The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Sparkling Yuzu]

Since much of the mass-debating in this thread hinges on the 'lifeness' of the fetus, I wonder what's everyone's opinion on euthanasia or capital punishment.

I support abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia and gun rights.

 

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

Most likely.

I'm not so sure. The Lord is said to despise the shedding of innocent blood. A developing fetus hasn't done anything to deserve its removal; regardless of any personal reasons the women who abort might have.

He sure seemed to be willing to abort there, so I'd say he'd be fine with it

Can't say I agree. The creatures of the earth are His, and it is He that decides when their hour has come. On the matter of abortion, that's more akin to taking matters into your own hands and deciding now is the time. And it's not done for any moral reason either, that I can see.

Yes, government programs to help people. Welfare. You really think Jesus would be against welfare and government healthcare?

His ministry was focused more on spiritual matters, though helping those in need was/is also important. Individual charity seemed more what He had in mind, but that's just what I've gathered. There's also an emphasis to rely upon Him more than any government body: "Put not your trust in princes, nor the sons of men, in whom there is no help." So while a government having care for its citizens isn't out of the question, it's also not wise to rely on it.

 

[Freya]

@Eris!, aka @FEETLOAF, aka @SSj_Ness has apparently been threadbanned

What the fuck is wrong with him

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

What the fuck is wrong with him

Autism + religion.

I'm not so sure. The Lord is said to despise the shedding of innocent blood. A developing fetus hasn't done anything to deserve its removal; regardless of any personal reasons the women who abort might have.

He seemed okay with abortion there

Can't say I agree. The creatures of the earth are His, and it is He that decides when their hour has come. On the matter of abortion, that's more akin to taking matters into your own hands and deciding now is the time. And it's not done for any moral reason either, that I can see.

Again, he seemed fine with abortion there.

His ministry was focused more on spiritual matters, though helping those in need was/is also important. Individual charity seemed more what He had in mind, but that's just what I've gathered. There's also an emphasis to rely upon Him more than any government body: "Put not your trust in princes, nor the sons of men, in whom there is no help." So while a government having care for its citizens isn't out of the question, it's also not wise to rely on it.

Jesus would definitely be for free healthcare and welfare.

But it really doesn't matter what Jesus said as for Roe v Wade, since the US is supposed to have separation of church and state despite what evangelicals think

I support abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia and gun rights.

I am all for euthanasia. If I had terminal cancer, I'd want to off myself. Why be alive if you're just gonna soon suffer an agonizing death?

 

[snailslime]

I'm not so sure. The Lord is said to despise the shedding of innocent blood. A developing fetus hasn't done anything to deserve its removal; regardless of any personal reasons the women who abort might have.

Can't say I agree. The creatures of the earth are His, and it is He that decides when their hour has come. On the matter of abortion, that's more akin to taking matters into your own hands and deciding now is the time. And it's not done for any moral reason either, that I can see.

His ministry was focused more on spiritual matters, though helping those in need was/is also important. Individual charity seemed more what He had in mind, but that's just what I've gathered. There's also an emphasis to rely upon Him more than any government body: "Put not your trust in princes, nor the sons of men, in whom there is no help." So while a government having care for its citizens isn't out of the question, it's also not wise to rely on it.

stop trying to shove your religion down everybody's throat.

 

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

He seemed okay with abortion there

Again, he seemed fine with abortion there.

Jesus would definitely be for free healthcare and welfare.

I repeat my disagreement with your assessment, but I thank you for explaining it, in some way. And for helping me give my views more substance. If only so much.

But it really doesn't matter what Jesus said as for Roe v Wade, since the US is supposed to have separation of church and state despite what evangelicals think

I think that mindset comes from the fact that Christians are supposed to "teach all nations" about the Word and help others to abide by it. I can see the use in keeping Church and State separate though. If only because a theocracy wouldn't last long before becoming corrupted in some way. The Kingdom of Israel being the prime example of why a theocracy wouldn't function well.

stop trying to shove your religion down everybody's throat.

I wouldn't have said anything if Hogan hadn't used Jesus as a means of trying to shame certain pro-life users. He seems to have certain ideas of what Christ would think, and I asked him about that while giving my thoughts. You can accept or reject what I'm saying, as I know I'm not going to change opinions here. It's more enquiring on what someone thinks, while forming my own position.

 

[Zarael]

stop trying to shove your religion down everybody's throat.

There are religious reasons to oppose abortion but it can't be ethically justified in a secular framework either. It's simply unjustifiable. Every argument for it fails. 99% of the time it's ending a human life for pure convenience.

 

[Duke Nukem]

this confuses me so much. you pro-birthers have such rigid stances on abortion but don’t take a moment to think about the future implications that will have in society. you claim to be an “advocate for life” but it really boils down to forcing women to have children. after you back away from your cheeto dust and mountain dew marinated keyboard you don’t give a shit.

yeah unless you’re the fucking woman having to deal with the pregnancy. women forced to have children have to change their entire lives, spend money they don’t have on it, and give up their future goals and lifestyle, and spend hours of their time raising a child that they never wanted alone. no wonder pro birthers have this mindset, you never once stop to think about the already existing lives you’re trying to control. you can advocate to ban all abortions and at the end of the day you’re not affected at all. but the women you clearly despise are.

oh you poor soul, you’re so brave. what exactly are you sacrificing? the biggest “sacrifice” pro birthers have to make is typing out fake-emotional paragraphs about MUH POOR FETUSEs. you say all these shit because you know you’ll NEVER be in the position of the thousands of women genuinely affected by this issue. cry me a fucking river, your persecution complex is pathetic

Personally I find it hilarious that the pro lifers are not only opposed to abortion, but often are opposed to the morning after pill and possibly condoms.

He doesn't give a shit about the welfare of the unborn, he just wants to punish those normie sex havers because he's a 35 year old virgin living in his parents basement.

 

[Lurker]

There are religious reasons to oppose abortion but it can't be ethically justified in a secular framework either. It's simply unjustifiable. Every argument for it fails. 99% of the time it's ending a human life for pure convenience.

1. no one cares about your religion
2. "it's simply unjustifiable" according to some faggot on the internet
3. a fetus is a clump of cells that you inexplicably treat more importantly than the woman carrying the fetus

 

[Cilleystring]

I wanna see how many pages this thread can go on for

 

[Don't Tread on Me]

From a practical perspective, we need more kids to work and tax. So even if you think abortion should stay legal, can you acknowledge it should not happen nearly as often as it is?

 

[Freya]

I wanna see how many pages this thread can go on for

the lifetime of the forum

 

[HeroicIdealism]

stop trying to shove your religion down everybody's throat.

Stop being a whore and you won't need an abortion

1. no one cares about your religion
2. "it's simply unjustifiable" according to some faggot on the internet
3. a fetus is a clump of cells that you inexplicably treat more importantly than the woman carrying the fetus

Calling something (in this case a human fetus) "a clump of cells" doesn't prove or disprove anything. I don't know why tards always use this to argue the amorality of abortion. The fact is that this clump of cells is a human clump of cells and is the child of a woman. Should a woman, a human being with morality, really view her own developing child as not human?

 

[karz]

Abortion is not a question of when life begins, it is a matter of what we qualify as a person.
This makes the abortion question that of philosophy.
I believe this to be a more constructive debate than screeching at each other over "clumps of cells".

Don't misconstrue my argument. I'm not arguing over whether or not cats and horses qualify as human. That's dumb. Stop it.

Do we consider a disabled veteran a person? Of course, the veteran is a person. They dutifully served our country.
Do we consider a toddler a person? Of course. They have all the hallmarks of a person.
Do we consider infants as people? Yes, infants are people.
In spite of what /pol/ tells you, is someone with black skin a person? Yes, they are.
Do we consider a fetus to be a person? Yes, because they will develop all the hallmarks of personhood as they develop in the womb.
Even if a fetus is stillborn, they are, and were, a person.

By this logic, a zygote, while showing no hallmarks of personhood, is still a person. You might not be able to see it yet, but they will turn into a person.

 

[Zarael]

1. no one cares about your religion

That's ok you don't have to to know abortion is ethically wrong.

2. "it's simply unjustifiable" according to some faggot on the internet

It's unjustifiable according to any philosophy that puts value on human life.

3. a fetus is a clump of cells that you inexplicably treat more importantly than the woman carrying the fetus

Technically you're a clump of cells too, and regardless of whatever the current status is you can't ignore the fact that without intervention it's almost certain that "clump of cells" will become a living, breathing person just like you. Claiming that it's "just cells" is a way to distance yourself from the ramifications of your position which is human lives snuffed out which otherwise in all likelihood would've lived full lives. It's also questionable whether your claim about me treating the fetus as being "more important" than the woman actually holds up, I'd like to see you justify that since in my view it has more to do with the woman in almost all cases being the agent who acknowledged and took the risk of conceiving new life and thus being responsible through prior decisions for the creation of the life they want to end.

 

[The Cunting Death]

Since much of the mass-debating in this thread hinges on the 'lifeness' of the fetus, I wonder what's everyone's opinion on euthanasia or capital punishment.

Yes and yes. Although on the latter it should be for people who have actually done a fucked up crime not just murdered one person.

 

[Lurker]

That's ok you don't have to to know abortion is ethically wrong.

It's unjustifiable according to any philosophy that puts value on human life.

Technically you're a clump of cells too, and regardless of whatever the current status is you can't ignore the fact that without intervention it's almost certain that "clump of cells" will become a living, breathing person just like you. Claiming that it's "just cells" is a way to distance yourself from the ramifications of your position which is human lives snuffed out which otherwise in all likelihood would've lived full lives. It's also questionable whether your claim about me treating the fetus as being "more important" than the woman actually holds up, I'd like to see you justify that since in my view it has more to do with the woman in almost all cases being the agent who acknowledged and took the risk of conceiving new life and thus being responsible through prior decisions for the creation of the life they want to end.

1. lol no1curr
2. a fetus is not a human
3. a fetus literally is a clump of cells. also lol why does it matter to you what a woman does with a nonsentient clump of cells in her body?

 

[Tacitus Kilgore]

I don't really care if black women and ugly mentally ill feminists want to be genetic dead ends. I guess you could argue that paying for their abortions is wrong. But to me it's like paying for trash pick-up. But abortion takes out the human trash.

If we could convince beaners to get abortions, it would be great.

 

[Sweetpeaa]

I will say these two things as someone from Canada over the supreme court decision in the U.S:

Exactly why would this happen now? Of all times you would think it would have happened in the Bush Jr. Era back in the 2000's considering how neoconservative he was.

The second thing is how Canada and the U.S swapped views on abortion. In the 1980's the Canadian Prime Minister almost had it banned from existence losing by just one vote in the Canadian senate to put it back in the criminal code. Where as the American President (would have bern reagan of course) didn't seem to have much interest in banning it and seemed to let it be. Now the views are reversed.

Explain.

 

[Trianon]

I will say these two things as someone from Canada over the supreme court decision in the U.S:

Exactly why would this happen now? Of all times you would think it would have happened in the Bush Jr. Era back in the 2000's considering how neoconservative he was.

The second thing is how Canada and the U.S swapped views on abortion. In the 1980's the Canadian Prime Minister almost had it banned from existence losing by just one vote in the Canadian senate to put it back in the criminal code. Where as the American President (would have bern reagan of course) didn't seem to have much interest in banning it and seemed to let it be. Now the views are reversed.

Explain.

The votes just weren't there on the Supreme Court at any other time. And abortion reform had to come via the Court because they were the ones who put in place the original abortion decision in the '70s that stated governments can only ban it in the last 2/3 of pregnancy because the infant would be "viable," or capable of living outside the womb. If an abortion case came up before now, it would be likely that the Court would have tried for a compromise, because there were always some conservatives who weren't willing to rock the boat and some liberals who approved of the original case. They actually did another abortion case that stated the government couldn't make it too hard to get an abortion, because states were choosing to shut down abortion centers for other reasons, and the Court said they had to keep them open in many cases and make them easy to get to. So you can see how it kind of went from "you can't BAN it" to "you have to almost actively support it."

As far as why a case has made its way up to the Court, with states outright daring them to overturn Roe by passing laws that went against it, it's a multitude of things. The pro-life movement has only grown since the '70s, partly because ultrasounds are so good now that many areligious people have become pro-life and can't see it as defensible on any grounds. As the science has gotten better in defining when a human life begins and when it can be saved (even if delivered prematurely), the pro-abortion side has had to adjust its arguments in ways that are unpalatable to most people, who want to believe it's a heart-wrenching decision for the woman and is only done when necessary. They don't want to hear people bragging about how many they've had or how technically there's nothing wrong with abortion at any stage of pregnancy, even when it's clearly just got to be C-sectioned out and it will be fully born.

You could also argue that the "my body, my choice" slogan got co-opted by anti-vaxxers, so people were kind of like, "Oh, I don't have to take this seriously as an argument because liberals don't seem to apply it consistently anyway."

Roe basically supercharged the argument and cemented it in such a way that we couldn't argue about it or make incremental changes in either direction because the Court took it out of our hands. The effort has been in putting justices on the bench who believe you can only rule on what's in the Constitution (abortion is not), not whatever the Court thinks. If they believed that, they were pretty much guaranteed to rule against Roe if it ever came up because of how weird the original ruling was.

Compare the US' laws to Europe, and you can see the same difference. Most abortions in European countries are limited to 12 weeks at most. In the US, Roe set it at something like 24 or 28. And did so before ultrasounds were invented. And without tying it to any medical milestone, just what "felt" right and fair. So Europe has been able to make uncomfortable compromises as voters, whereas the US has had to patiently lay a lot of bricks into place before we were even allowed to have this fight. So it at times looks like both sides are just using it to drive votes, but that's kind of because the efforts were always going to go through the slowest branch of government to get their outdated compromise rules taken off the books. The debate is going to be incredibly volatile because any incrementalism was taken out of our hands and now it's all built up and will get nasty.