days, is have a spike in the birth rate.

Oh, we had 3 million starving people, and the UN sent enough food to feed 3 million for a year? Well, our population just increased by 4 million. Sorry, can you send more food?

Also, all that free food put our farmers out of business (you can't compete with free), so in reality we need enough food to feed 30 million starving people. so if you could multiply the shipments by 10 that would be great.

don't be a racist: send more free food.


The truth is that free contraceptives and sterilization programs would do more to solve world hunger than any UN food aid ever could.

>>74436

>waaaaaah but what if the mother was raped!

Those cases almost never happen anymore. How many women get actually raped in Poland? 11-12? Abortion nowadays is just another contraception method used by hoes who can't keep their legs shut.

>>74405
>wanting less white children in the world

kill yourself you limp wristed virgin

>>74520
>How many women get actually raped in Poland? 11-12?
Approximately 7% of men are rape victims. Even if we assume that women are raped at only 20% the rate of men, that implies there are nearly 270,000 female rape victims in Poland. That's over 3,000 female rape victims per year.

>>74425

Idk about penalizing for miscarriage? thats a bit much. but if its premeditated murder like an abortion. then yes they should serve time. Murder is a crime right?

>>74436
how is that the childs fault mom was raped. just kill the baby? what kind of asshole does that? i bet you would care more if it was a kitten.

>>74405
It's almost like killing a human is considered a bad thing.

Good work Poland. Whatever mistake or spot of poor luck or ignorant human action created the child will not be remedied by pretending an unborn child isn't alive.

>>74551
The only other option makes the rape victim suffer more.

>>74549

That would imply that on average 739 Polish women get raped every day, which is patently false. And the 7% figure is almost entirely man-on man prison rape. You can't even hide behind statistics anymore to hide the fact that abortion is just a barbaric and bloody contraception method. You don't have the right to murder your own children because of your poor life choices.

>>74555
>Oh please help me, I would feel so much better if you ended the life of this innocent person!

>>74449
>Nice utopian delusions fucktard.

Ending world hunger isn't delusional, it's a very realistic, albeit challenging, goal. It was practically eradicated in the West (maybe a few crazy homeless people still starve) because of economic development. Do the same for the shit tier countries and hunger has been solved. The only challenging part of it is getting the ignorant and paranoid leadership/populace of a shit tier country on board (see middle east).

>The first thing a population does (especially a poor as shit population) upon getting food in abundance or even just enough food to live for a few more days, is have a spike in the birth rate.

The birthrate of the West must be astronomical then, considering the massive amounts of food and obesity we deal with. Oh wait, nevermind, your Malthusian theories are incomplete and incorrect like they always have been for the past two centuries.

>don't be a racist: send more free food.

This is a whipping boy of your own creation. I don't get the point as I never mentioned anything about food aid.

>The truth is that free contraceptives and sterilization programs would do more to solve world hunger than any UN food aid ever could.

The truth of the matter is the most effective way to solve hunger is through economic development. Richer countries starve less and reproduce less, and this has been shown to be the case as poorer countries rise in per capita income. The Gates Foundation has come to this realization as well and change their charity work from self-defeating, Malthusian policies to more income raising policies. These empirical facts disprove Malthusianism (you are probably too stupid to realize that is what you are spouting)

>>74556
>That would imply that on average 739 Polish women get raped every day, which is patently false
Patently false based on what? That your FEELZIES say it's wrong? Poland has a population of 38.5 million. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

>You don't have the right to murder your own children because of your poor life choices.
So getting pregnant from a rape is a "poor life choice"?

>>74557
So you think a woman should be obligated to quit her job for months to bear a child she never asked for, and then spend the rest of her life raising the child (or at least until she's able to raise the adoption).

I'd agree with it, if the rapist is required to let the victim live in his house until the child is adopted.

>>74568
>You don't think it's okay for a woman to delete just one, or maybe two or three or four children she easily could have avoided having with a condom? You bastard!

Lol shut up.

But, for the sake of the argument, let's assume the majority of aborted fetuses are from rapes. They aren't, but let's assume the are.

In this case, killing the kid still isn't going to make things any better.

Listen dude, you can either have your bullshit "equal pay/paid maternity leave" shit or you can have abortions. You don't get both.

>>74578
In Canada we actually do have both, so the claim you can't have both is, as you would put it, patently false. Although I believe the only effort one would need to put forth in order to convince someone of the benefits of abortion would be to stick you in a room with them for an hour. You could be the poster child of the pro choice movement.

>>74523
>Slavs
>White
Pick one

>>74405
>Government does something you don't like

TAKE A SELFIE, THAT'LL SHOW 'EM

When the fuck is a meteor going to slam into this fucking mudball?

>>74421
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good excuse to take pictures of yourself.

>>74589
I'm actually Slavic, and you know what? I agree with you.

We're not white. We were never considered white in the past, and I refuse to be considered it now. After all, it's a very bad time to be white in this world, you've pissed off far too many people. And guess what? It's just going to get worse for you and yours, and we're not going to burn with you on your pyre.

Mock us as much as you want. We're not the ones whose people are committing suicide. And when you do? We're going to settle down on nice, new westward property. Sorry mate, it's just logical.

>>74587
You don't know shit about the quality of the fetus prior to aborting it.

Most aborted babies are perfectly fine. To use someone who is already born as a reason for justify the mass slaughter of the unborn is not logically sound.

The only way to do so is if the signs of the person's deficiency is measurable in the womb. Like microcephaly or profound physical deformity.

>>74565
>economic development will save the starving peoples.

We already tried that in South Africa and India. Building all those railroads and hospitals should did bring down the birth rates there to reasonable levels.

Two can play the comparing apples to oranges game. or in this case comparing niggers to crackas. Wealth lowers white birthrates: it does fuck all to black birthrates

>>74405
making it defacto illegal is good, just like Japan, and from their you make exceptions and workarounds for those that need it while the law keeps the responsible if they try to benefit from it.

>>74592
>Mass slaughter
Why are anti-abortion people always so melodramatic?

>>74554
No one's pretending they aren't alive. I don't pretend my cum isn't alive when I flush it away, neither do I mourn the dust in my hoover, knowing full well that it is a dead human.

>>74650

the pro-choice people tend to be pretty melodramatic as well.

>>74587
So you can't read in addition to being dumb.

My final argument is that women should be held to the same standard as men; which is if a guy thew an inconvenient child away he would be a criminal.

>>74651
Those are completely different things and you know it.

>>74578
>In this case, killing the kid still isn't going to make things any better.
No, but it will prevent the mother from going through any additional suffering as a consequence of the rape.

>you can either have your bullshit "equal pay/paid maternity leave" shit or you can have abortions. You don't get both.
What's the reasoning behind this? Is there some limited reservoir of "reproductive rights" floating around somewhere in Dimension Z that's about to run dry?

>>74600
>Wealth lowers white birthrates: it does fuck all to black birthrates
Because we dumped investment into those "black" countries without eliminating corruption first, with the end result that we just helped the rich get richer, while the majority of the population are still poor subsistence farmers.

>>74679
Not really, there's a difference between "living matter" and an "independent organism". Cutting your skin isn't murder, even though you're destroying living matter. In addition, a fetus is not its own being until it is biologically capable of surviving outside the mother. Prior to that point, abortion isn't murder any more than getting a paper cut is.

>>74677
Not if it happened a few days after conception.

>Abortion Ban in Poland
good.

but i think sterilizing irresponsible idiots that abuse abortion would be a better solution.

Poland is Catholic, abortions aren't exactly popular anyway

>>74690
>Not really, there's a difference between "living matter" and an "independent organism". Cutting your skin isn't murder, even though you're destroying living matter. In addition, a fetus is not its own being until it is biologically capable of surviving outside the mother. Prior to that point, abortion isn't murder any more than getting a paper cut is.

What utter shit do you peddle?

The paper cut is a cut in your own skin: the cells therein all have the same genetic material, your own. And even the living material is destroyed, overall the organism continues to exist.

However, when an abortion occurs, the fetus has its own genetic makeup, and is utterly destroyed. That is killing.

PS I realize you're trolling by this point, but I bite anyway.

>>74715
By your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill a clone - no unique genetic material would be destroyed.

>>74600

Good going idiot. You just used two examples which prove my point. Check the birthrates and population growth for both countries you listed.

You will notice the trend that both population growth and birthrates have been declining while their economies have grown. While I wouldn't consider either country to be comparable to western economies, it goes to show that the effect works over a continuum.

>>74405
>Oh look, more anti-Poland propaganda

Who keeps spreading this shit? Merkel? Netanyahu? Commies?

>>74405
>Because they want to force me to have a child of a man who raped me.
>Because they would force my little daughter to give birth if someone raped her.

>Deuteronomy 24: Individual Responsibility. 16 Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for one’s own crime shall a person be put to death.

>>74405
The Polish are practically barbarians, they don't even have basic human rights like abortion.

>>74753
But Poland invented human rights, /his/ said so

>>74692
Yes it would you dumb shit, I would get charged with assault if I attempted to induce a miscarriage

>>74718
>Implying the information wouldn't become increasingly unique the very second the clone was created

>>74753
>The ability to kill those you deem inconvenient is a right
Holy shit.
This isn't liberalism, this is a mental illness.

>>74753
It's the same like telling someone that citizen of US(o)A, know what history and traditions are. Eastern Europe is still bearing marks of war and communism. Nepotism and Corruption. Lots of people are leaving these countries because they have no future.

>>74824
Oh go back to your fucking women's studies class already, Christ

>>74826
Oh my looks like some one got triggered.

>>74568
Fuck that why are you so nice to rapists

>>74405
>somewhere in the world it takes a step back.

You mean a step forward ?

Abortion is, and always will be murder

You're killing a life that if left unharmed would grow into an adult human being.

>>74520
Male sexual abuse awareness doesn't mean fucking over female rape victims retard.

>>74592
Maybe not the quality fetus but where it's implanted. Ectopic pregnancies are fatal, sometimes you need an abortion to save the mother's life.

>>74823
>>74863

Let me tell you something about a world without abortion.

Pretty soon a lot of people are going to have to die. There is not enough room for every potential person.

Do you want these deaths to be non sentient lumps of stem cells that might one day become a person, or would you prefer us just to round up all the poor, unnecessary and politically problematic adults and ship them off to the gas chambers? Or maybe your a forced sterilization kind of guy.

Because that's your choice.

At least where I live abortions after 24 weeks are illegal under most circumstances.

Clumps of stem cells are not babies. they are just combined sperm and eggs getting ready to become a potential person while feeding off a woman. And this can safely be said for said 24 weeks. In reality longer, but we're nice.

>Condom broke
>Want an abortion
>Doctor says he can perform only in case of rape
It's a bit like going to the doctor to have a weed prescription (in some states), but here you go to the police to have a rape certificate for your abortion
>Everybody complain about bullshit false rape accusation, feminists and red pilled alike.

>>74863
If you are able to "fuck", you better be able to provide for a child.

But instead, you think it's ok to "fuck" and "kill" and "fuck and "kill".

There will always be enough food, as long as we care.

Nature will make everything alright, as long as some stupid greedy murderer humans don't try to fuck up and enslave the world even more.

>>74914
what are you talking about. People are already dying everywhere, are you blind?

fucking rothshild propaganda.

you can as well say, that humanity should die all together, who cares anymore. oh wait, if everyone dies, there will be no slaves for the 10 most rich people...

>>74934
that is so simplistic, and so completely wrong, I am pretty sure you didn't read a word of this thread, much less OP's pic.

>>74822
>Yes it would you dumb shit, I would get charged with assault if I attempted to induce a miscarriage
Because you'd be doing it to someone else without their consent.

>>Implying the information wouldn't become increasingly unique the very second the clone was created
By that reasoning, cutting off someone's arm would be murder.

>>74936
>People are already dying everywhere, are you blind?
Yes, largely because we're inches away from a population crisis.

why is Poland allowed to govern itself?

>>74967
>>74967
>Because you'd be doing it to someone else without their consent.
Do you have a point?
>By that reasoning, cutting off someone's arm would be murder.
Boy howdy you are pulling of some gold medal mental gymnastics

>>74550
>premeditated murder like an abortion
Oh dear.

>>74651
>dead human cells are the same thing as a dead human
>doesn't know the difference between a benign gamete and an embryo
are you literally retarded?

>>75023
>Dead human cells are the same thing as a dead human.

Theseus' ship.

>>75023
>doesn't know the difference between a benign gamete and an embryo
Yeah, an embryo is made of two combined gametes. A growing lump of stem cells.

>>74421
>The article also says, of course, there are automatically exceptions like health risk, rape, etc

No, that's now.
The current law being passed says no exceptions.

Not even for a rape-fetus with diagnosed acrania.

>>75069
>acrania

oh god

>>75006
Thanks for correcting the record!

>>75050
There's a pretty big fucking difference between dead skin and a living fetus.

When did this become a haven for ass backwards progressives that use pseudo science to assert moral dominance while claiming absolute relativity? Y'all don't understand logic.

>>75004
>Do you have a point?
Yes. You do realize that if you walked up to someone and started chopping their head open, you'd be arrested? Yet brain surgery is perfectly legal. It all has to do with consent.

>Boy howdy you are pulling of some gold medal mental gymnastics
A clone's DNA wouldn't differ from the original's any more than your arm would from the rest of your body. So if we define killing as "destruction of unique genetic material", murdering a clone wouldn't be killing any more than cutting off someone's arm would be.

If abortion is completely banned, women either get them anyway (which puts them in danger) or end up raising an unwanted kid in a bad environment who will turn out to be a degenerate.

Do you really want these people reproducing in the first place?

>>74405
>When you think world is moving forward into the brighter future, somewhere in the world it takes a step back.
as far as the birth rate is concerned the world is not moving into a brighter future.
maybe if the poles started having more children the polish parliment wouldn't implement laws like this

>>74592
A fetuses brain doesnt start forming until the 20 week mark. Neural growth past the 20 week mark is alittle different between individuals, but the point im trying to make is this.

Can you honestly state a fetus has fundamental human properties when it is without a brain, which is our defining feature as a species.
Before the 20 week mark, It doesnt think or feel.

Its no different, biochemically speaking, then a clump of skin cells.

If abortion of fetuses (depending on time period of pregnancy) is murder, so is shedding skin cells or masturbation.

It doesnt make sense to project human esque qualities onto something lacking such fundamental human traits (ie nervous system, brain, body etc.)

>>74405

Danger to mother's life, deformity, and rape are the only acceptable excuses for abortion. Otherwise live with your mistake you fuck, your parents did.

And there are all of 600 abortions in Poland per year. If you want to kill your child, you can cross the border for 20eur.

>>74600
>we tried that in south africa and india.
Manmohan singh please stop posting on 4chan.

>>74405
abortion ban might be illiberal but at least it helps the population growth. I have mixed feelings.

Why do I get the feeling there are no women in this conversation? Have any of you had to push a basketball through your dick? And then spend thousands of dollars on it for 18 years? If men gave birth there would be a quick-abort stand on every corner.

>>74430
Not seeing the problem here, fewer unwanted children are a good thing. Now all we need to do is make it so all ethnic groups do this equally and stop expecting men to support children they neither want nor are capable of caring for and things will be just fine.

>>75435
there are no black people in poland though, so it's not that big of a problem.

>>75069
irish tier

>>75429
>population growth
>in europe
poland's fertility rate is 1.3

>>75444
people talked about population decline in europe since 1990 and still no one died out

>>75426
> Otherwise live with your mistake you fuck, your parents did.

I wasn't a mistake. I was planned, as children should be.

Sorry your parents didn't love you anon.

>>75429
>>75379
An abortion ban would only increase the birth rates of those who aren't ready to raise children. Which means that while the birth rate will increase, so will all the problems with children being raised without adequate parenting.

>>75436
No, but reducing birth rates in third world countries would be a benefit to pretty much everyone.

>>75566
i agree

>>74914
And here we see 'the population bomb' propaganda from the 1970s.

50 years later and it has yet to materialize even though the earth's population has nearly tripled.

Update your shit, my friend.

>>75369
You know nothing about epigenetics.

>>74405

I'm sure that cartel is completely unbiased and not at all a bunch of lies like when they say that the polish government want to criminalize miscarriages. Keep being retarded for a darker future.

>>75417

All these rationalizations: have you had an abortion or rather knocked up a bitch and then drove her to the clinic?

You sound like a whore who is desperately trying to convince herself that she didn't really kill a baby.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

>>75433
And we found the feminist.

You're late, but as always your dumbassery is most welcome.

>>75369
You are a pretty spectacular idiot.

>>75649
>50 years later it has yet to materialize
>Therefore it is not a risk

Yeah so lets keep tripling it. Get a calculator out and put 7 billion x 3 and then answer x 3. see how long it takes to get to a trillion, then a quadrillion.

>>75433
>comparing a human being to a basketball

please never be a mom

>>75654
If they did they didn't kill a baby, they killed a a non sentient fetus.

>>75686
Oh, good. You agree then: we must start a forcible sterilization program in Africa. You know to stop the population bomb from going off. It may be monstrous but its for a better future.

>>75688
Fetuses are non sentient, non humans. Just ask any good Western scientist.

Jews were non sentient, subhumans too when they were killed by the million. Just ask a Nazi scientist.

>>75651
Epigenetics doesn't change your DNA, it just affects gene expression.

>>75682
Not an argument.

>>75708
Only doing that in Africa is really only a temporary solution. There's only 1.2 billion there now, even if they all vanished in Africa that would only buy us a generation or two. Most of the population is located in Asia, the population there will need to be reduced as well if there is to be any hope of getting back to a manageable level.

>>75709
You don't know how science works. Nazi science was disproven by later scientific advances, while your argument against modern Western science is basically just "WAAH IT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME THEREFORE IT'S WRONG".

And it's trivial to demonstrate that Jews have sentience at least approaching that of other races; a Jew can pass the Turing test. A fetus can't.

>>75715
Part 1: epigenetics are inheritable and if gene expression is altered then the organism is unique.

Part 2: Not my conversation so I'll ignore it.

Part 3: China is already doing the forcible sterilization thing. They are just really good at keeping it quiet so we don't need to worry about Asia's population. Though India is worrisome, so we might need to purge their fertility along with Africa.

Part 4: Nothing speaks more to the delusional hubris of modern man than the sentiment that "I am so much more superior to my forefathers. Look at how educated and better I am. I would never make the same mistakes as my neanderthal ancestors." Which is what your argument is: Nazi science was later disproved, but at the time it was respected by many contemporaries. Imagine what our descendants will think when they look back on our science. It may be more similar to your regard of the science of the 1930s than you realize.

(Don't think you are better than your grandfather: soon you will be a drooling idiot how can't turn on a phone as well.)

>>75718
>Which is what your argument is: Nazi science was later disproved, but at the time it was respected by many contemporaries.
Yes, because those contemporaries didn't have the benefit of modern scientific discoveries. Some day our science will be seen as equally backward, but that day won't come until there are actually scientific advancements that make it so. Modern science isn't perfect, but it's better than 1930s science, and it's the best we have until something better comes along.

>>75731
Why do you keep spamming this in every thread? Are you some kind of shill?

>>75369
So can I murder one twin as long as the other survives? Their unique genetics are still there.

>>75839
According to that anon's retarded idea that murder is bad specifically because it destroys unique genetic material, then yes.

>>75718
>Imagine what our descendants will think when they look back on our science. It may be more similar to your regard of the science of the 1930s than you realize.
Uhhhh doesn't that sentiment 100% relate to thinking you're smarter than your forefathers., by assuming our descendants are going to be smarter than us?

>>75858
>Assuming that all progression is in an upward fashion to a better tomorrow.

There is nothing new under the sun. The majority of so called progress is society staying in one place and rotating.

>>74520
I'm glad you've come to terms with the times I have almost never fucked your mother while she screamed my name.

>>74405
I'm mostly against abortion, but it's totally fucking stupid and dysgenic to ban ALL abortions.
Enjoy caring for all of the downs syndrome babies, Poland.

>>75417

Individual sperm or ovum (bringing skin cells into this is a non-sequitur) have no potential to form a human being. An embryo will, given time, become a human being.

>>76160

Agreed. And the Polish government agrees too that's why they haven't banned all abortions.

>>75812
The reason why science wont be ass backwards in a couple years is because papers, research and materials are avaiable on a global level.

Keeping things confidential and limited to a specific auidence only inflicts massive bias into the studies. Which is why some "Nazi Science" has been debunked.

It doesnt mean that every type of science will be known to be debunked in a couple hundred years, as it is accessable on a global level for peer review and critique.

Hell, most of the science discoveries made during world war 2 time frame still hold up today. As the vast majority of scientists werent/arent driven by an agenda and they have to present there findings on a global level.

Poland's proposal is the same as El Salvador's total abortion ban. The only people who can have an abortion are those who have the money to fly a plane to a country where abortion is legal.

>>75709
>le false allegory fallacy maymay
>le appeal to authority fallacy maymay

>>75708
Are you trying to appeal to my 'morality'? Do you think emotions trump reason?

What you are doing is the equivalent of asking why we don't just glass the entire middle east with nukes, rather than starting with the lighter solutions.

If it gets to the point yes we should start sterilization and if that doesn't work we'll have no option but straight up culls, but we'll try just promoting contraception and killing unwanted clumps of stem cells first. Aye?

>>76176
>Individual sperm or ovum have no potential to form a human being
Every sperm and ovum have the potential to become human beings, in the same line of logic embryos do.
Brought together and given time the sperm and ovum will become a human being.

>bringing skin cells into this is a non-sequitur.
Theseus' Ship

>>74405
good

>>75417
>Its no different, biochemically speaking, then a clump of skin cells
A clump of skin cells isn't directly on track to finish developing into a complete baby if you just leave it the hell alone.

>>75433
Men don't tend to believe that being personally inconvenienced, even to the point of severe pain, by someone who meant them no harm and literally couldn't help it justifies murdering them.

Weird, I know.

>>75718
>Nazi science was later disproved, but at the time it was respected by many contemporaries. Imagine what our descendants will think when they look back on our science. It may be more similar to your regard of the science of the 1930s than you realize.
I dunno, I don't think we're currently rejecting the scientific findings of everyone else, and also our own scientists, if there were too many Jews involved in the theory or the experiments.

Nazi science was fucking laughable even back then.

>>74405
>Abortion Ban in Poland
>somewhere in the world it takes a step back.

Well definitely not in Poland then.

>>74650
Look at it this way; you had a chance of being aborted. Everything you've ever experienced, felt, saw and done would never have happened. The people's lives you've touched and changed would never have known you or your company.
The world would be a different place without you.
Now apply that to every fetus that is aborted. Think of all the potential for humankind that has just been thrown away. Another Einstein, another Washington, another Edison. Sure there's the possibility of having another Hitler, another Stalin etc. but humanity as a whole has learned from even the most evil people. All that potential, just gone.

>>74477
>The first thing a population does (especially a poor as shit population) upon getting food in abundance or even just enough food to live for a few more days, is have a spike in the birth rate.


ONLY poor populations do that, because their model of survival includes having lots of children who would bring money home. ALL rich countries, even Muslim ones, have acceptable birth rates. Non-muslim ones have birth rates below replacement. Your Malthus shit is outdated by exactly 200 years.

>>76249
So then you'd be okay with a stranger living in your house as long as they "mean you no harm" and have nowhere else to go?

>>76262
99% of potential comes from life events, it's not like 1 out of every billion people is born with some magical "potential" to become the next Einstein.

The fetuses who are aborted are usually those whose parents wouldn't be able to give them much opportunity anyway.

And the whole "next Einstein" meme could be used to justify virtually anything.
>police should never shoot anyone, because that criminal might end up being the next Einstein
>we should have free college, since doing otherwise might be depriving the next Einstein of their potential if they're born in a family too poor to send them to college
>we should disband the military, because otherwise the next Einstein might be killed in a needless foreign war

I think the father should be forced to pay child support or half of the abortion or all of the abortion fee in case of rape. All you people talking about how a woman should live with her mistake, it takes two to fuck up that big.

>>76264
That's bullshit. Healthy birthrates is the exception, not the rule, even in well educated countries. Fuck, Japan, South Korea and even Denmark are ENCOURAGING high birthrates.

>>76266
But by preventing them from even getting the chance you're already dooming them to failure.
Regardless of what their parents could or couldn't give them, it's still a huge net loss of potential.
-Criminals choose their paths, a fetus doesn't get one
-there are plenty of options available to those less fortunate to go to post-secondary
-A soldier chooses to enlist.
I don't understand why a life should be snuffed out because someone was too lazy/ cheap to use birth control. You make your bed, you lay in it.

>>74589
well i'm pretty sure i'm whiter than you.

>>76262
Did this really take this long? Yes anon, the fetus that later led to me 'could' have been killed, as could the sperm that raced against millions of its brethren, in this thought experiment. What of it?

They were never people. Stop masturbating over potential, or I'll just start telling you about the dust in my hoover again, which actually was a person, I might even tell you all about those carbon atoms that have the potential to be the next Einstein.

>>76277
They aren't doomed to failure because they never existed. They aren't a life in the way you are painting them. It is birth control, the final one.

Out of interest are you counting the morning after pill as your abortion or your birth control?

>>76277
>>76284
Honestly, going by the "potential" logic, everyone should start having kids non-stop as soon as they're biologically capable, because avoiding conception in the first place is "eliminating potential" just as much as getting an abortion is.

>>76286
Exactly.

>>74405
Sounds like a step forward to me. Abortion is totally murder and unless you (the mother) are going to die from the birth, there is no reason for it. You are killing a defenceless child for convenience, otherwise

>>76292
Killing a parasitic clump of stem cells that would otherwise become another poor unwanted retard, but no that's bad because of your fee fees.

>>74405
I actually agree with the current Polish law. And I only agree in the case of rape as a rape prevention measure.

>>75417
Your argument implies in a sense that babies are less human than adults. Babies behave much more like the typical animal than an adult, as they are 100% instinctual. To claim that they feel or think is similar to stating that dogs think or feel. Yet, most people, if faced with the option between killing a baby or a grown adult, they'll kill the adult. So you would be giving priority to that which is less human.

>>76296
>le appeal to popularity fallacy.
And I would value the mother above the newborn, but I'd also expect the mother to have agency.

>>74405
t. refugees welcome

>>76298
My argument does not hinge on the fact most people would kill the grown adult. It's enough if you would do it. In fact, it's enough if you would be conflicted in any way about killing the baby.

Still, stating the popularity fallacy applies to my argument is the first and crucial step to say human instincts are out of touch with morality. From this point on, you open the path for contrived logic to justify barbarity.

>>76300
>Muh morality
Is a meme.

You are guilty of a appeal to popularity fallacy, and now a slippery slope fallacy. Well done.

>It's enough if you would do it.
Also you clearly can't read, Miss Foot.

>>76302
Repeatedly claiming the other party is incurring in fallacies is a fallacy in itself.

If morality is a meme for you, then I'm wasting my time with you.

>>76304
Stating facts is not a fallacy. That goes for both your fallacies and for morality.

What you are thinking of is the fallacy fallacy, which is stating that your position is wrong because of your use of fallacies.

This is not the same writing off your fallacious logic.

>>76308
You must believe yourself to be a very rational and deep thinker lol

But, congratulations, you have completely derailed this discussion. I did not incur in fallacies once. At most, you could claim I used unstated premises.

>>76311
Nice concession. Oh great champion of moral righteousness, kek.

>Yet, most people, if faced with the option between killing a baby or a grown adult, they'll kill the adult. So you would be giving priority to that which is less human.
Appeal to popularity fallacy

>From this point on, you open the path for contrived logic to justify barbarity.
Slippery slope fallacy

>to say human instincts are out of touch with morality.
A meme: an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means.

Nice talking to you, hope you get over your denial.

>>74405
>the polish Parliament has decided to proceed with a bill that directly attacks women

how self absorbed do you have to have to believe this?

>>76302
>but muh fallacy

bringing up "logical fallacies why trying to counter and argument is lazy and shows an inability to think clearly. if you want to argue with someone try addressing the specific point they made rather than generalizing their statement as an example of some "logical fallacy" that they'll probably have to google even understand what you're trying to say.

>>76317
There is no point in addressing a fallacy other than stating it being what it is, because of their nature of a fallacy.

What do you want me to say? The only reason we are still talking about fallacies is because anon wont except he's talking shit.

>>76313
>Yet, most people, if faced with the option between killing a baby or a grown adult, they'll kill the adult. So you would be giving priority to that which is less human.
This is not a fallacy if you consider that people have evolved moral senses and intuitions that more or less accurately track morality, the same way that you have evolved to have an accurate perceptual intuition of the distance of different objects.

>From this point on, you open the path for contrived logic to justify barbarity.
There is a common theme in a lot of political ideologies that human intuition is somehow mostly wrong and should be questioned, which is quickly replaced by "reason and evidence", no matter how contradictory such apparent substitution is. The major guilty ones of this were the communist who repeatedly said that the working class was hopelessly brainwashed (false consciousness, they called it) after any revolution failed to take place.
But any if-then clause can be framed as a slippery slope fallacy, so it is a useless concept.

>to say human instincts are out of touch with morality
A very large component of what humans find to be immoral and moral is based on a set of behavior which share common factors. Most moral judgments are universal. You just happen to focus on the things people don't agree about. This points to the conclusion that either their source is genetic/biological or an interaction between biology and ecological constraints (the common ones, at least).

>>74550
A fetus isn't alive, christfag. :^)

>>76321
>This is not a fallacy if you consider that people have evolved moral senses and intuitions that more or less accurately track morality, the same way that you have evolved to have an accurate perceptual intuition of the distance of different objects.
Nope, its still a fallacy. Your just writing it out longer. I don't care about your fee fees.

>Its like Muh communism
Are you serious? Is this bait so you can say I'm just listing fallacies again? I don't care about communist propaganda either, its irrelevant. And you have the gall to say I am derailing the discussion.

>A very large component of what humans find to be immoral and moral is based on a set of behavior which share common factors. Most moral judgments are universal. You just happen to focus on the things people don't agree about. This points to the conclusion that either their source is genetic/biological or an interaction between biology and ecological constraints (the common ones, at least).
And? like I've said, your fee fees are irrelevant. Stop lecturing me on the origins of memes.

>>76322
They are alive, but they aren't people.

>>76325
You just keep claiming X is A without providing any justification whatsoever, and after I justified why X isn't A. Your point is to derail. This is pointless.

nice
good to know some people still value human life.

>>76330
Do you really need me to do this? Okay.

lets go back to the start.
>>76296
>Babies are less human than adults
No they are less people than adults, by your own logic.
>As they are 100% instinctual
I'm not sure this is actually true, but I'll take it a rhetoric.
>Yet, most people, if faced with the option between killing a baby or a grown adult, they'll kill the adult. So you would be giving priority to that which is less human.
This is an appeal to popularity fallacy. Because it is irreverent if you or a majority of people would rather kill an adult or a baby.

You responded to me calling out this fallacy with these justifications.
>>76300
>My argument does not hinge on the fact most people would kill the grown adult. It's enough if you would do it. In fact, it's enough if you would be conflicted in any way about killing the baby.
Ignoring that it clearly did hinge on 'most people', you instead try to shift to an appeal to authority fallacy with a hypothetical me as the authority. This is still a fallacy because it is still irrelevant whether I would kill an adult or a baby.
and next >>76321
This is not a fallacy if you consider that people have evolved moral senses and intuitions that more or less accurately track morality, the same way that you have evolved to have an accurate perceptual intuition of the distance of different objects.
Which is simply repeating the original fallacy in more words. It also implies that morality is something intrinsic that can be tracked. It is not. But this is derailing the discussion, as was your slippery slope fallacy which I take this is a reluctant concession of >>76321
>But any if-then clause can be framed as a slippery slope fallacy, so it is a useless concept.

Are you happy now anon?

>>76335
Truth vs falsehood is not black and white. The world is riddled with uncertainty, so if a lot of people credibly claim to see X, but you do not, and you have found what they usually perceive to be in line with what you usually perceive, then the "rational" thing to do is to at least believe it's more likely that X is indeed there. Note you will not guarantee X is there, but you are not able to do that for anything ever. Every of the possible methods to evaluate and acquire knowledge is flawed in some way and best applied to some subjects over others. Popular consent is just another one of them (the evolution of morality tracking intuitions would be another). I am writing this paragraph because I think it is related to how our discussion has gone, namely that it is at the core of our disagreement.

It is relevant whether people thinking like you would kill the baby or not, because your justification as to why abortion up to a given number of weeks is okay is that it lacks "fundamental human properties". This implies there are other cases in which killing these beings lacking "fundamental human properties". Yet, if in a dilemma, you choose killing a grown adult instead of the baby, you do not believe your own argument. I find it relevant to know whether your (hypothetical) choices contradict your words or not.

>>76341
>Truth verses falsehood is not black and white
Yes it is, and is one of few things that is.

>The world is riddled with uncertainty, so if a lot of people credibly claim to see X, but you do not, and you have found what they usually perceive to be in line with what you usually perceive, then the "rational" thing to do is to at least believe it's more likely that X is indeed there.
No it isn't, this is an appeal to popularity fallacy... again...

>Every of the possible methods to evaluate and acquire knowledge is flawed in some way and best applied to some subjects over others.
Yes anon, sometimes we have to presume some things. But its best to keep them down to a minimum.

>I find it relevant to know whether your (hypothetical) choices contradict your words or not.
They do not.

>>76346
If it is, you can never claim something is true or false. The world is not a microeconomics textbook where people can fully and accurately apprehend reality. Uncertainty changes the game. It's because of uncertainty that appeal to popularity is not a fallacy.

>>76351
Are you really going to do this? Can you really not accept being wrong? I bet your sitting there looking like a real smug git with that bullshit.

Appeal to popularity is a fallacy, it will always be a fallacy, and there's nothing your stupid little semantic/pseudo-philosophical games can do about it.

You've lost anon. If you can't accept that then go wank over brains in jars somewhere else.

>And anon accused me of 'derailing'
>Repeatedly I might add.

>>76356
I could say exactly the same thing back to you. Just changing some "is" to "is not". And you probably reply that I just don't accept it because of my fee fees or something. You do not engage what I say, despite acting all mighty about it.

This would not be derailing, if you got to the point, instead of saying "lel, duh X is A. that's a fallacy, your stupid"

>>76361
Your fucking attacking reality itself anon. You removed your own credibility because you can't accept that you're argument is based on a fallacy.

>hur dur you can't prove reality is real
You have committed argumentative suicide.

But no its all me, and your smartest twat in the world.

I've already explained to you why you are wrong, and you've repeatedly tried to dodge it with bullshit, to which I have explained again at your request.

Lel, duh X is A. It is a fallacy. And you are stupid anon. Really fucking stupid.

>>76362
I said that using your framework you can't ever show that something is true or false, not that I believe that. I am using different metaphysical assumptions. That's why I said truth vs falsehood is not black and white. You seem to think there is no question on this. That's why if I take a bit at it, you say I'm denying reality.

>>76365
But the real question is why are you doing that?

You seem to be confusing binary (black and white) with subjectivity. There isn't a scale of truthfulness, you only get the two options.

But this is all irrelevant to the conversation, and it seems from here that your just trying to hide from defeat in sophist bullshit (AKA metaphysics).

You have derailed this conversation.

>>76366
>why are you doing that?
Why are you using the framework that you are using? This question makes no sense.

>Metaphysics is sophist bullshit
It's not. You can't help but take a stance on it, as you're doing right now. The fact you are not aware or you don't care about it is a flaw in your framework not something to be proud of.

>This is irrelevant
This is not that irrelevant because I'd guess this is the reason why you say morality is a meme. By saying morality is a meme, any discussion of abortion being wrong or not becomes meaningless, and you automatically "win". That is, if I play within your metaphysical framework I'm bound to lose: that's why I said this in the beginning: >>76304 . That's why the discussion must turn philosophical (and "derail") before it can turn concrete again.

>>76371
So what your saying is is that my position is that you are talking a load of shit.

That would be correct.

>By saying morality is a meme, any discussion of abortion being wrong or not becomes meaningless.
No it doesn't.

>It's not. You can't help but take a stance on it, as you're doing right now. The fact you are not aware or you don't care about it is a flaw in your framework not something to be proud of.

Yeah my stance is its sophist bullshit. And it isn't a flaw, because that's exactly what it is.

>b-buh muh frameworks
Mine is observable reality, yours is magic fantasy land.

>>76373
Knowledge cannot all be grounded on "observable reality" because to do so you need to make inferences, which require logic. This means 1) that you cannot show logic exists using "observable reality" otherwise you'd fall into circularity and 2) there is another source of knowledge not grounded on empirical reality, intuition, which where the sense that there are self-evident logical truths comes from.

This implies that any epistemological theories like the logical positivism you seem to be defending are incoherent at best.

You think I'm full of shit because the positions I'm taking have more or less "died" in anglo-saxon countries 300 years ago and in Europe more or less 50 years ago. Your issue is that of lack of familiarity.

And tell me how come a discussion on abortion is not meaningless if morality is a meme? Because even though morality is a meme, people still believe it, so you have to take into account and dispel people's misconceptions? When I said meaningless I meant that there are not positions to argue against or for, or that there are no guides for behavior or judgment that can be obtained from discussion. How can you seriously say you favor abortion if you say morality is a meme? This is like saying that normative statements are both invalid and valid at the same time.

>>76381
>Knowledge cannot all be grounded on "observable reality" because to do so you need to make inferences, which require logic. This means 1) that you cannot show logic exists using "observable reality" otherwise you'd fall into circularity and
see >>76346
>Yes anon, sometimes we have to presume some things. But its best to keep them down to a minimum.

2) there is another source of knowledge not grounded on empirical reality, intuition, which where the sense that there are self-evident logical truths comes from.
No anon, your fee fees are not a source of knowledge. This is what is leading you to desperately whinge about your use of fallacies.

>And tell me how come a discussion on abortion is not meaningless if morality is a meme? Because even though morality is a meme, people still believe it, so you have to take into account and dispel people's misconceptions? When I said meaningless I meant that there are not positions to argue against or for, or that there are no guides for behavior or judgment that can be obtained from discussion.
You said
>human instincts are out of touch with morality.
As if this is some ridiculous statement, to which I responded morality is a meme. Because that is what it is, not some magical intrinsic force you can 'track'. I then defined meme for you here >>76313 an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means.

>How can you seriously say you favor abortion if you say morality is a meme? This is like saying that normative statements are both invalid and valid at the same time.
Because I don't have to believe in your magical bullshit fantasy land to discuss human laws and their consequences. And you bringing it up is irrelevant to the topic

>>76423
So you say at the same time you base knowledge on empirical evidence but there are things you need to presume. This is contradictory. To presume things is to claim you already have knowledge of something. And since you have presumed some thing, it's not based on empirical evidence.
Also, if you are presuming some things, why not the others? What is your criteria? Why are some things essential to be presumed, while others aren't? And, please, be careful not to beg the question here.

Even by your own standards, morality is most likely not a meme, since there are universal patterns in moral judgment. Examples? Cooperation, betrayal, honoring parents, caring for children, the elderly and the sick, slut shaming for females, gender roles, religious themes, the things we are disgusted by, stealing, adultery, killing, etc. (and, yes, some of them intersect).

Lastly, you can discuss human laws and their consequences. You can't, however, say one is better than the other, without, at least implicitly, adopting some moral framework. As soon as you claim "abortion should be allowed", you are doing it.

>>76429
>He's telling me not to beg the question

>So you say at the same time you base knowledge on empirical evidence but there are things you need to presume. This is contradictory.
No it isn't, because the empirical evidence is not on equal standing to the presumptions, it out ranks them.

>To presume things is to claim you already have knowledge of something.
No it isn't. Its a claim of probability.

>And since you have presumed some thing, it's not based on empirical evidence.
Yes it is.

>Also, if you are presuming some things, why not the others?
Because the things I presume are based on empirical evidence.

> What is your criteria? Why are some things essential to be presumed, while others aren't?
Probability.

Even by your own standards, morality is most likely not a meme, since there are universal patterns in moral judgment. Examples? Cooperation, betrayal, honoring parents, caring for children, the elderly and the sick, slut shaming for females, gender roles, religious themes, the things we are disgusted by, stealing, adultery, killing, etc. (and, yes, some of them intersect).
Your failure here is that you are under the impression that memetic behavior is divorced from reality. It is not. You also misuse the word universal, perhaps you think the word subjective only applies to an individual, when it can also be applied to a group.

These things that you call 'universal' morals, as in expected for humans, are not a result of sensing intrinsic magic, but a result of mass subjective consequence. Evolution.

Lastly, you can discuss human laws and their consequences. You can't, however, say one is better than the other, without, at least implicitly, adopting some moral framework. As soon as you claim "abortion should be allowed", you are doing it.
I can say one is better than the other in regard to consequence. Morality is the label that comes after.

>>76433
Justifying your presumptions with empirical evidence is circular, as you need those presumptions to use empirical evidence in the first place. I have already said this.

Knowing things in probability is knowledge. You don't need to know the exact causal mechanism of an event to claim you know something about it, otherwise you'd be saying that the body of quantum physics is not knowledge. If you have reduced uncertainty in any way, you have acquired knowledge. In fact, it's precisely due to the nature of probability and uncertainty that truth is not black or white: we can predict with a great degree of confidence what's going on in quantum mechanics but the causal explanations we are using could be completely wrong. If you don't consider such an ability as having knowledge, then, again, nothing is.

You clearly said memes are passed from individuals through non-genetic means and that morality is a meme. I am saying this is false by alluding to the point that moral behaviors and judgments are probably embedded in our genes, due to how widespread they are over cultures who have nothing to do with each other or never have entered into contact with each other.
I use "universal" in the sense that the ridiculous overwhelming majority of cultures (>90%) both in time and space have exhibited moral behaviors and judgments related to the traits I listed in common. That's how "universal" is used in anthropology.

You can say "A is better and should be done, given the goal X" but this is not morality just the said discussion on human laws and consequences. Note that you are not, yourself, saying A is better, precisely because you are just assuming, as an uninterested third party, that the goal X is important.

>>76469
>Justifying your presumptions with empirical evidence is circular, as you need those presumptions to use empirical evidence in the first place. I have already said this.

You may have said it, but that doesn't make it true. I don't need presumption to prove existence.

>Knowing things in probability is knowledge. You don't need to know the exact causal mechanism of an event to claim you know something about it, otherwise you'd be saying that the body of quantum physics is not knowledge. If you have reduced uncertainty in any way, you have acquired knowledge. In fact, it's precisely due to the nature of probability and uncertainty that truth is not black or white: we can predict with a great degree of confidence what's going on in quantum mechanics but the causal explanations we are using could be completely wrong. If you don't consider such an ability as having knowledge, then, again, nothing is.

Again you are are insisting on using the term Black and White when that isn't what you mean. It is still a binary, your certainty doesn't effect this.

You also seem to not understand the prospect of holding primary empirical evidence above assumptions based on probability, or that these assumptions are also based on empirical evidence.

>>76469
>>76471

>You clearly said memes are passed from individuals through non-genetic means and that morality is a meme. I am saying this is false by alluding to the point that moral behaviors and judgments are probably embedded in our genes, due to how widespread they are over cultures who have nothing to do with each other or never have entered into contact with each other.
I use "universal" in the sense that the ridiculous overwhelming majority of cultures (>90%) both in time and space have exhibited moral behaviors and judgments related to the traits I listed in common. That's how "universal" is used in anthropology.

Which at risk of triggering you, is begging the question. And further on that I seem to be starting to get the feeling that your larger point is going to end on a naturalistic fallacy, call me paranoid.

I have already explained to you the origin of common themes (as vague as they are), and our instincts may play a part in their formation, as they do in all memes, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

>You can say "A is better and should be done, given the goal X" but this is not morality just the said discussion on human laws and consequences. Note that you are not, yourself, saying A is better, precisely because you are just assuming, as an uninterested third party, that the goal X is important.

Well I'm interested enough that I'm still sitting here unraveling your bullshit.

Why should I hold your memes or fee fees as anything more than magic conjecture?

>>76471
>>76471
>You may have said it, but that doesn't make it true. I don't need presumption to prove existence.

To assess empirical evidence, you need to interpret it in some way using a coherent framework (i.e. logic). Logic is the thing you are presuming, then. If you tell me you can use empirical observation as evidence for the rules of logic, you are showing logic is true by assuming logic is true, because if you weren't you would not be able to use empirical evidence. This is why logical positivism is completely incoherent.

>Again you are are insisting on using the term Black and White when that isn't what you mean. It is still a binary, your certainty doesn't effect this.

What I mean is that when you capture a signal on some phenomenon that allows you to reduce the amount of "unexplained" variation in the world, you have acquired knowledge, even the causal mechanism for said phenomenon in your head could be completely wrong. In fact, you could have a bunch of signals that fully explained variation and still have the wrong causal mechanism. According to a black and white view of truth, any model you could make based on this would be simply false. Yet, the model clearly yields accurate predictions: the amount of unexplained variation has clearly decreased.
For instance, the Ptolemaic model yielded better predictions than the Copernican one, which is why the latter was not accepted. Still, the mechanism explaining the latter more closely resembled what we know believe is actually happening in the solar system. It was only later when Kepler modified the Copernican model, greatly increasing its accuracy, that it started being widely accepted. How do you evaluate these propositions put forth by these three models in terms of truth vs falsehood, now? They accurately capture something about reality, even though the Kepler modification is clearly the best one. But what about the Ptolemaic vs the Copernican models?

>>76475
>Which at risk of triggering you, is begging the question. And further on that I seem to be starting to get the feeling that your larger point is going to end on a naturalistic fallacy, call me paranoid.

Are we going back to this?

>Why should I hold your memes or fee fees as anything more than magic conjecture?

Maybe because you are clinging to your memes so strongly because of your fee fees, you do not realize your position is self-refuting :)

>>76486
>>76488
>To assess empirical evidence, you need to interpret it in some way using a coherent framework (i.e. logic). Logic is the thing you are presuming, then. If you tell me you can use empirical observation as evidence for the rules of logic, you are showing logic is true by assuming logic is true, because if you weren't you would not be able to use empirical evidence. This is why logical positivism is completely incoherent.

I don't need to assess existence in order to prove it.

And please stop strawmanning and just admit you are capable of making mistakes. All this rhetoric about 'black and white' view of truth is embarrassing. All black and white implies is a lack of a middle ground, which there isn't a middle between the terms True and False.

>Are we going back to this
Well it was you accusing me of derailing afterall. What are we even talking about now, fallacy-man?

>>76490
>I don't need to assess existence in order to prove it.
You do. This is like saying plants know they exist.

>the rest
We are indeed going to back to "it". Just pointing out the other party is wrong, stupid, using rhetoric, sophistry, fallacies or straw-mans, relying on "fee fees" or whatever else you have called me so far does not convince any one.

>>76492
Cogito ergo sum

>>76492
>Just pointing out the other party is wrong
So are you ready to admit you used an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy now?

>>76493
See, you need logic. Exactly what I told you.

>>76494
That "pointing out" should be interpreted as "claiming".

>>76496
Cogito ergo sum is not circular reasoning.

But go on keep fighting phantoms of Logical Positivism, while ignoring the fact I've repeatedly said that its a necessity to presume some things based on probability.

>That "pointing out" should be interpreted as "claiming".
*sigh

>>76498
Cogito ergo sum is not circular reasoning, but it does require the acceptance of the basic principles of logic as true, as any argument.

Still, claiming all knowledge is based on empirical observation will lead you to circular reasoning, because you'll need to show there is some empirical backing behind logic.

>>76499
>>76499
Good job I didn't claim presumed knowledge could only be taken from direct empirical observation then. Isn't it matey?

You ready to admit you used fallacious reasoning yet? I mean we've been all the way down the ladder now, have you got it all out of your system?

What is this?
>>76373
>>76423
>>76433

You are going back and forth. But if you agree with me, after all, then properly answer the questions raised here >>76429 without going back again.

Again, you keep on using condescending comments, as if that convinces anyone of anything.

>>76507
Those are posts of mine anon. That is what they are.

>You keep using condescending comments.
What you mean pointing out your logical fallacies?

>>76472
edgy

One of my female friends put that on MyStory on Snapchat. Thought I'd share it
http://imgur.com/OiX7wWo

Poland here.

It's all fun and all, but this ban was never supposed to pass. It's just a smokescreen to push through CETA quietly. It's a trade agreement between Canada and EU. Little sister of TTIP.

>>76274
Well japan is encouraging high birthrates because the population age is horribly skewed and they don't want a nation of 10 million 80 year olds and 1 million 20 year olds.

>>74405
Solution simple: don't get pregnant.

>>76646
I've been on here longer than you, redditor.

>>74405
Good, Let's stop killing people

>>76661
low IQ argument.

>>76233

No, a lone ovum has no potential to become a human being. That requires fertilization. Conception.

>>76266

>So then you'd be okay with a stranger living in your house as long as they "mean you no harm" and have nowhere else to go?

Why would you devalue offspring by making such a comparison?

>>76286
>>76291

It doesn't have to be 'all or nothing', you know.

>>76749
Looks like someone can't read.

>>76750
>Why would you devalue offspring by making such a comparison?
Having someone in your house is FAR less intrusive/invasive than having someone in your body. If abortion is banned, it should be equally illegal to use force to prevent someone from entering your house unless they clearly present an immediate threat.

>>76823

I ask again why you are devaluing your own offspring? Your offspring is not a stranger.

Your comparison is a false equivalency. Your house is not meant to contain strangers; your womb is meant to carry your offspring.

>>76584
this
law and justice party voted against it yesterday and today
peoples who called for "black protest" against ithe ban, yesterday votes to proceed with the ban so they can attack gov about it
and they all voted in favor of CETA

>>76888
Well whatever you do with your trade deal hopefully you keep your abortion ban. You need to do everything you can to keep as many native people around as possible or Poland will end up a crime ridden shit pile like Britain.

>>74650
Because their entire position relies and spawns from their fee fees.

>>76905
>fee fees

Keep telling yourself that when America's Mexican population and Britain's Muslim population reaches 50% due in large part to the fact that white (and black) people abort while Mexicans and Muslims do not (or at least have the decency to be ashamed of it).

>>76859
>Your offspring is not a stranger.
It kind of is though - how can you claim to know someone who cannot speak or be seen?

>your womb is meant to carry your offspring.
My womb is not "meant" to do anything. It is suitable for the purpose of carrying a fetus as it develops and prepares to be born, just like a house is suitable for the purpose of being inhabited by people and protecting them from the elements. But there is no reason why I should be okay with a fetus inhabiting my womb without my consent, any more than I should be okay with someone inhabiting my house without my consent.

>>76910
Ironically, you're demonstrating your "fee fees" even now. A preference for one's own a race falls under "fee fees", even if it does serve a useful purpose in survival. There's actually nothing wrong with basing your worldview on emotions, so long as you don't emphasize the WRONG emotions. The idea that humans should be totally rational and above having feelings is utterly at odds with reality.

What's up with the "rape NEVER/RARELY happens, so it's stupid to take it into consideration" argument? You don't know how often it happens, and even if it was one percent why the fuck do you want to make that one percent carry a child she does not want, a child that is a reminder of a traumatic event that she's powerless about?

Like holy shit men cannot COMPREHEND how fucking shitty it is to have a child you do not want. Like you literally cannot comprehend it, your bodies and brains were not BUILT to accommodate that. So you don't get a fucking say about it. Why the fuck are you trying to police women's bodies under the pretense of giving a shit about a fetus?

It sucks that it has to die but why the FUCK do you care more about the undeveloped fetus than the fully-developed human? You don't, you're just bitter about women enjoying sex because they're all sluts and that's a bad thing, isn't it Mohammed?

This gets me so fucking mad.

>>76987
So what's your plan when your 40 and haven't had children or grandchildren yet? Cats? Birds?

>>77013
Who said she wasn't going to have children.

>Grandchildren at 40
>Grandchildren
>When your only 40

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/world/europe/poland-abortion-law-protests.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=world/europe&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Europe&pgtype=article

Oh look, it's nothing.

>>77013
Uh, I never actually said I'm not planning on ever having kids. My issue is more with the argument that I should "appreciate" having someone living inside my body without my consent, simply because I have the ability to reproduce.

>>77084
>you have kids at 20
>they have kids at 20
Is that so uncommon?

>>77146
Out side of Africa or middle east where pedophilia is rampant yes it is.

>>76998
>one percent carry a child she does not want, a child that is a reminder of a traumatic event that she's powerless about?
So if you father divorced your mother while you were an unplanned newborn and she was traumatised by the divorce, she can just smash your head with a club because hey, she doesn't want you, you remind her of her ex?

>>76998
>Like holy shit men cannot COMPREHEND how fucking shitty it is to have a child you do not want.
And your female brain cannot comprehend why it's not okay to kill someone because it gives you bad feels.

>trying to police women's bodies
A fetus is not a part of the woman's body. Go back to elementary school.

>>77180
>And your female brain cannot comprehend why it's not okay to kill someone because it gives you bad feels.
Many MEN would agree that it's acceptable to kill someone (or at least use deadly force) to prevent them from stealing or damaging your property. Yet you think it's wrong to kill someone for actually residing IN YOUR BODY without your consent?

>A fetus is not a part of the woman's body. Go back to elementary school.
BECAUSE it is not part of a woman's body, it has no right to reside in a woman's body without her consent.

>>74405
Countries ought to make decisions concerning their cultural and moral atmosphere.

Not everything is about individual rights, especially something like this that affects everybody.

>>74414
Everything has gotten better so far. Why would that stop, because you have a shitty attitude? Grow up.

>>74914
>the earth is small and humans can grow their population indefinitely

>>75006
>killing a developing human is different from killing a human

>>76707
Lol

No

>>77349
How hostile you are towards your offspring says a lot. Something about you got fucked up.

>consent

Since when does this matter? It's your child. Even if you were raped, it's your child. 50% of your DNA.

And let's be serious about rape. Women have been getting raped the entire time they've been around. You've adapted. Rape is simply not that traumatic.

You make it sound like aliens are abducting virgin girls and implanting a Martian inside their womb.

Just love your kid. Weirdo.

>>77360
>How hostile you are towards your offspring says a lot. Something about you got fucked up.
Would you say the same thing if I was a man making this argument?

>Since when does this matter? It's your child. Even if you were raped, it's your child. 50% of your DNA.
A clone would share 100% of your DNA. Are you saying if someone cloned you, and you watched that clone brutally murder all your friends and family, you'd have to feel sympathy for that clone just because of the genetic commonality? DNA isn't the issue here, the issue is that this being is inhabiting your body 24/7 and you never gave them permission to do so. I'm sure if someone was following you around 24/7, getting in your car with you and following you inside your house, and refused to leave no matter what you did, you'd feel that after a few days of this using violent force against them is justified. And that experience is FAR less intrusive than having someone actually living inside your body.

>>77359
>I'm not a newfag, I've been here all summer!

>>74405
>Gee, why are birthrates among whites plummeting????????
>Poland will have to go multicultural with the rest of Europe!
>BAN ABORTION?!?!?!
Kike kommanders despairing

>>74550
Im guessing the penalty on miscarriage is so that they wont try getting around the abortion in other ways.

>>77479
Banning abortion likely won't bring birth rates up much, it will just make people more reluctant to have sex.

>>77518
No, it will increase the amount of births by poor people and stupid teenagers of kids they can't afford and don't know how to raise childrebln correctly. In short, white ghettos.

>>76262
Yeah sure; the babies of welfare Queens, thugs, and stupid teenagers who are too poor and will likely also end up using welfare and living in shitty neighborhoods with shit education. Aren't you conservicucks against welfare, (actual)child abuse and all that? You do know the risks of those things increases dramatically in parents with unwanted babies right?
Why not lower the parasitism from the sources? You all really don't make sense and sometimes I really don't think you take a moment to pause and reflect on what you believe in. Then again, most of you are from/pol/so no surprise there I guess.

I'm somehow more ticked by the theatricality of their "protest" than by the ban itself. But it is a Catholic country after all, should I get angry because Saudi Arabia bans alcohol or because Israel widely practices circumcision?

>>77148
I know anon is an idiot and it's not that common for people to have kids around 20 anymore here, but cmon dude...
a culture where having kids around 20 doesn't =pedophilia. if you get married at that age, it's expected you have a least one kid by the ends of the year.
Why assume people need to be married at 14 (or even before 19)before that happens?lol

>>74405
but this is a good thing you nigger

>>79129
>but this is a good thing
Proofs?

I'm from Poland. Now read and dont say shit! This is nothing else but to pay people attention for this case in our media. It's publicity to hide more important things like our government working. USA wants war with Russia, our politics are they puppies to bait Putin. Polish government starts many problems to divert attention of the public. They have television, radio and they do people brainwashed using topics like abortion. You can see how it work if you just watch your attention on that. Nobody talks about war now, which is coming. People of America! Do something with your own Government! It is hegemonic beast and It put his "rockets of Democracy" for whole world. If you don't see this, you are already dead. NWO coming with big steps. Pozdrawiam.

>>74405
So what if Poland outlaws abortion. It's their country, they could do what they want over there.

>>79217
this

>>76987

you're making good and reasonable points anon. I appreciate you.

>>75709
>implying Nazi science is in any way comparable to modern actual science.

>>74936
>People are already dying everywhere, are you blind?

The problem is that it is getting less and less people who die, since living conditions keep getting better across developing countries. Soon there are not enough people dying to prevent social and economic crises.

your last argument is just garbage conclusion and not leading anywhere

>>74826
haha holy shit lad

>>74405
Funny thing, they will protest when the "constitutional court" is being messed with or when the "total abortion ban" is being "considered" but somehow not when they were being robbed of their own retirement savings haha.

>>74428
>infographic
>no pie charts
Pick one and only one.

>>76772
Fuck off, you condescending bastard.

>>77137
You gave consent to have a baby in your womb when you gave consent to have a penis in your vagina.
Live with your decisions and face consequences.

>>77360
You stated off strong, bro: but that shit about rape not being traumatic is so fucked up that I know you must be trolling.

>>77425
>clone murdering family delusional talk.

You have got to be schizophrenic to come up with that bullshit.

>>79289
>rape not being traumatic
He's right. It's not a big deal.

>>74405
polite sage

/news/ should be unbiased no?

The OP should have given the link and a short summary of the article, instead of adding another sentence of his own.

>>79217
>>79219
>So what if Germany starts mass murdering Jews. It's their country, they could do what they want over there.

>>79288
In general I agree, however not all pregnancies result from consensual sex. The "live with your decisions" argument quite simply doesn't apply to cases of rape. Likewise, if a man (knowingly) lies about being infertile, it should be considered rape as far as pregnancy is concerned, but not as far as the sex act itself is concerned.

>>79290
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

>>79310
Have you been raped?

>"a bill which attacks women"

Oh right and murdering your own child with an abortion is not an attack on said child and its right to life?

Feminists are so retarded, hypocritical and selfish it's amazing

>>79341
It should be but everytime this kind of arguments are put on the table it becomes a shitfest more than usual.

>>79470
are you crazy,if doctors put a limit on when abortions are not accepted (24 weeks) it is scientifically prooven that a child that age in a belly is not considered life yet. It has no heartbeat nor any quality that shows it can be considered alive. Before saying it is a murder to have an abortion think about that twice and if one day you perhaps have a daughter and she gets raped and ends up being pregnant from the man who rapped her, i wish for her to be able to have an abortion before being accused of murderer. What murder is not letting a woman decide her path of life.

>>79431
Just how many abortions or percentage of abortions are the end result of a rape? And when we ban abortion except in cases of rape just how many women will lie and claim rape?

>>79544
>>79544
>Listen and believe. The most radical thing you can do is believe a woman when she tells you her experiences.

If my daughter claims to be raped, I'm going to demand that she prove it.

>daddy, I went to John's party, you know the one you told me not to go to. I drank 5 beers and then Ryan forced himself on me. I need you to drive me to the clinic and pay for an abortion.

The only correct response is: make her own her shit. She went to that party where everyone was looking to hookup. She got wasted in that environment. Then she pretends to be the victim when sex happens.

If I go to a neighborhood were muggings and murder happen every night and I walk around there for hours under the influence of alcohol, then it is my own damn fault if I get mugged/shot.

Don't want to get laid? then don't go to drunken college hook up gatherings.

>>79837
>And when we ban abortion except in cases of rape just how many women will lie and claim rape?
About the same percentage of people who lie and claim self-defense so they can get away with murder?

>>79838
>rape is ALWAYS the victim's fault
I suppose you also think it's my fault I was born with a genetic disorder?

>>74731

This has always been an epic morality myth, that the sins of the father are not carried down to the son, but in reality, violent criminal genes are usually passed down to their kids.

>>76987
>how can you claim to know someone who cannot speak or be seen?
don't you think a parent has a naturally strong emotional connection to their child? It doesn't matter that they can't speak. People grieve over miscarriages.

>>77425
You don't have the right to kill your fetus just because you don't feel like giving birth. If you fucked around, and forgot to use protection, you're responsible. However, I'd agree with you in cases where the mother's life would be in danger

>>76998
I don't give a fuck about you having sex. Do what you want. Murder is still worse than rape, so abortion is wrong if the mother's isn't at risk

>expecting a whore to take care of a child she would have otherwise aborted.

Like we didn't have enough deformed babies in foster care. A woman getting pregnant affects us all, and the less we have of "mistakes" and "accidents", the better. Unless you're gonna pay for the care of hundreds of retarded dumpster crack babies, abortions should stay legal.

>>74523
>wanting more humans in this overpopulised piece of shit place called earth
Go fuck yourself with a glowing hot piece of spiked metal rod.

>Crybaby Polish sluts can't accept the fact that death is a part of life
I need a barbed wire that's 150 celsius hot so I can make sure I'll stop living on this retarded planet called earth.

>>80383
>Murder is still worse than rape, so abortion is wrong if the mother's isn't at risk
If a woman gets raped, she's not consenting to have the baby inside her. The baby has no right to be there, and if the woman wants it gone, it has to go. It would be great if you could make it leave without killing it, but that's usually not an option. It's no more morally wrong than shooting someone for trespassing on your property.

>>80414
>>Crybaby Polish sluts can't accept the fact that death is a part of life
So your argument is that since death is a part of life, we shouldn't allow abortions even when the mother's life is in danger? That's like saying that because "death is a part of life" we should ban doctors. Just because death is a part of life, doesn't mean we shouldn't take action to avoid preventable deaths.

>>74405
abortion violates NAP.

>>80482
>she's not consenting to have the baby inside her. The baby has no right to be there, and if the woman wants it gone, it has to go.

A man does not consent to the baby being inside her but he must suffer 24 times longer for 18 years of crippling child support payments regardless. Even if she rapes him or steals his sperm.

>It's no more morally wrong than shooting someone for trespassing on your property

Try shooting a kid on your lawn and see how it goes over with the police.

>>80511
Suddenly women start 'falling' down stairs.

>>79867

Second part response: of course it isn't your fault you have a genetic disorder. However, it would be your fault if your kids have your genetic disorder.

You know you have fucked up genes, so you know you can pass them on.

Same deal with women getting pissed at a hook up party. If she goes to a gathering knowing its a hook up party then it truly is her fault.

>>80493
this.

also rape pregnancies account for less than 1% of all pregnancies so the whole policy shouldnt be created around them

>>80511
Based dubs speak truth.

>>74405
OP this protest is a bullshit, a smokescreen, that out court (yea im from PL) can sign a ceta/ttip deal with UE, Canada and USA, but out girls believe this is some serious shit....

Example #8956 of conservatives supporting big government efforts to curb personal liberty.

>>80558
Both liberals and conservatives are statists who seek to take away the rights of its citizens.

>>80558
>only conservatives take away personal liberties

>>77356
>Making an omelette is the same a barbecuing a chicken

>>77360
What a retard

>>80577
Omelettes are not made from fertilized chicken eggs: the majority of people would freak out and get sick if they found a chicken fetus in any of their eggs.

>>80511
>steals his sperm
Something which virtually never happens. You're more likely to be hit by lightning five minutes after winning the lottery.

>>80511
>Try shooting a kid on your lawn and see how it goes over with the police.
Try having a kid follow you around 24/7 for 9 months straight, never going more than 10 feet away from you no matter what you do, and tell me you won't be tempted to resort to violence.

>>80562
Statism is the only effective form of government. Any non-statist society will become statist at the first sign of internal conflict. Anti-statists are nothing more than a cult that thinks they can ward off the inevitable consequences of hierarchical power structures simply by refusing to call the ruling authority a "state".

>>74715
>>74718
Also, according to this logic, undergoing chemo to kill cancer is murder.

>>80727
Indeed chemo is a shitty way to stop cancer. Also the fetus is an individual living within the woman. It has the potential to become a human. You just really need to figure out that conception is when the baby human starts and killing it at any time after that is killing

>>80482
You seem to think the baby chose to be there. It didn't. I don't know what planet you're from, or what mental illness you have, but equating a fetus to an intruder is just sickening

>>80693
>implying, sane, rational, good people would use violence against a child for this reason

>>80802
>but equating a fetus to an intruder is just sickening
It's a biological entity living on your personal property without your consent. By all reasonable definitions of the term, it is an intruder.

>>80803
In that hypothetical scenario, nothing else works. You've tried all the alternatives: shouting at it, threatening to call the police, even the threat of violence won't make it leave you alone.

>>75069
>tfw european countries start to pass medieval-tier laws but still wont fund a Third Crusade

>>80808
An intruder chooses to intrude on your property. A fetus does not. If it isn't threatening your life, you have no right to threaten the life of it.
>it won't leave you alone
>clearly it has lost the right to live
You sound autistic/anti-social as fuck. Seek help

>>80877
don't you know, anon? deadly force is permitted if an intruder, the foetus, violates the NAP. the trespasser better prepare his arse for an a-10 strafe.

Wasnt there huge protests against this?

>>75709
>yur juss like duh nuhtzees

>>80808
Because you were probably too stupid to protect yourself appropriately. It's not an intruder, it's the result of you fucking somebody.
But hey, what's responsibility anyway, right? Rather kill my own child than having to provide for it.

>>80877
>. If it isn't threatening your life, you have no right to threaten the life of it.
So if someone decides to live in your house, eat your food, sleep in your bed, and use your computer, you won't use violent force against them as long as they don't actually threaten you?

>>80901
You seem to be forgetting that this was originally about getting pregnant from rape. When the woman actually does have a choice about getting pregnant, I'd agree with you.

>>74405
Go sacrifice more children to Moloch aka Elohim.

>>80912
>if someone decides to live in your house
>decides
Again, the fetus has no choice in this matter. What has it done wrong?

>>80918
So I take it you'd gladly let a family of poor people live in your house, since they have nowhere else to go and have no ill will towards you?

>>81038
If I had to choose between that, and killing them, yeah. Of course. I might even be able t claim them as dependents

>>76262
I know colleges and education in general is considered leftist witchcraft evil now. But it shouldn't take a mathematician to realize that the average aborted baby is far more likely to be average joe nobody with a limited mass influence on the world. Than either of those two extremes you've painted.

Shit, if anything you're making a pretty good argument on why we should support global welfare and other leftist big government agendas.

>>81038
We do have welfare you know....
And significant tax cuts as well.

>>74405
>killing an unborn child
>moving forward into the brighter future
The brighter future of hell

>>74476
>Don't get me wrong: abortion should remain legal so long as 1/2 of all abortions are black. Margaret Sanger is a hero. Eugenics, Eugenics for a better future.

Because 40 years of abortion has produced a law abiding, civil minded negro

>>74405
Poland is so fucking /pol/ right now.

>>80482
>>80808
>It would be great if you could make it leave without killing it
Literally all you have to do is wait 9 months

>>81139
It's produced fewer of them.

>>81139
I was mainly mocking that idea, but even if eugenics were the end effect of abortion its benefits would be countered by welfare state literally paying the most impoverished people to have out of wedlock kids.

>>81141
So you'd be okay with me living in your house for 9 months?

>>81275
Again, the alternative is killing you. So, yes

>>80412
Is this an ironic reddit post or what?

>>80343
>violent criminal genes

Your knowledge of biology is stunning.