Daily reminder

Guys I just jacked off and killed potentially millions of babies

Is the FBI on its way?

>>130614736
>grade school education
Do you murder things when you get a haircut or clip your nails too, you retard?

zygote != sperm

>>130614634
>Daily reminder that the majority of women who have abortions and use birth control are rich, upper class white women

except it's poor black and latinos getting abortions at much higher rates. what the fuck is wrong with you? you want more of them around?

File: 1497550957535.gif (2MB, 245x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x180px

>>130614634
>Implying I care about human beings.

Are you against aborting potato babies?
I am for aborting potatoes and even for euthanizing fully born ones.

File: 1497309830740.jpg (33KB, 310x394px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 310x394px

>>130614634
sage

>>130614634
Birth control's not going away but you can and should stem the tide of abortion.

>>130615910
I'll sage but your meme is bad and you should feel bad

File: 1468753228221.png (560KB, 600x651px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 600x651px

>>130614634
CDC says that minority fetuses are more likely to be aborted. Rich white people use birth control. I wonder (((who))) wants there to be easy access to birth control for people who plan ahead but wants to restrict it for those who can't think past their next welfare check.

File: IMG_6105.png (140KB, 651x556px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 651x556px

>>130614634
That's wrong, mongoloid. Abortion is GOAT

I actually promote the birth control in the Orthodox Church so the dumb ass filth doesn't breed much

>>130614877
I think he means that the majority of women who have abortions given that they are on birth control are rich upper class white women. I guess the birth control failed to do what it's supposed to do.
Blacks and latinos don't use birth control at all, that's why they have to use abortion essentially as a contraceptive (cause their male partners are too stupid to use a condom).

>>130614634
the baby should be black and the mother should be white

god, im already horny

>>130614634
Except it's poor shitskins that have higher abortion rates. Upper class whites have birth control and or the money to fund a large family.

>>130614634

>you can go down for a double homicide if a baby is past 5 weeks
>you can abortion for 7 more weeks past that

Isn't it funny?

>>130616345
Good

Kids with downs died anyway long before modern abortion

>>130614634
Good thing fetuses arent people

>>130614634
OP, do you by chance believe that when humans inevitably create A.I. that it should be given human rights?

File: not your body.jpg (22KB, 395x345px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 395x345px

>>130614634
>Abortion and birth control are Jewish creations to destroy civilisation
Are you really that stupid? God told the Jews NOT to practice birth control. Go forth and multiply is from the Jewish bible. No where in the bible does it say ANYTHING about abortion.

Here we go again with all the emotional whining but never any real arguments.

>>130618660
>God told the Jews NOT to practice birth control.
yes, god told the JEWS not to practice birth control. Never said anything about supplying it to the goyim.

File: abortion_not_a_difficult_concept.jpg (56KB, 483x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 483x450px

>>130614634

>>130614634
Picture is designed to cause a fight.

Also posting the slide thread image macro will result in a ban apparently.

File: 1497013867062.jpg (18KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x366px

>>130619164
Pretending to be retarded is the same as being retarded

>>130616363
Should we force all women to use birth control? At least until we can unfuck their minds and bring our demographics back to sane, reasonable proportions.

>>130618762
>Never said anything about supplying it to the goyim.
Well, the Christians read from that same book of Genesis. Ooops.

>>130619337
It continually amazes me that /pol/ of all places seems to be completely anti-abortion. This is the same place that doesn't have a problem with killing those who, from the perspective of the advancement of human civilization, are inferior. No problem killing fully formed and breathing adults, but killing the unborn makes anon squeamish I guess. I fail to see the issue.

File: 1495256796237.png (576KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 853x480px

>>130614634
Does this mean you'll take car of the baby when it's born you fucking cuck?

>>130619164
I 100% agree that a sperm and an egg separate are not a person. I'd even agree that they don't become anything resembling a person until their brains and nervous systems set in.
But after that point it is murder.

>>130614634
Giving women any autonomy at all was a mistake. In healthy societies women are the property of their husbands or fathers, to do as their owners please with.

>>130619442
Forced population control is the only responsible course of action. We are already at least 3 billion over sustainable carrying capacity for the Earth, and projected to hit 10 billion by 2050. Most of those added between now and then will be in the third-world, which contributes essentially nothing to civilization. Preventing births now will result in less deaths in the future. Accepting ALL forms of birth control, including abortion, is the most human thing we can do from a global perspective.

File: 1426740967584[1].jpg (415KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1600x1200px

>>130615480
The value of life isn't necessarily contingent on intelligence or production capabilities, that is, retards have a soul. As for abominations like pic related, probably.

>>130619548

First of all you're retarded if you think it's such a large majority, if even that

Second of all most people are shit whereas the unborn have potential for great good and are without sin

3rd stop being a science denier, that's a human life

File: 1496898381565.jpg (24KB, 401x372px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 401x372px

>>130619548
>/pol/ is a person
I'm not anti abortion. I am very much pro abortion but your argument is fucking stupid and is easily exploitable. Do not rely on someone else's rhetoric. Learn to derive your own opinions using critical thinking and reason.

People like you who un-ironically use stupid irrelevant shit as an argument makes it harder for people like myself to reason with people who are open to reception.

>>130614634
Removing the other body from yours is a choice idiot.

>>130619748
I agree. Honestly, in a geopolitical context my most important issues right now are getting voter ID laws meme'd into place in the US (for lots of reasons) and doing something about the coming Afropocalypse. Holy shit it doesn't look good bros. Not for anyone. Not even the Rothschild clan and Greater Israel will survive that jive. (Unless the future will be like that piece of shit Elysium movie.)

>>130620203
That would kill the baby. You can choose to kill another person, but that choice should come with a consequence. Human rights should be protected by law.

>>130619830

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Much of the potential of the unborn is linked not only to their genetics but also the geographic region and class that they are born into. Unfortunately, the odds of anyone born in the third-world actually making something of themselves and contributing to the advancement of mankind is slim. Most will be born, grow up, live, and die just struggling to scrape together basic human necessities, without ever having the time to even think about higher pursuits. It comes down to a numbers game.

ITT christian subhumans who can't comprehend the value of eugenics, racial hygiene and cullings

>>130620666
So are property rights, especially over our creations. Sorry, but if I make something then I can unmake it, and therefore have the power of life and death over it. The same argument applies to A.I. If we create sentient synthetic life, should it be given human rights? The correct answer is: No.

>>130618660
>implying Jews give a fuck about the Bible

File: 67b.jpg (71KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x450px

>>130618660
That it is even possible unborn children have a fraction of the value of human life implies, at the very least, that abortion is possibly murder, which the bible speaks against. This is the issue that Christians have with it, obviously, you idiot. That it is even possible abortion is murder refutes the pro-choice position.

Your picture is actually a good example of leftist mental illness -- it ignores that the baby even exists. lurk moar before you post again, stupid newfag.

>>130620699
Our noble and secular system is still bigly dysgentic. If there was no restriction on abortions every, anywhere here it would still be bigly dysgenic. Our demographic problem is horrible as well, which compounds the issues and strains resources. .

>>130619716
>Giving women any autonomy at all was a mistake.

>>130619442
>Should we force all women to use birth control?

Tyranny AND misogyny in the same posts. It's like they were deliberately trying to be stupid.

>>130621113
>is still bigly dysgentic.
No shit? It's alsmot like we should have wiped out non-Europeans from the face of earth a long fucking time ago

File: 1496657050573.jpg (14KB, 238x192px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 238x192px

>>130621171
>name-calling is an argument

>>130619830
>the unborn have potential for great good
Like unborn accountants? Maybe. What about the unborn senior citizens? Unborn teenagers?

>and are without sin
God says some are wicked in the womb. Are you calling God a liar?

>>130621065
Ironically, according to the Bible humans have the power to decide right and wrong thanks to Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad. So anyone claiming to believe that book (Jews and Christians alike) should be able to recognize that Pro-Choice fits perfectly with their beliefs.

>>130614634
A lump of cells has no consciousness

File: index2.jpg (5KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 259x194px

>>130621305
>religious opinion
It's a logical refutation, you stupid monkey.
>>130621358
It would only follow that you idiots know you're wrong, you stupid monkey.

>>130614634
That's not true, go to planed parenthoods page.

>>130620958
If you make a building, you can't demolish it while there are people inside. That would be murder, even though you made the building. If you make a human body, you have to assume there is, at some point, a human inside it, and so to destroy that body would also be murder, even though you made the body. If a mother kills her newborn baby, she's guilty of muder, even though she made that baby, because that baby is an independent human being in terms of consciousness, and as such must be protected.

An AI isn't remotely comparable to a human in terms of ethics. No matter how sophisticated, we don't assume it contains a consciousness because it will always lack the living essence, the biological components that constitute a human being.

>>130616761
I never understood how someone can think that killing something with a heartbeat isn't murder

>>130621485
Speak for yourself.

>>130616761
How do you know that?

>>130621171
>m-misogyny

Prove to me that the pill didn't already artificially and irreversibly disrupt the natural social dynamic in the first place, then I'll confront your claims of woman hating. I don't hate women, but this entire social experiment has been a fucking disaster in every potential way, especially voting and the pill. I will never subscribe to this leftist shit again, and it was just a hypothetical proposition. It's not like it's actually enforceable, though, it probably should be.

>>130618660

Pro life people still win the argument because their issue is paying for others abortions.

The welfare state is theft and thus immoral.

Paying for other's abortions and healthcare is theft and thus immoral.

Walter Block and Roy Whitehead's argument is nonsensical as most abortionists want others to pay for their abortions.

>>130614634

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/07/02/watch-abortion-supporters-chant-hail-satan-while-pro-life-activists-sing-amazing-grace-outside-texas-capitol/

This isn't even post-ironic anymore.

>The abortion battle in Texas was still raging Tuesday as both abortion supporters and pro-life activists flooded the State Capitol to make their voices heard. The Texas House and Senate reconvened briefly for a special session called by Gov. Rick Perry.

>One of the more bizarre tactics used by pro-abortion activists involved chanting “Hail Satan!” to harass a pro-life crowd as they sang “Amazing Grace.”

File: f9FW2.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

>>130621526
there it is

>>130621570
>If you make a building, you can't demolish it while there are people inside.

Correct. I don't have the right of life and death over the people inside because I created the building, not them.

>An AI isn't remotely comparable to a human in terms of ethics. No matter how sophisticated, we don't assume it contains a consciousness because it will always lack the living essence, the biological components that constitute a human being.

Refusing to argue the argument by taking a turn towards the metaphysical doesn't mean you win. Your argument presupposes that humans will never discover the truth behind the nature of consciousness and life, and will be forever unable to duplicate it. I disagree.

>>130621792
By not paying for abortion are you willing to take on the responsibility for paying for 18 years of childcare or are you just a hypocrite?

>>130614634
Abortion is a human sacrifice ritual -- the most powerful known to exist. It was invented by eugenics operatives within the occultic elite to cury Satan's favor while gaining his protection of their warmaking, usury, currency manipulation, and control over the minds of men.

Why is abortion the most powerful form of ritual human sacrifice? Because it entails the most defenseless victims conceivable (the unborn) being murdered by the very persons most duty-bound to love and protect them from harm -- their own mothers, and medical doctors who've sworn oaths to their gods to do no harm.

These ritual murders which society misnames abortions are, furthermore, carried out in a nonchalant and routinized fashion exclusively to facilitate hedonistic apathy, laziness, and convenience; symbolically placing ten seconds of vaginal pleasure above the value of a human lifetime's worth of a living, breathing human being's consciousness.

In short, Satan loves abortion because it symbolizes evil within cruelty within evil. It proffers that a few seconds of vaginal contractions mean more than human life itself, and it does this using the greatest symbols of love and compassion (mothers and doctors), satanically inverted into spiritually numbed, unfeeling executioners.

So the next time you see a western woman screeching about her abortion rights on the steps of some state capitol, look into her empty eyes and know that you're seeing more than a simple murderer. Look into her eyes and know that you're seeing a demon, the very definition of evil. And know that the steady stream of death she inflicts on the unborn is what powers the elite's satanic karma.

>>130621065
>that abortion is possibly murder, which the bible speaks against.
The bible has a commandment against murder, but says absolutely nothing about abortion.
We know that murder is a well defined legal term and abortion is not that.

>possible abortion is murder
It's a poorly contrived position. God is very clear about when repeatedly and unequivocably equates life with breath:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=breath&qs_version=KJV
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Deuteronomy 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

Joshua 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

Joshua 11:11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.

Joshua 11:14 And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe.

All children matter, even the ones born to neglectful, cruel parents.

The kid might grow up to be a serial killer but hey, still better than him not having a chance at life.

File: 7aae76014e7f8140d4b156f4f3b255e765c122acf6dbc9691ea2c1e2619a305a.jpg (42KB, 452x395px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 452x395px

>>130614634
blacks should have forced abortions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

2 Samuel 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

1 Kings 15:29 And it came to pass, when he reigned, that he smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according unto the saying of the Lord, which he spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite:

1 Kings 17:17 And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him.

Job 4:9 By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed.

Job 9:18 He will not suffer me to take my breath, but filleth me with bitterness.

Job 12:10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

Job 15:30 He shall not depart out of darkness; the flame shall dry up his branches, and by the breath of his mouth shall he go away.

Job 17:1 My breath is corrupt, my days are extinct, the graves are ready for me.

Job 19:17 My breath is strange to my wife, though I intreated for the children's sake of mine own body.

Job 27:3 All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;

Job 33:4 The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Job 34:14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;

Job 37:10 By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.

Job 41:21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

Psalm 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

Psalm 27:12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

>>130621792
We probably should be paying for abortions. I accidentally revealed my power level to a very liberal family member by discussing life vs. choice. She's a Dunhamite even. And she was surprised because of how supportive I was of choice, because I brought up logical things like, providing for the child and the burden on society, and etc.. But then I slipped and said some shit about IQ... But then I really fucking blew it because I said something about building express lanes to abortion clinics after that.. Probably sounded pretty racist and autistic desu.

>>130622060
>>130622108
>>130622162
Somebody get this hot head outta here!

So when the baby is born, and breathes for the first time, this is the moment God says the baby is alive with the breath of life.

>>130622025
>...by the very persons most duty-bound to love and protect them from harm -- their own mothers, and medical doctors who've sworn oaths to their gods to do no harm.

We are, or at least should be, duty-bound to protect and continue the advancement of human civilization first and foremost. Civilization doesn't come without sacrifice. If we are unwilling to do what must be done to "trim the fat" and maintain a reasonable population given our resources, then we as a species aren't worthy yet to call ourselves civilized. Depending on how harsh nature is with the next extinction level event, we might not even be worthy of continued existence.

People thinking about abortion in terms of the individuals involved are thinking far too small.

How many of you that are against abortion even have kids?

Tax dollars shouldn't go towards abortion. That said, abortion should still be legal.

Are embryos people? Some say yes, some say no, I say it doesn't even matter. If a 5 year old kid comes down with some kind of illness that requires the mother to give daily blood transfusions and have potential complications of diabetes, blood pressure, embolism, even death; it is her decision. Autonomy lets her decide and you can't force someone to "save" their own child, even if you find it disgusting. Once the fetus is viable, then you have a case to make. As long as it depends on the body of the mother to survive, it is her right to remove it. And you have every right to use free speech to express your disgust.

>>130622060
Also, unless I'm mistaken, in the Old Testament Jews could kill their born, breathing, adolescent children by stoning if the were fuck-ups.

File: PeterPanPrint.jpg (256KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1000x750px

>>130614634
No, the black community does birth control more despite doing disproportional amounts of abortions.

>>130621761
>I don't hate women, but this entire social experiment has been a fucking disaster in every potential way
(1) Not a social "experiment"

(2) Women are human beings same as men, who have natural and inalienable rights, too.

(3) It's only a disaster to you because most women don't date outside their species.

>>130619809
The girls in that pic are little angels, just like every human being born to this world.

If you think abortion is okay for them but not for others, you're a hypocrite and should probably just kill yourself.

>>130622536
Ohhh! Thanks for reminding me! Did you know that as a parent, you can refuse lifesaving treatment for your born child if it violates your religious beliefs? Research how this has been upheld in cases where Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for their dying, minor children.

>>130621887
If humans create consciousness synthetically, then that "artificial" consciousness should probably be extended rights along the same kind of rights as animal rights. It's not human, but it's alive so causing unnecessary suffering should be looked at legally. Saying "The correct answer is: ___." is not an argument that I can really challenge logically, other than to say that whether you created it or not has no bearing on whether a being is a conscious human, and deserving of human rights in a civilised society.

>>130622536
Also, if you are against abortion, the best way to prevent abortions is through comprehensive sex education and making birth control available to those who want it.

>>130621792
>Pro life people still win the argument
>{{{ argument }}}
They can never win anything if all they have are emotional pleas and blatant fallacies. They're not even part of the debate at that point, like little children who keep repeating "why" until they're told to shut up. They're sitting at the kiddie table outside the building because they can't muster a single cogent logical argument.

Dude... who gives a shit. The only mistake with abortion policy was, I'll grant you, a failure to make a concession on part of the Dems when this issue came up in the fed delegation. Dems should've taken the "only allowed during the 1st & 2nd trimesters" deal when it was on the table.

The constitutional argument that's been made (and failed) against abortion is one under the equal protection clause, and is essentially "(a) the state has an important interest in the lives of unborn children, (b) abortion prevents birth of children, (c) prohibition on abortion is necessary to achieve important state interest."

The reason it failed - the reason abortion is indeed legal - is because that's a dog shit cunt-fuck of an argument, and you all know it.

The case was last brought to the Supreme Court by Texas. Texas, that same legislative session, had cut and / or seriously reduced funding to (a) foster programs, (b) state orphanage / orphan support programs, and (c) subsidies for homeless mothers.

So, Texas basically betrayed to the world "yah we say we have an interest in unborn children, but we don't give a solitary fuck about children after they're born."

Literally - the states who are the most diametrically opposed to abortion are the states with the fewest funding or support systems for their fucking children. Thus, the religious motivation of it all is naked and exposed for all to see.

If you wanted to prove the fact that you ACTUALLY care about the lives of aborted fetuses (the majority of which are aborted early on in the 1st trimester, thus a cluster of eukaryotic cells) then you'd support the children born into poverty.

But no, you pro-life uncle-fucking trailer trash are all too busy expeditiously concealing your homosexuality to actually put your money where your filthy, toothless mouthes are and show up for kids in your backward, broke ass states.

If you want abortion illegal, then you gotta prove you actually care about children after they're born

File: 1497380478343.png (722KB, 998x894px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 998x894px

>>130622060
>The bible has a commandment against murder, but says absolutely nothing about abortion.
Irrelevant, as I've already shown, stupid. This is like an an appeal to definition fallacy.
>We know that murder is a well defined legal term
Irrelevant. And definitely appeal to definition fallacy.
>and abortion is not that.
No, you don't know that, idiot. That the debate even exists refutes your selfish, ill-conceived position.
>It's a poorly contrived position.
It is possible until proven impossible. That's how epistemology works, idiot.
>God is very clear about when repeatedly and unequivocably equates life with breath
First, the bible uses phenomenal language, idiot. You sound like a stupid, butthurt atheist purposely citing phenomenal language as if it's literal and pretending it's a refutation. Though I can't say your ability to lie to yourself isn't surprising.
Second, I'm positive the bible says something about life beginning at conception. Your quoted verses are inevitably a converse fallacy (implying that's only what life is, which isn't implied) or simply a red herring (completely fucking irrelevant to what life is).

>>130622720
Those "girls" literally have no brain.
Their only purpose is to make their parents feel better, who use them as youtube cashcows.
Every movement is a primal reflex, no different from a venus flytrap.

>>130622771
>causing unnecessary suffering should be looked at legally.

So, to make sure I am understanding you correctly, you brought this up because part of your argument is that abortion causes unnecessary suffering to the fetus?

>human rights in a civilized society.

A civilized society is not only willing to protect life but also take it when necessary.

>>130622547
>theocratic laws dictating a death penalty = abortion
Kill yourself if you're seriously this stupid.

>>130622449
A person shouldn't judge a mother for murdering her child if they don't have children themselves?

I don't need to have children to know that a baby is a human, or that humans are conscious.

>>130614634
How many of you establish your stance on abortion based on emotions or religion rather than biological science?

Honestly curious. Not here to say one way is better than the other

File: 4L_re5snR9t.jpg (148KB, 1024x555px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1024x555px

>>130614634

Medical facts and biology undeniably establish that a developing baby is a human being:

>the human lifecycle begins at conception
>all genetic material needed to form an adult human being is present and remains present forever
>the individual's sex is determined at conception, as well as all their other physical features
>if left to nature, the zygote will develop for 9 months and be born


Simple logic follows:

>All human beings are persons
>Zygotes are human beings
>Therefore, zygotes are persons

Inb4:

>hur dur just a ball of cells

Even if you are degenerate enough to think this of early human life, the vast majority of abortions occur beyond this point at the 8-12 week stage of pregnancy, where the baby is clearly a fetus with a beating heart and nervous system.

Inb4:

>hur dur a fetus isn't a bay

Moreover, there are some 150,000 late-term abortions that happen in the U.S each year, literally killing babies that are viable outside of the womb.

>but muh body

Yea, that's why you don't be a degenerate whore and resort to murder to protect your feelies from daddy being mad.

>>130623007
dude the bible was written by ancient retards in the desert, and you're over here talkin bout FALLACIES?!

>>130623205
Yes, I'm a logician, and that's a genetic fallacy. Kill yourself, stupid monkey.

>>130622547
> in the Old Testament Jews could kill their born, breathing, adolescent children by stoning if the were fuck-ups.
God would literally send bears to kill children if they make fun of a bald man.

>>130623094

Explain to me, if you would, how this particular Biblical law doesn't completely reinforce the concept of a parent's (specifically, father's) absolute right and control over their children.

I brought this up because I fail to see why killing a thinking, feeling, born and breathing adolescent/adult is somehow less of a problem than killing a fetus that hasn't even developed self-awareness yet.

File: pregnancy_fig2.png (168KB, 960x730px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 960x730px

>>130614634

>>130622626
>(1) Not a social "experiment"

That's precisely what it is. Show me one (1) other society that allowed corporations to change a woman's fertility cycle for profit. Show me one that would tolerate being ethnically displaced by a voting bloc that unrionically votes against the host culture's interests, in favor of other cultures interests and mass personal illusions of empowerment. This has only been going on for a few decades, btw. It is a social experiment, like America itself.

<(2) Women are human beings same as men, who have natural and inalienable rights, too

I agree.

>(3) It's only a disaster to you because most women don't date outside their species

I think I have autism because I'm not understanding why or how you're insulting me here. Is this something about race?

>>130623027
And this changes anything.. how?

They're still Gods creation, flawed or not.

>>130614634
>Giving women autonomy
>was a mistake
I agree

>>130623274
I didn't say I believe it or that I am religious myself. We were talking about argumentative foundation of the arguments of the religious Pro-Life side.

>>130623272
the entire bible is a farce, disproven by every respected historian and archeologist for hundreds of years. Life after death violates everything we understand about mammalian nervous systems. The entire notion of theistic doctrine is a ridiculous proposition that, while still ridiculous, could've influenced bronze age inhabitants of the greater Jerusalem area but should have no power over the mind of educated members of the developed world today.

Thus - citing the bible as authority is, for lack of more scholastically-oriented jargon, incredibly fucking retarded.

>>130622968
>"(a) the state has an important interest in the lives of unborn children, (b) abortion prevents birth of children, (c) prohibition on abortion is necessary to achieve important state interest."
Does the "state's interest" surpass the mother's natural and inalienable right to decide for herself to bear children or not?

/pol/ claims to want less government intrusion, this is a perfect opportunity.

>>130623424
There is one bright side to all of this. We received the greatest redpill of them all about human nature. It's more important that Rothschild redpills or Qaddafi redpills even.

>>130623308
>ban abortion
>moments later up to our eyeballs in niggers and spics
>ensures elections of democrats for decades and decades
>abortion legalized once again by the democrats
>oh god what have we done

>>130623490
> Does the "state's interest" surpass the mother's natural and inalienable right to decide for herself to bear children or not?
No, it does not, as echoed by the Supreme & Federal Courts for decades now.

It doesn't help that the pro-life legislators' "interest" in the well-being of children stops PRECISELY after it is born, as they make transparent in other state enacted policy as well.

> /pol/ claims to want less government intrusion, this is a perfect opportunity.
I agree.

>>130623361
>God
Sorry, but I'm from Europe and we're all fedora tippers here. No God did this, something just went wrong.
Keeping them alive isn't done for their sake, it's just so their parents can feel special. Abortion or euthanasia would have been the good thing to do if you believe in wellbeing, instead they are being used as toys.

>>130623036
You brought up artificial intelligence, not me. I've made my reasoning clear, and can't tell if you're ignoring it or missing it. No part of my argument refers to the suffering of a fetus. The "unnecessary suffering" aspect referred to a conscious AI, not human life. My entire argument is that human life confers human rights, including the right to life. I agree a civilised society sometimes has to take human life (eg. war), but only under extreme circumstances is it necessary to take the life of a human fetus.

If the mother's life is at risk, then she has the right to preserve her life by any means necessary, as does anyone. If the mother would simply prefer not to carry the baby to term, she does not have the right to kill another human out of preference or convenience, just as you or I can't simply kill the person in front of us in line at the post office in order to be served quicker.

DESU if your'e pro abortion your are retarded

>>130623890
> your'e
> retarded

So if a mexican comes over and gets pregnant on u.s. soil is the zygote an American citizen?

>>130623890
Explain how dysgenics are advantageous to western society. Persuade us. If you're successful, I'll be pro-life anon.

>>130623986
depends on several different factors anon.

For instance (1) did the mother's first name start with the letter 'D', (2) what time of the day did the procreation occur, (3) was there a Raven or Seagull within 2-3 miles of the cite of procreation, (4) did the father have a dog that he was fond of as a child, and (5) was someone in the state where the procreation took place listening to the Beatles within 40-42 minutes of the procreation

>>130623828
Ok, a different tack. First I need to know if we agree on a few points:

1. Humans are one of the few species to have sex for reasons other than procreation.
2. There is nothing wrong with humans having sex for recreation.
3. If a couple decides that they are, for whatever reason, not ready to have and support children, then it would be responsible and mature of them to use some form of birth control.

Do we agree?

>>130623986

I've thought of this too. If you are going to confer human rights on the unborn, then get ready to drastically overhaul our concepts of immigration, nationality, borders, property rights, taxes....basically everything that defines our civilizations.

>>130623007
>This is like an an appeal to definition fallacy.
No, the problem here is that you have a law against murder and separately, an act that clearly is not murder. If you are making the false claim that abortion is murder, the you have all your diligent working proving it ahead of you.

>And definitely appeal to definition fallacy.
We're talking about definition of a crime. Every day, thousands of defendants in the court system go to prison or go free based only on what you desperately are mislabeling, "definition fallacies".

>That the debate even exists
Basically we're just here telling the 3-year olds to stop asking why. so much. It's not like they have any kind of legitimate argument that can't be instantly dismissed by a fair reading of the facts and evidence

>It is possible until proven impossible.
Well, here's a clear statement of irrationality. Give us a list of all the things you believe have been "proven impossible". Can't do it? Then you concede that it's a ridiculous statement. Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting on this one, btw.

>I'm positive the bible says something about life beginning at conception.
Instead of just saying it, let's see it.

>Your quoted verses are inevitably a converse fallacy (implying that's only what life is, which isn't implied)
Gods own words are just fallacies? Thanks for the screencap.

>completely fucking irrelevant to what life is
Read them again. Pick one and tell us what you really think. Isn't it very obvious, even to the cognitively challenged, that God is talking about life?

>>130624295
> Humans are one of the few species to have sex for reasons other than procreation.

uhhh lol anon I'm pretty sure raccoons, donkeys, mountain lions, and koalas all like to sip syrup and fuck when they party. Just sayin, that fact renders your argument kinda flaccid. (if you haven't been to a koala party, go - when those koala bitches start getting faded er'body in da crib gets some son, fo real).

>>130624127
Eugenics/Dysgenics requires a collective judgement to affect the treatment of an individual by their government. That is disadvantageous to western society because one of the fundamental facets of western society since the enlightenment is the rights of the individual, which is in contradiction to rights being conferred or negated by an individual's existence as part of a collective.

Collective judgement is not only disadvantageous to western society, it is fundamentally incompatible.

>>130624697
Fine. Then do we agree on points 2 and 3?

2. There is nothing wrong with humans having sex for recreation.
3. If a couple decides that they are, for whatever reason, not ready to have and support children, then it would be responsible and mature of them to use some form of birth control.

>>130614634
It kills communists, so it's a good thing.

>>130624910
> There is nothing wrong with humans having sex for recreation
wellllll you've failed to address the matter of consensual volition, when engaging in recreational procreation. Under certain circumstances, I'm confident one party to the coitus could not find any recreational value in it whatsoever (ie gang bangs).

> If a couple decides that they are, for whatever reason, not ready to have and support children, then it would be responsible and mature of them to use some form of birth control
I don't know that responsible and mature are necessary requisites for the permissibility of employing contraception. In fact, I think simple "common sense" is a satisfactory requisite for 95% of sexual intercourse in contemporary society.

sorry Im not actually the dude u were debating I agree with u and just being a cunt

>>130624295
I don't think animals consciously aim for procreation when they have sex, they're just indulging in a biological urge, which could be considered recreation. The procreation happens as a by-product of that urge being fulfilled.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with recreational sex, and of course it's responsible to use birth control if you're having sex and don't want it to result in a child.

>>130624910
Check the IDs, you're responding to a different Anon there.

I agree with 2 and 3.

Bodily autonomy is an argument that only gets dusted off in favor of abortion because it comes with the subtext that opposing abortion is some abstract form of rape.

File: activatedalmond.png (56KB, 209x248px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 209x248px

>>130614634
test

File: growth.png (35KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 960x720px

>>130619748
No. Western, Slavic, and N/S American populations are in general balanced with stabilization or a low growth rate, it is Africa and Asia (especially China) that are responsible for this ridiculous growth. If "we" in the west start a population control campaign we will only be letting the Africans and Chinks gain complete global prominence over Europe and the Americas, it will NOT help overpopulation. There is an easy, but painful fix to the problem that could work.

1- Africa
>Africa has constant famine, war, and disease
>virtually all of their medical and agricultural expertise and assistance comes from the west
>Cut off foreign aid to Africa
>idiots who can't farm/stay sanitary die
>population declines then stabilizes

2- Asia
>most of their income comes from selling/manufacturing shitty plastic products and doing manual labor illegal in other countries
>embargo trade and outsourcing labor with Asia
>manufacture products internally or through stable-population countries
>chinks slump into utter poverty, starve en mass

These could work, but they involve mass starvation. I'm sure /pol/ doesn't mind but every (((humanitarian))) would have a fit.

>>130623201
>Medical facts and biology undeniably establish
You've never passed a biology course in your life, have you?

>that a developing baby is a human being
It's human tissue. One day when it is born it will become a human being.

>the human lifecycle begins at conception
Nearly all biologists view life as a continuous process, with living cells at every stage.

>Zygotes are human beings
There's a false premise in your flawed syllogism.

>Therefore, zygotes are persons
Nice follow up with a flawed conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence.

>a fetus with a beating heart
Biologically, the heart is just a muscle like any other, unless you're trying to weasel in another one of those emotional arguments.

>some 150,000 late-term abortions that happen in the U.S each year, literally killing babies that are viable outside of the womb.
You didn't do your homework. Most of the late-term abortions are not by choice. They are indicated either by some event, like the fetus stopped moving or it is deformed, or the fetus will not for some reason develop to full term.

>Yea, that's why you don't be a degenerate whore
>resort to murder
>protect your feelies from daddy being mad
Now you're showing your true colors. You're just a sadist who likes punishing women because they won't have anything to do with you, not that I blame them. Still, it's an emotional argument. Back to the kiddie table with you!

>>130624856
>muh individuality

When will this meme die? Individualism's ultimate culmination in regards to law is the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The premise is merely to guard you against tyranny from the masses, not to weaponize antisocial patterns against the masses or render social and civic responsibility null. And given the vast scope and scale of western civilization, this is a newer trend. "Collectivist" social organization has been more the standard traditionally as opposed to individualist concepts, which simply weren't practical or in most cases possible, especially in cases like Rome, ancient Greece, several others. Moreover, while a system of eugenics would require social organization (and as in many propositions eugenicists have made, would require the state) the same could not be said for dysgenics. Dysgenics are defined as:

noun, (used with a singular verb) Biology.
1. the study of the operation of factors that cause degeneration in offspring

Or, easily observable patterns, such as declining IQ, declining innovative capacity, declining physical health, declining physical size, etc... The degredation of a society's genetic stock, basically. It can happen totally organically, but I would argue that our circumstances aren't the least bit organic. This is an easily observable trend, and to argue that we are politically and socially impotent in confronting the issue is absurd.

>>130623272
>Yes, I'm a logician
You misspelled 'liar'.

>>130625367
Thanks. Just saw that.

Ok, then. A couple decides that, due to whatever circumstance, it would not be responsible to conceive and carry to term a child. This couple proceeds to engage in sex as a normal, healthy, consummation of their intimate relationship using a REASONABLE birth control measure available to them (ex. condoms, IUD, diaphragm, etc..). Then the woman gets pregnant (because no birth control is 100% effective).

In this situation, the external factor that led to the couple concluding they should not have children hasn't changed. Forcing the fetus to be brought to term doesn't change the external factor or the reasons why they shouldn't have children. Why, at this point when previous reasonable efforts have failed and there is no other birth control option available, should they be denied the ability to follow through on their rational, responsible determination that they shouldn't have children?

File: embryo on girls back.jpg (340KB, 1728x1295px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1728x1295px

How many people do you see in this picture?

Now, what would a reasonable man say? One.

>>130625586
I know. I was referring to global population as a whole.

>>130616345
Based Iceland

>>130623007
is* surprising

>>130622968
>If you want abortion illegal, then you gotta prove you actually care about children after they're born
That's wrong though.

>>130623986
>So if a mexican comes over and gets pregnant on u.s. soil is the zygote an American citizen?
Anchor embryos.

>>130626382
This. Cuckservatives fight abortion and don't give a shit about the kids every day.

>>130625700
IQ, health, etc. have no bearing on whether or not a person is a human, and therefore in possession of human rights, first and foremost: the right to life.

Selectively aborting fetuses may be advantageous to a society that wants to consciously design it's genetic composition, but in doing so it would have to commit mass murder, and allowing such a thing is not advantageous to any society because nobody can say they have even the most basic human rights in such an environment.

It's not murder you dickhead: it's just moving a 3 months fetus from the uterus to the outside world. Too bad he can't survive.

File: projections.png (92KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1200x900px

>>130626034
You're a dumb nigger. Africans have no conception of birth control and we'll have fucking colonies on mars before we can teach them to. Asians have repeatedly tried, and failed, to contain their populations (one child policy, various birth controls campaigns, ect.). Your bullshit in all likelihood would fail to influence either continent and instead succeed only in Europe and America, reducing whites to an extremely small minority and utterly failing to reduce overpopulation.

>>130625612

>arbitrarily deciding that traveling down the birth canal is a better way to measure if someone is human rather than scientific evidence establishing clear metrics for individuality

Wew lad.

>>130626813
Superior population does not equal superiority. The greatest empires in history were run by ethnic minorities (from a global perspective). Africa could have 10 billion people in it and it would make no difference. They lack the ingenuity and drive to advance themselves, and simply wouldn't be any more of a threat to white civilization than they are now.

>>130614634
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYlPhFj_3T0

>>130614634
>>Daily reminder that the majority of women who have abortions are psychopaths that shouldn't be passing on their genes

Feminist absolutely blooooooown the fuck out

File: 1497772551886.jpg (51KB, 960x733px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 960x733px

>>130623307
The law doesn't imply that the parent's control is inherent nor that whether their child lives is to be decided by them, obviously. It is no different than being punished by a judge or any part of the legal system. Do judges have control over people when they are not merely carrying out the law's will as dictated by the law?
>I brought this up because I fail to see why killing a thinking, feeling, born and breathing adolescent/adult is somehow less of a problem than killing a fetus that hasn't even developed self-awareness yet.
I wouldn't say it is. Sadly, what you brought up is irrelevant ;_;. I think you find, if ever you do, that when you learn to think properly, you are no longer a proponent of abortion.
>>130623473
>the entire bible is a farce
Stopped reading their. Your little babby feelings about the bible are irrelevant. My refutation above of the pro-choice position does not cite the bible. It is the other idiot who keeps citing the bible, incorrectly, to try to uphold that life = breath because they are apparently too stupid to recognize phenomenal language. Go be a butthurt whiny atheist elsewhere, you stupid blupilled faggot.
>>130624570
I don't feel like quoting everything so I'll put these in order:
>an act that clearly is not murder
begs the question and irrelevant, stupid. You have to prove killing an unborn baby is not possibly murder it does not possibly have even a fraction of the value a human life.
Definition is real and is similar to the converse fallacy. You can't cite something as being a law and conclude that's all it is, or that it's legal definition is all it is, stupid.
>Basically we're just here telling the 3-year olds to stop asking why.
No, the assertion "Abortion isn't murder," remains entirely unsupported. Every argument for it is a non sequitur, begs the question, or is some other fallacy. Purveyors of them are all stupid, selfish people who don't really care about what's true. Out of room, fuck the rest of your comment.

>>130625945
Whether they want the child or not, however careful they were, nothing changes the fact that "terminating" or "aborting" the baby they've made is potentially killing a human being. They had sex, knowing the risks. They gambled and lost.

If the external factors you mentioned regard the health of the mother, and risk to her health that pregnancy would pose, then self-preservation might justify taking the fetus's life to save the mothers. If the external factors are simply that the parents are lacking in the financial or other resources conducive to raising a child, then some level of adoption would be perfectly justified. If adoption isn't possible for some reason, then the couple now have a child to raise, and must adapt to those circumstances. Infanticide is not an option that any reasonable, compassionate human could consider for a second.

File: 1497836513066.jpg (38KB, 400x388px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x388px

>>130625703
Aww, the stupid little faggot fears the scrutiny of his ill-conceived rhetoric ;_;

File: lmao.jpg (189KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1462x1462px

>>130627042
>ignoring china
>completely ignoring your plan for overpopulation i was responding to in the first place
>all of your illiterate pro-abortion arguments ITT

Maybe you should take your own advice and just not breed, you're probably about as smart as the average African anyways.

>>130626020
Would it be wrong for me to suck on her back nipple?

File: thinking.gif (504KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1080x1080px

>>130626020
morality btfo

>>130626654
>IQ, health, etc. have no bearing on whether or not a person is a human, and therefore in possession of human rights, first and foremost: the right to life
>Selectively aborting fetuses may be advantageous to a society that wants to consciously design it's genetic composition, but in doing so it would have to commit mass murder, and allowing such a thing is not advantageous to any society because nobody can say they have even the most basic human rights in such an environment.

Ok, demographic problems and etc. aside, lets establish the morality of your position. Lets look at this with a hypothetical scenario for a moment. If you were to compare two young boys, in the womb perhaps. One has a father who is a genius, and a mother with a far above average IQ, good genes for longevity, tall and fit and all the potential in the world. They both will likely be good parents who can provide an exceptional life for this boy.

The other child has a father who isn't committed to the mother, and it's very likely that the child will be born with down syndrome. In terms of existential realities, not idealism, they both will be provided for by the state to attend school and fulfill their potential as people. Extra resources will have to be invested in both of them, due to their respective outlier status in terms of capacity. The healthy child will likely achieve much in his lifetime, produce healthy children, be a good father and contribute to society. The child with down syndrome will be a burden on society until he dies, contribute nothing, and will never even be aware of his status. Added to this (as is often the case) the mother with the sick child wants to terminate her pregnancy, and if she can't, won't be involved in the child's life anyway.

Would you still really insist that she should be forced to carry the sick child and give birth to it?

>>130627311
Then we simply disagree. Thankfully, you are unable to legally impose your morality upon others. Hopefully things will stay that way, at least in my country.

>>130614634
>50% of black babies in america are aborted
>Poor uneducated women and poor black women who create children that drain the welfare system, are the ones least likely to have abortions or use BC the most.

You literally just made that up, you're just fucking wrong dude.

File: bait.png (290KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 450x320px

If Abortion were against the law, more niggers would do it.

>>130627766
>and will never even be aware of his status
Your whole argument is contingent on this point, but that isn't necessarily true. You've tried to equivocate the downy with a potato by sneaking in this premise, but you've failed. As for the rest of your post, a question isn't an argument. You need to explain why the mother should have the right to murder the downy (decent band name), not just pretend it's obvious. You need to prove the downy is not intrinsically valuable.

>>130628208
It was a hypothetical scenario. How in the fuck do people ITT lack the capacity to distinguish argument from entirely plausible hypothetical scenarios. Most downy's aren't like the friendly retards in movies, they are severely fucking retarded. If a mother wouldn't want to carry a severely retarded child, why would you force her to?

>>130614634
BUMP

>>130628208
>You need to explain why the mother should have the right to murder the downy (decent band name), not just pretend it's obvious. You need to prove the downy is not intrinsically valuable.

What, if anything, is the downy contributing to the advancement of human civilization (other than being a test subject for studies on how to eliminate his genetic defect)?

All human life has intrinsic value, but that intrinsic value is minimal compared to the value of what the individual is capable of contributing to the advancement of the greater good. That is the only thing that really matters.

>>130627766
Yes, because that child is no less human than the child born under optimal circumstances.

Placing value judgements on people based on their level of contribution to society is natural, and virtually instinctive. Determining a person's humanity based on that, is utilitarian to the point of savagery.

I think the cross purposes at which we're arguing here is simply whether a person has (or should have) inherent human rights derived from their being human, or whether such rights are earned by contribution or potential, or simply don't (or shouldn't) exist at all. I'm for the former, because I believe in more than the physical with regards to human beings, I believe in a priceless spiritual component, or at least the possibility of that, which isn't dependent on material qualities.

There are no conditions under which I would advocate the taking of an innocent life.

>>130627862
Why do you believe a parent's attitude towards a child should determine it's level of protection under the law?

>>130628493
>How in the fuck do people ITT lack the capacity to distinguish argument from entirely plausible hypothetical scenarios
false dichotomy. You were quite clearly trying to submit the 'hypothetical scenario' as an argument, i.e. trying to convince someone of something.
>If a mother wouldn't want to carry a severely retarded child, why would you force her to?
Are you seriously implying that the mother shouldn't have to be inconvenience for 9 months because the baby is retarded? Your only chance at a rational argument here is it you quantify a level of retardation at which the mother's potential inconvenience outweighs the retard's right to live. Good luck with that, m8. You people have to know your arguments are retarded -- they only serve to provide the illusion that you at least think your actions are based in logic, when you're really just selfish.
>>130628668
>What, if anything, is the downy contributing to the advancement of human civilization
It's a meme but... not an argument.
>All human life has intrinsic value
>only contributing to the advancement of the greater good has value
Pick one and only one.

I'm sad the other guys shilling here ran away. I had to go to the store because I was craving chocolate milk.

>>130628903
Because the parent is the CREATOR of said life. Humanity is evolving to the point of being gods (in the far future). Gods ought to be able to make determinations such as this about life and death.

>>130629104
>>All human life has intrinsic value
>>only contributing to the advancement of the greater good has value
>Pick one and only one.

Very well, I pick the latter.

>>130629104
>You were quite clearly trying to submit the 'hypothetical scenario' as an argument, i.e. trying to convince someone of something.

My intention was to understand his moral basis, as stated.

>Are you seriously implying that the mother shouldn't have to be inconvenience for 9 months because the baby is retarded?

Absolutely. It's not a matter of selfishness. I am a man, why is that selfish for me to take that position? And why would you force a woman to give birth to a retard? Why would you force a society to care for more of them? Do you have a dog in this fight or something?

>>130629289
Fucking rekt.

File: 1497392721722.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>130629213
Nah, even stupidly calling humans gods doesn't explain why murdering infants is ok, unless possibly if you also believe murdering each other is ok. You still need to explain why infants are less valuable than us, at what level their value is, and at what level of their value it is okay to kill them. lol
>>130629289
Contributing to the advancement of the greater good has value because why? Because humans have intrinsic value? If not, what exactly is the greater good? The meme is that you can't rationally pick the latter. Abortion remains irrational.
>>130629696
The burden of proof is on the murderers to prove it isn't murder, especially if their end-goal is only not to be inconvenienced for 9 months, I mean holy shit.

>>130629885
just* pick the latter

>>130629885
>especially if their end-goal is only not to be inconvenienced for 9 months

Is that all you equate it to?

>Birthing and caring for a retard for the rest of their life, existential regret, crippling depression for creating genetic failure, constant strain on self and society
>meh, just inconvenience. It's murder lol I don't give a fuck about anything that's not my baseless moralizing and lack of foresight

You have to pick one (1).

>>130629213
I can't argue with that, because I can't begin to understand it.

Creating something, even life, does not make you "a God." Nor does any level of evolution.

>>130629885
>>130630287
My kekistani flag is ironic btw. Disregard it pls.

>>130614634
Only oppressed women of color should gain the right to abortion, as a form of reparations.

>>130614736
Yes because sperm by itself is capable of forming a functioning human being.

Actually now that I think about it that would explain why you're such a pants shitting retard.

>>130630370
>he didn't factor in the coal burner problem

>>130629885
>what exactly is the greater good?

The greater good is anything that helps humanity (and its descendants) prosper, thrive, advance, and be better able to survive future extinction-level events (ex. death of the sun, asteroid collision, etc.)

>>130630327
Creating life from scratch does, which humans essentially can do. We can print DNA and have created functioning cells from non-living matter.

File: pepe-turkey.jpg (49KB, 500x343px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x343px

>>130630287
>Is that all you equate it to?
You keep asking questions parading like you're arguing or saying anything meaningful. What you feel it's equivalent to isn't relevant. It's just a humorous example of how evil leftists are -- fighting for the right to murder so they don't have to be inconvenienced for 9 months.
The rest of your comment is just a retarded appeal to emotion. It isn't relevant but, she could give the kid up for adoption. Alternatively, she could have "existential regret" for murdering her kid she would otherwise held as more valuable than anything had it not been retarded.

My argument isn't "baseless moralizing and lack of foresight;" it is demanding that you provide an argument for why it's moral to murder children.
>>130630698
Yes, and the only reason any of that matters is because humans have intrinsic value.

>>130614634

>By that definition he' a parasite, just like OP.

>>130630852
That humans birth babies doesn't imply we "create them from scratch."

>>130630963
Nice name-calling, retarded leftist. Now go ahead and prove all "parasites" should be murdered.

>>130630968
That's not what I was referring to. This is a real thing:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515171023.htm

>>130630866
I didn't even read your deflection m8, past here at least

>It's just a humorous example of how evil leftists are

I'm not a leftist at all. I'm not even pro-choice publicly, I'm still making up my mind on where to stand. But I know that these problems exist, and women turn to the parties that have no aversion to killing babies. They aren't disturbed or disgusted by it. I am. I think it's fucked up and sociopathic like any reasonable person. But I accept the realities of our social problems as well. Especially our demographic problems. Being pro-life at this point is actively participating in western dysgenics and white displacement.

>>130630968
And this:

http://www.popsci.com/researchers-make-artificial-cells-that-can-replicate-themselves

>>130631029

>abortions
I bet your mother regrets not having one.

>>130631029
>>130631224

Now that we got that out of the way, you want to know why (((they))) want to ban abortions?

Because all (((they))) care about is having an endless supply of consumers. (((They))) don't care about limited resources, all (((they))) care about is profit. And fools like you get manipulated into doing (((their))) work.

File: 01515_lNZTcyn02pe_600x450.jpg (23KB, 494x361px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 494x361px

In bugerland Women want to be whores not Mothers. Its taught to them at a early age to abort on demand like a ordering a cheeseburger.

>>130614634

Abortion is as old as history itself. The Spartans that you niggers worship so much left babies to die on the field (and not just them, it was a widespread practice).

File: What.png (151KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 500x320px

>>130614634
sauce?

>>130631375
The first country to legalize abortion was the USSR. It's Jewish to the core

File: 1496653259257.png (133KB, 339x296px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 339x296px

>>130631065
>>130631155
It's a converse fallacy.
p causes q doesn't imply only p causes q
>>130631151
>I didn't even read your deflection m8
>I've defined you as wrong haha
Deflecting at what? You didn't read it because you're stupid and lack cognitive development.
>>130631375
>And fools like you get manipulated into doing (((their))) work.
By what, exactly, idiot?
>believing believing sucking unborn children out of their mothers through tubes is disgusting and immoral can only be a consequence of jewish conspiracy
wew lad, stop trying to larp like you're here for any reason other than to shill, stupid newfag

File: 5tgwetbg.jpg (152KB, 1380x861px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1380x861px

Is When 5000 ukrainian Police defends 2500 gays against 1000 ukrainian secret police, who also are neonazis and gang members.

and 2500 gays are 80% employees of US, Canada and UK embassies.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

HAY POWDER MY DEAR ANAL FUCKERS!!

>>130625945

Reasonable efforts to prevent something are in no way justification for not having to face the consequences of that action, even if there is a potential way to change the outcome.

Those people know that they had risk of getting pregnant, and they chose to take that risk. I don't see how it follows that "reasonableness" is the standard by which people are let off the hook for their actions.

People take reasonable precautions all the time for all manner of things, but we don't use that as justification for them to get a different outcome then what occurred. If someone cheats on an exam in the most clever way possible and still gets caught, the teacher doesn't withhold penalty just because what they did gave them a strong likelihood of being undetected. We don't say they should get a do-over because they took reasonable precautions to not get caught. We say "you shouldn't have cheated, you knew the consequences." It's fair they should face them. We know it to be just that someone faces the consequences of their actions.

It should be the exact same for abortion. People know the consequences of sex, and they should be prepared to face them if they engage in risky activity; else, they shouldn't engage in that activity. The lack of this basic moral principle in society is why people find themselves in the position to have abortions. It's simple degeneracy, and society should reject this through laws that bring justice. That's the point of law - to bring justice.

The worst part is that everyone knows that pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex, even if birth control is used, yet they find every reason in the world to talk themselves out of the basic moral duty of owning-up to their actions that they expect of themselves and display in every other facet of life.

If women don't take responsibility for their actions regarding other aspects of their life besides reproduction, we call them shitty people; if they don't for birth, we call them empowered.

File: (((choice))).jpg (117KB, 800x485px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x485px

>>130631754

>critically thinking human being
>domesticated consumer


The system encourages you to marry and reproduce. They need more obedient slaves, more cannon fodder for their wars, more consumers to buy their products and vote.

Choice is an illusion.

Democracy is dictatorship of the masses. He who controls the masses controls the world.

When the world is made in their image, the family is a meme that works in their favor.

Also, notice how faggots like you care only about the unborn. Once they get born into the world you don't care anymore. Are you by any chance a democrat?

>>130631978
No, it's because you never confronted my points. You deflected by calling me emotional. desu I'm not emotional at all on the matter, and I've never felt strongly about abortion except that it's wrong. Dictating our political positions by our emotions is one of the biggest reasons this country is such a fucking mess. Calling me emotional or illogical looks like projection at this point desu.

>>130632660
>No, it's because you never confronted my points.
My undiagnosed autism wouldn't allow that. You're probably just too stupid to recognize it.
>You deflected by calling me emotional.
I believe what I said is "That's an appeal to emotion," which is a valid and relevant contention because it's a fallacy. That's not the same thing as calling you emotional, even though it would have been fine if I had.
>Calling me emotional or illogical looks like projection at this point desu.
See above.

>>130632957
The points you confronted were points you took out of context, as I've stated. From that point, you insulted me and said that I've made points which were rooted in emotion and nothing else. So I'll ask again, is it because you have a dog in this fight or something? Was one of your relatives retarded, that you would take this position and be so defensive about it?

The reasons I'm not pro-life are:
>the demographic problems in western countries
>the racial outlook of western countries for the future
>genetic hygiene for western countries
>the strain on resources in western countries abortion restrictions would create

You've never argued as to why these are irrelevant issues in the topic at hand. And never once did I try to make an argument to morally justify the practice of abortion or women who abort, despite you presupposing that this was my ethos all along ITT. I have no social power over the issue in the first place, and if I did, I would chose more preventative methods rather than abortion. But the problems still exist.

>>130616345
Sounds like a slippery slope going towards white eradication to me, lad.

>We didn't want our baby to have downs
>We didn't want our baby to have clubbed feet
>We didn't want our baby to end up bald
>We didn't want our baby to be male
>We didn't want our baby to be white

I don't think that's true though. Any stats to back up the claim?

>>130633890
>The points you confronted were points you took out of context, as I've stated.
You haven't stated this, and I doubt that or that it's relevant.
>said that I've made points which were rooted in emotion and nothing else.
Then that's probably true.
>dog in this fight or something
No, I just don't like people making stupid arguments for murder... How can you seriously not recognize that as a possibility.
>The reasons I'm not pro-life are:
It is not possible to provide rational justification for such a position without addressing the humanity and value of unborn children. Abortion is either murder or it isn't. If your position is that murder is sometimes ok, ok then.

>>130634102
Top kek. Great ironic posting m8. I'm glad most people aren't actually this fucking stupid.

>>130628693
I see. I don't at all agree anon. But that is respectable.

>>130634252
>You haven't stated this, and I doubt that or that it's relevant
Yes I have, actually. >>130628493
>No, I just don't like people making stupid arguments for murder... How can you seriously not recognize that as a possibility
At what specific point was my argument stupid? Please reference the specific post. I do recognize the possibility, but in terms of the social ends I don't think it's a valid position due to the positions I've already stated two or three times to you already ITT.
>Abortion is either murder or it isn't
I would argue that the termination of a pregnancy not murder.

>>130634260
You're right, lad. I didn't have to go that far. It's already a thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion

>>130614634
I don't know where you are, but here in the states there was a constitutional amendment that reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" so the standard for life is birth by implication.

>>130635008
I'm aware that it exists. I'm also aware that some libshit trash will want to abort their kid because it's white or a boy or some insanity. But at what social cost are you willing to permit such insanity? Do you realize the racial issues surrounding the issue, or does that shit just not matter to you?

>>130614634

I disagree with a lot of progressive issues, like Gay Marriage, but abortion really drives me up the wall.

Any woman who has one is the epitome of narcissistic piece of shit murderer who deserves to be fined/imprisoned and shunned for life.

>>130634939
Explain how you think that is that is stating something out of context... If you are referring to your "hypothetical scenario"/argument, I've already explained that's a false dichotomy. It's both. You can just say "I'm not arguing though, bro" when your argument gets refuted, and expect that to be an invalidation of the refutation as addressing something "out of context."
>>130634939
>At what specific point was my argument stupid?
Literally all of them. You ask questions like they're arguments and pretend they're not arguments.
>I would argue that the termination of a pregnancy not murder.
Great, prove it, retard. Referring to reasons you think abortion is okay, that aren't proving abortion isn't murder, are all completely irrelevant.

>>123456789

>>130619557
I always roll my eyes at this 'argument'. It's basically 'if you insist that I have to care for the life I created, then you should have to do it instead'. It shows a total inability to understand what responsibility is.

Demanding that someone doesn't commit murder doesn't then obligate me to take on the would-be murders responsibilities. That is absurd.

>>130621358
...are you retarded? Knowledge of != Control over. I know physics, but that grants me no control over it.

Knowledge of Good and Evil would let one know what is moral, but would not let one decide what is moral.

>>130623824
Europe is filled with more Christians per capita than America. You are more alone in your retarded faith in atheism than you think you are.

>>130635353
I wasn't trying to argue a point or persuade him. I was prying to see if his view was baseless while using a hypothetical, you weird antisocial mother fucker.
>Literally all of them.
So you have nothing, basically. And your view on abortion is based on a shallow, ignorant premise of it being mere inconvenience. Now I understand, anon.
>Great, prove it
An abortion is defined as the killing of a human being. A fetus isn't a fully formed human being, up until a certain point. As much as this argument and endless counter arguments are perpetually used, I don't see a point in going over this debate. But again, if you'd address the issues I brought up, I'd appreciate it.

Why I'm not pro-life, again:
>the demographic problems in western countries
>the racial outlook of western countries for the future
>genetic hygiene for western countries
>the strain on resources in western countries abortion restrictions would create

>>130614634
> The women who *should* be having the most children but choose not to.

Daily reminder that the abortions are one of the reason why they are rich and upper class in the first place.

>Poor uneducated women and poor black women

This is the same reason why poor peasants were dishing out kids left and right.
Sure, half of them will bite the dust, but rest will be sufficient.

>>130635905
*An abortion is defined as the killing of a human being

I meant a murder is defined as the killing of a human being. I'm writing something for school now. Sry.

>>130635901
Maybe in countries like Poland, and registered Christians are skewing the numbers. I was confirmed and am registered at the Church, yet I'm an atheist. In Germany I believe you even need to pay to unregister. I have met almost no religious people, and if you come out as religious people see it as weird. Might be a thing of the more northern countries though.

File: 1497943842086.gif (2MB, 400x198px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x198px

>>130635905
>So you have nothing
non sequitur. Would it make you feel better if I cited this post as retarded?
>And your view on abortion is based on a shallow, ignorant premise of it being mere inconvenience.
No, I was laughing how evil that is. My argument is
>That it is even possible unborn children have a fraction of the value of human life implies, at the very least, that abortion is possibly murder, which the bible speaks against. This is the issue that Christians have with it, obviously, you idiot. That it is even possible abortion is murder refutes the pro-choice position.
>Why I'm not pro-life, again
I told you these are irrelevant until you prove abortion isn't murder. Their being valid reasons is entirely contingent on abortion not being murder. The fuck is wrong with you?

>>130636062
Also, the top families don't have any problem with breeding like rabbits.

Middle class is the one that is dying down.

File: 1495992519840.jpg (55KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 512x384px

>>130614634
>Daily reminder that the majority of women who have abortions and use birth control are rich, upper class white women; I.e. The women who *should* be having the most children but choose not to.

Have the government pay for the abortions and take away welfare, watch how fast poor uneducated niggers get abortions.

>>130626680
You do realize that abortions involve killing the kid on they out, yes? The most popular methods are poisoning (early medical abortions) and dismemberment (by vacume or by hand). It's certainly not what you have discribed.

>>130636130
>Non sequitur
You literally fucking said it was a matter of mere inconvenience, giving no regard to anything else. That's why you have nothing, why you never backed any of your criticisms up, and why your claim of a logical fallacy is bullshit.
>Their being valid reasons is entirely contingent on abortion not being murder
Very few people, especially in the legal system consider any termination of a pregnancy to be murder. I'm not a judge or as good at rhetoric as them, so this will simply have to do.

So, given that legally, it is settled that abortion is not murder, back to the issues at hand.

Why I'm not pro-life, again:
>the demographic problems in western countries
>the racial outlook of western countries for the future
>genetic hygiene for western countries
>the strain on resources in western countries abortion restrictions would create

>>130614634
>Giving women autonomy was a mistake.
ftfy

>>130636230
>>130636689

File: 1497379726369.jpg (59KB, 600x587px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x587px

>>130636540
>dismemberment (by vacume or by hand)
>>130636689
You replied to the wrong person.
>You literally fucking said it was a matter of mere inconvenience, giving no regard to anything else.
Nope, I would never submit an argument contingent on "convenience" or any type of emotion. Just because I said something along the lines of "Are you seriously suggesting abortion is justified because the mother would be inconvenienced for 9 months?" doesn't mean my argument is that abortion is wrong because inconvenience doesn't justify abortion.
>That's why you have nothing
I literally just quoted my argument to you.
>Very few people, especially in the legal system consider any termination of a pregnancy to be murder.
Irrelevant. What is legal does not imply what is moral, obviously. It's like you're just trying to defend your position because your wife killed your kid or something.
>Why I'm not pro-life, again:
Let me put it another way: I don't give a fuck. This dialectic is about the morality of abortion, not why you're pro-life, retard.

>>130624127
explain how not killing fags is a benefit to society

File: 1497304803463.jpg (221KB, 766x1024px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 766x1024px

>>130614634
you realize that 1/3 black babies are aborted, right? per capita, they are the most likely to get an abortion.

the person who created planned parenthood was a eugenicist who used abortions to curb the black population, and its working.

>>130623601
LOL we never received any redpilled from. Women.

We just lost that redpilled knowledge and have just regained it.

>>130637296
>Just because I said something along the lines of "Are you seriously suggesting abortion is justified because the mother would be inconvenienced for 9 months?" doesn't mean my argument is that abortion is wrong because inconvenience doesn't justify abortion
But that is what you reduced their struggle to. And you said it as a counter-point. In a rhetorical capacity even you fail to meet your own arbitrary standards.
>Irrelevant. What is legal does not imply what is moral, obviously.
You're moving the goal posts with this. I'll state again that arguing the moral perspective was never an issue to me. I view abortion as abhorrent. It doesn't change the legal realities of the situation. It is a matter of legality and social circumstance that we are dealing with, in a political sense. It is not an issue of morality or the legislation of morality. All this shit is irrelevant.
>This dialectic is about the morality of abortion, not why you're pro-life, retard.
You've constantly tried to re-frame the debate as a moral issue, in spite of it never being the case. If you're still stemming this from the first reply you made to me, I'll state again for your sake that I was asking that anon for his moral perspective. I was not making the case for or against abortion morally.

>>130614634
It cuts down the minority babies.

>>130640089
I think* abortion is moral
I really need to start proofreading my posts

>>130638760
>And you said it as a counter-point
If it was a counterpoint, it was counter to your point, not an argument for something otherwise and certainly not an argument against abortion. Stop clinging to this; it isn't relevant.
>It is a matter of legality
Legality is irrelevant unless you were literally saying "I'm pro-abortion because it's illegal to think otherwise," or some other such fucking. How can you possibly think what the law says about abortion is in any fucking way relevant otherwise? The law does not dictate morality, but it especially does not dictate what is good. If your argument is something like "It isn't illegal, therefore abortion isn't immoral," you are a fucking idiot and you're grasping at straws. If you claim not to be talking about morality, then w/e you claim to be talking about is IRRELEVANT.
>You've constantly tried to re-frame the debate as a moral issue, in spite of it never being the case.
That is what the fucking topic has been. All of your "reasons" are your reasons because you think they're the moral choice. If your argument is alternatively something like "I'm pro-abortion because reasons and I don't give a fuck if it's moral," then why the fuck would you think anyone cares? It's like you're trying to back out by saying you were never arguing (this time about a specific point) again.
>I was not making the case for or against abortion morally.
You phrased the questions similarly as such: "You really think you should force the woman to bear the child?" You were OBVIOUSLY implying you think the answer is no, because it is IMMORAL. You are trying the same old tactic of claiming you're not arguing again.

>no that's not what the conversation is about, you're just trying to reframe it
>no that's not what i'm arguing
>no i'm not arguing

Just take your beating like a man, you stupid faggot.
You are fucking pathetic. I cannot stand talking to people as stupid as you.

>>130640192
>If it was a counterpoint
It was. An ignorant, antisocial, baseless counterpoint.
>Legality is irrelevant
Never in a political discussion, unless it is hyperbole. If you weren't posturing as someone with a competent mind, you would know this. But you are a poser and simple-minded. So I won't expect you to make any legitimate distinctions from this point on. Morality, on the other hand, can be very irrelevant in a political discussion. As it is here.
>That is what the fucking topic has been
You've been saying it is, against all reason for quite a few posts now. But it hasn't ever been the case.
>You phrased the questions similarly as such
No, you thought I implied morality when I asked a legitimate question which was pertinent to the debate of abortion. Not the morality of abortion.
>because it is IMMORAL.
You said it, I didn't.
>You are trying the same old tactic of claiming you're not arguing again
It seems like the "same old tactic" because you won't accept that I've never argued abortion from a moral perspective, you dense, cowardly little shit.

Sperm dies on your testicles to be reused so you need to breed everyday to be a honest to god christian.

File: 1497943483459.jpg (20KB, 480x489px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x489px

>>130641185
>An ignorant, antisocial, baseless counterpoint.
That you keeping clinging to it being more than just an inconvenience is the appeal to emotion, retard. I hold that it's irrelevant. You clearly hold that it being more than an inconvenience is somehow a justification for abortion without explaining why or any substantiation. If you're not going to finish that argument, stop bringing this up. Are you sure you're not female? Because you "think" and "reason" like a female.
>Never in a political discussion
Legality is irrelevant to whether or not abortion is moral or right or wrong or should or shouldn't be done. That abortion isn't portrayed negatively in law does not imply that it shouldn't not or should be done. That is fucking obviously a non sequitur. If your point isn't that it shouldn't not or should be done, then what is it? because you don't seem to be capable of making it explicit, perhaps because you know you lost a dozen posts ago.
>But it hasn't ever been the case.
Great. If your reasons aren't your reasons because they are the moral choice, then why are they, exactly?
>No, you thought I implied morality when I asked a legitimate question
So you're saying you don't think the mother shouldn't be "forced" to bear the retard? If that is what you think, that she shouldn't be "forced" to, why if not because it would be immoral?
>You said it, I didn't.
>what is an implication
You're like this idiot beaner friend I used to have who seemed to think if he didn't explicitly say something, he could imply things and deny it all he wanted. That guy's a fucking psychopath.
>I've never argued abortion from a moral perspective
Yes yes, then pray tell, from what perspective have you been "arguing" that has nothing to do with morality? lol
>you dense, cowardly little shit.
You're new here, aren't you?

I feel like I'm talking to an AI programmed to argue like a retard.

if a woman doesn't want to be a mother but she gets pregnant then she should kill herself and put the kid up for adoption.

>>130642116
>You clearly hold that it being more than an inconvenience is somehow a justification for abortion without explaining why or any substantiation.

top kek. Pathetic! Fuck you dude. You're joke and a waste of time.

File: 1496654954888.gif (818KB, 268x274px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 268x274px

>>130642212
>I'm the one who's pathetic
You're one of the stupidest people I've ever talked to, and this is 4chan......

>>130642278
You're obviously antisocial, to jump to shit like that yet still expect to be taken seriously.

>>130630470
A fetus by itself is similarly unable to become a functioning human being.

>>130642456
Just read the argument and then fuck off. The mental breakdown from exposing idiots to their cognitive dissonance gives me sustenance.

>>130642596
I read it, you took an absurd position and tried to moralize it. And you failed to convince me. And, you're a fucking creep.

File: 1496499661902.jpg (11KB, 173x215px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 173x215px

>>130642702
Well, now my argument is that your argument is about morality, as it's impossible not to base one's reasons for being pro-abortion or pro-life on morality. That you apparently can't cite a reason for your reasons that isn't morality confirms I'm right. Give me your self-realization of stupidity. It gives me energy.

Amen to that

Also, shoot the babies out of muzzi and nigger women.

>>130616345
>I actually promote the birth control in the Orthodox Church so the dumb ass filth doesn't breed much
And than you wake up during a lecture and realise that you've shit your pants.

>>130642914
>Well, now my argument is that your argument is about morality
As per usual, your argument is a multilayered pile of shit tbqh.
>as it's impossible not to base one's reasons for being pro-abortion or pro-life on morality
As stated, I never took a decisive pro-choice stance. And I view the practice as morally abhorrent. Yet I will continue to never again obstruct access to clean, safe abortion clinics for women who want an abortion. You may cut in with some slippery slope bullshit, or say that this is effectively pro-choice or a moral position, but that wouldn't be intellectually honest. (But really, what have you said that is intellectually honest so far?) It would be best described as apathetic. Because it is. However, the social position does have a determined end, and that is to fight dysgenic social standards. And that would not be a position set on combating any particular social behavior or pattern of behavior, necessarily, but formed from said apathy towards the practice of abortion and idleness in a political sense towards abortion and the legislation of abortion.

>>130636062
>There were no rich people before abortions
Makes sense.

>>130643789
>Yet I will continue to never again obstruct access to clean, safe abortion clinics for women who want an abortion.
because... that's the moral thing to do?
>implying child-murderers desever clean, safe clinics in which to do their murdering
>intellectually honest
"Intellectual dishonesty" implies arguing a position one doesn't agree with. It is a meme for people too stupid to understand or admit that they're wrong, and a non-argument red herring.
>However, the social position does have a determined end, and that is to fight dysgenic social standards.
because... that's the moral thing to do?

Are you trolling? If so, you are really good at acting like you're stupid.

>>130644306
deserve* not desever, the fuck? I don't proofread because I don't care, but then I care after it's already posted...

>>130644306
>because... that's the moral thing to do?
No. The epistemological formation is quite clear that morality is a dead end, non-issue on the matter of my position. The desired consequence of my political inaction are a matter of materialism, not morality.
>"Intellectual dishonesty" implies arguing a position one doesn't agree with. It is a meme for people too stupid to understand or admit that they're wrong, and a non-argument red herring.
Ah. So you're that kind of asshole. Well, it suits you well anon.

>>130644386
I know that feel.

>>130644769
>The desired consequence of my political inaction are a matter of materialism, not morality.
false dichotomy. How is it only about materialism? What do you even mean by that? If you mean that your beliefs are dictated by materialism, it does not follow that you should give two shits about abortion. It only follows that you should fucking kill yourself because you're stupid enough to believe in materialism.
>Ah. So you're that kind of asshole. Well, it suits you well anon.
Yes, I am the kind of asshole who points out that calling someone "intellectually dishonest" is nothing more than a non-argument, a red herring, and on reflection, an ad hominem
>being stupid enough to actually envoke a real-life ad hominem
wew lad

Your argument is unclear because you're a fucking spaz, but it seems to be something like:
>materialism therefore not morality
non sequitur
>materialism therefore allowing abortion
non sequitur
In fact, if materialism is that antecedent, the only conclusion is that you should fucking kill yourself.

It's like you've realized you're wrong, so now you're just posting gibberish only to maintain the illusion that you have an argument.
>everyone who isn't opposed to abortion is evil as fuck confirmed.

>>130645484
invoke*

>>130645484
Another list of non-arguments and insults, and you've wasted my time. Fucking worthless.

>>130621920
YOU pay for your own creation you fucking waste of life. Deal with the goddamn consequences of your actions. The natural conclusion to sex is childbirth, so don't act so fucking surprised when it happens.

>>130614634
Abortion is literally the US bigger population isn't double what it currently is. Abortion is and always has been minority population control in the US
If you're a burger who is anti abortion you're inherently anti white.

Nigger

File: 1300044776986.jpg (34KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x600px

That mistake is unacceptable. Fuck it, fixing another mistake. Perfect rhetoric is important for the process of feeding off your suffering.
>>130646054
Here's an argument for you:
1. Arguments that beg the question are invalid and thus their conclusions should be dismissed as invalid.
2. "Abortion should be supported because materialism is true," begs the question.
3. "Abortion should be supported not because or inspite of morality because materialism is true," begs the question.
4. Therefore the conclusions "Abortion should be supported," and "Abortion should be supported not because or inspite of morality," should be dismissed as invalid.

You're an idiot. 3/10 if trolling

Never understood this argument.

Children raised by mother's who don't want children are by far the most likely to be self-hating, disgusting liberals. Most of the modern SJWs and leftists come from broken homes where the parents either didn't want them or realized what a burden they were. Which develops insecurities, self-hate and weakness.

Furthermore, you want a stronger white civilization. Why promote piling on more weakness instead of letting nature cull the weak?

>be you
>have daughter
>gets gang raped
>becomes pregnant
>you decide if she can have an abortion or not
>"No sweetie, it would be a crime"
This is what you actually believe.

>>130614736
Reported you sick pedophiilliac fuck

>>130615214
>babby's first edgy comment

>>130646146

This. I'm not okay with paying for someone else's abortion nor am I okay with paying for someone else's child through welfare/food stamps/public housing/medicaid/etc

If you don't want to support the child that you're now responsible for thanks to having unprotected sex and not paying for your own abortion, then it sucks to be you. Enjoy prison.

You're responsible for your own actions. Those of us who are responsible have no obligation whatsoever to give you one red cent of financial help.