Forced Abortion (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

Can I ask you something? (o wait just did LOL!)


Anyway.
Are you a vegetarian?

 

[DavidBenGurion]

No. I remind you that it's nessecary for us to eat life to maintain our own life. When I mentioned life in my earlier post, I clearly meant human life. There is a biological imperative for us to ensure the propagation of our own species, not the species of cow.

 

[Napstar]

abortion is wrong

 

[Tully B.]

Thank you for your input.

 

[Iron]

thank you for your output
ladies

/wriggling output only pls
/no pics pls

 

[SurferNerd]

And by the big motherlode question, where do you 'derive" wrong from? What objective source?

Either:

1) 'God'; please add much further details.

2) Ayn Rand lol

3) Nietzsche- ie wrong is bs.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

And by the big motherlode question, where do you 'derive" wrong from? What objective source?

Either:

1) 'God'; please add much further details.

2) Ayn Rand lol

3) Nietzsche- ie wrong is bs.

God in the machine.

By machine I mean my bio-logy! it's science mang.

Hey but you know Nietzsche, so you must be an expert lol!

 

[SurferNerd]

God in the machine.

By machine I mean my bio-logy! it's science mang.

Hey but you know Nietzsche, so you must be an expert lol!

Yea he is a good mate. One thing, he told me god is dead, and retarts on this forum are the ones who killed him.

 

[Marmalade.]

No. I remind you that it's nessecary for us to eat life to maintain our own life. When I mentioned life in my earlier post, I clearly meant human life. There is a biological imperative for us to ensure the propagation of our own species, not the species of cow.

No, dickhead, it is not necessary to "eat life" to maintain our own life. Meat is not necessary for survival or good health. Unless you define life broadly enough to cover vegetables.

And there is no longer a biological imperative to ensure that every pregnancy is successful. There are six billion people on the planet, ffs, we're not cavemen anymore.

 

[SylviaB]

No. I remind you that it's nessecary for us to eat life to maintain our own life.

So let me get this right: You're against abortion not because of any suffering that occurs or anything, but rather, only for ideological reasons.

Because a fetus terminated in the first trimester doesn't undergo any suffering, whereas that steak you just ate went through a very traumatic and painful death to get where it is now.

Because if it was usffering you cared about you would be a vegetarian.

When I mentioned life in my earlier post, I clearly meant human life.

Um, no.

Call me a biologist here, but since when does saying simple "life" *clearly* mean specifically human life?

There is a biological imperative for us to ensure the propagation of our own species, not the species of cow.

1. Why?

2. There is a biological imperitive to ensure the propogation of only our offspring, not the whole species. Actually in biological terms, the rest of the species are actually competitors who stand in your way of survival (except potnetial mates, but yeah)

 

[DavidBenGurion]

No, dickhead, it is not necessary to "eat life" to maintain our own life. Meat is not necessary for survival or good health. Unless you define life broadly enough to cover vegetables.

Yes, life includes vegetables. Read a biology textbook. But that point is neither here nor there.

And there is no longer a biological imperative to ensure that every pregnancy is successful. There are six billion people on the planet, ffs, we're not cavemen anymore.

Of course there is still a biological imperative to ensure the propagation of life. If you don't believe that this is the case, and that you can selectively choose which life to continue and which to discontinue (for instance, abortions) without any critical guideline as to why this is ok, then I cannot continue a debate with you, because you're utterly, utterly confused.

So let me get this right: You're against abortion not because of any suffering that occurs or anything, but rather, only for ideological reasons.

Strawman.

I'm against abortion because it is illogical, and against my instinct. I value life and thus I cannot permit abortion.

Because a fetus terminated in the first trimester doesn't undergo any suffering, whereas that steak you just ate went through a very traumatic and painful death to get where it is now.

I don't care. I need to eat meat to survive. I like life.

Um, no.

Call me a biologist here, but since when does saying simple "life" *clearly* mean specifically human life?

It doesn't. I needed to clarify what I meant. I just explained that to you.

1. Why?

2. There is a biological imperitive to ensure the propogation of only our offspring, not the whole species. Actually in biological terms, the rest of the species are actually competitors who stand in your way of survival (except potnetial mates, but yeah)

This is probably true enough.

Should we allow others to engage in whatever behaviour suits them so long as it doesn't threaten our individual survival? I think that would be reasonable in an ideal world. We don't live in an ideal world though. We don't permit mother X to kill child X. Why is this? We believe that it is inherently wrong. We believe it to be inherently wrong not because of what that spacktard Nietzsche said, but because it is engrained within our psychology! Humans are programmed not to kill - it is our instinct not to kill, and when we find out that killing has occured we have a visceral response in our disapproval of it. It is not because of God and society that we reject murder, killing, and rape, it is because we believe it to be a threat to the survival of our species. Why else? Cuz? No, it is because it is our biological duty to ensure that this does not occur. This is why laws and so on have been formed on the basis of "murder is wrong".

Most of us do not kill. It is a behaviour that the majority have deemed wrong. There are people out there that are, for the lack of a better word, social retards. They kill people, and so we lock them in prison. Rightly so! The same applies with abortion. There are females out there that have an ill formed psychology, and who believe that it is acceptable to abort their children - to kill their offspring. These 'social retards', like murderers, need to be stopped. We have established that killing is wrong, and why this is so. Why is abortion a unique example then? It is killing, is it not? I think the answer is yes.

Killing is wrong. Abortion is killing. I do not believe in abortion.

In the case of a raped woman, the woman needs to deal with it. Something bad happened to her. This is unfortunate but it is not a reason to kill the baby formed in a rape. There is nothing wrong with the baby, and there is no reason to terminate the life of this baby simply because it was conceived via ill means. Life >>> omg i mite have a bastard child!

In the case of a mother threatened by the birth of a child, then I would be pro-abortion only if the mother had a greater ability to provide further life than the baby.

 

[SylviaB]

Strawman.

I don't care. I need to eat meat to survive. I like life.

Technically can live off of vegetables and the such.

It doesn't. I needed to clarify what I meant. I just explained that to you.

You said "clearly I meant only human life"

But whatever its irrelevant.

Should we allow others to engage in whatever behaviour suits them so long as it doesn't threaten our individual survival?

Nope

Killing is wrong.

Killing of humans is wrong**

In the case of a raped woman, the woman needs to deal with it. Something bad happened to her. This is unfortunate but it is not a reason to kill the baby formed in a rape.

Fetus**

And in cases of rape, it tends to be a kind of morning after pill type thing, so the "baby" is nothing more than a hundred or so cells. Surely you can't be stronlgy opposed to this sort of abortion.

There is nothing wrong with the baby, and there is no reason to terminate the life of this baby simply because it was conceived via ill means. Life >>> omg i mite have a bastard child!

Man come on, how would you like to spend nine months carrying the child of a monster, spending nine months of constantly being reminded of what is likely the most traumatic event of your life?

In the case of a mother threatened by the birth of a child, then I would be pro-abortion

A fetus conceived through rape is no different to a fetus conceived consensually.

Why doesn't all of what you just said apply to it then?

only if the mother had a greater ability to provide further life than the baby.

Clarify plz.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

can you stop multiquoting please? it's very frustrating when i present my arguments in flowing sentence form, to have them argued in this manner. it is fallacious. i'm not talking to you until you engage with me as a proper adult, sir!

 

[Freedom_]

This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.

The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.

 

[Tully B.]

It's the internet, dude. Calm down.

EDIT: Talking to DavidBenGurion

 

[DavidBenGurion]

Oh stop being a dickponce. The mother loses the right to "her body" omg when a baby exists in her, because life outranks liberty in terms of importance

if you disagree fuck off back to somalia

 

[Iron]

This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.

The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.

No, the nub is Life and its value. The body is something richer and more sacred than 'property' and a fetus is something more significant than a 'parasite' you cunt

 

[Freedom_]

Oh stop being a dickponce. The mother loses the right to "her body" omg when a baby exists in her, because life outranks liberty in terms of importance

if you disagree fuck off back to somalia

No, the nub is Life and its value. The body is something richer and more sacred than 'property' and a fetus is something more significant than a 'parasite' you cunt

I am in no way advocating the idea that everyone should go out and have fun being pregnant and getting abortions. That is all besides the point. But what is the point is every woman has the right to choose. Propagandize against abortions as much as you want, but leave the individual free to run his own life.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

women have the right to choose

so long as the decision they make does not CAUSE HUMAN DEATH

ffs

 

[Sprangler]

women have the right to choose

so long as the decision they make does not CAUSE HUMAN DEATH

ffs

A little mushy jellyfish is not a human, the fact that this thing exists doesn't give it a right to be born. Cells do not have rights.