Tell me again why you're against abortion, Cred Forums

No kidding. You can look no further than "Black Twitter" and the extremely high number of image macros based on not pulling out like it's some fucking joke.

It's pure degenerate though. I'd rather a government that wouldn't promote such a thing and promote family & traditionalist values instead of appealing to degenerates.

Personally pro-life, begrudgingly pro-choice for obvious reasons

Pretty sure niggers and Arabs are slightly more cognizant than first trimester fetuses.

It obviously is a human life, but that means fuck all to me. You're a human life, but if you tried to crawl up my asshole and live in my intestines, I'd be within my ethical rights to kill you.

The idea of "your rights only matter when it's convenient" is pretty much the basis for leftism. It's the same with abortion as with gun control. And then they'll turn right around and cry about how food, water, housing and healthcare are all human rights. (protip: they're commodities, not rights)

I would be pro-life if I were religious. Because I don't believe in a soul, there is no way to state when a human life actually begins. The definition I've been told is "when there is awareness", but that definition could be extrapolated to mean at 4 years old, which I'm against.

I'm siding with the supreme court in this matter and going with the current legal date only because I don't know when a human life starts

So? Let the degenerate lines go extinct instead of forcing them by law to keep existing and keep ruining things for everybody else.

Margaret Sanger is my homeboy

This.

I would love to be pro-life. The idea of white children being aborted and the whole safety net it creates for degenerate whores is fucking sickening. But there's no denying that it's the most effective form of nigger population control.

Water is a common, and to some extent habitable land. I agree that healthcare isn't a human right because that would imply you have a right to another person's labor and service.

But water, like air, is a common. You can produce it on your own in almost any location and you can otherwise find it in the wild.

Come on, Mickey. Societal suicide ain't all that bad. You get to feel all self-righteous and good about being so morally correct that you'd destroy your nation and legacy for the sake of materialistic hedonism and foreigners.

And why exactly does being it not currently being cognizant make it okay to murder? Wait a few years and it's going to be a happy and healthy child, looking forward to living a lovely life.
>You're a human life, but if you tried to crawl up my asshole and live in my intestines, I'd be within my ethical rights to kill you.
If you bought me a few drinks, drove me to your place and invited me to climb inside your rectum, then you sure as fuck wouldn't. Why are you talking about sex as if it's some magical thing that just randomly occurs to people? You make a cognizant choice to have unprotected sex and then you murder the results because it's inconvenient.
I personally don't give a fuck, but for Christ's sake, accept what you're doing.

Human rights are just memes after all. Very much in the literal, original sense. A bunch of people got together and decided that there are things people MUST have and MUST NOT have done to them. Then folk just went with it because it sucks less.

>captcha: Park Karl-Marx

Bunk argument. If your own actions caused him to be dependent upon your asshole to survive and you cut him off, then it would be considered murder because you assumed responsibility of his life.

...

>I really like how the pro-choicers arbitrarily decide it's not a human life they're killing for the sake of moral convenience.
No, I'm quite aware it's a human life. A human life does not arbitrarily hold value.

> I wonder if they'd accept the dehumanization of Arabs and niggers as well.
Way ahead of you. I'd abort every nigger and Arab in the world if I could.

Abortion is perfectly ok. World is overpopulated anyway.

Oh yeah, all I'm saying is that nobody is obligated to gather, purify and bottle your water for you for free. There's nothing stopping you from going down to the river and boiling it yourself. Remember that whole debacle in Detroit where all the googles couldn't afford their water bill? That's kind of what I'm talking about

The only type of government that can do that is fascism, and we have plenty of examples of it going badly and way beyond the promotion of "traditional values" and instead focusing on the whims of a single person/group. Not to mention that it's a pretty bad idea to give the (((government))) this kind of power, and even if it did happened it would do more harm than good since now you'll have unwanted children in your country whose parents couldn't give less of a shit about and that'll very likely grow up to become parasites or criminals and eventually do the same for the next generaltion.

Instead of giving the government this kind of control, we as a species should be fighting against the ideologies that made such thing possible in the first place. Feminism, marxism, globalism etc are the things responsible for the decay of the human race, and as long as it's not purged in its roots, it will continue to poison to well of human progress.

>There are too many whites anyways goy, we just need to get rid of a few, for the sake of equality :^)

I agree with your point and had the view that if a woman wanted an abortion she'd be a shitty parent anyway. It's a moral issue and not a political / government issue. Government should not have any part to play in the killing of unborns no matter the families history. I agreed with Trump when he said that the women who have abortions should be punished. We can't normalize decadence. We need to return to traditionalist and family values.

Because it is murder and promotes degeneracy.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are commited by non-whites.

>A human life does not arbitrarily hold value.
Of course not. That's not what I'm implying.
What I'm talking about is what from my point of view seems extremely hypocritical. These people believe in the intrinsic value of human life, yet they choose to arbitrarily forbid that value when it comes to fetuses for whatever reason.
Does it not have the same value as a human because it takes work and calories to grow? Is that what our subjective value is about? The amount of labour it takes for a woman to carry us to term?
If it's about being cognizant, then wouldn't it be just as morally justified to murder babies? I mean, there's no real notable difference when it comes to their cognitive capabilities. Pigs are more cognizant than babies, yet they're slaughtered for food.

It's a violation of human rights, enabled less community regulation of sex and our protection of the family structure, aids in our lowering population growth which damages our economy, and is generally immoral.

If I brought you a few drinks, drove you to my place, and didn't invite you to climb inside my rectum, I still would. And that's the point. Having sex =/= choosing to reproduce. Having sex CAN result in reproduction. As you mentioned, protection is one way of helping to ensure that sex doesn't result in reproduction and honestly the majority of unprotected sex naturally doesn't result in reproduction.

So it's like I put myself in a situation where I'm at an increased risk for a parasite to develop inside my body and then I still refuse the parasite access. The human life has no right to my body without my permission. Also, I'm not killing it. I'm removing it from my body, which happens to result in its death. But if it could survive outside of my body, that would be fine.

If you want to say that a fetus is ontologically the same as any other human life, then it has the same rights to the usage of another person's body, and that's none.

>everyone i dont like is jewish and anti white XD

Not an argument, kid.

I know Pablo, was just pointing out the silliness of the "world is overpopulated" meme

>We can't normalize decadence.
It's not your right to control how decadent or not others are. That's what leftists do. Live your life the way you see right.

>We need to return to traditionalist and family values.
Return to them yourself, don't try to enforce them on others.

Are you some kind of commie?

So what are your views on taxation, social security and human rights? Because going by that logic, it should be just A-OK to shoot NEETleeches.

>These people believe in the intrinsic value of human life
No I don't
>yet they choose to arbitrarily forbid that value when it comes to fetuses
See above

>which damages our economy
>I have the right to someone else's labor
Commie pls

Is anyone else pro-abortion but anti-choice? We need to abort all fetuses with birth defects and all pregnancies of unmarried women. If she's married and the fetus is healthy, then she has to bring it to term.

>I'm not killing it. I'm removing it from my body, which happens to result in its death.
>Pulling a guy off life support isn't killing him, it just results in his death.
>Starving someone isn't killing him, it just results in his death. If he could survive without food or water, that would be fine.

My own actions didn't cause him to be dependent on my body. Involuntary processes of my biology brought him into existence. As with a cancer, I will remove him.

Muh society mufugga

Because it kills google

If it never lived to begin with, then you can't kill it. Checkmate, kid. Come back without your christcuck memes.

How the fuck did you get a claim of property out of that line

Value enforcement by society is the only way to actually keep a society functional and alive. If everyone is allowed to live their lives perfectly as they see fit, we get where we are right now, which is the degeneration and eventual death of our societies.

>I put myself in a situation where I'm at an increased risk for a parasite to develop inside my body
No, you put yourself in the only situation in which there's even a chance that a "parasite" develops in your body. You can't have unprotected sex and then turn around and cry "but I didn't want to get pregnant!"

What about it is not alive? It is literally the earliest stage of human life.

>organism
>not alive

Pulling a guy off life support has nothing to do with this situation unless YOUR BODY IS THE LIFE SUPPORT. In which case, yes. I have the right to say that my body will not be used as the life support and leave the room. And yes, he will die as a result. But I'm not killing him. I'm just not using my body to keep him alive.

And starving someone is killing them if you trap them in a place where they can't get food. But I didn't do that in this situation. They wandered up to my doorstep asking for food and I didn't give it to them.

I support abortion for incest , rape etc . But if you ass is to stupid to make him put on a condom your ass deserves to be burdened

Because the blacks that get abortions are the ones with more money than those who don't.
Which means they stay poor each generation.

>pro-choicers showing, again, how they're the unscientific group in this discussion

NEETleeches aren't violating you at all. NEETleeches on welfare are taking money from the state. If anything, the state is violating you in the first place.

If I go around stealing money from people in one neighborhood and then giving it to people in another neighborhood, the people in the second neighborhood didn't steal from the first neighborhood. I did.

I don't really see why pro abortion people refuse to follow their logic through and kill babies up to a year and a bit out of the womb.

Obviously the benchmark of humanity is the ability to reason. Extremely young infants, that are less intelligent than a variety of animals we're happy to kill, are not rational actors.

If you don't believe in some sort of untouchable human right at conception, then why not start killing those babies? I suspect it's because you can tell yourself what you're doing is fine when the foetus isn't that big, but the fact that you're doing something egregiously wrong becomes harder to ignore when it's been born.

t. Atheist Libertarian

Just reminding you that birth control can fail in many ways, no birth control is safe.

Also thinking guys are jumping way too fast to conclusions here considering women are the ones expected to take all birth controls besides condoms, the market doesn't even provide pills for men

Why does someone not have a right to live just because they were conceived out of rape or incest?

In 2050 there are around 9.6 billion people. This is going to be a big problem. I can't believe that people are against abortion when hearing this.

>Pulling a guy off life support has nothing to do with this situation unless YOUR BODY IS THE LIFE SUPPORT. In which case, yes. I have the right to say that my body will not be used as the life support and leave the room. And yes, he will die as a result. But I'm not killing him. I'm just not using my body to keep him alive.
A more correct analogy would be that you allowed your body to be used as life support for him, then pulled the plug because you thought it more convenient.

What do you think about killing babies then?

>global overpopulation meme

>Having sex =/= choosing to reproduce.
Hahahahahahahaha

Doing the ONE THING THAT CAUSES REPRODUCTION to your retarded brain is not choosing to reproduce? You're fucking stupid.

It's not the only situation, no. It is the most high-risk situation. It's still a parasite and I'm not obligated to it.

And yea, that's my argument. You shouldn't have unprotected sex and then turn around, but I don't want to get pregnant," but you actually can. There are many ways to do it even if abortion is illegal. And furthermore, it would be true. You DIDN'T want to get pregnant. So what's wrong with saying as much? The fact is that you did one action that could lead to a certain result but that's not the same as volunteering outright for said result.

Because human rights are memes and we choose to not extend them to fetuses.

I'm pro-abortion in America because of niggers.

However, in europe (and in a theoretical white america ethnostate) I would ban abortion. I've seen some truly horrifying stats on what percentage of european fetuses get aborted. And it ain't the fucking muslims that are getting abortions either

Not an argument. Checkmate means game over; come back without your christcuck memes, children.

>knowingly and intentionally invite someone into your asshole
>shoot him when he gets there
The gayest murder of all time.

>but that's not the same as volunteering outright for said result.
Yes it is. You know very well that having sex can result to pregnancy, yet you still choose to do it.
Walking into a nigger hood wearing bags of money will get you robbed. You know it very fucking well, yet you still choose to do it.
Slapping a bear is a very likely way of getting mauled.
Going fishing whilst wasted is a good way to drown. Playing with a loaded firearm is a great way to have an ND.
We all fucking know it and if you afterwards told people "I only wanted to do it, but not deal with the repercussions, people would think you're a fucking moron." Well, unless you're a woman of course. Then it'd be victim shaming.

Sex =/= intending having a kid
Pouring semen into the womb = intending to have a kid

Checkmate, kid. Come back without your christcuck memes. And no, holding hands and flirting with a woman doesn't mean you want to have a kid with her.

>I don't really see why pro abortion people refuse to follow their logic through and kill babies up to a year and a bit out of the womb.
That's a strawman. I would love to abort blacks at any age.

Because they never had a "right" to live to begin with. A right to live is by definition a positive right, not a negative right. And positive rights are not really rights but a way of justifying infringement on negative rights.

The eternal bolshevik reveals himself

>How the fuck did you get a claim of property out of that line
You said it yourself:
>which damages our(read: my) economy
That is directly stating that you have a claim on that baby's future labor.

All of you that want more white babies should focus on convincing more whites to come around to a more nationalist/tribal viewpoint, convincing them of the importance of future generations. Try that instead of focusing on banning something because of muh babbies. Remember, if you ban abortion, you are also banning abortion for niggers.

Jumping off a roof =/= intending to break your leg
Hitting the ground = intending to break your leg

>The eternal bolshevik reveals himself
No. Communism, human rights, laws and so forth are the state enforcing views on people. Society can do it through social methods, religion, public shaming and so forth.
ALL societies do it and a society can't function if it's not being done in any way. A parent teaching his children manners is a form of it.

fuck off abortion bot

>Society can do it through social methods, religion, public shaming and so forth.
Yet all this thread you've argued for
>Communism, human rights, laws and so forth are the state enforcing views on people.
instead.

Why would they not have a right to live.

Also, he's not saying that he has a claim on that child's labor, he's saying by that child no longer existing then in the future there will be less workers. He's not saying that all children are born into a live of slavery under him.

>That's a strawman.
No it's not. You are not all or indeed most pro-abortion people.

Except I never did allow it. It happened to me involuntarily. I don't accept the argument that having sex with someone is a willful choice to conceive a child. It simply isn't.

Babies are different for a number of reasons. One, they don't require YOUR body. They could survive without you entirely. If you have a baby starving in your home and you're just letting it starve, you're depriving of it something that it could get EASILY without you. In this case, the baby CAN leave. Sure, it can't do it on its own, but there's an OPTION for it to survive without obligating you to commit your resources to it.

Moreover, how did the baby end up in your house? You must have taken it there, which makes you much more responsible for its present situation. It didn't just appear in your house according to biology. Even if you gave birth in your house, your going through the process of labor could have been circumvented long before. Except in those extremely rare cases where a person spontaneously gives birth to a child they had no idea was inside their body, the majority of born children were knowingly allowed to be brought into their present situation. The point of dilemma is past because the moment the baby leaves your body is the moment your body is no longer exclusively required.

Wrong, retard.
Jumping off a roof =/= intending to break your leg
Hitting the ground after a long drop = intending to break your leg

Would a food analogy make it easier to understand, you double digit IQ nigger?

I didn't invite him though.

>Why would they not have a right to live.
Why would they have a right to live to begin with? You are asserting the right, now prove it.

Also,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
Being alive requires an influx of calories and other nutrients, to fight off entropy. This means that any right to live as a dependent is a positive right. Positive rights are just a psychological trick to invalidate negative rights.

>Also, he's not saying that he has a claim on that child's labor,
>he's saying by that child no longer existing then in the future there will be less workers.
>which implies that somehow his rights are violated by having less workers
You just contradicted yourself.

>his rights are violated
Nowhere was this said. He just said that it's worse for society in general with less workers, not that his rights are violated by other people having abortions.

Walking into a nigger hood only helps my example. Sure, I committed an action that had a very high chance of resulting in violence to my person but that doesn't mean I volunteered to have violence committed to my person. I can defend myself, up to killing any person who attempts to assault me.

Slapping a bear is a very likely way of getting mauled. I could also argue that it's not giving permission to be mauled but the problem with this example is that I consider a bear to have some rights as well. I attacked it and therefore it's defending itself. I don't extend the same rights to a virus, for example. If I touch some green goo in the Amazon, I've increased my risk of contracting a disease. I will kill the disease though. I didn't give the disease permission to infect me.

I'm willing to agree that people who have unprotected sex are stupid, sure. Bad decisions lead to undesired outcomes. Doesn't change the fact that I can use whatever means at my disposal to prevent the undesired outcome. I consider it my right to protect my body even if my own stupid decisions led me to the situation in which my body is under threat.

Except in my very first post I state I'm not against abortion. Please stop jumping into conclusions simply based on what people's arguments are. Not everyone is so emotionally driven and unable of introspection that they cannot argue for different points of views they themselves may not truly hold.

>Except I never did allow it. It happened to me involuntarily. I don't accept the argument that having sex with someone is a willful choice to conceive a child. It simply isn't.
If you're raped, then sure it's involuntarily. If not, then you chose very well to have sex and you need to accept the consequences. I know Western society is really big on not shaming the victim and all that jazz, but for men atleast, personal responsibility is an actual thing.

>Babies are different for a number of reasons. One, they don't require YOUR body.
Except they require the mother's breastmilk to survive.
>They could survive without you entirely
No, they would starve and dehydrate on the floor.
>If you have a baby starving in your home and you're just letting it starve, you're depriving of it something that it could get EASILY without you
No, you're not depriving it of anything. You're CHOOSING to not use your resources on its survival. It should be well within your rights to not allow it to act as a parasite on you. If it happens to die because of it, then too bad.
>In this case, the baby CAN leave. Sure, it can't do it on its own, but there's an OPTION for it to survive without obligating you to commit your resources to it.
Except no. There's absolutely no fucking option for the baby to do anything but lie there in its own shit and piss, crying for its mother to come save its miserable life.

>Moreover, how did the baby end up in your house? You must have taken...
There is no dilemma. It is still dependent on your resources for survival. It is still not cognizant. If I choose not to support it with the labour I've performed then that is well within my rights.

Does anybody really think that God doesn't intervene, ever? (Not social movements- GOD. A person probably makes the difference sometimes)

To consciously believe that you are ''acting on God's behalf'' is incredibly arrogant and prideful.
''Not even a sparrow shall fall. . .''

There is no hell on earth worse than growing up and living as an unwanted child. You don't ''get over it'', being adopted doesn't seem to change it in most cases, and it affects your entire life. Be careful!

>which damages our(read: my) economy
>read: my

I gave several reasons from several perspectives for several ethical systems. This was an appeal to national economic interest from a utilitarian perspective. It says literally nothing on property.

>cooking dinner with the stove
>leave the house for a quick trip to the store
>come back and theres been a fire and your neighbor burned to death
>i-its not my fault, its just a natural process of combustion
If you know the possible consequences of your actions and do them anyway, you are responsible.

The first mistake is thinking that niggers and retards are human.

>Walking into a nigger hood only helps my example. Sure, I committed an action that had a very high chance of resulting in violence to my person but that doesn't mean I volunteered to have violence committed to my person. I can defend myself, up to killing any person who attempts to assault me.
And in a similiar fashion you can stop having sex to avoid getting pregnant. Simple and easy.

Jumping off a roof ISN'T intending to break your leg. Hitting the ground isn't intending to break your leg either.

Sometimes, jumping off a roof doesn't result in a broken leg and sometimes it does. If I have some way of making it so that jumping off a roof doesn't break my leg, I'm going to do it.

Of course, this analogy doesn't fit abortion at all but it does address your confusion about intention.

The right to live isn't a positive right. It's more accurate to call it "a right to not have other people kill me", a negative right.

>Except they require the mother's breastmilk to survive.

No they don't. Ignorant statement. Do you know HOW MANY baby boomers grew up- and thrived, on formula?

Having sex isn't intending to get pregnant either, but you sure as fuck are going to get pregnant as certainly as you'll break your leg when jumping off a roof.

Semantics. The baby requires others' resources to survive. Resources acquired with labour, that is time taken away from one's life. Babies are incognizant parasites and leaving it to die, or outright killing it is just as justified as abortion.

Well I don't disagree with that. You can indeed stop having sex to avoid getting pregnant. You can also stop driving a car to avoid getting in a car accident, and the interesting part is that you might still be in a car accident and you might still get pregnant regardless of both those things. Obviously you can be hit by a car while walking down the street and you can be impregnated through a rape.

But the point here is that the sex act is not the conception. The conception is an involuntary reaction that your body has to the sex act, and you CAN have one without the other. Like I could CHOOSE to conceive without ever having sex, and I could choose to have sex without conceiving.

>This was an appeal to national economic interest from a utilitarian perspective.
>national economic interest
>utilitarian perspective without stating who the utility is for
>implicitly accepting that "society" receiving that utility is the basis of morals
In other words it's a claim on someone else's labor.

You can't wiggle your way out of this through semantics: if you accept "the good of the economy" as a justification for preventing an abortion then you are making a claim on the future labor of the fetus. There's literally no way out of this.

It is a positive right when you are dependent. This is so basic, so 101-tier, you have to be playing dumb to deny it.

/thread

This is just flat untrue. From a biological standpoint, it's actually pretty difficult to get pregnant relatively speaking. There's a window during the hormonal cycle where the chances are good and pretty much the rest of the time the chances are very low.

On a long enough timeline, sure. Having unprotected sex over and over and over and over will eventually lead to you getting pregnant. And yea, if you repeatedly jump off a building, I think it's inevitable that you will break your leg.

No sane person respects or has a desire to defend some stupid cunt who tempts fate over and over and over and then wants to opt out of the consequences, but leaving these rights intact isn't about defending those people. It's about leaving the means to prevent an undesired outcome for anyone.

And from a personal standpoint, I have zero problem with this. I consider wanton reproduction among idiots to be much more problematic than their idiot spawn being killed.

I don't see blacks as inhuman. They are of a different race, but that doesn't mean we can treat them like they are not human. I don't see a human fetus as inhuman.

Because badselfeater brainwashed me
Seriously, I've been going to church for the past 3 weeks.

>>>/SJW/

They don't require mother's breastmilk to survive. They require food, sure. And that can come from mother. Or it could come from someone else who isn't their mother, or it can come from formula. The point is that the baby now has the same lease on life as any other human being. They don't specifically require the body of the mother. There are LOTS of people who would be willing to provide the care that baby needs, so depriving the baby of that care is unethical because it isn't backed up with the idea of self protection.

You're basically ignoring the whole argument. That baby is no longer specifically dependent on you because valid care for that baby can come from ANYONE.

The mother SHOULD have the right to refuse to care for that baby, but once she makes that refusal, she can't keep the baby in her house. The difference is that the baby CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT HER. It's no longer her decision because it's no longer specifically requiring her.

So this isn't the situation where the dying man needs a connected IV to your bloodstream in order to survive. He just needs a hospital, any hospital. And leaving him to die in your home while he bleeds out and could easily be saved would be considered murder and is.

So can refugees be aborted?

That last bullet point is retarded.

It's like they're advocating that you should put your abortion stores as far away as possible from the people who want to purchase abortions.

I'm a white nationalist. Since when is seeing all races as human mean someone is a SJW? Races are not equal. That doesn't mean they are not humans.

Yes, which is why in countries where abortion is banned, it may very well be allowed in cases of rape, where the woman is not responsible for getting pregnant.
By choosing to have sex and understanding that it could lead to pregnancy, you accept the responsibility of that possibility. And thus in the case of getting pregnant it is entirely your responsibility.

>This is just flat untrue. From a biological standpoint, it's actually pretty difficult to get pregnant relatively speaking. There's a window during the hormonal cycle where the chances are good and pretty much the rest of the time the chances are very low.
Which does not matter at all. You might be jumping off a very low roof, where the chances of breaking your leg are relatively speaking low. Still completely your responsibility.
>but leaving these rights intact isn't about defending those people. It's about leaving the means to prevent an undesired outcome for anyone.
And at no point have I actually advocated the banning of abortion. I'm simply arguing for the acceptance of it being morally wrong to abort a human being, or for the moralistic pro-choicers to accept the very similiar situations making the post-natal abortion of babies just as justifiable as pre-natal abortions.
I'm an edgy moral nihilist and I don't really care one bit about the millions of dead fetuses and babies. Just like I don't care about the millions of dying people around the world. I really don't extend my empathy beyond a relatively small group of people.

>have a birthrate below replacement level.
> Hurr durr, why shouldn't we be allowed to kill our offspring?

>Babies are incognizant parasites

They're symbiotes you dolt.

>Couple that with birth rates
Imbecilic skype

Symbiotic relationship implies both organisms benefit. What is the mother getting?

>They don't require mother's breastmilk to...
And what if there aren't lots of people? What if there's nobody who really wants to take care of it. Then it's a complete parasitic being and there is no ethical issue with killing it for your own protection.
>You're basically ignoring the whole argument. That baby is no longer specifically dependent on you because valid care for that baby can come from ANYONE.
So if you can push your responsibility and labour onto others it's ok to do it? What if the others don't want to help? Is it ethical to morally blackmail them into taking care of the baby? Would them abandoning the baby to die be unethical?

>And leaving him to die in your home while he bleeds out and could easily be saved would be considered murder and is.
Except no it's not murder. It's breaching a duty to rescue law, where applicable.

This. Nobody asks to be born.

Also hopefully we can use them as a way to better understand stem cells.

Baby does require resources, but those resources don't specifically need to come from any one person. Those resources can therefore come from someone who is willing. Considering there are always people who are willing (there are organizations that exist specifically for that purpose), you are now DEPRIVING the baby of resources that it requires and could get elsewhere but you are NO LONGER supported by the argument of your own personal bodily rights.

The argument to support abortion doesn't suggest that you have no responsibility towards the baby in you. You do have a responsibility to the baby in you.

If, for example, technological advancements made it possible to remove the baby from your body in such a way that the baby could still survive, you would have to do that. If you opted to kill the baby rather than provide the available means to preserve it's life, I would consider that murder.

The only reason that abortion can be considered justifiable at all is because no such option exists. The moment one does, you have to take it.

The passing on of her genetic line.

If you don't pass on your genes you're a failed human bean.

>it harms niggers, therefore it's not degenerate
here's an idea
why don't you physically remove your blacks
in stead of relying on a fucking abhorrent practice that tears apart the moral fabric of society to marginally trim their population growth?

It starts when the child takes its first independent breath. That is when the soul is "fully situated" and ready to begin developing. However, abortion is used by the elites as child sacrificing. Since it's only a fetus, though, it is not as "strong" as a regular child sacrifice would be, but it adds up when you count the amount of abortions. I am okay with abortions that occur only within the month. And it can't be done by Satanic organizations like Planned Parenthood. Also, kek at pic related

>implicitly accepting that "society" receiving that utility is the basis of morals
I BLATANTLY TOLD YOU that the original post was from several different systems of thought. That you're trying to characterize me by one I mention is absurd.

>In other words it's a claim on someone else's labor.

It's a nationalist position and you only conflate it to be a rejection of private property. I do not state claim on someone else's property in this example but rather give regulation onto private property which is within the role of the state generally. This is more a fascist position rather than a communist one. I can understand being against central planning but you take its logical consequences too far.

I'm not, in fact I love abortion and wish the state would force it upon the unfit.

In the non-existent circumstances where there isn't anyone within a reasonable distance of you who is willing to care for the baby, the fact is that the baby would be tossed off a cliff. And in such a society, nobody would care.

All these social mores, the value of life, the love of babies-- much to do with culture. And in our baby-loving culture, there is ALWAYS someone who is willing and nearby.

Fair enough. Murder is, as far as I understand it, a legal definition. But you would be held ethically liable for someone's death when you could have very easily prevented it without incurring great loss to yourself.

I'm against modern slut culture, sex is only ok when married. Stop abortions and we end modern degenerated culture because women will have to stay home and take care of their kids instead of wasting their time drinking and sleeping around.

With no whores, men would focus on other more creative activities and society would develop positively.

BOW DOWN TO THE MIGHTY QUINTS, YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARDS. Kek is pleased with my rationalizations

KEK pretty much this.

In biology, anything with a working metabolism is considered "alive". The bacteria in your stomach is technically alive. Any argument that people should or shouldn't get an abortion because they have a "living" creature inside of them is totally pointless.

Wow.. I am truly blessed

Friendly reminder that the real reason the pro-life movement exists is because people are compensating for their fears that they narrowly escaped losing the chance to be born because their mother probably would have aborted them, and want to punish women they project their mothers onto

Psychology really makes you think

Checked.

I'm for it for these exact reasons. Open up an express lane in every McDonald's in the ghetto. It's rare that the leftist and racist agenda coincide so well

>But you would be held ethically liable for someone's death when you could have very easily prevented it without incurring great loss to yourself.
Going by those words, surely a baby in your stomach is not such a great loss? I mean, saving the dying man takes away from my resources and I never chose for him to rely on me for help. It should be fully within my rights to abandon him where he lay.

thanks this is my highest get for a year

see

So we should ban abortion for whites and promote it for shitskins.

Also, there are still places where women kill their babies instead of giving them out due to social shame. Is it ethically correct to give them away when doing so would cause you great social conflict with others?
I'm going to bed, so won't be replying.

It gets rid of unwanted babies that would be dumbster-babies instead. Allows the mothers to be more productive during what would be pregnancy. Gets rid of unwanted people.

Saving the dying man is literally just making a phone call. If it required you to trek into the jungle with him on your back, then it'd be pretty easy to argue that you're not obligated to do that but merely should.

Having a baby in your stomach for 9 months is a pretty massive commitment compared to calling 911. It can come with great risks, it makes you physically sick, incredibly vulnerable, often unable to work or support yourself. It requires you to make extreme changes to your lifestyle, etc.

If saving another human being required all of those commitments and risks, I wouldn't consider you obligated to do so.

It depends. I'm not a cultural relativist so I'm happy to view those cultures as despicable, but if those are the social circumstances in which you exist, then yea, the calculation is fundamentally altered.

If merely having a baby would ruin your life in a demonstrable way, then I think that is the very purpose of abortion.

>It gets rid of unwanted babies that would be dumbster-babies instead

Not necessarily, but certainly unloved ones.

>People legitimately believe "muh satanic ritual child sacrifice" garbage

I don't care what your other arguments are, the fact that you accept the utilitarian argument AT ALL makes you part of the left-wing problem afflicting our countries.

>anything with a working metabolism is considered "alive"
>excluding other life-forms that are genetically related to cellular, metabolic life
If your definition of life excludes things that are obviously life, then you need to adjust your definition.

>accept

Personally everything comes down to Natural Law for me but since people don't tend to accept that I make all manner of argument.

I think that if you cant prove you can pay for your own baby or dont have an adopting family lined up, abortion should be mandatory. And then the abortion recipient would be sterilized.

is a sproutling a tree? fuck you, retard. if whites can responsibly abort and niggers can do it willy nilly then where's the fucking loss?

>instead of giving them out
So these babies have a right to make a man a cuck, just because they exist? If the parents aren't capable of raising it then the most Eugenic thing to do is to allow it to starve so the less capable don't control the makeup of the next generation. Those that raise their kids will do fine.

I was against it for moral reasons and because MUH PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY until I realized it meant less libs in general.

Oh yeah and when I realized that morality is just a spook.

i'm prochoice

i'm also pro sterilizing the poor

i concur

antiabortion is just asking for overpopulation and increased dumbing of the populations we have.

sterilize the poor. promote abortions via a means test.

do both of those and you would fix a significant number of societies problems within a single generation.

so, it's a human? remove the cells and put them in a dish, if they can survive, good for that clump of cells. if not, oh well.

i've been to your island. i've seen your inbreed population. nothing will be lost.

traditional values are a fiction that are sold to you by those that want to have power over you.

Heil Singularity!

subsidize it for people below the poverty line and penalize it more and more the richer the woman in question is.

As long as a women wasn't raped, I'm against abortion.

What is a spook?

People shill that it keeps the black population down but in reality it just keeps black crime down. If abortion was banned. Can you imagine the uptick in bigger crime. It would definitely redpill everyone. Brazil

Basically something that is memed into us by society.

Like how I'm a loser because my christian school taught me how to be a meek polite faggot and not be dominant.
That and having no dad around.