Abortion - An age old issue

[A Hot Potato]

My two cents about all of this shit?

Life can't be sacred, nor will it ever be.

You want to know why?

Cause we are all going to die one day.

That is the single most sure thing in your entire life.

Why get upset about something that's going to happen anyway?

Pretty much the entire population of this earth will never be remembered in history, they will never contribute in any meaningful way to society, and the only people who will ever, EVER, remember them will be their families and friends.

This shit about wasted potential in aborted fetuses is such fuck, cause I can almost guarantee, with 99.999999% certainty, that they will never, EVER, stand out from the rest of the turds.

I'm pro life cause life really doesn't matter in the first place, in fact, literally nothing matters, this will all be dust one day.

A fetus was aborted?

It really is completely negligible to history.

And even if a fetus could of developed into someone meaningful and impactful to society, who's to say someone else won't be born in a couple years that will end achieving what they did by pure chance.

So really, I'm pro choice, simply cause it really doesn't matter.

P.S. and before you "Ow the edge" me, I don't think life isn't PRECIOUS. I think living a rich and fulfilling life is wonderful. Most people probably will. They just will not matter at the end of the day is all.

P.P.S For the record, I always support post-birth euthanasia, cause this planet is already fucking bloated as it is with fucking dip shit idiots.

P.P.P.S I'm not usually this wangsty.

P.P.P.P.S And don't bother trying to argue with me, I've thought about this shit for years.

 

[Null]

And how is that any excuse to steal the chance of life from an other person?

I inferred you were asking me how I would feel if I was aborted and chances are I'd feel nothing because I'd have never been born.

The life of man is nasty, brutish, and short. By being a clump of cells formed from distinct DNA, you are not guaranteed right to birth by nature or mankind. As I said, most fetuses are aborted naturally by the body. It's actually considered a foreign intrusion and attacked by the immune system. In instances where the woman's immune system is too good for its own sake, she may go through many, many naturally aborted fetuses before one sticks and is born (at a higher rate of birth defects as a consequence of the body's attacks on the fetus). Some never have children at all: only abortions.

Crab spawn, most of them will die:

Just think of how many fetuses are expunged by bodily process every single day. Think of how many genetically unique cell clusters are destroyed without the parents even knowing they existed. It happens all the time. Constantly. As I write this post natural abortions are occurring in this world of 7 billion people. It would drive me absolutely mad to consider that valuable, precious human life being wasted.


"Oh, but those are circumstances beyond their control, yadda". Not always. I mentioned smoking before. Neonatal care helps. If a woman foregoes the healthiest options or endangers their fetus with alcohol and cigarettes, are they not liable for the birth defects?

IF NO, THEY AREN'T: Why? If I am recklessly driving my car and slam head on to another vehicle and kill or injure the other passengers, I am liable for reckless endangerment. If I have a passenger in my womb and I smoke and harm this incredibly precious and totally independent body of life, am I not liable in the same way.

IF YES, THEY ARE: What do we do to these horrible, reckless mothers that give birth to FAS babies or other infants of that quality damaged by their habits and lack of care? Do we put them in jail? Take the child away?


See, when you grant personhood to a fetus, you strip away the mother's ability to decide what she does as her own person. You are intentionally robbing a sentient, mature organism with higher thought and "human DNA" the ability to be the master of her own destiny in order to grant privilege to undeveloped fetus tissue that represents the potential of life. That to me is some pretty fucked up shit and I think lifers are mega cunts tbqh fam.

 

[DuskEngine]

ecause they're objectively human lives (living beings with human DNA) and not parasites.

So are malignant tumours and we seem ok getting rid of those

 

[Pepsi-Cola]

Just a reminder that if you give birth to a retarded baby it will probably grow up to be a lolcow and get a thread here.

 

[Major Asshole]

It is almost impossible to have a mature, reasonable discourse about abortion anywhere on the interwebs; it usually degenerates into a shit-flinging match between "You hate babies!" and "You hate women!"

Anyway, here are my personal feelings on this incredibly touchy subject.

I feel that, ultimately, it should be the woman's right to do whatever the hell she wants with her body. If she wants to carry the foetus to term and pop it out of her vajayjay, that's fine by me. Same as with if she wants put it up for adoption, or - of course - she wants to terminate it early on in the pregnancy.

Emphasis on the "early on" part. I feel that if the foetus has reached the point where it can survive in the outside world with very little, if any, medical assistance (~24 weeks), it would be downright despicable to just gash its head open and call it a day. The woman still has the option of adoption, in any case.

I don't view getting an abortion as being inherently irresponsible, like some do. The woman might have any number of perfectly sensible reasons not to put it into foster care, never mind raise it herself. However, if she has had 5 terminations because she thinks a condom is a type of bird, THAT is irresponsibility.

tl;dr I'm okay with abortion as long as it is done before the viability point.

 

[AnOminous]

I like a simple rule that once the brainless varmint has been squirted out from between a woman's legs and is a separate organism, we call it a human and if you kill it at that point, we call it murder. Even though it's just as brainless and just barely a person as it was while it was in the womb a couple hours ago.

Before that, fuck that thing.

I like it because it's a simple rule.

Something you people don't seem to understand is we have rules and they're simple because the front line of enforcing those rules is cops. And cops are also simple. Give them something they can understand.

 

[Joan Nyan]

I like a simple rule that once the brainless varmint has been squirted out from between a woman's legs and is a separate organism, we call it a human and if you kill it at that point, we call it murder. Even though it's just as brainless and just barely a person as it was while it was in the womb a couple hours ago.

Before that, fuck that thing.

I like it because it's a simple rule.

Something you people don't seem to understand is we have rules and they're simple because the front line of enforcing those rules is cops. And cops are also simple. Give them something they can understand.

Life beginning at conception is also a simple rule.

 

[A Hot Potato]

Life beginning at conception is also a simple rule.

I can't believe this wasn't posted yet.

Come on guys!

 

[Overcast]

It is almost impossible to have a mature, reasonable discourse about abortion anywhere on the interwebs; it usually degenerates into a shit-flinging match between "You hate babies!" and "You hate women!"

Anyway, here are my personal feelings on this incredibly touchy subject.

I feel that, ultimately, it should be the woman's right to do whatever the hell she wants with her body. If she wants to carry the foetus to term and pop it out of her vajayjay, that's fine by me. Same as with if she wants put it up for adoption, or - of course - she wants to terminate it early on in the pregnancy.

Emphasis on the "early on" part. I feel that if the foetus has reached the point where it can survive in the outside world with very little, if any, medical assistance (~24 weeks), it would be downright despicable to just gash its head open and call it a day. The woman still has the option of adoption, in any case.

I don't view getting an abortion as being inherently irresponsible, like some do. The woman might have any number of perfectly sensible reasons not to put it into foster care, never mind raise it herself. However, if she has had 5 terminations because she thinks a condom is a type of bird, THAT is irresponsibility.

tl;dr I'm okay with abortion as long as it is done before the viability point.

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

Have an abortion early on. Don't wait until the last couple of months and then do so, I feel that's just cruel.

 

[Pepsi-Cola]

Life beginning at conception is also a simple rule.

I know I made fun of you about it two posts ago, bur I actually agree with you that abortion is murder. Thinking that human life just magically starts at birth is irrational and and simplifies a larger issue just to make people feel better about abortions.

However, just as a man I don't think it's morally right to tell women how to use their bodies like that. Controlling people's bodies like that isn't natural, and more importantly, it isn't a power the government should have.

 

[Joan Nyan]

I know I made fun of you about it two posts ago, bur I actually agree with you that abortion is murder. Thinking that human life just magically starts at birth is irrational and and simplifies a larger issue just to make people feel better about abortions.

However, just as a man I don't think it's morally right to tell women how to use their bodies like that. Controlling people's bodies like that isn't natural, and more importantly, it isn't a power the government should have.

Laws against rape and theft and anything else also control what you can do with your body. The only way to have the government not control your body at all is anarchy. "Muh body" is not an excuse for murder. Saying "it's in my body so I can kill it" is the same excuse used for slavery, "he's on my property, I decide whether he's a person or if I can kill him".

 

[A Hot Potato]

Laws against rape and theft and anything else also control what you can do with your body. The only way to have the government not control your body at all is anarchy. "Muh body" is not an excuse for murder. Saying "it's in my body so I can kill it" is the same excuse used for slavery, "he's on my property, I decide whether he's a person or if I can kill him".

Those laws control what OTHERS do to you and your body. And what YOU do to others.

Kinda not the same thing.

But, now that you mention it, remember when slavery was legal. Now it isn't.

Kinda like how Abortion was illegal , and now it's being legalised.

The concept of what society views as right or wrong is always changing, my friend.

So calling women who choose to abort murders, kinda sounds like a slave owner calling someone against slavery an idiot.

Why? Cause most likely the entirety of what you said is going to look bad to pretty much all of society.

So don't pull high and mighty shit, and try and cast judgement using laws here and in the now.

Things like laws and rights are VERY subject to change, my friend.

Unfortunately, the world can't be viewed in black and white.

 

[Joan Nyan]

Those laws control what OTHERS do to you and your body. And what YOU do to others.

Kinda not the same thing.

Abortion is killing another person, that person just happens to reside inside of you. It's unfortunate, but it's not their fault, they can't really live anywhere else, not until we invent artificial external wombs that embryos/fetuses can be transferred into. We actually should get on that, it would be the best solution for everyone.

But, now that you mention it, remember when slavery was legal. Now it isn't.

Kinda like how Abortion was illegal , and now it's being legalised.

The concept of what society views as right or wrong is always changing, my friend.

So calling women who choose to abort murders, kinda sounds like a slave owner calling someone against slavery an idiot.

Why? Cause most likely the entirety of what you said is going to look bad to pretty much all of society.

So don't pull high and mighty shit, and try and cast judgement using laws here and in the now.

Things like laws and rights are VERY subject to change, my friend.

Unfortunately, the world can't be viewed in black and white.

I don't really get what you're trying to imply here. Of course laws and values change, that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I doubt anyone 100% agrees with every single law exactly as it is right now. If you're telling me I should stop having or expressing unpopular opinions... sorry but I'm not going to do that.

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

I'm not even being edgy when I say that post-birth euthanasia should be an option for mentally or physically crippled peoples. There is nothing special or significant about the life of a embryonic cell cluster or new born baby.

A lot of people tend to hold the belief that a child's life is more valuable than an adults (especially seniors), but IMO a 60 year old is far more pitiable than a newborn. A newborn only has the potential for life, a 60 year old has survived life and is a treasure trove of experience and knowledge. Unbinding a 60 year old's brain loses the world a significant chunk of humanity that can never be replaced. A newborn can't eat solids and knows nothing. It's like trying to convince me that a brand new off the shelf collectible is somehow more valuable than an antique because of its unrealized potential. Fuck off with that.

If you believe in souls I guess it can make sense from a religious or spiritual perspective, but if you don't believe in that shit, not harvesting stem cells for research is wasted potential and letting a severely handicapped baby live out a shit life is just fucking cruel.

I can definitely see the reasoning for euthanasia. I don't necessarily support the idea of it, due to all of the various things that would actually go into the practice of euthanizing a severely mentally disabled person (who gets to make that decision, can someone decide for me, how exceptional is too exceptional, the bare logistics of it, not to mention every ethical conundrum this side of altruism).

Embryos being human is factually, scientifically clear though. If you look at their DNA, you will see that it is in fact human DNA, the exact same DNA that they will have as adults.

Regardless, in the absence of a consensus on what counts as a person, the safest bet, as in the one which actually ensures safety, would be to start protecting them at the earliest possibility (conception) in order to ensure that there is no chance you are killing human lives.

Life beginning at conception is also a simple rule.

These are further proof that there are as many viewpoints on what constitutes humanity as there are people in the world. "Life beginning at conception" is a fine definition and all for the person who believes it. I believe something else. Who's right? How can one person so easily claim to be the supreme arbiter of what makes someone human when there are so many facets to even the simplest of declarations? Even the notion "safest bet" is fraught with peril. Safest for whom? Betting against what? And, again, who is doing the betting? All anyone can really do it seems, is to decide for themselves, and not force an outcome on another person. Precious little in life is clear cut enough for one to be able to dictate shared human existence to another. A good example of this is the following:

You where once that clump of cells aswell Null.

Just because Null was once a child doesn't mean he automatically owes anything to other children. Why should any of the rest of us follow you on that logical leap?

 

[A Hot Potato]

Abortion is killing another person, that person just happens to reside inside of you. It's unfortunate, but it's not their fault, they can't really live anywhere else, not until we invent artificial external wombs that embryos/fetuses can be transferred into. We actually should get on that, it would be the best solution for everyone.


I don't really get what you're trying to imply here. Of course laws and values change, that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I doubt anyone 100% agrees with every single law exactly as it is right now. If you're telling me I should stop having or expressing unpopular opinions... sorry but I'm not going to do that.

Besides that, my main point of contention with your argument is that it's simply far too black and white to really hold any merit.

You are generalizing this issue WAY too much.

 

[Joan Nyan]

All anyone can really do it seems, is to decide for themselves, and not force an outcome on another person.

Abortion is "forcing an outcome" of death on another person though. You can't just say "I don't believe that Jews are people so it's okay for me to kill them and you can't make that decision for me".

If we can't come to a consensus on whether fetuses (or Jews for that matter) are people or not, we should err on the side of caution and not kill anything that might be a person.

 

[AnOminous]

Life beginning at conception is also a simple rule.

It's also an astoundingly fucking stupid rule that nobody in their right mind could possibly believe.

Abortion is "forcing an outcome" of death on another person though.

No. Fuck that shit. You aren't a "person" if you don't even fucking exist.

 

[DoctorJimmyRay]

Abortion is "forcing an outcome" of death on another person though. You can't just say "I don't believe that Jews are people so it's okay for me to kill them and you can't make that decision for me".

I don't believe a fetus is a person, so as far as I reckon, I'm not forcing death on anyone.

If we can't come to a consensus on whether fetuses (or Jews for that matter) are people or not, we should err on the side of caution and not kill anything that might be a person.

This is what I mean. Why should we do that? That's just a bare assertion. If you want someone to do everything you suggest here, then you need to back it up. That's even if you ignore the more obvious questions of what might be a person, or why that is the particular type of caution that we should exercise, and everything else.

 

[DuskEngine]

I know I made fun of you about it two posts ago, bur I actually agree with you that abortion is murder. Thinking that human life just magically starts at birth is irrational and and simplifies a larger issue just to make people feel better about abortions.

However, just as a man I don't think it's morally right to tell women how to use their bodies like that. Controlling people's bodies like that isn't natural, and more importantly, it isn't a power the government should have.

tbh if you believe that abortion is murder thinking that you can't tell people to not murder with their bodies is kinda dumb

 

[ulsterscotsman]

I am completely Anti-Abortion.
Abortion is cruel and selfish and I cant stand the cunts that have them, No matter how you try to dehumanize the fetus, at the end of the day it's still a developing human life.