How come pro-life is such a triggering stance to take nowadays...

Unless you are a full blown carry-worms-away-from-the-street vegan hippy who literally won't even swat a fly, acting all high-morality-say-no-to-murder when it comes embryos and fetusses being killed is just fucking ridiculos and makes you a total hypocrite.
> Potential human beings are dieing!
So are the 200 million sperms you deposit in a tissue every day and the eggs your mom bleeds into her panties once a month.
> It could become a full human one day
But it isn't now, so I don't see the issue.

No, when you decide to procreate and let a man fertilize your egg, you make another human who is not your body. When will this feminist meme die.

Every abortion debate I get into with pro-choice liberals is "its about a woman'said right to choose" problem is its a woman's right tho choose whether to kill another human life (and don't give me that collection of cells or like a parasite bullshit, the human female was biologically designed to create it, a parasite is a foreign body that leeches resources unbeknownst to the involuntary host)

Pro choice is so liberating isn't it? Well since a woman can refuse parenthood legally with no reprocussions, then men should be allowed that same choice.

Problem with abortion is that it's usually done for selfish irresponsible reasons, and a woman can go without telling the father and obliterate both their child. That's completely fucked.

This. Why would you stop the natural process of procreation (that you were decide to participate in), especially if you willingly chose to do what is required for it, if not for the sole reason of you being too retarded to take responsibility.

>you make another human who is not your body
It doesn't matter. Your right to control your body takes precedence over someone else's right to live in your body.

Wrong. only if your life is in danger in the process of carrying the baby, one could weigh out already developed life to a potential one. Just because you were a dumb cunt and felt like it is not a good enough reason to kill of a baby.

35 million and counting

Okay, let me put this in less shitpost-heavy manner:

-What if white woman gets RAPED by a non-white and becomes pregnant?

So you think someone else has a greater right than you to your body under some circumstances?

A sperm is not a human. An egg isalad not a human. It is the combination of the two and start of an individual life gaining its own autonomy that is a human. Nobody pro life is saying it's a potential human, it IS A HUMAN.

If you can say an embryo isn't a human ,you can say a child isnt a human

Did you even read the post?

Hypothetical rape fantasies are not an excuse. The overwhelming majority of abortions are done by women who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

Condoning this behavior is a slippery slope to absolving women of any responsibility for anything.

>you make another human who is not your body.

Fetus is integrated into its mother's cardiovascular system, Hans.

yes, if you try to end the life of another human for no reason.

The only argument I ever make for pro-choice is that the government can never be in a position to say what people can and cannot do with their bodies.

>drugs are illegal

I don't agree with that either, decriminalize drugs.

Think of the pressidence this could potentially set. Mandatory tracking chips emplaned at birth, mandatory vaccination and other such shit.

As for it not being murder, I don't think it is. Your killing a living thing that takes in nutrients, grows, remembers sounds, has a heart beat, the whole "it's a clump of cells" is a lazy, easily btfo argument that stops being factual after week 6. Most abortion take place between weeks 8-12. But still I don't think It's murder. If women just accepted the fact they ended a life, killed their potential child, instead of living in denial it would better.

Have an abortion, just don't lie to yourself about what you've done.

Abortion is a good thing. It kills so many nigger babies. We should offer free abortions to niggers.

that does not make it a bodypart/ organ

Women don't want to take responsability for their actions.

Notice that in cucked countries woman may abort her child if she doesn't want him (the father has no say on this decision) while if the father doesn't want the child he has to pay allimony regardless.

Because it's a medically safe elective surgery. Having granted a freedom, it is much harder to revoke it as the people feel entitled to it, even if they don't particularly need it.

The slippery slope

>Leftists don't want criminals to be killed
>They want to be able to freely kill babies

The fetus is not her body, if killing a baby at the fetus stage is allowed then why can't women just kill their children?

It would make sense considering that the children are still dependant on their mother for survival.

But why should another human have the right to take up residence in your body without your consent?

So it should be legal to let women starve their children?

Why should another human have the right to take up residence in your house/eat your food without your consent?

>Hypothetical rape fantasies are not an excuse.

>Hypothetical rape fantasies

Is this the Cred Forums of Bizarro world? Mere month ago it was unlikely to have a week go by without another instance being lamented.

read the post

The girl shouldn't have left the house without her man to protect her.

Boom, no more rapes.

Once it's born, it's no longer residing in the mother's body, and therefore it's no longer in conflict with her right to bodily autonomy.

It doesn't just magically appear inside a woman womb. She and her sexual partner put it in there when they have sex. The biological act of sex is to create a baby. Your body doesn't care if you are only trying to fuck and have a good time.

>Leftists don't want criminals to be killed

Killing unborn black babies = preventing future criminals

Is it really that hard?

>(((Freakonomics)))

Just because the rapist behaved like an animal by taking something from you without consent doesn't mean you have the right to take away an innocent person's life because of it.

Become it means you call many women murderers. It is the ultimate dellusion, but deep down they know they murdered their own child with the help of a doctor.

But they are murderers nontheless.

It's irrelevant to argue whether abortion is wrong or right. That fact is women will always seek abortions. They will have a backyard abortion or use a coat hanger or throw themselves down the stairs if legal safe abortions aren't available. Many parents realise that although their daughter is a perfect angel who has never had a boyfriend, sometimes shit happens and they'd rather not come home and find her at the bottom of the stairs

>The girl shouldn't have left the house without her man to protect her.

Okay, I think I have the perfect solution!

Having sex should not invalidate the right to bodily autonomy.

They've become fully indoctrinated.

Also, you're not allowed to have any opinion on it, you ffffffffffffucking white male

>no longer in conflict with her autonomy

Bullshit, what if the woman would rather go out clubbing than take care of her children, having a child very much conflicts with her ability to act irresponsibly

bodily autonomy over your body, but not over a potential human being with a lifespan of 80+ years

She could go clubbing. She couldn't justifiably kill the child.

>I should not be forced to accept the consequences of my actions

Only because your country is filled with niggers.

Anyway, their mothers would just kill the baby after birth if abortion was illegal.

They want to spread hedonism and degeneracy.
A single mom is a clear red flag alert, but it's impossible to detected women that made abortions at sight.

That's why most pregnancies end in abortion in most of the ex-soviets republics.

>just a lump of cells u guyse

How about not getting your ass knocked up in the first place, slut?

You consent by the act of sex wich is there to initiate procreation by carrying a baby in your womb for some time.

You consented when you had sex, knowing the risk, tard.

How about you use a condom or pull off, dumbass.

>I give a shit what other people do with themselves even tho it does not affect me

I am from Serbia (live and work there, here on a minor business) and I dont even know the issue in my country. Why is this such a big deal?
When someone wants and abortion, do you pick a jury of random 1000 people and they all vote yes/no on it??????
Who gives a shit. If a random slut wants to kill her kids, how is any of that my business??

Also I think without it half of your world (the west) would be Brasil.

No, I think you have the right of ultimate control over your own body and its biological processes. That includes terminating the process of pregnancy.

You should not be forced to give up your right to control your own body for someone else's benefit.

You're not exactly disagreeing, Colombia.

this. it's the same with suicide. You can argue about the moral right- or wrongness as much as you want, as long as people keep jumping of bridges, throwing themselves in front of trains or holding their throats and heads into fully-running bandsaws, instigating a proper legal institution authorized to hand out death drinks (or whatever the stuff's called) to anybody requesting it or otherwise enabling people to end their lifes without pain and discomfort will lead to a more humane situation.

Yeah nice bait faggot. I hope your mother gets raped.

"Why do you care lol :--D"

right.. why do we have regulations or rules at all, why dont we just let our civilization become sodom and gomorrha with rape, murder etc being legal. Thats what i meant by "why dont they try to rationally defend their position"

>why is feminism prominent in this feminist issue

weh weh weh jews

>They will have a backyard abortion or use a coat hanger or throw themselves down the stairs if legal safe abortions aren't available.

And then they'll have to deal with the consequences of being a retard yet again. Still better than getting off scott free

Infanticide doesnt affect no one, but still shouldnt be allowed.

>You should not be forced to give up your right to control your own body for someone else's benefit.
The whore gave up this right when she got pregnant.

It was her choice, she choose to have a baby

You may (or may not) have consented to any such thing, but you are under no contract. Regardless, I believe certain rights are inalienable, bodily autonomy among them, and you cannot sell or give it away. To do otherwise is tantamount to supporting slavery.

The real question is why you care so fucking much given the fact that the second it pops out you couldn't give less of a shit.

Abortion is positevely correlated with a reduction in crime rates. Without abortion a country like the USA would be 30% white already.
Abortion works wonders if you are a subhuman rat that will grow up and become a scourge of society, which is exactly the same kind of subjects you are letting in your country and gleefully encouraging to breed with your women.

But nevermind that, i know you are shitposting. Which is why, this thread is derailed.
Anons, i need to grow my GERMANY YES folder, wanna help me out?

I wouldn't get or support abortion but I don't think the government should legislate it, or pay for it. I think socially we should ostracize people who are divorcees, parents out of wedlock, we should not have child support or alimony, nor should we have welfare. Make people take responsibility for their lives and decisions and they will start making better ones, or they will die.

So long as the fetus is connected to her body and receiving blood, nutrients, oxygen, etc, then it should be considered part of her body. Stop it with the "what if's", life is full of what ifs.

It's just an unborn fetus. Even if you value it as a real human life, it's still just some unborn human. It has no personality yet, no higher thought, it knows nothing of culture or intellect yet. To put it in a shit analogy, it's like starting up a new game and deleting a new character still in the tutorial.

But its none of your business. Lets say you want to have sex with your gf, do you have to call in the state commission to call the supreme court to call the Pentagon to consult the KGB to ask the President to consult with a trade minister to discuss with a local expert to [...]?
It is literally none of your business. What is next, showing measuring devices into peoples asses and measure their shit in their own homes so it doesnt violate the federal authority's recommended shit size??

Unless you signed a legal contract with this woman to produce you a child or I dont know, its none of your business. Especially if you dont even know her.
Fuck off.

Bullshit. The people who otherwise would never commit a suicide (because of fear) would gladly do it if it is easy and painless.

If that were true, then you would have the right to kill your conjoined twin.

Abortion is legal simply because so many people are hedonists and want to have sex without children.

Because a Fetus for all intents and purposes is a parasite. The only reason a woman gives birth is because her body can no support the fetus' leeching off it and it has to be expelled. You can use the line of thought that it has to be a foreign entity. But guess what? A fetus is a foreign entity in the eyes of the host. It's sometimes the reason why the mother's immune system decides to go after it.

Personally with all this talk about self reliance and not relying on the goverment for hand outs. the same should be applied to a fetus. If the fetus can survive outside the womb without artificial life support it deserves to be called a human being and get all the rights until it dies even if it becomes a withered mummy. Until then, it's a pile of cells that I use a chum for all I care.

This question has been answered time
And time again here,at this point it is you faggots who keep intentionally bringing this closed discussion up to muddy the overtons stance of Cred Forums.

Abortion keeps the nigger and other undesirable population at bay.

Any deviating response is a cuckold.

>Leave house unlocked during long vacation
>Squatters arrive
>You return home
>Muh property rights
>Shoot them in the head, dump in garbage
>Go to jail forever
>Is ok for viable babies but not junkies

Sure heats up my logic engine

That's a rare, extreme case and you know it. Special exemptions can be made for conjoined twins, don't be so autistic.

These threads are hilarious because they always go like this:
>"m-muh potential life!"
>[explanation and reason]
>"b-but muh potential life!!! murderer!"
>9 months later
>baby is born
>mother is abusive and unsupportive
>'potential life' grows up to be a piece of shit
>"kill all niggers!"

Wish your mothers aborted you, conservashits.

Because every pro-lifer ever bases their views solely on emotion, not thinking of the objective benefits of having lowlifes not raise more shitty lowlifes.

But it isn't capable of being autonomous until like 8 months in and even then it's 50/50 on whether it'll live or not if it wasn't ready.

>No, I think you have the right of ultimate control over your own body and its biological processes
pretty utopic, try to tell thatt o your body when you have diarreah

Why would you even want these kids born? The kind of people who get abortions would just raise more scum.

>run somebody over
>B-but I have wallet sovereignty! What happened to monetary integrity?! Why is it okay for to STEAL money from my wallet just to pay for the injuries I caused? Stop punishing me for driving!
Herp derp what is responsibility?

Being overly controlling about things that arent even security related, is a leftist position anyway.

You should be able to do whatever you want unless you are hurting other people.
>but little fucker would get hurt
Yeah well that bitch is his mother, I mean I feel sorry for the kid, but what the fuck am I going to do, adopt a million kids??

Lowlifes usually have a lot of kids. Intellectuals and rich sluts however do it all the way long till their marriage at 35-40.
youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

*it = abortions

Not an argument
You have no right to end someone else's life because you can't take responsibility for your own actions

This

Stop thinking of every unborn fetus as a little baby Einstein. Statistically, abortion curbs crime and helps prevent further degeneracy. Yes, in a rare case a potential genius might be aborted, but for the vast majority of cases society is better off without these children being born.

Why do you even care? Only pro life argument is muh human life, but it has no effect on anyone except mother, as unborn didnt enter in any relation and have no effect on outer world. Its same moralistic bullshit used for importing rapefugges.

On other hand, prohibition create big black market and increase number of orphans, who are then taken by state. Abortion ban for example increased Romanian gipsy surge and would probably increase number of shitskins.

KEK has spoken, further debate is not needed as we have word of God.

It is indeed a rare case, but it makes it clear that your rationale is seriously flawed. The argument was that because the baby is "part of her body" she ought to be able to kill it. If that is true, then you ought to be able to kill your conjoined twin. And no doubt some conjoined twins would like to kill their twin. But we know that wouldn't fly in reality, because people would realize that they're killing a real person. Whereas with a baby, it's "out of sight, out of mind" and easy to look the other way.

Because people are monsters and have a thirst for blood. We will not give in to them.

It didn't have a heart and would have killed her if she'd been forced to bring it to term.

> christfags drown yourselves.

So infanticide is also OK?

You're confusing the right to control with the ability to control. You may not be able to stop diarrhea, but you certainly have the right to do anything in your power to try to.

Make a real argument.

>You have no right to end someone else's life because you can't take responsibility for your own actions
No one has more of a right to your body than you. No one has the right to feed off your body against your will, regardless of your past actions. Again, to claim otherwise is in essence to support slavery.

moralfag detected

>Killing babies is OK because they may grow to be criminals
>What is due process

You can't kill people who've commited no crime. That is barbarian.

I didnt kill the baby. I just neglected it ;) fucking parasite should be able to care for itself. Black lives matter!

No you fucking retard, even late term abortion is widely seen in a negative light. Keep moving that goalpost.

>Brazil
Not even surprising.

Why blaming the 'supposedly' inferior gender when 'supposedly' men are in charge of the rational and logical thinking. Those're biological traits, remember?

Men are to blame here

Statistically, killing every human will curb crime. If you want to execute criminals, okay. But executing innocents because of potential future crimes? That's pretty degenerate.

>fetus
>baby
Good one.

I genuinely support abortion solely because it's the only thing keeping the black population in check besides their own suicidal tendencies

Your refusal to address it doesn't mean it's not an argument.

>people

It's like a broken record

Then the baby already exist in outer world. Although I still think that, if commited by parents when the kid is still very small, its lesser crime to murder of adult person or somebody elses kid.

By that logic, never knocking somebody up is the same thing as murder.

There are lots of adults who have no thoughts, concepts of beauty, or understanding of ego and self. Why is it illegal to kill these pests and vermin?

Because if you oppose murdering babies you hate women.

/thread

>willingly sacrificing children for Jews to suck up stem cells
Neck yourself goy

Why? It's all about the mother's choice amirite?

Infanticide concerns no one other than the mother.

What's the difference? For the first 3 months after coming out, a baby acts just like it did when it was in the womb, except it no longer has the umbilical cord, and so needs to cry to let the mother know it needs to eat. There's a continual development process, and the most rational place to say the individual life begins is at fertilization, because that is when that person's DNA first appears, and when you can't trace the individual back any farther in time. (The haploids from the mother and father trace different world lines before fertilization.)

Nitpick all you wat, fetuses are living beings?

What are they?

>American reading comprehension

> men are to blame
What can I do against it? How can I return this sad world to the good old Christian times? Yup, NOTHING. I am a drop in the sea.

I will arbitrarily draw the line at birth. Executing unborn fetuses is fine. Executing born innocents is a step too far.

In the case of a deformity, such as Down Syndrome, it's better for the unborn person, the parents, and the community. The person would suffer their whole life, and would also be a burden for everyone. There are people who abuse abortion, however, and I do not agree with that. I think it is important to have the right for legitimate cases.

>My metaphorical dumbing-down of adult intelligence is comparable to the factual lack of cognition in unborn fetuses

Because our laws are subjective and shit. I fully support killing them too.

the thought that they're actually extinguishing a human life for no reason other that they don't want the responsibility of rearing it despite having been stupid enough in this day and age to get pregnant unintentionally is so damaging to their minds that they erect this self-righteous pedestal to hold themselves up on while proceeding to perpetuate the single instance of industrialized murder of the unborn in the animal kingdom

can't complain about how many niggers the states have been spared, though. not a big deal, all of the kids who get torn up weren't going to amount to much with a mother like that anyways.

They are merely an unborn fetus. I consider them different from born humans.

Why is that the arbitrary line? There is no practical difference between aborting a child and stabbing to death a child who is not yet self-conscious.

because women feel like their bodies and convenience are more important than the life growing inside of them

>How come pro-life is such a triggering stance to take nowadays?

Because total antagonism to the pro-life stance that our generation grew up with.
The vast majority of people advocating pro-choice hardly understand the pro-life position, from what I've seen. Hence the growth in absolutely stupid positions such as "I'm personally pro-life but politically pro-choice".

...

Yes, that is why abortion has a lesser criminal penalty than homicide.

Both are morally reprehensible though.

If abortion is legalized natural rights are not worth it anymore for leftists

I draw the line there not because of cognition, but because of nutrient, fluid, and gas dependency on the host (the mother). To me it seems like a fine place to draw the line.

Then she either chooses to keep it or give it into adoption. Simple as that.

>fetus
>children
Another good one.

Work on your reading comprehension you undeveloped ape.

Arbitrary line, sure. As I said in another post late-term abortion is reprehensible so it's out if the question regardless.

>Fetuses
>Living beings
Full of jokes today, Brazil. I'm sure the cow shit you dredge through to get to your job every morning has some living organisms in it too.

Nice third trimester abortion pic that you will use to protest abortion in any form.

Because nobody actually wants to take a stance of self-accoutability, and literally half, if not most of the arguments for it is basically "I'm so fucking dumb I couldn't take the pill so I'm just going to keep people oblivious to my shit chocies as well as end a life in it's beginng stages"

How it's even become a debate is retarded. I understand birth control in referral to eugenices or the result of rape, but just random abortion? Girl that's fucking state mandated giving girls the abilty to do 24/7 dumb careless shit.

>Women don't want to take responsability for their actions.
/thread

Because the origins of your demonic culture are saturated with child sacrifice. See yuletide and Halloween.

People are becoming blatant about their hedonism because there is no group reprisal for their evil, laying plain the wickedness of their souls for all to see who have eyes up to the task.

That's the problem in defending abortion: you are either okay with killing anybody or you have to draw an arbitrary like that makes no sense at all.

According to your moral code. I would argue that while still morally reprehensible, abortion should still available as a legal option.

Man I'm so sad about the USA.
They're a dying white population and keep pointing fingers to the others, they are literally retarded.

>user demonstrating just how anti-scientific pro-choicers are

children of rape and those detected with congenital defects should be blended post-haste, my man, but it's a sad statement upon the women of today that despite the array of birth control options available, the need for abortion of perfectly healthy fetuses is greater than ever. they're just lower than fucking dogs, no self-accountability, no sense of responsibility.

feels good to be gay

gonna get me a CRISPR baby one day

Flag shitposting is still not an argument my man.

The Slovenian user argued that abortion is of no one's concern as it affects only the fetus and her mother. The same logic applies to infanticide.

>I'm sure the cow shit you dredge through to get to your job every morning has some living organisms in it too

Yes, but none of them are human, so why should I care?

Those racist stupid Americans do not understand that if it weren't for abortion their white population would be above the replacement rate.
>enjoy getting colonized by latinos, you deserve it

I gave you a rational justification of my stance, do not claim that I draw a line "that makes no sense at all". Surely as thinking adults we can deal with this issue outside of an all or nothing response.

Well, this problem isn't unique to abortion. Gay marriage (under the guise of "marriage equality", a misnomer at best, if not outright lie), chopping your cock off, etc, all trigger leftists beyond reason if you disagree with them.

I can think of two reasons which contribute to this. If others can think of more, or disagree, I'm always interested in hearing other opinions.
1) Political polarization. With near ubiquitous internet access available in western societies, people can find some corner of the internet which not only agrees with the persons perspective on particular issue(s), but takes it to the extreme. Pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro tranny cock chopping, pro furry, pro BDSM, pro-whatever. Whether or not you agree with these ideas is irrelevant, the fact is that there is always a forum one google search or a few clicks away, which vehemently believes in one or more of these issues. People go looking for "like-minded" individuals, find themselves in an echo-chamber where their beliefs, no matter how absurd or amoral, are not only affirmed, but reinforced. As they spend more time in their echo chamber, without an opposing perspective being offered (yet alone accepted as valid, or even considered), they solidify their opinion on the issue, to the extent that they are amazed and outraged when they finally come across someone who does disagree. Similarly, people with opposing views also have their views affirmed in the same manner, resulting in political polarization.

pewresearch.org/packages/political-polarization/

2nd pt coming.

With this bullshit stance you could pretty much just murder anyone with a dependancy on you because it's inconvienent. Make your mind senpai

Well, newborns still depend on someone for their nutrient and fluid needs. I don't see why gas independence is such a big deal.

2) Coddling. Humanity as a whole has made incredible technological progress within the last century, to the point where people in their late teens or early 20s throw a temper tantrum, not because they are being mistreated or wronged in some way, but because they simply don't get their way. I can't find the picture, but I remember seeing a huge collage of millenials throwing tantrums because they didn't get their desired phone for christmas, or it was in the wrong color. They aren't even aware of how fortunate they are to have a family, to have all these gifts. They've been told since before they were little princesses or prince Charmings, who can do no wrong, who deserves the world for sole virtue of existing. Fuck merit, that shit takes too much time and effort, they'd rather be on tinder using computers or phones their parents often paid for, living trivial lives for the sole purpose of sating every temptation they have. When reality finally sets in, and they finally are confronted with an opinion they could hardly conceive of, as opposed to the unending positive reinforcement they are so used to, they simply break down. They were never prepared for this, they never faced true adversity, and never developed character in its face. Now that it finally happens, after spending the majority of their life without problems to overcome, what do you thinks going to happen? If they accept this confronting opinion as valid even though it contradicts their own opinion, they'd have to accept for the first time that they were at fault, and some people simply can't do.

So its a problem with not only abortion, but how they initially form their beliefs, and respond to new, contradictory opinions. They've spent their live in echo chambers, why would they stop now?

I dunno. I haven't slept in over a day, so I probably haven't explained myself well. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd welcome any input on this issue because its something I've been thinking on a lot, lately.

If you're pro life then start at campaigning to ban things such as circumcision that affect living people

Honestly if they showed a litter of puppies being aborted on a TV commercial people would change their tune real quick. It would be hilariously hypocritical to hear the baby killers try and be high and mighty protecting dogs

The question is simply this: does anyone have more of a right to your body than you? Answering yes is, in effect, taking a position in support of slavery. So do you support slavery?

You both misunderstood what I wrote. You can remove a new born from a mother and someone else can provide it with nutrients. You cannot remove a first trimester fetus from it's host and just give it baby food. It is actually receiving blood and oxygen and nutrients directly through the mothers cardiovascular system, and all of its waste is removed through the mothers body as well. That is a very different kind of dependency.

Taking care of your offspring (both inside and outside the womb) is not slavery. It is a moral obligation.

But it's still a dependancy none the less. Would you deny someone in your family blood if they were desperately in need of it because of some fucking retard concept of liberalism? Don't pretend you wouldn't. You're just an asshat trying to make out you're a moral crusader defending the rights of women. It's fucking laughible.

So you believe someone has more of a right to your body than you? How does that not fit the definition of slavery?

I think both of those are accurate, and here's a potential 3rd for your list:

3) Self-image: Their self-image of themself as being a good person isn't based on what they actually do, but instead on the political stances they support. This is appealing to them, because it requires no effort on their part, and they still get to believe they are a good person. By disagreeing with their political stance, you threaten their self-image as a good person, since they have nothing else to recommend them. And thus they hate you bitterly.

Because a huge number of abortions are done by blacks.

>kill rapist (only if violent rape, not statutory)
>kill rapist's offspring (wouldn't want to breed more rapists)
easy, exceptions to "don't kill babies" can be made if society as a whole benefits.
If the only person that benefits is the mother, letting her indulge in more hedonism, then it is not beneficial to society and should therefore be banned

Because leftists and feminists can't argue. They always appeal to emotion and ridicule.

K user, think I've made up my mind on my stance of abortion with the help of your post. Shouldn't be illegal, but like you said, they should accept that they snuffed out a life, but also, no one should owe them anything, and nobody should have to pay for them. I'll still morally consider it wrong though, except in legitimate medical situations.

But your answer is yes too! You are saying to the baby that his mother has more of a right to his body than he does. Thus your argument is ineffective in both directions.

Not more of a right, the same right, if and only if is your children.

So do you believe is OK for parents to kick a 4 years old kid from their house because muh freedums?

>Would you deny someone in your family blood if they were desperately in need of it
Would you force your family member to give you their blood against their will? Would you object to someone taking your blood against your will?

People think that it's a purely religious opinion and we live in a secular society.

Lot of liberals/atheists are going to dismiss pro-life without thinking about it because they think it is a purely faith based stance.

I am Christian, and I generally agree that we can't make public policy based on religious opinions, even if we are the majority. Western governments are secular and must accommodate different spiritual beliefs.

Even Christian liberals tend to have a sort of self-hate about their Christianity (see president Obama). So when they think of a public policy being affected by Christianity they get angry about it.

It's all silly though because there is plenty of reasons for people to be pro-life, religious or not.

I don't even think the theological reasons given by Christians are very convincing to be pro-life as a Christian. I think the pro-life argument is better from a secular point of view..

If I was dying I'd be pretty goddamned angry if someone with my blood type, without actually dying as a result, didn't give me blood out of some absurd idealistic view of reality. Now I wouldn't consdier them evil and they're very welcome to make their own decision. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm going to think they're a fucking asshole for practically letting me die. For the latter, that's a stupid fucking question. Children don't just come out of nowhere. You made a poor choice. It isn't out of your own will. You had sex in your own will, didn't take pills by your own will, and made a mistake by your own will. Which means that "Blood sucker" is ltierally there by your own will. It's your own fault. your own problem.

I havent read through the thread or anything but i never understood why this is still an issue. What harm does terminating an unwanted pregnacy cause? People are going to fuck as much as they want no matter what rules you have in place and this planet has too many fucking people as it is. Pro-choice lessens bringing people into this world by unfit parents, you know, less niggers and whatnot?

>With near ubiquitous internet access available in western societies, people can find some corner of the internet which not only agrees with the persons perspective on particular issue(s), but takes it to the extreme.

He says, on Cred Forums, without a hint of irony....

Yes. But there's literal fucking preventive measures. Not using them is plain retardation. That's specifically why I'm anti-abortion, I don't think the state should dictate over anything but our of pure fucking disdain for people who practically act like man-children, I'd vote yes against abortion 24/7.

Because it IS just a lump of cells

If a child is not wanted/cant be support, its life will suck. Rather let it have no life at all then to let it live a life of suffering. I'm very anti-life.

All those who suffer should be released. Demented, drug addicts, homeless, chronicly ill.

Thats actually a really good point. Leftists do tend to virtue signal a lot. I mean, look at the boko haram twitter "campaign", bringbackourgirls,a few years back. I mean, all they did was post crap on twitter, and act as though they were superheroes in a glorious struggle. I'm sure it did wonders for their ego, if nothing else.

Not only did they completely forget about the campaign after they had stroked their egos to no effect, but now, even after Clinton, in her capacity as Sec. State, blocked placing Boko Haram on the terrorist watch list (and received some "well timed" donations), I'm yet to hear a single leftist bring this up.

Pic unrelated, just thought I'd post something to lighten the mood.

First of all, I couldn't give a shit about defending the rights of women. I don't even think they should be allowed to vote. But it's good to know that we've reached the stage of the debate where you resort to name calling and memes.

Secondly, you are arguing semantics at this point. Yes, I said dependency, but if this were put into a more legal context then I'm sure it would be more properly defined than "dependency". Common sense should tell you that there is a huge difference between the physical, parasite-like dependency that an unborn fetus exhibits on the mother and the more abstract dependency that a new born has with whomever is raising it.

That point you make about giving blood is irrelevant; you will never be legally obligated to give someone blood.

Also,
>painting me as a liberal
That's laughable

there is too many humans already, there, the single reason pro life is immoral

>not using them is plain retardation

Then why not allow these retards to prevent their own breeding (as long as they pay for it themselves) and bring more retards into the world? What am i missing here senpai?

Cred Forums isn't an echo chamber. There isn't any voting functions and it purely works off a basis of individual want. And remember we're on a site where furry, trap, hentai, d, all kind of shit makes itself at home. There's a massive variaiton of people here to the point it can't really be an echo chamber because of al the opposing views. You can post a thread which Cred Forums would agree with and BAM you'll get the exact result as this thread where a bunch of liberals jump. Unlike what he's talking about these girls sit on their tumblr reaffirming their delusions, and quite literally block dissenting opinions.

Who the fuck are you?
Seriously. Just random ID out of nowhere, wasn't talking to you nigger.

No, I'm not. You have the right to control your biological processes. The blastocyst/embryo/fetus (not baby; to be clear I'm speaking only prenatally) does not have a right to control your biological processes. If you grant it personhood with full rights (a separate argument itself), it still only has a right to its own body, not yours. That it may depend on yours for survival does not override your right.

>Not more of a right, the same right
So how would you resolve it when their rights are in conflict?
>So do you believe is OK for parents to kick a 4 years old kid from their house because muh freedums?
They have the right to give it up for adoption.

Whenever abortion comes up in class at my university (very small college: 20-30 students per class), I always say out loud "Abortion is a necessary evil", so that everyone gets uncomfortable and they change the subject.

Poor choices are poor choices, retards aren't exaclty going to live a prominent healthly life. Having people bare the result of their own stupidity is better them teaching them it's okay to make stupid chocies. They're retarded, but even retards know how to listen.

I'd rather kill adult niggers than child ones. Child ones are innocent. Who kills the innocent? Let them die as adults and learn as children not to nig.

Irony would only be appropriate if Cred Forums weren't constantly flooded with opposing opinions. Sometimes tumblr users come along, sometimes /lgbt/, a redditer, etc.

They all come with opposing views and post them without reserve. Sometimes its just Cred Forumsacks trolling, but nonetheless, the opinion is presented here. Tell me, has anyone EVER been banned on Cred Forums for asking for a citation, such as in the pic? No? Then you're an idiot for making this comparison.

Use common sense, I just moved from one wifi network to another.

Personally, I'd say abortion is justifiable if the mother's life is in danger and there's no other way to save her. Under that circunstances, it is not a crime here in my country.

>They have the right to give it up for adoption

Why force them to go through all the bureaucracy? Why can't parents just expell someone from their houses? Do you support slavery?

Most of those aborted in the US are niggers.

Our population is already too big as it is, and having more mouths to feed will just drain our resources and environment even more.

Also, the ones that get abortions are usually leftists and/or degenerate trash that would raise socially-damaging children anyway. Abortion is basically a modern form of ethnic cleansing, and the leftist plebs themselves support it.

ive got in this argument with people in uni before. only thing i dont understand is this arrogant attitude like somebody is idiotic and blatantly wrong just for having discourse.

a guilty person usually has this subconcious mentality, because they are trying to justify their own actions or stance. like there are some people who just think its a gender issue and get defensive instead of pointing out its dehumanizing women, dehumanizing the chance to nuture children and start new life. not pointing out there are also benefactors who will pay you to have a baby and adopt it from you, not pointing out how bad for a womans health and also psychologically to have an abortion.

whatever you belive, we live in a weird ass science fiction world now where people think this is just a normal thing along with dick chopping and 200 genders and shit and will fight you over it.

even pagan ass cultures realized the future of their society was in mothers having as many children as possible, raising them and giving them chance to succeed, this isnt hard to understand. but today people dont consider the implications of having sex and see it as recreational. not saying it isnt but there's obviously a chance to get pregnant and its a reality that has to be acknowledged.

I like to be an edgelord and tell feminists I support it, then say because its secretly a far right eugenics program.

>they're very welcome to make their own decision
Well then, we agree. Your perfectly free to think them an asshole or whatever, so long as you respect their right to make the choice to be one.

>You had sex in your own will, didn't take pills by your own will, and made a mistake by your own will
Maybe, or maybe not. Regardless, it's not up to me or you to control what someone does with their own body.

>muh common sense
Man you're confirming yourself to be even worse form of retard, anyhow.

>Don't give a shit about IDPOL?
>Yet argues for a pro-choice position
aight senpai

>The rest of that argument
What the fuck is that even, you're practically arguing from a position that anyone sensible on either side of the seat would look at you and go "What the fuck"

You're practically comparing human off-spring to parasitic insects, while I'm not personally offended by this why the fuck would you even be pro-life if you've got such a harsh stance against humanity? It just seems like a massive contradiction.

Abortion clinics in the US were first founded by white nationalist eugenicists.

Margret Sanger called niggers a plague on society, or something to that effect.

...

I don't agree with you.
I just say that state doesn't have interference, doens't mean I wouldn't act in violence against a bitch in a situation where government intervention wasn't a problem. You make a mistake and you feel the consequences.

Who's got control over this dichtomy? Who says I'm not able to control others? If I've got the force I can tell that woman to have that baby and she will. I don't give a shit about western liberal ideals, I just want idiots to feel result of their poor decisions. It might seem sick but it entertains me.

But they do faggot. The right of self-ownership trumps every other right. Not wanting someone to use your body to sustain their life with the consequence of them dying is not equivalent to murder, and you'd have to be a retard to think so.

>inb4 iz just a lump of cells u guyse

But it is.

>That first statement
>Every subsequent statement
Not an argument. In fact, none of those are arguments.

I'm just being baited at this point, so I'll leave you with this

>Talking about bait
>Argument amounts to "My name is not important, but all babies are parasites against women. They only become useful out of the womb. For some reason I give a shit about this debate despite having deep rooted issues against humanity"

Bullshit. And don't give me that blood donor excuse to save someone else's life against your will. The difference is your decisions are putting the fetus's life in danger by withholding your biological duty. Bodily autonomy is forfeited when you have sex.

Inb4 I just want to control your sexual freedom. Stop making excuses for taking a life when all you have to do is take responsibility for your own actions.

abortion is murder

youtube.com/watch?v=76E7MJsYx1g

so are you.
now defend why you shouldn't be murdered.

This

Pro-life stance basically amounts to placing too much moral and ethical importance on a developing fetus. Yes, they could become a functional human post-birth. Why is that such a big deal? I suppose if you are religious, then I understand. It all depends on subjective placement of importance.

After the initial "abortion is murder" argument, it usually turns to arguments on technicalities and hypotheticals.

>B-But what if the baby grows up to cure cancer?
>B-But if you abstract far enough then there's no difference between an unborn fetus and a new born baby

Why do you hate freedom so much?

>And don't give me that blood donor excuse to save someone else's life against your will

"And don't provide me with the counterexample that is catastrophic to my idea"

Cool man, whatever.

>The difference is your decisions are putting the fetus's life in danger by withholding your biological duty.

What the fuck is a biological duty, and how would you argue for it?

>Bodily autonomy is forfeited when you have sex.

Not really, no. If you have any belief at all in property rights and conceptions of ownership, the body is the most fundamental aspect of it.

I don't really give a fuck about sexual freedom, I give a fuck that people who hate freedom want to infringe on the most fundamental ownership human beans have.

You and I are physically independent from a host.

>Biological duty
>Bodily autonomy is forfeited when you have sex

That is all your own opinion, based on your own moral code. However, that is not an argument.

That's not what happens during an abortion. If you'll take the time to watch a video of even an ordinary common abortion, you'll see that they literally chop up the baby.

Saying it's just a lump of cells is the same kind of pseudoscientific reasoning you see when people say they don't want to eat anything with chemicals in it. Guess what? All food is entirely chemicals! And guess what? All humans are entirely cells!

I agree. Even bigger victory would be convincing them to undergo sterilization voluntarily for a paycheck. In the long run it would cost less than having multiple abortions.

>right of self-ownership trumps every other right
why? Also, isn't being considerate of other people a part of living in a society - isn't that why we make laws in the first place?

Not an argument. He never said the lump of cells wouldn't resemble the shape of a baby.

I didn't say shit about what happens during an abortion breh.

>Saying it's just a lump of cells is the same kind of pseudoscientific reasoning you see when people say they don't want to eat anything with chemicals in it. Guess what? All food is entirely chemicals! And guess what? All humans are entirely cells!

Guess what, a human bean has a range of emergent qualities that set it apart from a lump of cells, whereas a fetus doesn't to the same degree.

Are you implying that an unborn fetus is a part of society?

>why?

Because the consequences of disagreeing with that notion are far-reaching and absurd. But you're free to not believe in self-ownership, if you want to be a nazi-commie.

>Also, isn't being considerate of other people a part of living in a society - isn't that why we make laws in the first place?

Definitely, and I do think women should be considerate enough to bear the child to term and put it up for adoption. However, it's their prerogative to choose not to.

>Are you implying that an unborn fetus is a part of society?

The mother is, the fetus might be, but that's not necessary.

>Because the consequences of disagreeing with that notion are far-reaching and absurd. But you're free to not believe in self-ownership, if you want to be a nazi-commie.

That's not even an argument, you are just dodging the question.

What about a two year old?

You indicated that it is simply the mother no longer providing for the baby and the baby dying as a result, or order to justify your moral position.

About emergent qualities: the key phrase is "to the same degree". That's technically true, but it's also technically true when comparing 5 year olds and 20 year olds. And it may also be true when comparing yourself to myself. (That genuinely isn't meant as an insult.) We would need a metric to place on the complex space of possibilities to allow us to compare the value of emergent qualities, and that is a bottomless can of worms.

>against your will
>have sex and get kid because of sex
>I didn't want kid tho how was I supposed to know sex makes kids??

>you need this kidney? here take it
>ok I want it back now, even if it means you die because of it
>you dont get to use my body against my will

>Implying that having morals is wrong

>Because the consequences of disagreeing with that notion are far-reaching and absurd. But you're free to not believe in self-ownership, if you want to be a nazi-commie.

I believe in self-ownership, but why do you think it is so much more important than everything else - so much that we can't even ask a person to take responsibility and be inconvenienced for a while in order to not let an innocent person die that they put in that position. Btw I am pro abortion, I just think your argument is retarded.

Please do list those qualities which the fetus lacks.
Would we be allowed to kill a grown person for lacking some of the qualities you are about to list?

Given that a two year old is not receiving nutrients, oxygen, and other important biological compounds through a direct connection to the mother's cardiovascular system, I would say no, they are not physically dependent.

>How come pro-life is such a triggering stance to take nowadays?
Its not. That's just the narrative that desperate urban elites keep pushing because they know that the only think preventing them from having to compete and reform are the artificially low birthrates. Billy Yank doesn't enough people in the inner cities that they actually have to give those people jobs and freedoms. Abortion exists to keep people poor.