Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Me personally, I'm pro-choice.

I can appreciate that abortion is gruesome (it is the killing of a fetus).

I think a woman has the choice since her body is hers to decide to carry a baby to term or not.

The problem with making abortion illegal is the same as with drugs, people still get them.

The solution to reduce abortions is to properly educate people with comprehensive sex education, and birth control.

What are your thoughts?

Pro choice

Explain.

Abortion is murder. Period. No one will ever convince me otherwise. Most "pro-choicers" claim to be part of the "party of science" but when science says that human life starts at conception (and it does) you all ignore it. Party of science, my ass.


And to the people calling themselves "pro-choice", no you are not pro-choice. You are pro-death.

The unborn child certainly isn't getting a choice in the matter is he/she? It's easy for people who're already born to to be in favor of abortion.



And you so-called "pro-choicers" are hypocrites to the highest degree. You are the same folks that think people shouldn't have a choice when it comes to getting dangerous vaccines injected into their bodies or wearing masks on their face. So you all can get the f*** off your high horses with your BS "We are all about choice!" because you ain't.


I actually believe in choice more than you hypocritical a-holes do. You liars are not pro-choice and you're all f***in' disgusting.

And no, my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my pro-life stance.. Human beings have a right to life. That is the most basic and fundamental of all rights.

Without that right, no other right we have matters one bit. Even if I was an atheist I would recognize that everyone has a basic right to life.

Brings back memories of the old abortion thread...


Anyhow, as a Liberal I am pro-choice. If I was a woman, I would want control over my own body as well. So I extend that courtesy to others.

Pro-life.

I think neither side argues the issue in good faith.

The Right will talk religion. The truth is, they don't want to pay for someone elses abortion services.

And most people on the Left could probably give two shits about "Reproductive Freedom."

It's more about not being on the hook for an unwanted kid, or not wanting more unplanned kids from parents so careless they won't bother raising them, running around and messing up the place.


Me, I look at it purely from the fact if a person is smothered in the crib or decapitated in the womb, its all the same to them.

In other words, my position is "If it were me, what would I support."

And by me, I mean if I was the one stuck with years of child support payments. Vs, if I happened to be that unwanted child.


I'm forced to conclude you're better off being able to live poorly, then never have lived at all. The unwanted kids deserve to exist, as much as we do.

I guess I'm begrudgingly 'pro-choice', even if ethically I am mostly 'pro-life'. I think the arguments about it being the woman's choice because it is her body are stupid and idiotic, and also dumb, as well as stupid, although I think I already said that. The life inside her womb is a human being, or at the very least a unique set of cells that will become a human being, so it is not just the woman's body anymore, and thus I don't think 'a woman's right to choose' whether to kill the human inside her is much of an argument. It should be a joint decision between both parents. The assumption should be made that the developing sentient life in the womb wishes to be born, as obviously it can't be asked, and most humans do not resent being born.

All that being said, as others have mentioned, if it is illegal people will have them done anyway, and in much less safe environments. That's part of it. Also there are many medical reasons for abortion. If a pregnancy is going to kill the mother then that really does come down to 'her choice', I think. But that's all rather thorny ethically in any case.

A lot of unplanned pregnancy and thus abortion comes about due to circumstances beyond people's controls, whether they be economically, due to education, not being raised well, etc., so ultimately a lot of abortion is something that would go away in a better-organised society. Contraception should always have a free and available option to reduce the need for abortions. Also there should be much better support for children post-birth.

Honestly from what I can tell, a lot of pro-lifers don't seem to give a shit what happens to the kid after they're born, or what conditions they're raised in. If abortion is to be banned then you'd better damn well institute some kind of support relating to that.

I think Tulsi Gabbard said her belief was that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare", and although I don't really know that much about her other political perspectives, that phrase kind of sums up a fair end-goal for my abortion beliefs.

Abortion is ending a human life, after all, but it's impossible to build a functioning society without taking on some burden of 'evil' to prevent larger degrees of suffering.

Anyway this doesn't sum up all of my thoughts on the matter, just a rough rundown of where I'm at with it right now, so take of my witterings what you will.

Pro choice to a certain point, I think there should be restrictions.

@cdtm: As I said, my religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. People have a basic, fundamental right to life. Even if I didn't worship a god, I would still recognze that it is a natural, inalienable right.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Abortion is murder. Period. No one will ever convince me otherwise. Most "pro-choicers" claim to be part of the "party of science" but when science says that human life starts at conception (and it does) you all ignore it. Party of science, my ass.

I disagree that a fetus is a human being.

A fetus becomes a human once it's born.



And you're anti womens' rights.



I agree with the second point.



I'm against forced vaccinations and mandatory masking.



I'm actually pro-choice as I've shown.

And you can think I'm disgusting all you want.

Originally posted by Robtard
Anyhow, as a Liberal I am pro-choice. If I was a woman, I would want control over my own body as well. So I extend that courtesy to others.

I agree with this, this is common sense.

Originally posted by Trocity
Pro choice to a certain point, I think there should be restrictions.

Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by Klaw
I agree with this, this is common sense.


Nah, common sense is understanding that an unborn child is a human being and thus has an inalienable right to life.


Btw, you should stop calling yourself a Conservative because you clearly aren't one. You kinda remind me of loudmouth Tomi Lahren. She is a fake Conservative as well.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nah, common sense is understanding that an unborn child is a human being and thus has an inalienable right to life.


Btw, you should stop calling yourself a Conservative because you clearly aren't one. You kinda remind me of loudmouth Tomi Lahren. She is a fake Conservative as well.

So if you're pro-choice, you can't be Conservative?

Originally posted by Klaw
Me personally, I'm pro-choice.

I can appreciate that abortion is gruesome (it is the killing of a fetus).

I think a woman has the choice since her body is hers to decide to carry a baby to term or not.

The problem with making abortion illegal is the same as with drugs, people still get them.

The solution to reduce abortions is to properly educate people with comprehensive sex education, and birth control.

What are your thoughts?

I think I am mostly in line with your view. I think abortions should be safe and accessible for anyone who wants them and they should be affordable or even free to take that hurdle (but I believe healthcare generally should be free at the point of use).

At the same time I think there are a lot of things we should do to actually get the abortion numbers down. That starts with comprehensive sex education with a focus on safe ways to have sex (not just because of pregnancy, but also in terms of diseases, and psychological safety), and availability of birth control (again ideally free for the user), but also things like family planning services, help for expecting mothers, availability and affordability of child care places, paid leave for financial support for young children and especially for single parents, to make it more attractive for people to want to become parents.


In terms of the moral side, I'm not sure the "a woman's body, a woman's choice" slogan is the most effective way to convey it, but I do agree generally. I would say no person can morally be compelled to be connected and carry another person for 9 months with risks to their health and life even if that other person was a full human being, and with a fetus I don't think they should have the same moral right as human beings after birth, but of course that is somewhat of a scale.

Voted other.

I don't give a shit. I certainly don't think they should be free though unless the mother is at risk. I've always thought that a ridiculous notion.

I knew this would get out of hand. It's a woman's body and she should have the option. Just once it'd be nice if threads like this were only discussed by female members.

No, it is someone else's body, moron. I can't believe you are that damn dumb. Seperate heartbeat, separate body. Period.

A woman never aborts her own body, retard. She aborts someone else's. She makes a decision to abort her baby. She doesn't abort herself, ffs lmao.

No matter how much you try to dance around that fact it will never make it untrue. Go back to your damn bottle instead of making a bigger ass out of yourself than you already are.

Abortion is murder... case closed. End of discussion.

That organism attached to her placenta?

I'm pro-choice as I think it's the fairest way to be, but I always raise a brow at people who try to use "the science" to justify a position that can't really be justified through science. it just stinks of not being willing to admit that they know their feelings aren't enough justification to control the bodies and actions of others.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I knew this would get out of hand. It's a woman's body and she should have the option. Just once it'd be nice if threads like this were only discussed by female members.

Why are you being sexist?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Abortion is murder. Period. No one will ever convince me otherwise. Most "pro-choicers" claim to be part of the "party of science" but when science says that human life starts at conception (and it does) you all ignore it. Party of science, my ass.


And to the people calling themselves "pro-choice", no you are not pro-choice. You are pro-death.

The unborn child certainly isn't getting a choice in the matter is he/she? It's easy for people who're already born to to be in favor of abortion.



And you so-called "pro-choicers" are hypocrites to the highest degree. You are the same folks that think people shouldn't have a choice when it comes to getting dangerous vaccines injected into their bodies or wearing masks on their face. So you all can get the f*** off your high horses with your BS "We are all about choice!" because you ain't.


I actually believe in choice more than you hypocritical a-holes do. You liars are not pro-choice and you're all f***in' disgusting.


Has nothing to do with that, a life is more then just living. There are many circumstances were abortion is the only option. A child requires a healthy home and most anti abortionists do not care or support a child after birth. How many children have you adopted?

i generally support various forms of killing unwanted people so obv i support abortion

you may not like that but good luck trying to find some inconsequence or hypocrisy in my idea

I'm pro death yo. You can't convince me otherwise. So many hookers, sluts, prostitutes, psychos, mental, bipolar crack heads dropping babies-messed up people having babies.

Kids left homeless from war or just merely unwanted from financial circumstance and society not wanting to help. You look at the conditions of foster kids and it makes you wonder what kind of kids you are raising; most will underperform in society. Especially now since global warming, over population, homelessness and famine. So unless you are going to support all the abandoned children of the world you need to stfu.

Especially religious groups who have to shove their ideologies down people's throats. Most religious groups shun single mothers and most religious groups are elitist. All religious groups will not support the child financially after birth throughout his/her life.

I find the point about pro-lifers not caring about children after they're born a valid one.

I see this a lot.

Originally posted by Klaw
Why are you being sexist? I'm not; it's obvious to me that women know a lot more about this than men

Originally posted by Blakemore
I'm not; it's obvious to me that women know a lot more about this than men

You said this:

Originally posted by Blakemore
I knew this would get out of hand. It's a woman's body and she should have the option. Just once it'd be nice if threads like this were only discussed by female members.

Don't change the goalposts.

I'm not

Always find it interesting that on this one issue conservatives want regulation.

Gay marriage is the other big one as well.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I'm not

Stop being sexist.

Originally posted by Klaw
Stop being sexist. stop being a moron

Originally posted by Blakemore
stop being a moron

You first.

Back to topic.

For those who are pro-choice, should abortion be taxpayer funded?

Dunno if it should be free across the board, though the argument can be made. It should be either free or very low cost to people living at certain poverty levels though. Like with other medical services.

Yes

It's weird how they claim to be Pro life but are against universal healthcare and support a capital society where the invisible hand kills off the poor and and they obviously don't wanna help me homeless or ban the death penalty

Originally posted by Robtard
Dunno if it should be free across the board, though the argument can be made. It should be either free or very low cost to people living at certain poverty levels though. Like with other medical services.

I'm fine with abortions being taxpayer funded myself, but I agree an argument could be made for not funding it.

Originally posted by Blakemore
It's weird how they claim to be Pro life but are against universal healthcare and support a capital society where the invisible hand kills off the poor and and they obviously don't wanna help me homeless or ban the death penalty

Yes I've seen this a lot with pro-lifers.

They claim to care about life yet are against M4A and proper support for children.

Pro-Life.

I believe that the argument that a fetus isn't human is not based on science. By the very metrics set by science in what makes something both life and humanity. The fetus/zygote/clump of cells argument is a way to dehumanize the fetus in order in order to make killing the child more palatable. After all, dehumanization of victims is a common tactic used by oppressors/killers. Tale as old as time.

I also believe that the "pro-lifers do not care about what happens to the fetus after it is born" to be a false and irrelevant argument. I don't care what happens to a lot of ppl, but I do think randomly shooting them in the head with a GLock is still horribly wrong.

I also do not agree with the logic of "ppl still get them so it's better to be legal". Abortion SHOULD be legal IF it is medically necessary. IF one is made to choose between saving the mother's life or the child's then it should be available. BUT making Abortion legal for other matters like convenience or economic concerns is another thing entirely. The logic of "ppl would still do it anyway" is a sliding scale. Sounds good vs prohibition or when talking about the drug war. But murder is also illegal but some ppl still do it anyway, should murder be legalized then?

There is a line I am willing to draw. Rape/Incest and instances where a person's choice was taken away from them from the very start are cases that I can perhaps justify or at least something I can understand.

My logical position is actually about choice. But also about responsibility. IF you made the choice to have sex then the consequences of that choice is your responsibility to bear. The child who was created had no choice from the very beginning and you taking away its choice of life for something you chose to do is something I find abhorrent.

Of course, it goes back to the line I drew above. IF the choice was taken away from you at the beginning, then there is no good answer here. I cannot blame the person who makes the choice however.

Maybe a life form which is reliant on another life form isn't an independent life form and is therefore the property of the person keeping it alive, or, the mother. You dolt.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Maybe a life form which is reliant on another life form isn't an independent life form and is therefore the property of the person keeping it alive, or, the mother. You dolt.

A baby is reliant on its mother but do we see them as property that can be disposed of at will?

Why the insult, tho? I feel the OP made a post to maturely discuss this topic like adults. You don't need the little attack to bait me into posting, I'm bored so I'm willing to discuss my point. So pls lets be a bit more mature here.

Well, no. Once the umbilical cord is cut, anything which provides milk is sufficient, but with the umbilical cord still attached, it doesn't have an independent sustainable way of survival.

It's biologically dependent on the diet of its mother.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Well, no. Once the umbilical cord is cut, anything which provides milk is sufficient, but with the umbilical cord still attached, it doesn't have an independent sustainable way of survival.

It's biologically dependent on the diet of its mother.

That's certainly an interesting take.

Before we proceed, I would need you to clarify: are you saying that one's attachment to the umbillical cord determines its classification to whether it is human life or inhuman property? Or are you saying that human life IS property for as long as it is attached to the cord? OR is there a third interpretation I am missing here?

And what makes its dependency on the umbilical cord different from its dependencies on things like: food/shelter/etc while it is a newborn?

It has one source of nutrition, the placenta, and one way of excretion, the placenta. Her placenta, her rules.

Once the umbilical cord is cut, it's anyone's business... Best to give it back to the mother, you know...

I get that we're born prematurely naturally compared to other mammals, but the fact is before it's born it only has one primary source of survival, it's mother. It's her choice of what to do with it.

Most keep the child anyway, but I find it abhorrent for anyone to think they should overrule the decision she makes of what to do with something growing inside her. It's not your ****ing placenta, is it?

Originally posted by Blakemore
It has one source of nutrition, the placenta, and one way of excretion, the placenta. Her placenta, her rules.

Once the umbilical cord is cut, it's anyone's business... Best to give it back to the mother, you know...

I get that we're born prematurely naturally compared to other mammals, but the fact is before it's born it only has one primary source of survival, it's mother. It's her choice of what to do with it.

Most keep the child anyway, but I find it abhorrent for anyone to think they should overrule the decision she makes of what to do with something growing inside her. It's not your ****ing placenta, is it?

I see what you saying but I unfortunately cannot proceed with a reply until my question is answered: Does this "special" dependency mean that for X time, the child is inhuman property or that the ownership of human life becomes acceptable as long as special conditions (such as the above) is met?

You're saying "special," not me. I'm saying biologically, it is hers until detached.

Originally posted by ares834
Gay marriage is the other big one as well.

What about gay marriage? Aren't gay weddings just fabulous?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Pro-Life.

I believe that the argument that a fetus isn't human is not based on science. By the very metrics set by science in what makes something both life and humanity. The fetus/zygote/clump of cells argument is a way to dehumanize the fetus in order in order to make killing the child more palatable. After all, dehumanization of victims is a common tactic used by oppressors/killers. Tale as old as time.

I also believe that the "pro-lifers do not care about what happens to the fetus after it is born" to be a false and irrelevant argument. I don't care what happens to a lot of ppl, but I do think randomly shooting them in the head with a GLock is still horribly wrong.

I also do not agree with the logic of "ppl still get them so it's better to be legal". Abortion SHOULD be legal IF it is medically necessary. IF one is made to choose between saving the mother's life or the child's then it should be available. BUT making Abortion legal for other matters like convenience or economic concerns is another thing entirely. The logic of "ppl would still do it anyway" is a sliding scale. Sounds good vs prohibition or when talking about the drug war. But murder is also illegal but some ppl still do it anyway, should murder be legalized then?

There is a line I am willing to draw. Rape/Incest and instances where a person's choice was taken away from them from the very start are cases that I can perhaps justify or at least something I can understand.

My logical position is actually about choice. But also about responsibility. IF you made the choice to have sex then the consequences of that choice is your responsibility to bear. The child who was created had no choice from the very beginning and you taking away its choice of life for something you chose to do is something I find abhorrent.

Of course, it goes back to the line I drew above. IF the choice was taken away from you at the beginning, then there is no good answer here. I cannot blame the person who makes the choice however.

Bullshit! You cant be choice and responsibility.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I never used the word property.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Maybe a life form which is reliant on another life form isn't an independent life form and is therefore the property of the person keeping it alive, or, the mother. You dolt.

?

I guess I did. My mistake.

Probably should have used responsibility instead.

You can't dictate parents to be perfect. :/

Shit parent will suffer the consequences anyway.

The foetus is reliant on her placenta, sorry, she's in charge. A baby is different: no umbilical cord.

I'm sorry, I've heard stories of babies being aborted with coat hangers in America. That's what happens when you restrict someone of control of their body.

Are they horrible people? Yes! Shall we make the situation better? Yes! If she's willing to kill her foetus, she probably shouldn't have a child in the first place.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Pro-Life.

I believe that the argument that a fetus isn't human is not based on science. By the very metrics set by science in what makes something both life and humanity. The fetus/zygote/clump of cells argument is a way to dehumanize the fetus in order in order to make killing the child more palatable. After all, dehumanization of victims is a common tactic used by oppressors/killers. Tale as old as time.

Interesting take.



I think it's very much relevant.

Pro-lifers claim to care about the unborn and they have a right to life.

Yet once they are born, they don't care about a proper social safety net, or making sure children get school lunches, etc



I suppose the comparison to murder would be valid if you're pro-life and think abortion is in the same camp as murder.

I'm pro-choice and don't make that case.



Glad we agree on something.



That's a very good point actually.

The vast majority or pregnancies are due to choice (there are no such things as "unwanted pregnancies" so now the woman wants to abort the fetus due to her choice and the fetus gets no say?

I can see that abortion is preventing a fetus from being born into a human, but I still have reservations about the state making abortion illegal.

I'm still on the side of her body, her choice.



I agree.

Originally posted by Blakemore
If she's willing to kill her foetus, she probably shouldn't have a child in the first place.

1) a foetus is not a child
2) only if you believe a woman is incapable of making her own decisions
3) you admit you cannot really judge them, you admit your problem is less to do with the people who go through them (women) but more to do with"society?" Elaborate on what you think society is, please.

Pro choice.
It's the mother's right.
It should be decided on the state level.
Taxpayer dollars shouldn't contribute to abortion ( or anything else for that matter. Taxation is theft.)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Pro choice.
It's the mother's right.
It should be decided on the state level.
Taxpayer dollars shouldn't contribute to abortion ( or anything else for that matter. Taxation is theft.)

Are you a Libertarian?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Pro-Life.

I believe that the argument that a fetus isn't human is not based on science. By the very metrics set by science in what makes something both life and humanity. The fetus/zygote/clump of cells argument is a way to dehumanize the fetus in order in order to make killing the child more palatable. After all, dehumanization of victims is a common tactic used by oppressors/killers. Tale as old as time.

I also believe that the "pro-lifers do not care about what happens to the fetus after it is born" to be a false and irrelevant argument. I don't care what happens to a lot of ppl, but I do think randomly shooting them in the head with a GLock is still horribly wrong.

I also do not agree with the logic of "ppl still get them so it's better to be legal". Abortion SHOULD be legal IF it is medically necessary. IF one is made to choose between saving the mother's life or the child's then it should be available. BUT making Abortion legal for other matters like convenience or economic concerns is another thing entirely. The logic of "ppl would still do it anyway" is a sliding scale. Sounds good vs prohibition or when talking about the drug war. But murder is also illegal but some ppl still do it anyway, should murder be legalized then?

There is a line I am willing to draw. Rape/Incest and instances where a person's choice was taken away from them from the very start are cases that I can perhaps justify or at least something I can understand.

My logical position is actually about choice. But also about responsibility. IF you made the choice to have sex then the consequences of that choice is your responsibility to bear. The child who was created had no choice from the very beginning and you taking away its choice of life for something you chose to do is something I find abhorrent.

Of course, it goes back to the line I drew above. IF the choice was taken away from you at the beginning, then there is no good answer here. I cannot blame the person who makes the choice however.

Favorite response in the thread. You're a careful thinker.

Originally posted by Klaw
Are you a Libertarian?

Agorist, voluntarist, anarcho capitalist. Whatever you wanna call it, yes.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Agorist, voluntarist, anarcho capitalist. Whatever you wanna call it, yes.

Communist?

Originally posted by Klaw
Communist?


NOOOOO.

You can't perform cost calculation, without making each consumer sovereign in their choice. the choice acts as input, which you weigh against output. This is critical in knowing if any given Enterprise is a worthwhile endeavor.

In communist societies it is decided by either a dictator, an intelligentsia, or democratically elected workers. In all three cases this only serves as a single input. For historical instances of this modality causing failure see the great famine or the great leap forward in china or the famine in North Korea.

Im an anarchist in the sense that I see states as predatory and inefficient. This monopolization of force is replaced by the market, which makes every citizen sovereign.

In the case of abortion the woman is sovereign over her body (see natural, God given, or lockean rights), but once the child is born it's sovereign over it's own body.

@Nibedicus



I don't think human rights begin until birth.



The issue I have is pro-lifers come from the position that life is a gift and should be protected while simultaneously not caring about that life after it's born.

It seems like they're only pro-life because it denies a woman the right to choose.











I see the point you're making, but I disagree.

The reasons as far as I'm concerned don't matter.

As I'm pro-choice, the reason a woman wants to get an abortion do not matter to me at least.



I see the analogy but I'm not buying it.

I would rather no abortions to take place.

Abortion is definitely not a good thing in general, I think killing a fetus in the womb is kinda sick, but it still should be legal due to the fact that it's growing inside a female and she should have the choice.

I kinda disagree with the above... If you kick a child up to 5 out of your house, it will die because you neglected it, but that doesn't mean that should be legal.

@Nibedicus



I definitely agree with the first point.

However, I still think the fact that a fetus grows inside a woman, makes it her right to abort if she chooses to.

That's what decides it for me.



I can appreciate that you look at it as protecting the unborn and not as denying a womans' right to choose.

You seem like one of the good ones based on everything you've said and I can respect that.

And I agree with you on the Glock analogy, it just seems like the people who are pro-life don't care about the baby after it's born and therefore don't actually care about life and just controlling women.

As for the responsibility angle, I do agree women should take responsibility for their actions and avoid abortion if they can.

However, I still go back to her body her choice.



So I would answer no to that.

The womans' body is her property and the Government does not have the moral right to force her to have an abortion.

The fetus, although a living thing, is inside the womans' body and therefore her property (as bad as that sounds) and she can choose to abort it or not.



I'm honest, I think abortion is sick.

It's the killing of a fetus, preventing a human from being born after conception.

I'd rather it not happen.

You or me could've been aborted but thankfully(?) neither of us were.

What do you think it tells about me?

I don't get offended easily, so you can be honest.

The truth is, it's a very nuanced issue that shouldn't be controlled by the government at all. It's a very difficult choice for any woman to make, and to have a broad stroke brush from Washington d.c. tell you what you can or cannot do about it, is just plain wrong.

Originally posted by truejedi
The truth is, it's a very nuanced issue that shouldn't be controlled by the government at all. It's a very difficult choice for any woman to make, and to have a broad stroke brush from Washington d.c. tell you what you can or cannot do about it, is just plain wrong.

This is well said.

Originally posted by truejedi
I kinda disagree with the above... If you kick a child up to 5 out of your house, it will die because you neglected it, but that doesn't mean that should be legal.

A child would only die from being neglected if the state makes buying a child illegal, or adoption very painstaking. Alot of people want kids, alot of kids want family- the only thing stopping the market from making both parties happy is the state.

The government shouldn't tax people for other people's abortions...... the government should punish those who do.

Anyone else see the irony here?

Originally posted by Blakemore
The government shouldn't tax people for other people's abortions...... the government should punish those who do.

Anyone else see the irony here?

I don't think the government should exist at all.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I'm just gonna address the first sentence.

So, embryo, 1 kick yes, 2 kicks no. Should mommy smoke more?? It kicked. Here you go honey.

Oh wait, the baby inside is female too. Oh, why bother then.

I don't get what you're saying here

To address nib's response to the rothbard quote.

Rothbard addresses in the quote that it doesn't matter if the woman had sex, or even had sex intentionally to have a baby then changed her mind.

Your body is your property, do you disagree ?

If a squatter is In your house and you as him to leave and he does, of course you wouldn't shoot him. But usually someone who would disregard property rights would also disregard bodily autonomy aka engage in violence, which should be met with righteous self defense.

Originally posted by Blakemore
The government shouldn't tax people for other people's abortions...... the government should punish those who do.

Anyone else see the irony here?

There is no irony, so no. I get what your getting at here, but you could replace abortion with any illegal activity and it would come out to the same thing.

Originally posted by Blakemore
unborn is a negative; I'm using logic here by creating a distinction between foetus and baby.

There's no need to fantasies of hyperthetical Eutopia.

I thought an individual shouldn't suffer from prejudice. Sorry women, society controls your womb.

Unborn is a phase of development. An early one. Time allows an unborn to transition to born. Like immature humans transition to mature.

It is not a hypothetical utopia to ask that the -conversation- (not necesarily the reality) be shifted to a more honest one, away from the dehumanization argument, as well as start discussing the other causes of abortion that may help reduce the number if addressed (see my previous reply). IF we manage to keep our souls thru all this (and not be so conditioned that we see the killing of a child as an absolute right of the mother regardless of circumstances), we also must accept the possibility that with scientific progress in medicine, extraction (not abortion) is going to be more and more viable.

The unborn are individuals, currently it is “sory unborn, you life has no value so you die now”. I see that as pretty prejudicial.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I don't get what you're saying here anti-abortion enthusiasm is just anti-woman.

Originally posted by ares834
There is no irony, so no. I get what your getting at here, but you could replace abortion with any illegal activity and it would come out to the same thing. does not compute

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Unborn is a phase of development. An early one. Time allows an unborn to transition to born. Like immature humans transition to mature.

It is not a hypothetical utopia to ask that the -conversation- (not necesarily the reality) be shifted to a more honest one, away from the dehumanization argument, as well as start discussing the other causes of abortion that may help reduce the number if addressed (see my previous reply). IF we manage to keep our souls thru all this (and not be so conditioned that we see the killing of a child as an absolute right of the mother regardless of circumstances), we also must accept the possibility that with scientific progress in medicine, extraction (not abortion) is going to be more and more viable.

The unborn are individuals, currently it is “sory unborn, you life has no value so you die now”. I see that as pretty prejudicial. no. Cells attached to the mother's placenta to later become born is not the same as a child becoming an adult. How do you not see this?

So you don't think you have best and most immediate control of your body ? Who else would be better to control someone's body other than that individual ?

Laws (legality) do not erase moral truths.
Slavery is wrong, but use to be legal and regulated. If one were to argue against the morality of slavery I would hope someone who said " but slavery is legal !" Would be seen as not having a strong argument.

I don't think there should be a state, therefore I don't think laws mandated by the state are legitimate.
Similar to if America was ran by the mafia, their status, in terms of power wouldn't lend itself to moral authority.

Why would someone be allowed to trepass on your property under natural rights ?

Squatter laws are bullshit from my perspective.



https://mises.org/wire/left-libertarians-rothbardian-abandonment

The embryo is literally attached to the mother's placenta.

I can't fathom how someone would prioritise an embryo's life over a woman's right of choice to live how she wants.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I can't fathom how someone would prioritise an embryo's life over a woman's right of choice to live how she wants.

Because we weigh in the temporary loss of autonomy over 9 months (plus the risks of pregnancy) vs the absolute loss of life via painful death. From the perspective of one who sees (edit) that society should value all life as equal, it is an easy choice.

To me abortion is kind of like a set of Siamese twins that want to separate.
Imagine the mother is equivalent to the twin who can directly control the larger portion of the body, as opposed to the other twin controlling it's face and maybe an arm.

Should the healthier twin be responsible for the quanto style mutant twin on it's body ? Should we think the twin with more control of the body evil for wanting exclusive ownership of it's body ?

Now, if the twin with less control can be removed and lives, then cool beans and everyone is a winner.

Now I'm using two humans with two human minds, which should get away from the fetus vs. baby argument, which is semantical.

@ nib. I can't quote you.

I largely agree with your post, but I do think property rights are and must be absolute.

https://mises.org/library/human-rights-property-rights

1) ?

2) abortion is slavery....telling a woman what to do is not slavery. Okay. Sure. Yeah. Gotcha.

3) you see yourself equal to an embryo? Well... you appear undeveloped, imo.

@nib

Natural rights are absolute. Not infringing on another individual's natural rights is part of the very dna of the natural right paradigm. Something rothbard elucidates on, much better than I ever could, in the article I shared. He also specifically touches on freedom of speech and how it's only viable as long as absolute property rights act as it's foundational principle.

New born babies can survive without their mothers. Anything preborn cannot. Duh.

No rights, mother's choice. End of discussion.

Originally posted by Blakemore
New born babies can survive without their mothers. Anything preborn cannot. Duh.

No rights, mother's choice. End of discussion.

The only diffrence between a newborn baby and a late delivery one (if both went thru the whole 9 month period) still in the womb is location. Yet, by your logic one has rights and the other can be killed at will (since it is still connected to the umbilcal cord). Is that correct?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@nib

Natural rights are absolute. Not infringing on another individual's natural rights is part of the very dna of the natural right paradigm. Something rothbard elucidates on, much better than I ever could, in the article I shared. He also specifically touches on freedom of speech and how it's only viable as long as absolute property rights act as it's foundational principle.

And this is what abortion is. It infinges on the natural right of another indiviual to live.

When we deal in absolutes we eventually hit a point where absolutes contradict and we then get forced to move the discussion to a more nuanced one.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The only diffrence between a newborn baby and a late delivery one (if both went thru the whole 9 month period) still in the womb is location. Yet, by your logic one has rights and the other can be killed at will (since it is still connected to the umbilcal cord). Is that correct? correct

Originally posted by Blakemore
correct

Why do you think this is the case tho? Personally, I feel you are entirely convinced of this fact yet cannot put into words the logical foundation on why you think this is the case.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And this is what abortion is. It infinges on the natural right of another indiviual to live.

When we deal in absolutes we eventually hit a point where absolutes contradict and we then get forced to move the discussion to a more nuanced one.

What do you think of this ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

I think it solves the problem in a way that nods to your argument that the whole abortion debacle is choosing the least sucky option out of a bunch of sucky options.



Because so far I don't disagree with what you're saying, other than property rights not being absolute.

P.s. this is nuanced and agrees with your point on justifiable reactions to squatters.

Murder those babies yeah! Let guys and gals have unprotected sex with hookers and sluts.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why do you think this is the case tho? Personally, I feel you are entirely convinced of this fact yet cannot put into words the logical foundation on why you think this is the case. The mother is its source. Not in a sense of "it's better off with the mother," but in a sense that it will die without it being attached. So how can you give it the same human rights as yourself when you don't get the same biological reliance as it does? It's clearly not the same.

Originally posted by rudester
Murder those babies yeah! Let guys and gals have unprotected sex with hookers and sluts.

Sarcasm is often an ineffectual form of communication.

Pro Choice, as it provides me with a lot of free meals.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
What do you think of this ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

I think it solves the problem in a way that nods to your argument that the whole abortion debacle is choosing the least sucky option out of a bunch of sucky options.

Because so far I don't disagree with what you're saying, other than property rights not being absolute.

P.s. this is nuanced and agrees with your point on justifiable reactions to squatters.

I would actually say that I am closer to departurism than evictionism.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I would actually say that I am closer to departurism than evictionism.

Wow, I've never heard of that. Love learning libertarian ideas.

I gather it was said in jest but I'm thankful for it.

Originally posted by BackFire
Pro Choice, as it provides me with a lot of free meals.

Do you **** them before or after you eat them?

If you can save the child In removing, who wouldn't choose that?

The point is the remove the occupancy, not kill the occupant.

That would be an entirely different argument, to choose death over an alternative that satisfies both sides.

Pro-choice. I think it's chilling to suggest that if a person gets pregnant they lose control over their own body. I try to imagine what it would be like to have someone growing inside me and I'm horrified by the idea of rescinding control over that process my government.

I recently read about a story about a woman in Northern Ireland (where abortion used to be illegal) whose unborn baby was declared fatally ill, but she was not allowed to have an abortion. So she was forced to carry the dying foetus to term knowing that as soon as it was born it would die painfully.

There are huge ethical concerns involved in terms of having an abortion, yes, but that is a decision for the mother alone to make and to live with.

EDIT: I also think it's very easy for people without uteruses to have discussions about this knowing that they will never have to face this situation themselves.

You leftists disgust me, only Nibidicus will go to heaven on this forum. Simps and Cucks all of you. Women are there to give birth not have careers, God gave them this function.

Originally posted by Gods Reckoning
You leftists disgust me, only Nibidicus will go to heaven on this forum. Simps and Cucks all of you. Women are there to give birth not have careers, God gave them this function.

Whirly is that you trying to impersonate Ethneo?

All the interesting and attractive people go to Hell anyway, I'm sure it's a lot of fun down there.

Originally posted by cdtm
If you can save the child In removing, who wouldn't choose that?

The point is the remove the occupancy, not kill the occupant.

That would be an entirely different argument, to choose death over an alternative that satisfies both sides. I'm pretty sure that is already an option.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
All the interesting and attractive people go to Hell anyway, I'm sure it's a lot of fun down there. rock and roll, orgies, gluttony... Id have that for eternity 😂

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Do you **** them before or after you eat them?

Yes.

haermm

Also, the poll says it all tbh

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Do you **** them before or after you eat them?

Best comment in thread winner.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


Let me answer:

As this was done against my will and without my consent I will offer the same answer as I do with victims of rape and incest: It is unfortunate but since it was not my informed choice that got me here, then it is not morally wrong for me to refuse.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by Gods Reckoning
You leftists disgust me, only Nibidicus will go to heaven on this forum. Simps and Cucks all of you. Women are there to give birth not have careers, God gave them this function.

Whoever you are, pls grow up.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Sarcasm is often an ineffectual form of communication.

If there was a valid argument worth arguing I would agree. What I think is not a relevant question, but what do you think? Obviously everyone will think differently, and their opinions will be based on how they perceive life and death; this is why it is not a relevant question because everyone will have an opposing perspective.

Like Elle Woods once said, For that matter, any masturbatory emissions, where the sperm is clearly not seeking an egg, could be termed reckless abandonment.

That's just stupid though. Anti-abortion people tend to be nutty, but their argument is that life begins when sperm fertilizes egg, not before.

Life began over 4 billion years ago and is constantly regenerating.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's just stupid though. Anti-abortion people tend to be nutty, but their argument is that life begins when sperm fertilizes egg, not before.

Cq3U09DeKpg

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Cq3U09DeKpg I get the impression even she knows this is stupid

So we all agree that the Gov does not have the moral right to deny abortion?

Originally posted by Klaw
So we all agree that the Gov does not have the moral right to deny abortion?

The gov should not exist, therefore it should have nil jurisprudence.