Why are pro-choice people so bad at defending their position? I just had this conversation with an r/atheism mod...

>I think this deserves an animal

Bleh, I mean answer and not animal.

What if I refuse to feed my child?

Am I not allowed, as an adult human being, to have control over my own body and thus to not cook for them, even if it means they starve to death?

Except the body in question is another human. Life is not more sacred because your older.

>Why are pro-choice people so bad at defending their position?
Do you want more people on welfare?

you have to go back

It's because nobody likes the idea of killing not/babies.

I myself am pro choice because pic related, everybody knows how to make more humans after all.
Nobody will ever make a serious argument out of it though because it would require acknowledging the unborn as either human or at the very least not-quite-human and that'd involve too many feels, fucking softies.

Because you can only argue that pro-life is pro-nigger anonmously

Well they aren't going to be honest are they? That would mean admitting that Blacks have the most abortions which is good for reducing crime.

Atheism is the default worldview of those who swallowed the bluepill of faith in public education. They are not used to having their worldview challenged in any way, because they were educated in an echo chamber.

That's a bullshit argument, because a woman is still able to tell a man to do with his wallet (ie, child support, gibsmedats, etc)

Can't have it both ways. Either we look at things from a collectivist mindset and decide what's best for society, or we take an individualist mindset and go with volunteerism. You don't get to pick and choose.

Because they can only argue semantics. Sex only exists to make more humans. These people are morally bankrupt and irresponsible. They kill a human for convenience. No point it arguing it really, they'll just shout you down a bigot or try to argue that a fetus is like cancer cells.

>nigger lover

Why don't they control their own body to not get pregnant? Because someone is so irresponsible they can't wear protection, take pills, so they just kill another human being for convenience.

Is it okay to pull the plug on a vegetable?
Yes?
Then it's okay to abort a fetus.

>why is choice the central issue?
>because it's her choice
you're retarded senpai

>It's a direct link to reddit episode
nice

But you can tell her to do what she wants with someone else's body?

>well thought out paragraph
>ur just irrational pla delet post

>false equivalency
You can't compare a fetus to a person in an irreparable coma. Two completely different scenarios. Are you going to say since we kill cancer cells we can kill fetuses as well next?

This is the heart of the issue. Abortion (and moreso birth control) free people from the shackles of traditional relationships. We've had values like "you shouldn't be a fucking whore" around for millennia for a reason. And birth control has allowed women to slut it up because they no longer have to worry about consequences.

In the modern era, there are virtuous women, but it's relatively few because it's only the few that decide on their own to be virtous. Meanwhile back in the day, all women were virtuous because if you weren't you got knocked up and your life was fucking ruined forever. They HAD TO BE virtuous. It wasn't simply ""hmm, do I want to be a whore or not a whore?" There were tangible and immediate downsides to shitty behavior.

But the fetus isn't her body it's someone else's.

Do cancer cells naturally mature into members of our species?

It's a true equivalency. We don't know that coma is irreparable, at all. We don't understands comas for jack shit. All we know is that the person has basic life systems (heart, breathing, etc) but 0 brain activity or consciousness.
We also know fetuses have basic life activity, and that's only if we let them grow to that stage. We know they have no brain activity or consciousness.

Being able to take one is the same as being able to take the other. They do not feel, they do not think, they are not conscious, living beings.

Probably should've had an abortion instead of starving your children.
You savage

It's a body that relies on hers for all forms of sustenance and life. The fetus has no right to intrude on her bodily autonomy like that and she reserves the right to remove it.

A vegetable probably won't wake up. And when there's a decent chance, life support is preserved.

A fetus is guaranteed, assuming no developmental fuck-ups, to be born and grow up

>Do you want more people on welfare?

This.

I would gladly make abortion free to everyone who can't afford it to stop the poor, the dindus (yes we also have them in argentina) and the victims of rape to bring childrens that would feed on welfare their whole lives just to end being robbers, murderers and/or voting shit presidents like in the past 70 years of my country's history.

That is enough for me to be pro-abortion.

Besides, the fucking day-after pill is an abortion method. If we go for this "MUH A FETUS IZ HUMAN" we should also ban that fucking pill.

You're retarded. That argument is specious as all get out. Because we know for a fact that 9 months down the line one would have a presumably healthy child. Whereas the coma patient is in stasis for an indeterminate amount of time. You said it yourself; current medicine understands very little about the nature of comas. But we perfectly know the nature of pregnancy and the time needed to recover from it.

Fuck off Skype.

But the fetus isn't the one that put itself there so I don't see why the blame for "intruding" lies with the fetus. Additionally the mother has no recognized "right" to remove the fetus from her body and to suggest that she does so would directly conflict with the right that fetus has to life.

I think we should go a step beyond that and just have voluntary eugenics. Anyone willing to get sterilized gets 5,000 dollarydoos. No racial qualifiers so as not to be racist, but only a nigger would take that deal, so...

Plan B isn't an abortion pill

This is mostly the main point in my opinion.
The uneducated and mostly poor and welfare ladies are the ones that get abortions. And I'm all for it. Why raise another welfare baby? They're not doing anybody any favors. That baby is going to be a burden on the mother, society and it's probably going to continue to breed. I'd rather that baby be aborted so the mom can get her shit together and save that welfare money for something else.

Black people can't think, why is killing them illegal?

>probably won't wake up
Oh so it's okay to murder people based on hunches now?

We don't know that. We don't know that /at all/. Babies have complications out the wazoo, which is why they're kept in neonatal units for the first few days after birth. Then there's absolutely no guarantee of ANY KIND they won't have kiddie cancer, be malnourished because the parents couldn't provide or wouldn't provide, and that they wouldn't get SIDS and die anyways.
There's no guarantee in any child.

So you advocate pure, procreation sex only?

>Besides, the fucking day-after pill is an abortion method.
But that's wrong, retard. It takes a fertilized egg up to 16 hours to travel from ovaries to uterus. The morning after pill prevents the egg from sticking to the uterine wall. But abortion requires surgical equipment and manpower. Fuck outta here with your fallacies and read the sticky, edgelord.

>Why are pro-choice people so bad at defending their position?
Arrogance. They don't feel the need to have an honest discussion because they believe they are smarter than anyone who disagrees with them.

Unsurprisingly, you can apply this to the majority of liberal positions.

>I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body
By that logic she has no right to determine what to do with the child's body.

To be honest I think abortion basically tests the limits of our morality. I've thought it about it a lot and I just can't come to a satisfactory answer. I feel like I'm contradicting myself no matter what I choose.

>We don't know that. We don't know that /at all/.
Yeah, /we do/. It's not rocket science, it's an observable phenomenon that takes place constantly. We have such procedures negative we/do know/. Whereas there are no known procedures used to wake a coma patient. So fuck off with your false equivalency and apply yourself.

>You are irrational
Oh boy, they haven't seen Dilbert man yet have they.

> So you advocate pure, procreation sex only?

No and I have no idea where you got that from.

We have such procedures because we /do know/. Damn phone.

I'm not saying we should kill babies, but with there being too many people on earth right now anyways, the most humane way to bring down the population is to kill before they're conscious.

We have to start thinking about the planet. There are way too many humans on earth. Abortion is gross, but it is a moral choice compared to war, starvation, disease, incarceration and sterilization.

I used to be exactly like that mod before I took an embryology course in uni desu. I have a problem with killing anything for purposes other than food, even more so when I know that thing will become a Human bean. A fetus has a notocord as early as 1 month. It seems definitely immoral to kill it at that point.

It's really not a voting issue for me though. I would never be in a situation where it would affect me or my offspring.

Yet children ages 0-10 rely on their parent's body and labor for all types of sustanance. Why cant i just abandon my two year old because i no longer wish to support someone who leeches of my resources?

I don't think that people who believe it's OK to murder their children should reproduce.

Problem solves itself.

>Redditor doesnt want to argue
>you are disqualified

Dont torture yourself with that shit site.

No, we don't. Know what else is a constantly observable phenomenon?
Dead children. Malnourished children. Abused children. Children that will grow up into nothingness or continue the cycle of degeneracy brought on by their awful parents who didn't want a child, but were forced to because of retards like you.

So, then what? Don't have sex at all?
How exactly is one meant to enjoy a casual fuck if you're going to stick the woman with the life-changing, if not life-destroying, responsibility of raising a child?

Because that child is now conscious and capable of feeling, and is physically independent of the adult.
The adult isn't eating food and having the nutrients sucked away from them by their child, you tit.

this, essentially.

like all atheists, they are, at heart, misanthropes.

I don't agree that the planet is overpopulated but for the sake of argument lets say it is. What is the ideal level of population? I think if you're going to say the earth is overpopulated you should have a definitive number of people that the earth can support.

So what. Why should his/her feelings take priority over my bodily autonomy? Why am I forced to share my resources?

I think abortion is murder, but i also think that parents should have the right to kill their offspring. They should have to do it before the child can feed itself.

The top predators all have one thing in common. Infanticide. Bears, lions, wolves, and humans .

We have this instinct for a reason.

> So, then what? Don't have sex at all?
How exactly is one meant to enjoy a casual fuck if you're going to stick the woman with the life-changing, if not life-destroying, responsibility of raising a child?

Use a condom? Why are we arguing about an entirely seperate issue now? I fail to see what the connection is.

you - and I, and society as a whole, DOES have a right to insist that what one "does with their own body" does not harm ANOTHER "body" in the process.

your argument is the consummate abortionist red herring. it disregards the fact that the very reason for the objection to abortion is that it is the unjustifiable killing of ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

>But that's wrong

You can take it up to 7 days later and it will work, that's a lot more than 16 hours, shithead.

>Why is choice the central issue and not whether or not the unborn is a human?
It's not
>Nobody except psychos are pro-choice when it comes to murdering adult humans
Abortion is not murder. It you believe it is, despite the strong physical, legal, scientific and cultural evidence, then you're obviously the psycho.
> comes to the murder of lesser developed humans.
Human what, beings? Sorry, a fetus is human but NOT its own being until it is born.

Feeble semantics is not your best play.

>murdering them
Another lying idiot.

Paying for all the children that would result from having no abortion would end up falling disproportionately on the state, and thus the taxpayer.

I truly don't care if life begins at conception.

Also, as I can't get pregnant, I feel uncomfortable making decisions for those that can. Having said that, if a woman chooses to keep the child and the man doesn't want it, she should have to keep it understanding the man has zero responsibility for it.

>Why does choice matter so much?
Deontology. Kantian ethics. Self-determination.

>There is too much food on my plate
>WELL IF YOU CAN'T TELL ME EXACTLY IN MICROGRAMS HOW MUCH FOOD YOU'D LIKE THEN YOU'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO EAT IT

too many people is too many people. you know it when you see it. How about enough such that their lifestyles aren't irreversibly fucking the planet.

I'm pro-choice because abortion is the only thing keeping the black population under control

Without abortion, America would be 35% black today

>Except the body in question is another human.
Another human what? Being? Sorry, human yes, but not a "being" until it is born.

It should be based on the level of food production available without using artificial nitrogen fertilizer.

You could base it upon the amount of farm land in a given countries borders, or per sq km.

Well how many people would need to die before the planet is no longer overpopulated according to you? This is a fair question. If at some point the earth becomes perfectly populated with just the right amount of people, would you then support a total ban on abortion? If not then you're just using that as an excuse to support abortion.

>Atheism is blah blah bluepill of faith blah blah
Another lying idiot.

best post

>Can't have it both ways.
False dilemma fallacy. Men choose to fork over their wallets with their dicks.

Better question; would you kill a person in a coma who is going to wake up in nine months?

>Is it okay to pull the plug on a vegetable?
Vegetable is born, it literally is a life/death issue

>Then it's okay to abort a fetus.
Fetus is not alive yet. No life/death issue.

I don't think this overpopulation problem is so much of a problem with population at all, but rather a problem with logistics or resource management. The earth is fully capable of supporting many more billions of people.

FUN ABORTIONIST FACT:

Abortionists are incapable of telling you why it's OK to murder a fetus, but it's NOT ok to kill a 3 year old, or a 1 month old, or even a "fetus"/"blob of tissue" that has reached 8 months gestation.

When you are that fucking bereft of basic morality, something has gone terribly wrong with you.

>Dead children. Malnourished children. Abused children. Children that will grow up into nothingness or continue the cycle of degeneracy
So feefees. Unfortunately, feefees aren't an argument. You have yet to provide any basis for your arguments, opting to spew emotional drivel. Whom do you think you're convincing with that form of argumentation? It certainly isn't me.

From what I gathered from your posts, you sincerely wish to abdicate women of any responsibility for their actions. Which leads me to surmise that you are, in fact, a woman. Which also explains the foregoing of logical reasoning in lieu of emotional appeals. Fuck off, slut.

>posting plebbit convos here

You even upvoted yourself.

If you judge the value of a zygote by its potential to be human, then you must extend that same courtesy to its constituent haploid cells. Any distinction between the two stages is arbitrary.

As this post
raises, the value of life is not inherent. Most any sensible criteria that you use to attribute value to life would give a zygote a near-zero value on the same scale.

>This is the heart of the issue. Abortion (and moreso birth control) free people from the shackles of traditional relationships. We've had values like "you shouldn't be a fucking whore" around for millennia for a reason. And birth control has allowed women to slut it up because they no longer have to worry about consequences.

This actually is the heart of the issue. You hate hate hate women. You judge them for being "whores" and "sluts" but not the men who knock them up?

This why people laugh at you.

>But the fetus isn't her body it's someone else's.
It's not anyone until it is born

>If at some point the earth becomes perfectly populated with just the right amount of people, would you then support a total ban on abortion?

No, the desire to kill your own young should be removed from the population.

You really want 50+ million more niggers?

>You judge them for being "whores" and "sluts" but not the men who knock them up?
Men can't get pregnant. It's the woman's choice to fuck up and sleep with shitters. Or is everything the man's fault? If so, then women have no agency, and therefore their opinions on whether to keep or abort are irrelevant.

Well...

> I have never heard a good consistent argument that wasn't full on support for genocide.

nevermind

>t. Because we know for a fact that 9 months down the line one would have a presumably healthy child.

Unless God decides to murder the unborn with a miscarriage, then it's OK

>I took an embryology course in uni desu
>a Human bean.

Yes, you really sound like a biological scholar.

So you are blaming the victim?

>I think abortion is murder,
You mean you believe it is. The facts, evidence, law, reasoning and logic say it is not.

Thinking had nothing to do with the nonsense you believe.

I'm curious if anyone has information on the number of repeat abortions or family demographics. Reason is because the anons who back the racial control theory extrapolate. I'm willing to believe that the responsibility of child rearing will reduce or deter women from spreading willy-nilly and limit their freedom or put them in jail for negligence

>He doesn't know that Humans are in the legume family

>So you are blaming the victim?
Victim of what?

Surely it's keeping the nigger quotient lower than it could be. I would have thought every white in the US would be campaigning for it's expansion wherever possible, or even extending it to post-birth

WE'RE JUST TWO HUMAN BEAAAAAANS
INDIVIDUALLY

My favorite argument I heard in favor of abortion is "well the earth is over populated anyways so it's good if we stop having children"

The stupidity of their arguments has made me stop discussing the topic with abortion advocates all together.

>I'm willing to believe that the responsibility of child rearing will reduce or deter women from spreading willy-nilly and limit their freedom or put them in jail for negligence
I'm willing to bet most women and especially negress are not capable of comprehending any of that.

...

>The facts
opinions
>evidence
there's no scientific point of view that would state that a feotus is not intrinisically alive and therefore killing must be viewed as murder.
>reasoning
it's my choice I can do what I want; is not reasoning
>and logic
same as above.

Wow are you too stupid to even follow the conversation?

Is there a chart somewhere that shows how many women who get abortions are black or hispanic? If whites arent getting abortions then I might go pro choice kek

The worst argument I hear constantly is the "well you commit genocide every time you masturbate", as if sperm were capable of growing into adult humans. I wouldn't mind people being so stupid if they weren't so passionate about it.

>Men can't get pregnant.
Only men can make women pregnant.

>It's the woman's choice to fuck up and sleep with shitters.
>I'm racist and hate women
>Putting women in prison for any satisfies my misogynistic sadism
You're not even trying to hide your ghoulish motivations here.

>Everything is the woman's fault
>Or is everything the man's fault?
>My severely limited binary thinking is either one extreme or the other.
We say it takes two to tango. But only women get to bear the children so quite naturally only women get to bear the decision.

Intelligent design: Men naturally have zero physical access to the fetus until it is born.

>their arguments has made me stop discussing the topic with abortion advocates all together.
>muh straw, man
>It stings when I lose
>I sound like a real wanker

And yet here you are, ready for another beat down.

what if the egg is .0000001 seconds away from successfully traveling to the uterus? at what point are you gayly going to implement your own limits for when it's considered alive

>there's no scientific point of view that would state that a feotus is not intrinisically alive
>the fetus is living human tissue

>and therefore killing
Killing is a term we use for living beings, not living tissue.

>must be viewed as murder.
Flawed syllogism based on false statements and irrational analysis. Plus the fact that murder is a legal term that specifically (and quite unironically) does NOT include abortion

>it's my choice I can do what I want; is not reasoning
"It's my choice, I get to choose", means it's not your choice and you don't get to choose unless you are pregnant.

You'll keep us posted on that, won't you?

>Wow are you too stupid to even follow the conversation?
Is there something that is preventing you from answering a 3-word question? Sounds like you're either not capable of following the conversation and you're projecting as a smokescreen.

>I wouldn't mind people being so stupid if they weren't so passionate about it.

Ironically says the rights-grabbing anti-choicer.

>giving women the ability to kill your and her child at any time for any reason

Stop being such a whipped bitch. You're not standing up for the ideal woman, you're standing up for feminists.

>91129123
I'm similar to you, I only think abortion should be illegal if you're white. The foreign hordes can kill their unborn as much as they like!

It's not about feelings, it's about preservation.

It's perfectly rational to be anti-choice when it concerns the killing of innocent human beings. We're all anti-choice when it comes to the killing of innocent adult people so it makes so sense for choice to be the reason to justify the killing of lesser developed humans.

There is no other body.

>The worst argument I hear constantly is the "well you commit genocide every time you masturbate", as if sperm were capable of growing into adult humans.
It is.

>It's perfectly rational to be anti-choice when it concerns the killing of innocent human beings.
It's perfectly rational that a fetus is not a human being

>the killing of lesser developed humans.
Human what? Beings? A fetus is not a being until it is born. That is our law, language, history, culture and science.

I do not believe the state should have the power to force a woman to carry a child she does not want to term.

Life is scientifically defined as an organism in the state of development. The unborn from the moment of conception is a distinct human organism that is growing. That makes it a human being. How do you define life if not scientifically?

I think it's funny how aside from pro-choicers the only other group that I know of that will completely disregard science in favor of philosophy despite having no justification for doing so are Young Earth Creationists.

Yeah this argument is such bullshit and has resulted in your country having easily the most degenerate abortion laws in the world. Under this argument you could literally have an abortion the day before the baby is due. That should be evidence alone that no one really thinks this argument is accceptable.

I'm not really even against abortion, I think before about 14 weeks there's no real moral quandry. Afterwards, there definitely is. Yet these people argue there isn't, their absolutism is terrifying really.

I mean, if I invite someone into my house I can't beat them to death for trespassing on my property. Women who invite cocks into their cunts without protection shouldn't be able to then kill the resulting baby a week before its due because of muh bodily rights.

Technically no, babies don't become fully sapient and self aware until a few years in. The same criteria that would make it acceptable to kill a fetus should make it acceptable to kill newborns and young infants because they aren't real people either.

Abortion prevents more children from growing up in single parent homes

It's like executing criminals before they can commit crimes

Also human life is not sacred. If it was sacred then the deaths of humans would have a greater effect on reality alternatively to life simply going on

Seriously, fuck more humans existing

There are already too many shitbags and dullards that dilute the quality of the societies we live in

There are plenty of born children that are living in single parent households right now, but we wouldn't be justified in killing them for this reason so this reason shouldn't be used to justify killing them while they're unborn.

>Life is scientifically defined as an organism in the state of development
And?

>The unborn
The unborn teenager or the unborn senior citizen?

>conception is a distinct human organism that is growing
Is is self-sustaining? Because that was the other life condition you dishonestly left out.

>That makes it a human being.
Being born makes the human tissue fetus a human being.

> How do you define life if not scientifically?
I guess I could lie like you do, but I'll go with the truth.

best just to call it termination, say you are stopping the child from being born, admit we can change the laws if we want to. We have laws that say you can be imprisoned for years and then executed even though you're a person.

which is why it's never a productive argument to talk about if something is alive/human or not. I'd take a tiger's life over some 2 cell future-fuckup any day.

>The unborn teenager or the unborn senior citizen?

The unborn human being obviously. The unborn is as self sustaining as a newborn baby, it only needs a different sort of shelter and food.

>but with there being too many people on earth right now anyways, the most humane way to bring down the population is to kill before they're conscious.
This is retarded. You do population control by killing those who are already developped. Killing children is killing the future of a species, of a nation, of a family, etc. You don't prevent the earth from being overpopulated, you murder your own future.
Also, if you've had just one look at European demographics, you'll know we're not the ones that should get murdered before we're even in the crib. If you want to kill people en masse, kill Africans and Asians, not Europeans.

Yes, since that "someone else's" body is within her's, i.e. she has domain over herself and that within it.

Deal with it, socialist scum.

>I think it's funny how aside from pro-choicers the only other group that I know of that will completely disregard science

I think its hilarious rights-grabbing anti-choicers are complete freaking idiots when it comes to science and liars when it comes to distorting the positions of others.

>killing them while they're unborn.
Can't kill what isn't a living being.

>The unborn human being obviously.
Do you ever go to the grocery store and ask for a carton of the unborn chickens? That's because people would laugh at you for being so retarded.

That's why everyone else laughs at you for the "unborn senior citizens".

Technically cells are alive so that doesn't amount to anything.

Aborting children that no one has the funds to take care of can be seen as a mercy killing, something that shouldn't have to be done but can. I honestly think we have a billion or 2 more people than really necessary right now anyway, but I don't condone mass murder of those that are conscious.

We need to change the language used in aborgion arguments. We should only refer to "pro-choice" people as pro-death. Pro-choice masquerades the position as if it is about liberty when it's actually about female privilege and giving females a license to kill.

> It's not anyone until it is born

I disagree with you there but it's pointless for us to argue this point.

I don't know how you could possibly object to that terminology. "Unborn" is as neutral as it could be for a debate on abortion.

Yeah, but they're independent of a woman's body. Ultimately a woman who wants an abortion will do whatever they can to end the pregnancy.

I'm giving you an argument for abortion and its that it helps society by ending a life that will essentially drag down the rest of society.

I'm not even arguing morality here. Pure utilitarianism. Societies that have banned abortions have a higher crime rate 15-20 years after instituting abortion bans than societies that have legal abortion.

Also, if human life is so sacred then why don't you adopt some of these wards of the state. I mean honestly, what are you doing to end the problems caused by all the unwanted, unwarranted children junking up our societies?

Anti abortion types piss me off when they call life sacred but do nothing to help the kids when they're actually born

>The unborn is as self sustaining as a newborn baby,
The fetus is the very definition of NOT SELF SUSTAINING. Unable to breath or feed itself except by umbilical cord, fetus entirely submerged in amniotic fluid inside "egg" sac, no self-respiration.

Have you got any arguments that aren't weepy emotional pleas or ouright lies?

>can be seen as a mercy killing,
Only by stupid people

> I don't condone mass murder of those that are conscious.
This is a good argument for you to wake up.

This

If you are anti abortion, you are pro nigger

Can't kill what isn't alive yet.

>for living beings, not living tissue.
Semantics. Your heart is living tissue if I were to stick a big knife into your heart I would be killing the tissue. Your subsequent death would then not be ruled as murder. Similarly with the fetus, its life and future existence is dependant on that tissue. I don't care if you act irresponsibly and murderer your sons and daughters but don't turn around and say that that is not what you are doing because it is.

>murder is a legal term that specifically (and quite unironically) does NOT include abortion
A legal term? It is also a moral one and morally abortion is murder.

>"It's my choice, I get to choose", means it's not your choice and you don't get to choose unless you are pregnant.
You are too stupid to even read and understand a normal sentence.

>"It's my choice, I get to choose", means it's not your choice and you don't get to choose unless you are pregnant.
What's [reventing you from reading the thread and following along like the rest of the adults?

>I don't know how you could possibly object to that terminology.
I don't object to it because it helps easily identify who the retards are, and it reveals exactly their level desperation.

>"Unborn" is as neutral as it could be for a debate on abortion.
Sure, then where else in the English language is the term "unborn" used?

ProTip: It is used precisely nowhere else.

>Also, if human life is so sacred then why don't you adopt some of these wards of the state. I mean honestly, what are you doing to end the problems caused by all the unwanted, unwarranted children junking up our societies?

Why should I have to? You don't have to be an active member of the neighborhood watch group in order to oppose robbery.

>Isn't alive yet
By all standards a fetus is objectively alive. Abortion is murder, just because the victim can't scream and hasn't been named doesn't change that fact.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro life but we have priorities that have to be met first. At this rate I don't think we can properly take care of every human being that is born or not even, so whatever takes away the most suffering is positive to me. Once we get population under control then we can bring up this argument again.

>Semantics.
Word have meanings for a reason, Humpty.

>Your heart is living tissue if I were to stick a big knife into your heart I would be killing the tissue. Your subsequent death would then not be ruled as murder.
This is why people laugh at you

>Similarly with the fetus, its life and future existence is dependant on that tissue.
The fetus isn't a living being until it is born.

> It is also a moral one and morally abortion is murder.
From where did you manufacture this moral?

I'm almost positive I've talked to you before on here. You're the only person to have ever quibbled over the use of "unborn".

>the fetus
this is how women convince themselves that abortion isn't wrong
>it's just a fetus not a human being
>i'm completely fine with killing fetuses
ofc that thought process doesn't actually go into that much detail but the cognitive dissonance allows them to emotionally disassociate fetuses with humans

too bad they're completely wrong morally, scientifically and logically.
have to be extremely stupid (but all women are) to go through the mental gymnastics to accept this as morally just

it's two human bodies. a human body being inside another human body does not give them the right to murder

but the point is moot since women shouldn't have ANY RIGHTS AT ALL WHATSOEVER

Yes you do, you spineless cuck.

The term semantics means that you are playing around with words like all sjws do to achieve your goals.

We've already concluded that you're a moron on several occasions. Pls either read a book or do us all a favour and abort yourself.

Everyone knows exactly the risk they take when they have sex. They know they run the risk of getting pregnant or someone else pregnant, but our degenerate society has forgotten the main function of sex as creation of life and pretend that it's only there as self gratification. Just like eating is essential to us, and can also be enjoyed, there are gluttons for food, there are lust filled people having too much sex.

>We need to change the language used in aborgion arguments.
You've already tried tried that with "unborn chickens" and it made you look like retards

>By all standards a fetus is objectively alive.
Then produce those "objective standards"

>Abortion is murder
Produce the law that says this.

By that logic, doesn't a woman choose to fork over her body when she spreads her legs?

Abortions are literally the ultimate display of
>Might Makes Right.

It's barbaric to the very core.

>The fetus is the very definition of NOT SELF SUSTAINING.
Why does this line of argument even matter? The point here is that without external intervention, the fetus will develop into a human being. So even if we allow for whatever arbitrary criteria where the fetus doesn't count as a human life, you are still killing the potential human life.

Look, I'm up in the air on the issue myself, but let's not pretend that the pro-abortion stance has any moral foundation. You are exploiting a semantic technicality to kill a baby. Arguing that a fetus isn't "alive" and therefore ok to terminate is context denial at it's finest, basically "Even though this fetus will naturally develop into a conscious human life, the rules say it's not really a person til it comes out the vagoo, so it's no big deal to surgically remove it."

The way I see it: If the "baby" or "fetus" can't live without the help of it's host, then by all means it doesn't have a right to live. Saying that though I don't support abortions after 2nd or 3rd trimester (unless there's like a deformity or something fucked up)

Why don't you support abortions after the 2nd or 3rd trimester? They can't survive without their "host". Is there any reason why this shouldn't apply to toddlers as well? They can't survive without their parents, and the only real difference between the born and unborn is the type of food and shelter that the parents are obligated to provide.

You can't torture a plant ya retard.
"inflict severe pain on"
plants have no nervous system
you need a nervous system to feel pain
therefor plants can't feel pain
therefor plants cannot be tortured.

So say you're fucking a girl, and she reaches down from a pair of clippers and snips off your dick.
At that point in time you have part of your body within hers. So she has domain over it and can do what she wants right?

Lol what a fucking cop out, 'you're irrational, goodbye'

Fucking cancer tubes like reddit

The sperm came from the man

The kid is his more so. The women is just a vessel to grow the child

I approve of abortion because it disproportionally weeds out unpleasants from society.
From a moral standpoint it's not much more moral than euthanising down syndrome people though.

C-section babies aren't technically "born" therefore they are not human and are free to be killed without penalty.

Meanwhile, (((planned parenthood))) rakes in the shekels from the organ harvesting

Nigga, she would have already cut off my dick. You're an idiot.

Spotted the cuck

Women are selfish and leaving the decision to them is a quick route to whit egeno-oh wait there we are!

>"well the earth is over populated anyways so it's good if we stop having children"
What they mean by this is "only in white countries."

I just had a thought. A woman who would ever consider an abortion is a woman who shouldn't raise a child or reproduce anyway if she would would just so casually commit infanticide.

>C-section babies aren't technically "born"
Nice try Lady McBeth