Why are left wing parties always without fail pro-abortion?

I'd really like to get involved in politics but it seems like every single communist or socialist party in my entire country is pro-abortion and that's a massive deal breaker for me. Yes, I want the workers to control the means of production. No, I don't want to legalize killing babies and I definitely don't want it to be publicly subsidized.

It seems like everyone I talk to with left-wing views is pro-choice. I do not understand this at all and it doesn't seem like very many people understand why you would be pro-life if you're otherwise on board with their views. To me I would think pro-life is the better option in the interests of social justice. The fetus is a human, they deserve the right to live, they are not the mother's property to be terminated at will.

So why does it seem like no socialist party on the planet sees it this way?

Lowkey abortion thread.

Might've been okay bait if not for the anfem flag. >>>Holla Forums

try a religious party

I'm not baiting and feminism is very important to me.

There is nothing religious about granting a human the right to live.

Because feminism is a cancer that got it's roots 60 years ago in the left, it has been expanding since then.

There's really only one and they're already the biggest party. They're also extremely right-wing and otherwise bigoted.

I don't really understand why there's like no pro-life feminists either.

Is it not possible to care about women and babies at the same time?

You definitely won't find one in America, but I could imagine that there are some communist groups holding actually reactionary views in countries like Russia. Generally, you would probably want to look out for ML groups. Tankies are usually the most likely to hold actually reactionary beliefs.

Most Third Wave feminists are self-obsessed cunts, at least in the West. They don't realize that they are actually more priviliged than men in 21st century capitalism.

...

try a religious communist party

actually reactionary = sociаlly conservаtive
Sorry for that, the 10 y/o admin of this board implemented a word filter. I always forget about that.

Wow you're full of shit. Imagine being this spooked

praise the mods for making idiots like you the constant source of laughter

Oh. Sorry then ignore my shitpost above

...

...

So human life only starts when you press your head through a vagina? That's quite an arbitrary definition spooklord

Nah, it's farther away, still. Probably around language acquisition.

leftism should be all about comfy family values, top of the list should be a 25 hour working week

So it's okay to kill born babies then?

I'm not particularly actually reactionary. Otherwise I fully support most socially liberal ideas, I just have this one specific very important reservation.


To be quite honest third wave feminists are right about very many things and I would not say women are more muh privileged than men in 21st century capitalism. There are serious problems faced by women in our society and feminists are often right in identifying them.


Any concept of "human" or life having inherent value is spooky as fuck to begin with. At some point we are going to have to define who is and isn't human and to me in the interests of social justice it would make the most sense to make that definition as inclusive as possible by extending it to conception.

Women get the muh privilege of aborting children without the consent or even knowledge of the father. The fact that so many have gone out and done so should tell you everything about the worth of women in general.

Wordfilters are the best goddamned thing ever.

Fuck off back to Holla Forums.

With sufficient reason, yes.

But that's a loaded agenda based on circular logic because "social justice" already is a category pertaining only to humans, so to translate your sentence: I want to define a non-human thing human so that I could treat them as human [social justice].

You could as well extend the concept of human back to sperm and call the banning of fellatio "social justice."

Just play with open cards instead of trying to intellectually justify something irrational.

...

I think leftism has something to do with granting a human life the chance to fully evolve his or her potential. This is what freedom from a Marxist perspective means. I can not possibly advocate lax abortion laws or killing babies in their crib while at the same time fight for equal chances in education and free association for everybody.

I think if rationality leads you to a place where you end up killing infants, it might be the wrong tool for the job.

I'm not even religious and I find abortion disgusting. IF there was a god then at least the aborted would be able to go to heaven or reincarnate or w/e. Instead you're just taking the once chance the child will have of experiencing the highs and lows of life because of pure selfishness. Women are innately sociopathic tbh tho so it shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Hey, at least you are open about your intellectual limitations and the supplementing moralism.


It's most of the times the more ethical thing as well.

also the
is enemy propaganda.

Pure selfishness was deciding on creating someone to suffer without being able to consult him/her.

wew

Before we go any further what are your parameters for "human", I guarantee whatever you come out with will be irrational.

There is no such thing as a rational morality, and indeed if we're being perfectly rational there's absolutely no objective imperative to care about social justice or socialism or really anything. The way we care about making life better for other people is absolutely and totally irrational, there is no materialistic justification for it, we do it because we feel it is right. If we're going to give up on unborn fetuses because it's irrational to care about them why not just give up on everyone else too?

Well you see sperm isn't a person. It's the genetic information of one of the parents and if unused it's going to be broken down and recycled by the body anyway. Likewise being on your period is not murder.

Let's murder kids everyone that's what communism is to me.

t. leftist


they are always free to commit suicide if they don't like it.

Granting humans freedom is not moralism. Please tell me you don't base your social views off Max Stirner.

Life is the best gift you can give someone.

You know what, OP? I dislike abortion too, especially if it is done because an embryo carries a genetic disease. I don't think that being pro-life is actually that uncommon, especially among females themselves.
At the end of the day, I am not in any position to tell others what to do with their body. The best thing we can to is to eliminate the causes leading women to having an abortion.

We can't really prevent rape, so this would still be a valid reason for getting an abortion. But since abortion due to rape is not actually that common, we can probably forget about this for now.

Another big factor in abortion is poverty. There are many women who abort because they feel like the child will ruin them financially. What do you think can a pregnant women without someone to support her financially do if she lives in a country without social services for mothers?
Of course this would only be a problem under capitalism. Once we have socialism, this problem will be gone.

The last thing, and probably the most common reason for abortions, is disability. We already have quite a lot pre-natal tests to determine whether an embryo carries a genetic disease like Down's Syndrome. Sadly, almost all babies with those diseases are aborted.
However, we don't just have tests for genetic diseases. We already have some promising ways to cure them too, CRISPR for example. I know that many people are scared of genetic engineering on human embryos, but this is the future. We might not be at this point yet, but we will be in a few years. Once we are able to eliminate most genetic diseases, there will be far less abortions. Instead of killing those with disability before they are even born, we will be able to cure them.


If you want to override the filter, just use non-Latin letters that look exactly like their Latin counterparts. The Cyrillic alphabet offers some good options for that. (The Cyrillic а looks exactly like the Latin a, but they are regarded as different letters by the filter.)
If you replace one of the a's in sociаlly conservative with the Cyrillic а, you can trick the filter in the most perfect way possible and piss of the mods a little bit. It's better than just putting an accent over one of the letters.

Because
1. you are wrong, the fetus can only be aborted when it isnt viable yet. At this stage, its nothing more than an unconscious non-thinking parasite, you can't force human beings that they carry it around for months on end and risk their lives and go through labour.
2. the social benefits of abortion far outweigh the social downsides of it

There are 7 billion people in the world, why bring more people into this world? adopt kids which are in need of a family.

Bringing childs into this world is selfish

Abortion laws very much are erring on the side of caution already to be honest. You could PROBABLY range higher but you're mostly restricted to "I dunno exactly when a fetus starts being a person but it's DEFINITELY somewhere after here" except in cases of "yeah the mom AND kid are both going to die anyway if there's no abortion."


If there is a god he sure doesn't seem to give a fuck since 30% of conceptions miscarry or fail to implant in the first place. That's half a million dead would-be people every day. Classically theology has held the soul enters the body with your first breath though.


You say a sperm isn't a person, I say a brainless embryo isn't a person, but somehow my declaration that something isn't a person doesn't count and yours does.


You're only granting humans freedom under the assumption that the fetus is in fact human. Otherwise if granting POTENTIAL humans freedom is a universal moral good then that means everyone should be obligated as many children as possible at all times.

so why do they support keeping blacks around?

This is a very inconsistent argument. This is also true for people in a coma, or severely retarded people. Or animals.

I take a look at what makes us unique, the thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. That is language. Language is learned. After language you experience your lifeworld as human, before it as an animal (that, in a biological sense, true, is classified as a human). Language makes you capable of signification, abstraction, identity, a sense of past and future, etc. Before it you lived in the always present, you lived as an instinctual animal.

Ethics isn't the same as morality.

I disregard sentences starting with false premises just like I disregard sentences starting with "If we're being completely motorcycles."

Well, you see, a fetus isn't a person, nor is a newborn baby. Parents might project personhood on it, but people owning pets do the same. It doesn't make it so. Until a kid starts learning language it's not capable of having an identity, thus a sense of personhood.

Aren't Nazis convinced that women are innately good-natured, kind and compassionate? This is the very reason for them supporting traditional gender roles, because women have evolved to be perfect at caring for children.

In 9 months the fetus is going to be a newborn child. It doesn't really matter if it's unconscious or unthinking at a point because in a short while it's going to have overcome that.

Likewise if someone was braindead but it was an absolute certainty that in 9 months they would make a full recovery it would not be acceptable to kill them in the meantime.

Also
I don't care. Killing innocent people is not right no matter what social benefits it brings.

Are chimpanzees people? They are able to learn sign language. They also recognize themselves in a mirror. Would that qualify them for personhood?

"I just gave you the gift of having to die and suffer on the way there!"

T-thanks, m-mom.


fetuses are not humans


fetuses are not humans

There's plenty of room, dude, overpopulation is a myth.

Turns out that it was really culture that promotes such behavior in women and not something women innately have. The relatively common occurrence of them murdering their own children should be all we need to know to prove that original assumption wrong

Overpopulation is a problem in the Third World, but not in the West.

I'm pretty sure a human fetus is 100% human DNA.

This is not how basic logical causation works. If you are having a jar of poison at home for killing your wife, it's isn't attempted murder yet. It only becomes a verifiable once you put the poison into her coffee cup, hence setting a chain of events in motion.

the rights of a fully developed human being usurp the rights of a potential human being because the value of a potential human life is not as objective as it's inferior to a fully developed human being.

You cant cure down syndrome or other non-dna-encoded disabilities with futuristic gene editing. Down syndrome is a mistake in cell formation (they are 100% genetically healthy, they just have one copy of an strand much) and theres plenty of other birth defects that come from external causes or complications.


People in coma are unconcious indeed, but their brain is still active and they can survive without being a parasite to another human being, thus not infringing on the quality of life of other humans. Severely retarded people do think, and so do animals.


In 9 months my spunk could be a million children, but im still going to spray it in a tissue and flush it down the toilet.

A braindead person doesnt require another human being to carry it around and litterally feed it nutrients, then risk their life in birth. They lie on hospital beds and are pretty low-maintenance.

Wrong.

so why don't we move them from there to here

i see you couldn't answer this

They are not, you complete and miserable idiot. They give them boards to push buttons on to get treats. It is unanimously accepted among linguists and zoologists that does not constitute a language.

Are you Karl Pilkington by any chance? Do you get your facts from Animal Plantet, aka. "lets project human faculties on animals TV?"

I am not sure what your point is
What do black people have to do with this, and who is "they"? I dont respond to troll comments.

KEK

Sounds like race aware theory for why Whites should rule over the coloreds to me. Maybe leftists aren't so different from Nazis than I thought

Friendly reminder that pro-life is code for criminalization, and that the life of an early fetus being human is religion. Then being "pro-life" is imposing the morality of your religion onto others through the power of a state.

Where do you draw the line? When is a fetus a human? If you say "at conception" you're just being silly

What? Of course they are being parasites, just not biological ones but ones of labor. Also a fetus isn't a parasite by any biological defintion.

You'd be surprised if you knew at what stage human consciousness evolves.

Without the state women who aborted would be stoned

In my kind of anarchism we have a state for this one single issue only: protecting the human babies against child-killer mothers. Apart from that no state whatsoever. Call me a minarchist if you like, I don't care. Babies come first. Then animals. Then stuffed toys. It's not like I'm a hysteric or anything.

Wow, providing marijuana for patients after their traumatic surgery? You Nazis are more progressive than I thought

Fuck off back to /r/feminism useless feminist

How can babies be human either? They can't care for themselves just like fetuses. They must be parasites too!

Doctors have already determined when the embyro becomes "human", usually around 11-15 weeks depending on the country, that's when the cerebrum starts developing.

...

I WASH MY HANDS, THE EXPERTS SAY IT'S THE WAY IT IS!

But Dualism isn't real, sorry

Wrong on all accounts. First off, criminal law existed before the state. Secondly, you'd not argue that stabbing a pregnant woman in her belly is a more severe crime than stabbing her in the leg. The object of crime in this offense is not the woman though, but the unborn life. Involuntary induced arbortions are with a reason categorized under "Crimes against Life" in continental law, along with murder or homocide.

You have the underrstanding of the issue of a teenager who just read Nietzsche. No offense.

its a parasite

I said they think, dumbfuck.

you are literally retarded

Who said anything about dualism ITT?

It' a spermatozoid a baby too? I prefer a medical opinon thank you very much. Also there are usually legal differences between an unborn child (dependent life) and a born child (independent life) fyi.

baby can survive without his biological mother and the mother can give him up for adoption ANYTIME she wants so there's no need to kill them.

There's nothing philosophical to discuss if humans don't have a soul. That only leaves us with consciousness, and we know that's a byproduct of the brain.

Pregnancy is not a pathological state, which you can clearly tell by the fact that the female human body was designed to bear a child.

Parasitism is defined by causing a pathological state

I largely agree with you but the "her body her choice" mentality really bugs me. It's not just her body, the baby is there too.

I'm also very conflicted about abortion in cases of rape. On one hand getting raped is horrible enough but having to carry around a reminder of that experience around for 9 months is not a fate I would want to wish on anyone. But on the other hand it's the baby's fault.


Well yes because potentiality.
If left alone in a man's balls for 9 months all the sperm in there would have been destroyed recycled many times over.
If left alone in a woman's uterus for 9 months the fetus will be born.

The idea that the progression of life is sperm>fetus>baby is medieval tier pseudo-science. It's no more "the baby" than the eggs are.


And why is that important?

Also
Should severely disabled people who can't learn to communicate normally be entitled to human rights?

I don't like you very much.

Yes, it's not a person because it doesn't meet my entirely arbitrary personal standard of what being human means. But remember, I'm super-rational and everything I say is facts.

Jesus, I can't believe you were giving it all that about intellectual honesty earlier and have come out with this.

Do I need to spell out to you how many layers of ideology you are drowning behind or can you figure this our for yourself, lad?

Communism is scientific socialism, empirical evidence is one of its principles

But CRISPR is able to cut out specific strands of DNA, right? Wouldn't it be possible to cut out an entire chromosome, since chromosomes are just DNA in condensed form?
I know about the other birth defects, that's why I specifically mentioned genetic diseases. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

So throwing up, swelling in size and, with lack of nutrients, deterioration of bodily structures such as teeth or bones, isnt sickness-like?

OH, I DON'T KNOW!

LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT

Why is this retarded shit on the front page? Every fucking day there is shitty Holla Forums bait and every fucking day we waste our time posting fucking endlessly about it. Only Holla Forumsacks and tankies (who are mostly politically indistinguishable) are anti-abortion, why should we bend to the whim of the tankie 5th column?

bourgeois law isn't empirical in any sense, laws are anti-communist, experts are a capitalist fiction, you are an idiot

stop posting fascist memes

I'll stop replying to you if you keep on being an absolute retard.

Women have a fucking uterus. Do they also have pouch inside their body for tapeworms? No? There is your difference.

Women get a lot of endorphins from being pregnant so I'm sure it evens out.

No, you cant "cut out" something that you, by definition, dont cut. Chromosomes arent connected to each other. Cispr cuts out a subsection of dna and replaces it, and the cut-out dna then gets dealt with by the cells natural cleaning systems, since it isnt viable on its own.

I disagree. The laws we adhere today are much, much older than capitalism.

No one is going to want to be a communist if communism just means that child murder is """ethical"""

You're just trolling now

Tankies and hitler-fellators, hand in hand once again.


Counterpoint: Recorded history.

Sorry gals, you better put up with nature while I put up my glasses designed to counter nat… oh!

this is why communism always fails

fuck off, you are ruining this board

what doesn't fuck up your body? that's just life.

Hey, I think we should listen to bourgeois law, they are experts in these things!

Leftists should definitely not have children though this is something that is 100% correct

Yes. The same way you have a dick and looking at a fat latina booty puts you technically in a state of mental illness.

This is not human nature, it's fucking mammal nature

Well then maybe stop recreating this obviously horrible condition called life.

This is my graph, and I oppose abortion

Women have higher suicide rates after an abortion than they have without doing one. Really works those neurons huh

Holla Forums is truly your big other

...

If you think life is so horrible fuck off and end it.

What about specific genes on chromosome 21? Do we know which ones are primarily responsible for the symptoms of Down Syndrome?

The right to be alive is more important than the right to be comfortable.


Not if you leave it alone.

If you do something to it (like have unprotected sex) of course it could contribute to a life. But if left alone that's not what happens, the body destroys it naturally. For much the same reason eggs are not people.

The body does not destroy the fetus (normally anyway).

Most of us here on Holla Forums, I assume, live in the first world with access to decent quality medical care. In the 21st century with that available childbirth is not particularly life-threatening. They're taking a bigger risk with their life every time they get into a car.

I don't agree.


You mean decided, the idea that life begins with the brain is every bit as arbitrary as everything else suggested ITT.


You didn't understand. I was asking why language and how it distinguishes us from other animals is important to you.

Probably has to do something with the stigmatization your kind does to them.

did you learn about antinatalism from a fucking tv show? lol

women also have a vagina so does that mean they should be forced to endure my dick? i mean the vagina is pretty much designed for my cock.

Our laws are pretty much the same since the fucking Roman Empire.

I know I'm getting flamed, but I will repeat: Legislation varies depending on the country, the stages in which the embryo developes are a fact. Now you can argue on which stage it becomes human, but 11-15 weeks is generally agreed on.

At conception

Why is that?

It's a completely arbitrary definition since scientists can't figure out when consciousness begins.

Nope, not just this 'legal technicality', you tankie fucksticks are also the only ones that go 'wait, maybe he has a point…' when Holla Forums comes in here ranting about nationalism and how blacks are subhuman, too. Plus you're the only tendency on the board that gives a single ha'penny fuck about the gays and what have you. Basically if there's a shitty opinion that Holla Forums comes in here to shill for, you can trust that the only non-sage positive reply will be from a tankie.


great job fuckwad, nobody cares, get out


two can play at the greentext game, grasshopper

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

what's stigmatized about it? It's celebrated and endorsed in this jew hellhole we call the U.S.

people.com/celebrity/lena-dunham-abortion-comment-controversy/

You can argue easily from a developmental POV that they are not human even after birth. What makes you think that the doctor's opinion should be the basis of the law?

wew, that flag

According to PETA and any vegan it is!

Sorry I was treating "human" in this conversation as a synonym for "person" under the assumption that you wouldn't be okay with genociding

And it IS how logical causation works, under the circumstances that an early development fetus is not a person yet. If it's not a person yet you are not granting a person freedom, you're resolving to grant a potential person freedom in the future.


There is ultimately nothing really ethical or philosophical to discuss here. Killing people is still wrong, ultimately the cerebrum development isn't even "this is the point where it happens" but more "okay it's DEFINITELY not before here, because as a society we have already decided plenty of things that HAVE cerebrums aren't people (personally not in favor of extending human rights to lampreys) so something without one altogether DEFINITELY isn't."


Again, only matters if you begin with the premise that the baby is already a person. If the woman is unlucky, "it's not just her body a tapeworm is in there too." Definitely points where the baby is less developed than a tapeworm.

well you're hedging your bets

Yeah, why not?

THREAD CLOSED.
Satanfag figured it all out!

Hitler's the dogfucker who cares about the lives of animals fam, Marxists give no fucks about petty bourg morality

why can't things that can develop a cerebrum human? Would it be ethical for every pregnancy to be aborted? For life to end? Just because some people think that life doesnt really begin until some pointless development in the fetus??

I never fucking said anything to the Nazi poster nor did I particulary agreed with him. Maybe imageboards are not for you, since you can't really stop issues from being debated you feel uncomfortable with. Have you tried reddit?

And you can be sure Anarkiddies are the first ones to apologize for Bakunins antisemitism. What a retarded statement is that? You should consider killing yourself

marxists are autistic scum though

I don't understand.

What if we use CRISPR to remove the promoter sequences of all relevant genes on the third chromosome 21 and replace it with nonsense DNA, to make the RNA Polymerase enzyme unable to transcript those genes? Would that work? The genes would be still there, but they wouldn't be expressed since there would be no transcription.

We dont know and in likelyhood the genes responsible for down syndrome are essential to human life.

To do that you would need to genetically edit the single celled embryo.

At that point is waaaaaaaay easier to just take a look at the dna and terminate the development if it has a chromosome too much.

Not true on the vegan front actually! Vegans are dumb but not THAT dumb, some of them would be opposed merely on the grounds that they're opposed to consumption of UNfertilized chicken eggs: that the process of procuring them is inherently animal cruelty in the first place.


Well maybe they could be but the vast majority of society clearly doesn't think so given that lampreys do not have human rights.


If you don't begin with the premise that a fetus is a person, then the concern for non-person inhabitants of the woman's body can be extended to other non-person inhabitants of the woman's body… such as literal honest-to-god parasites.

Animals are cool and we should be reasonably good to them.


That's ableist.

I was referring to your idiotic statement that we all should fuck like rabbits because somehow the fact we have reproductive organs implies we are responsible for causal chains which have not yet been set in motion.

Well then define person for me and try to keep it coherent by explaining to me how you shouldn't kill people in their sleep.

99,9% of animals are disgusting/threatening/dangerous/ugly/smell/annoying/useless, tho.

...

Well yes I suppose that's true. But that's still just another assumed premise.

As I said earlier in the thread when evaluating what is and isn't human we're going to have to make an irrational judgement at some point, so what's wrong with making it more inclusive?

again the value of a potential human life is not objective so i don't think that potential human life should be granted the right to live specially since there's the basic economic problem and over population. the socal benefits of abortion really does outweigh the social cost of abortion and that's all that really matters. aborting a fetus would benefit the economy, the environment and society.

If someone is willing to prevent their genes from spreading, then chances are nothing of value was lost.

I'm not trying to debate this right now, but being an asshole to animals usually comes with being a very shitty person nobody wants to hang out with.

So are you.

Wear a fucking condom.


You know, you genuinely sound like an ancap here, fam. It upsets me even though I know it's baiting.

The fetus is an unconscious lump of flesh, killing it isn't any different from slaughtering a farm animal or picking a turnip. Now fuck off back to Holla Forums.

Oddly enough given how our modern economy is entirely reliant on increasing the amount of debt that would be paid back by future generations having less children does not benefit the economy

So are very many humans. They're still worth caring about tho.

Why do you care about the economy? are you a corruption apologist?

Pro-lifers get the wall first. We don't need any more fucking people. A foetus is no more valuable than a sperm in a cumrag.

All the more reason not to have children then.

What if we just didn't pay it? It's pretend money anyway.

All that debt will go away in a second once we can get rid of the ones that hold it (jews)

The jews are irrelevant. What we need to get ride of is USA. They are the real cancer of the planet. 300 milion retards

If you think about your fellow humans in terms of their use to you, pleasantness, etc. you are the scum.

and i never accused you of it, i simply accused you of getting all your political positions from Stalin's 'my first book of repressive measures to enforce capitalist labour discipline'. Who's putting words in whose mouth again? And I could give a fuck about your desire to shit up the board with daily 200-reply threads of you pretty much just nodding along with Holla Forums bait.

cry more, scrub

and i'll heap shit on them for rising for fucking retarded Holla Forums bait too. just because someone else is retarded doesn't give you a free pass to join right in


animals are either helpful, food, or dangerous. also fuck off back to Holla Forums


luckily i never said 'causing unnecessary harm to animals is awesome' then. i merely pointed out that PETA is retarded (similarly: sky blue, water wet), vegans are bourgeois moralists, and then implied that Hitler was both retarded and a bourgeois moralist. i know it's hard but try to keep up

We shouldn't. All debt should be erased. People should live as humans and live local. We should get all self segregate into racially harmonized societies and all women should be forced to carry their pregnancies to term because to do otehrwise is murder.

that is not the problem of the current generation including you. It will benefit the economy for the current generation which is good enough.

If you think about your fellow sentient beings in terms of their use to you, pleasantness, etc. you are the scum.

debt is based off on the future prospects for it to be repaid. Current and future birthrate trends (and immigration levels which is why they're pushed by neolib/neocon countries) are all HEAVILY accounted for in any debt decision

Try watching less Libertarian Socialist Rants

The judgement is already really fucking inclusive. The EXACT point where it becomes a person would be more arbitrary sure, but we can feasibly find points where it's definitely not a person even before that. The cerebrum works well for that because if having a basic cerebrum makes you a person than motherfucking lampreys are people. Since society has not held lampreys to be people, fetuses that have not developed a cerebrum yet are definitely not people.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the day after pill?

The value of any human life is not objective. There is simply no such thing as objective value to be found in our entire universe.

These problems are entirely artificial and sustained by capitalism. It's just all the more proof of how dehumanizing and horrible this system is. And we're both already agreed on that.

It would also do that if we went full Holla Forums and just exterminated every demographic that has social problems.

But we don't want that because it's morally reprehensible.

What if I'd rather not leave a pile of shit for future generations to deal with?
Do I go to the wall too?

I'll give it my best shot. So, the question as to whether abortion is acceptable as such is a question of axioms. Namely, when does a fetus etc. become a legally protected person. Infanticide is illegal, so the moment the fetus becomes an infant, it cannot be terminated. People disagree on when this transition occurs, with the secular crowd generally going for "when it can survive outside of the womb". Medical technology and understanding has pushed this boundary back until a few months before the typical nine month gestation.

The second question is, what rights should women have? The right to kill their children is not among those. Therefore, depending on when you consider the fetus to become a person, a women can or can't have a right to terminate the pregnancy. There can also be other considerations, of course: you can say that a fetus isn't a person, but still ban abortion for reasons of population growth. Here the autonomy of the woman is curbed in the interest of Society.

Now, socialism generally supports equality and autonomy for women, so as soon as you have a largely secularized society, the socialists in it will favor abortion by default, barring a desire to increase the population or whatever.

Socialism isn't pro-abortion as such, but because of the support for autonomy of women, it will trend that way as soon as society becomes secular. You can be a socialist and oppose abortion, no problem; it just means you have an axiomatic disagreement on an issue not related to socialism. Anyone who disagrees with that is simply blind to their own (moral) ideology (probably an obnoxious liberal in the Sam Harris vein), and not worth your time.

I don't think lampreys should abort their spawn either tho.

If you are unable to understand the difference between sentience and consciousness you shouldn't talk about ethics. We are biologically omnivores, you can't make us chose between health and your precious little animals.

it's not strawmanning to accuse you of holding your own political positions

also nice implicit admission that you were strawmanning me

Do you think killing a lamprey should be illegal?

then don't abort the baby that's inside you. i for one don't care about the future generation so i will.

You're making the same mistake than dumb tankies saying "if we remove the bourgeois, the problems will go away"
If you dont suppress the conditons that are creating debt, another group will start doing it because you need to borrow money to keep increasing markets size and create new ones, because the money that should coming back to the circuit is instead perpetually drained out of it to create more money through speculation rather than to create new activity.
If you just kill creditors, new ones arise and if that become an habit, at some point no one loans money anymore and the Great Depression will looks like a small hiccup.

They're not white so their death doesn't really bother me.

The original argument wasn't about sentience, it was about usefulness etc. Also be nice to animals okay. Thank you.

Brilliant


I fully agree. That's the exact kind of mentality I'm trying to criticize.

People should have an unconditional right to life and be able to expect a decent degree of freedom and social support.
Likewise, animals and their environments should be protected and not just be taken as a resource for human satisfaction.

so the earth has unlimited number of resources to fulfill unlimited demands?

If only your mother had the same opinion towards you.

You get the gulag.


You a funny guy you go to wall last.

You're missing the point my dude. It's not really about the present conscious state in which the unborn individual is in, but the fact that there has been a chain of causation been set in motion which will result in a fully grown human. A chain of causation which was set in motion particulary by yourself.

You ignored by other example before; is it not your duty to stop a person from drinking your poisonous drink once you have doubts about wether or not killing this person?

That's a nice fantasy you live in.
Maybe the next sentient species will figure out how to do that.
My bet is either on kangaroos or dolphins.

I am not one bit surprised the people in this thread who don't have any sympathy for unborn babies don't care about animals either.

Why are you so mean?

Fetuses are not people.

That's a very cowardly stance you take on since you're flagless and shrould yourself in mystery about what tendency you adhere to.

when does life begin then

Glad you're in charge of who is and who isn't

Really, what's the big difference to Holla Forums pulling some arbitrary biological twists our of their arse to declare black people non-human

Now post flies laying their eggs in the wounds of people. Now post a tiger munching on a gazelle still crying. Animals are so cute. Nature is so cute.

Well hey if they get aborted turns out it wasn't actually a chain of causation which results in a fully grown human: it was a chain of causation that resulted in an abortion.

No people shouldn't have an unconditional right to life. There's lots of people out there, which simply can not live in society, there for these people must be removed.

Whenever user, who has neither read a biological textbook nor a work of philosophy, thinks it begins

...

to detroit?

When the baby is squeezed and starts to breath. Until there it's only "alive" because the host wants to keep it alive.

Maggots eating the dead flesh of wounds is actually beneficial if you do not have access to superior medical supplies.


The common ancestor to everyone who left africa interbred with neanderthals while of course Africans didn't so if we were honest academically we'd be considered a different species than africans.

No. A chain of causation is defined by the absence of human interferance. If you poison somebody but your victim gets shot before the poison kills him, you're still charged with murder.
t. law student

life itself begins pretty much right after conception, but that's just a cell lump, not much more than bacteria.
the point is tho, when conception happens coincidentally, you think one should just carry it out and live a fucked up life because I drew a bad ticked at the biological lottery?
you see, humans fuck not just to reproduce, they do it cause it's fun.

Ultimately we don't actually need to determine EXACTLY where personhood begins (if we cared about where LIFE begins we wouldn't use antibiotics, after all.) We can err on the side of caution and figure out when it DEFINITELY hasn't. Looking at what other stuff we consider to definitely not be people and comparing it to stages of fetal development, we can end up with a pretty safe "second trimester abortions are okay."

I think you should consider that my argument is fundamentally a philosophical one. The fetus is in the process of growing, it is only a matter of time until they're a fully grown adult. They're not valuable because they have a specific quality that makes it special from earlier stages of development, it's valuable because of the knowledge that it will one day be grown.

I haven't looked very much into it but from what I understand I don't think I'm going to like it any more than regular abortion.

Yes. Corruption apologists should be deported to USA, after all in USA is socially accepted to be corrupted since 120 million retards voted Hillary or Trump.

Would you kill your little brother because it would be inconvenient for you to watch him for the night?

People – plural of person. In what meaningful way a fetus a person?


When does life begin?
is a completely separate question from
From what point is something a human?
is completely separate from
How should we treat these stages from an ethical POV?

that is a sentient being you fucktard, I oppose destroying sentience. cells don't have sentience

Why do you think we are biologically conditioned to have fun with that

If you don't actually care about inclusivity than stop making the inclusivity arguement. It's a lie because you know people won't accept your real argument.

so go back into the woods then and live an evolutionary designed life

Depends. Which brother? If it's Liam then probably, he's a fucking useless little wanker anyway.

kek, fucking Liam

Your little brother is in a coma and there is no brain activity. Are you going to pull the plug so you can get wasted at a bar?

I'd help you kill Liam, he's an asshole

Again, depends. Is it Liam?

I'm gonna pull the plug regardless of my evening plans

Look at this fancy fucker who doesn't care about his biological condition. The woods. The FUCKING woods.
Stick to the savannah where we fucking belong!

From what moment on do we consider Liam non-eligible for abortion? This little wanker brother of mine always touches my stuff.

srs question

No, but we are nowhere near the limit in terms of regular human demand. We're facing problems because I minute portion of the world are rabidly harvesting and wasting the lions share of the resources.


Not sure if Holla Forums or tankie.


Yes they are.


Why are you so appalled by this but don't think humans should protect animals when we do far more brutal things to them on an industrial scale every day?

I'd say when he leaves for college

Fantastic.

What is my "real argument" do you think?

Probably go out get smashed first then pull the plug in the middle of the night as a prank.
Doing it at the start would put you on a downer and just ruin the night.

People who're against abortion what is your solution to-

1) large number of unwanted children. I certainly do not want the government to take large proportion of my hard earned income as tax revenue to fund the orphanages that would be needed to take in these unwanted children. neither is there a huge demand for unwanted children

2) enforcing a woman to remain pregnant when she does not value the life inside her like you do and can self induce miscarriage safely and then pass it off as an accidental miscarriage.

all while drunkenly yelling "It's just a prank, brah!"

It's called capitalism. Stop injecting morals into issues of political economy. Also, nice job downplaying the complete state of suffering that nature puts animals into.

Evolution doesn't stop. If you look at your physical condition compared to Homo Sapiens 50k years ago, we are less feral compared to back then.