Is Holla Forums for or against abortion?

I'm for it.

Living a life being so mentally and physically deformed is not a life worth living.

Maybe one day when science can help these people I will change my position.

But thats what Capitalism does. There is no profits in funding research to help kids like this. Fucked up imo.

Against it. I ain't religious or nothing, just not blind to the fact that life starts at conception and by 6 weeks a foetus' central nervous system starts to develop which means it knows when it's being sucked through tube or cut to pieces and don't like it one bit.

Any other non-religious pro-lifers out there? I feel like I'm the only one that ain't a fundamentalist Christian…

The fetus is only alive because of the umbilical cord. The fetus can not survive on it's own.
So yes, it's basically like a parasite feeding of the female body.

Abortion is like religion. I'm not for it but it shouldn't be illegal either.

wtf i hate babies now

Awww! Look at the beautiful bouncing babby! Praise Jesus, the mother is so brave!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=O9nviJhPZTA

But pregnant rape victims are a special case and pretty rare. I mean, yeah, poverty and shit is a problem but killing human life shouldn't be the response to that. I'd make an exception for rape victims.

Just abolish capitalism

Unless you are living in a cabin in the woods, you are always going to be a parasite in an industrial society.

Question for you pro-lifers. Whose life comes first? In a situation where is it known that either the mother or the baby will die, who gets the chop?

For it sometimes. When discussing abortion context is key.

It's pretty much consensus in continental jurisprudence that you can't weigh one life against another life

So I'd say in that case it's the mother's decision. But remember this case is also exceptionally rare because you can almost never foresee this

Can't wait for the day they start raising foetuses in artificial wombs like baby Goku and Broly. That ought to be a better alternative to abortion if a mum don't want her baby.

I'm fine with it as long as it's done during the earliest stages, mostly since I can't buy into the concept of a zygote being more alive than separate sperm and ovum.
The fact Burgers allowed abortion beyond the first trimester is strange though.

No, I need dead babbies for their stem cells so I can stay beautiful forever.

The baby if it ain't old enough to survive hooked up to life support outside the womb. If it's like older than 20 weeks I say give her a C-section and try to save both.

Well, there is a massive problem of definition as to when a fetus is indeed a human life. A person in a coma is pretty much as limited as a fetus in terms of doing what humans do.

Basically once you set a causal chain in motion you have to consider the end result. When you pour poison in your brothers coffee, you can't excuse yourself by saying "I didn't make him drink it"

ISHYGDDT

Well it seems to me that abortion is classist.
Certain families just can't afford to raise a child, a baby will just keep them in the lower class forever, since raising one costs about 1 million something dollars over time.
Also "morality" is a spook.

...

I agree, but because a misery is enforced through capitalism doesn't mean that we - as radical leftists - should merely find a patchwork for it. Don't discourage poor people from having children, abolish poverty.

Otherwise you'd have to argue against gun ownership because poverty increases gun violence

Not to mention bourgeois feminists hail abortion for proletariat women as "liberation". Sounds like a coded way of saying "population control" to me.

I've never understood the outrage women have about abortion rights.

Nobody forces them to be pregnant, lmao

The classist bullshit that cones outta these liberal mouths when it comes to the lives of the unborn's fucked up. They always use the "well, it would grow up poor and rely on the state anyway so might as well spare it a hard life" argument to justify it. So much for the tolerant left…

Tbqh the drop in crime is due to the legalisation of abortion.

Shocking

Bring back Roman style infanticide. Babies up to six months should be fair game. The weak must fear the strong.

People against reproductive rights unironically go to the gulag. We have enough fucking people and there is no intrinsic value to just add more bodies to the human machine. Care about people, not clumps of cells.

Sauce?

You idiot.

I personally am against abortion.

I think human life is valuable and we should afford as many people the opportunity to experience it as possible.

If I got you a source it would be the first thing I found from google, look into it and see for yourself. The disproved broken window fallacy in NY gave the mayor popularity because crime was coincidentally dropping when he started enacting the policies based around it, this was the same number of years after abortion was legalised that unwanted children normally started committing crime.

Against, but in a capitalist system that is a bad position to have since it leads to the weakening of the working class and more exploitables for the bourgeoisie. "Not able to afford a kid" which is the most common reason for abortion is only considered acceptable in capitalism.

🎶Crawling in my skiiiiiin…🎶

I think they should be mandatory for everyone.

Natalist scum like you will be the first to go. Bringing people into the world is the greatest crime.

Fucking /r9k/.
I'm for it, abort everyone if you want.

Don't you think economic opportunities and better education would do a better job of bringing down crime rates than just killing all the poor kids on the block? Sounds like some bourge-shit to me…

Then kill yourself.

This is what I don't understand about anti-natalists. You've lived, you decided you don't like it, so why stay?

yeah, we're the classists

I remember being 15

Sort of like socialism under stalin.

Probably, but that's whataboutery.

According to your logic we should just go arround shooting homeless people, because that solves homelessness

fuck off. i like life well enough, that's no reason to bring new unwilling life into the world. No one wants to be born and no one has the right to make that choice for someone.

...

According to your logic we need more homeless people to begin with.

How's it whataboutism? Poverty's the root cause of crime. Lower the poverty rate and you lower the crime rate.

Holy shit, Anglo-Saxon philosophy needs to be eradicated

Banning shit is a bad idea, hierarchy and authority are bad ideas, you will just degrade the quality of abortions.

Killing human life is pretty authoritarian.

The second part of the sentence makes no sense, we could as well just legalize rape so we increase the "quality" of rape

Right, but banning abortion will increase poverty.

Not really muh morals that lead me to this way of thinking, but opening a prenatal science book or two.

It's more like preventing.
Are you advocating for a permanent state?

This is retarded. Of course no one wants to be born because by the time you're conscious enough to "want" anything you must first have been born. It's like saying no one wants to recover from a coma, I'm quite positive they're not in any condition to realize they're in one.

But here is the great thing about suicide. If you've already been born, and you've retroactively decided you would rather not have been you're free to go, you can just kill yourself and negate all considerations. After you're dead you won't even need to remember you suffered, you're already dead. It's like retroactively choosing to not have been born.

On the contrary, if you've been born and you've decided you like living. It's like retroactively deciding that being born was a good thing, it's an implicit admission that it was for the best.

Who gets to define what human life is? You? You are right now the definition of an authoritarian, which is something you hate.

Laws predate states. Jesus fucking Christ. Look at the Corpus Iuris Civilis or any common law in the middle ages

If you are not born you can't miss not being born.

Never being born wins every time

What a stupid form of reductionism is that?

Human life is, something I can not necessarily define or give value.

Yeah but like, are you advocating for a permanent state though? Just anyways.

Yeah, but aborting a baby not to end up poor's only putting a BandAid on a wound in the long run. You're poor cuz capitalism always needs an underdog, not cuz you got pregnant at an inconvenient time. Let's attack the root cause of this shit instead of cannibalizing ourselves.

I forgot anti-natalism is a meme

But it's true

So are you against banning abortion under capitalism? Or are you for banning abortion and going accelerationist with every other policy?

which is why we should never reproduce and encourage voluntary human extinction friendo
We have a duty to save human life though, those already living people and their interests should be protected
nothing against suicide but we should work on stopping people wanting to commit suicide in the first place
what a retarded point, consequentialism truly is cancer. Rape is hardly ok if you've enjoyed it. The same should go for being born. Breeders (especially the intentional ones) are vile, selfish scum.

But concerning this very issue you sort of have to. Can't weasel yourself out of this one. You clearly aren't dealing with just one body, so that argument doesn't work.

No, why would I? I'm ML, we believe in withering away of state and shit

Consequentialism.

Not even once.

Abortion should be legal until the moment of birth.

It's morally fine for ~4 more months, but birth is a nice conservative cutoff.

The central nervous system starts to form at just 6 weeks though, m8. That means foetuses can feel pain by then and feeling pain's a natural instinct to warn you of danger to keep you alive. Already in the womb they've got that fear of death that every living thing's got in them.

...

Ideology in its purest form

Huh? Yeah…the second one, I guess…

Humanity is like a type of monkey, and we can change that, but one that has thoughts and perceptions is more important than one that doesn't, by value of being able to believe it is more important, while the other can not do that and wouldn't care.

How many decades after the revolution?

I disagree. As far as I'm concerned "living" is the only thing that matters and the closest thing identifiable to an objective good in light of god's non-existence.
I agree with the premise, I disagree with the conclusion (in a sense). We shouldn't prioritize the interests of the living over the interests of the foetus unconditionally. Both need to be considered and unless the birth of the foetus would kill either party it is the ultimately better result that the foetus be born as both get to continue living. This is why I also think it's important that we have a well-funded and comprehensive adoption system, as once the baby is born it can pursue a good life and the parent does not need to have anything to do with it after that point. The only thing that needs to happen is that they have to endure pregnancy and childbirth, rather than committing someone else to non-existence.
I agree, I'm just saying that if you're so decisively opposed to people being born then there is no logical reason not to kill yourself unless you think in your case that being born was for the best. In which case it's silly to be anti-natalist.
Where is your argument?
If you're alive, and you're enjoying yourself, why is it so bad that you were born?
Because it violated your autonomy (this is where I assume you were going with the rape point)? Well guess what, before you were born you did exist, non-existent things do not have autonomy, they cannot make choices or think or feel. They're only guided by the decisions of we here in the material world.

You can't both divide foetus' and already born people into two distinct categories of "not living" and "living" only to turn around and act indignant that we've violated the foetus' autonomy. You've already admitted it's not (in a manner of speaking) living, how the fuck does it have any autonomy to violate?

Only biologically. There are so many reasons as to why humans are not animals. The ability to contemplate about our own existence is probably the most significant one.

Again, then why don't we kill people having a dreamless sleep? You're engaging in crude consequentialism, completely ignoring that it is in our nature (not human nature, but nature of mammals) that we are required to have a warden everytime we aren't masters of our own determination - which we aren't 24/7

Stop trying to derail the discussion. Anarchists hardly have a track record which would justify shitting on other people's tendencies.

Hope you've got your polling card and are preparing to vote Conservative in a week then :^)

Considering that 90% of the mainstream leftist movements are pure cancer, I might as well vote conservative. At least they don't tank the economy like SocDems.

How much is the Express nowadays? Around 60p?

Can you explain why? I understand and consider living to be good and desirable for those alive but why does it matter for it to continue? Do you think it matters whether we're here or not? I think there's nothing wrong with a human/people-free world.
I don't disagree, I hijacked this thread in part, i'm not explicitly for abortion. I think mothers have a right not to give birth and it shouldn't be forced to do so and thus think abortion should be allowed but we really should do our best to stop people wanting to have abortions in the first place (through widespread proliferation of contraception and ensuring that families' wellbeing isn't harmed by new children)
I think once someone is conceived they should be kept safe for the most part as long as this doesn't harm the mother.
I'm an anti-natalist not on a utilitarian basis but on the basis of consent and individual liberty/autonomy. I have nothing against existing life, rather I think its wrong and inconsiderate to bring new life into the world. And since I see no value in continued human existence for its own sake I would like to see humanity peacefully die out.
I don't do this. I think since there is no positive desire to be born (and there can't be) people should be brought into the world. I don't think this is some great demand to make.

I'm not a britbong so I wouldn't know.

are you fucking retarded?

If you're selling veganism, you can fuck right off. The parts of being human that are worth anything aren't "flinches away from pain" and "can perform fixed action patterns". A human lacking those isn't ennobled by sharing a category with people that do have them, any more than a chimp or a pile of human meat or a terminal dementia patient.

Personally I support it but women should have the right not to have an abortion

Yes, but I'll let address two objections you raised first and let those segue into explaining why.
Well yes because I like living, and I'm going to make the reasonable assumption that so does everyone else - with the exception of those that have killed themselves or would kill themselves were it not for material constraints like being in maximum-security prison for instance. When it comes to being alive the most fundamental choice there is to make before all else is do we want to be alive or do we want to be dead. In the case of the latter I think people should have every freedom to act on that and cease living. Otherwise it's at least implicit that being alive is the more preferable option from which all else that we may consider "good" springs forth, in that way much like god living is the font of all that is "good". Fun, beauty, fulfilment, all that we may consider "good" is owed to being alive so in a manner of speaking we may consider it the ultimate good.

Considering whether it matters whether we're here or not is looking at this matter from the wrong way around I think. It doesn't matter if it matters, there is simply the brute material fact that we are here and what we must consider in light of that is basically just, what now? Would we rather go back to non-existence or continue living, and that's a personal choice to make that you must first be alive in order to make.

Well I suppose so but that would be purely because there would be no one alive to deem it "bad". I think humans are still in the habit of considering "good" and "bad" as if they're inherent facts of the universe rather than just ideas we imprint onto the universe by virtue of our own existence. This is why "in light of god's non-existence" is important, the only real source of morality is ourselves yet we still seem to be in the habit of considering the universe as if there's an external arbiter. If it came to be that the entire human race was wiped out without anyone realizing it there wouldn't be anything "wrong" with it but that's just because no one is left to say so. Otherwise we right now are here, and I think I would prefer a world with people in it than one without, so I'm saying there would be something wrong with it. From my perspective it sounds like it would be worse off.

I agree with this idea, abortion is a symptom of greater societal ills that we ought to address if abortion is such a hot topic. But I still don't think abortion should be allowed unless complications in birth or pregnancy would kill either the mother or the baby.

This is what I'm saying earlier. Prior to early childhood people aren't conscious entities, they only achieve the consciousness required to be able to make choices and have autonomy in later life. A foetus in this way is like any other non-sentient entity, even like inanimate matter, much like clay doesn't have any consciousness to reject being moulded into shape a foetus doesn't have any consciousness to reject being born. But unlike clay a foetus will eventually achieve the consciousness necessary to consider its own existence. This is why I say we shouldn't allow abortion but should allow euthanasia, at the point when the foetus becomes conscious and can choose if it likes living or not it should be allowed to kill itself if it chooses not. And indeed the only way it can develop autonomy and the ability to make a choice is by being born.

In that sense by aborting it you're pre-emptively denying it that autonomy and unilaterally condemning it to non-existence.

If you acknowledge that there is no positive desire to be born because there cannot be, don't you think it's worth allowing the foetus to develop until a point at which it can make its own choices? That way it can choose if it wants to exist or not rather than having non-existence chosen for it before it has any means of input.

Im against it.

against it
but should be decided by the mother if its related to her or baby`s health

you misunderstand, my point was not about whether it matters for us as living people whether we exist, of course it does, rather I'm concerned about whether it matters that humans continue existing. You said that 'living' is closest to an objective good which I interpreted as you saying we should proliferate it and maximise the amount of living. I disagree with this since I don't think the world is made better (or worse) by humans existing. I don't see any reason for us to have a drive towards the perpetuation of the species.
Its not that I think humans are bad and the world will be better or 'more good' if we're gone. Rather I think that since procreation is a violation of autonomy, and there's no reason or us to reproduce that outweighs this, it shouldn't be done and us peacefully going extinct through not reproducing isn't a bad thing at all.
I agree and think abortion should be avoided, still I think no woman should be forced to go through with childbirth and while alternatives should be considered, in cases where the pregnancy was accidental in particular, the mother should be allowed to abort the pregnancy, ideally abortions will never have to happen.
This is a very silly idea. This makes out that we have an obligation to reproduce at all times because whenever we do not we are denying an unconvinced person the opportunity to become sentient and choose whether they wish to exist or not. There is nothing wrong with non-existence and we simply should never procreate. Once a person is conceived we should keep them safe and ensure their wellbeing since the deed is done but we should avoid procreation at all times.

fucking utopians

abortion should be up to the parents, and ultimately the mother if they disagree (you can't be half pregnant).

Giving birth is not called "labor" for no reason. Carrying a pregnancy is also labor, and a sort that causes dramatic changes to the body, and in some cases can be health or even life-threatening. Forcing someone to perform that labor against their will is a form of slavery, and no person or government should have such a right.

The viability standard has it about right. A zygote or fetus before that time is not in any rational sense the equivalent of "a person" and should in no way be granted equivalent rights. Persons have functioning brains, nervous systems and self awareness. A zygote does not. And up to the period of viability provides the mother plenty of time to decide whether they wish to have the child or not.

Well personally I think it does because I like what humans have done thus far and like the idea of them continuing to do so after my death. But ultimately it's a personal choice whether you want to bring more humans into the world or not.
Why isn't it? If humans didn't exist a lot of the things I like, such as Holla Forums would not exist. Likewise that would also mean I wouldn't be here to enjoy them, and I think it's good that I am.
You don't necessarily need to have a borg-like prioritization for the proliferation of the human race as procreation is really a personal decision. It's not a matter of whether we all choose to create future generations, it's a matter of if two people decide they would like to have children - usually for reasons besides "so the human race lives on".
I raised my objection to this line of thinking and you address that later on in your post so I'll just address this together with that later point.
I don't think so. Of course going through pregnancy and childbirth for a child you do not want would be pretty bad. I think it's the lesser evil compared to condemning someone else to total non-existence. To me it seems like by aborting a foetus you're pre-emptively robbing it of all the good that comes with being alive and that seems nothing short of diabolical. What would have been someone's life is simply negated on someone else's decision. When comparing that, with someone who is already living having to endure 9 months of pregnancy the latter is the preferable scenario.

Ideally no woman should be forced to go through childbirth. But equally no person should be forced to not exist either. It's a no win scenario in which we must choose what is the more tolerable evil.
I think you're missing part of my view that maybe I haven't elaborated on. It's not that human life should be proliferated as much and as often as possible. It's that a foetus is already in a manner of speaking a person, it's not the potentiality of a person, it's the most crude and basic form of a person and provided it doesn't die it will inevitably develop into an adult. We should not be looking out for it because we seek to proliferate life. We should be looking out for it because it already is alive, it's just undeveloped.

This brings me back to the earlier point of why procreation isn't a violation of autonomy. A foetus is a person that is not sufficiently developed to be able to make choices, it does not have autonomy however it will someday. We should seek to protect this autonomy by protecting the foetus until it has grown to a point at which it is able to choose existence or non-existence. When it is an adult it's perfectly able to make that decision by leaving things as they are (existence) or by killing itself (non-existence). That is the point in which it has autonomy.

And as I raised the point earlier which you acknowledged, if we're to consider bringing it into existence a violation of autonomy we must also consider condemning it to non-existence a violation of autonomy. In either case a choice as been made for a foetus that is beyond its control. The only way to give the foetus any autonomy is by ensuring it develops to the point at which it is able to make choices and choose of its own accord whether it wants to exist or not.

I do not agree. From we existing now we owe all the things that we consider "good" to our existence, that is the point from which it all springs. On the obverse we may consider non-existence to be the absence of all that good, or to hijack Christian apologetics terminology, we may consider that absence of good to be evil.

You must be a real joy at parties.

Pro abortion unless there is a need to grow the population in a certain country, which I can't imagine could be the case anywhere in today's world.

Nobody apart from the retards are *for* abortion, everyone want less of it. Personaly speaking I think it should be available as an option but contraception would negate a great deal of its need unless people are idiots. (rape, health risks, deformities, and teen uncertainty etc would probably be the only remaining reasons for it)

fucking really mate?

...

You believe in a holy ghost you haunted motherfucker you can't call anyone retarded.

But surely these things have no intrinsic value? They are good but only as long as you or others are there to enjoy them. Future human achievements only have value if you already assume future human generations.
But its not your choice to make. No one has the right to make the choice to make someone exist against their will. Its not so hard to restrain your selfish desires and respect the autonomy of the non-existent.
But if you didn't exist, as you wouldn't, it would be perfectly fine.

As long as a child is not viable it is parasitic on the mother and I think the choice should rest with her, to do otherwise is to take away her liberty and enslave them to their child. As children become viable earlier and earlier we will be able to save more of them but for now while a child is still not viable their burden cannot be shouldered by society abortion should be permitted.
I agree, you seem to be misunderstanding my point, I'm not saying we should kill foetuses because they aren't willingly in the world, quite the opposite. I think foetuses should be for the most part protected and abortion should be avoided. I oppose the act of conception in the first place. Once the deed is done the child is a person and has to be cared for as long as it doesn't impinge on the mother's liberty, but I object to the creating of people in the first place.
this is rubbish. To not interfere with something cannot be violating its autonomy. By choosing to not reproduce you are not condemning something to non-existence (if that were so you are constantly guilty of this whenever you are not impregnating/being impregnated). You are leaving it in its state of non-existence. Only by choosing to, or unwittingly committing the act of conception do you violate the autonomy of the person.
I disagree since I don't hold good and evil to be properties (or lack thereof) rather I consider good to be individual liberty, that is the freedom that does not infringe on that of others. Good is the natural state of the world, the actions of people are what can bring evil (the infringement on the liberty of others) into the world.

There's no such thing as intrinsic value. This is what I was saying earlier. The only value that matters is the value we imprint onto things, and I'm here doing that.

Likewise it's not necessary to assume future human generations (not that we shouldn't anyway). We're already here to consider future possibilities good or not, as said existence is a brute fact.

I know, and as said the only way to do so is to allow it to develop to the point at which it has autonomy and can make its own choices about whether it wants to exist or not. Condemning it to non-existence is making that choice for them.

But that's irrelevant as I do exist, and on that basis I can say it's not fine at all.
It is, to an extent. But the alternative is to condemn the child to non-existence. 9 months is pregnancy is the lesser evil when compared to a lifetime of not existing.

Okay, but I think I've addressed separately why existence is good. In any case that comes up later so I'll just move on to address your objections.

I think you've misunderstood my argument. It's not discussing not-reproducing. It's discussing abortion. And by aborting something you are interfering with it.
Then raise your objections as to why.

And that is only made possible through existence. Returning to the point that existence is the font of all good.

If there were no people there would be no individual liberty. Simply because there would not be any individuals.

It makes more sense to address these in reverse order
Not true. Liberty is independent of people. When the aim is to avoid the infringement of liberty of others the lack of any 'others' is perfectly compatible. When there's no humans, there's no way to violate liberty other species still do though.
I haven't. I've pointed out that I'm arguing for anti-natalism not for abortion previously, see
I've already explained why not reproducing isn't condemning someone to non-existence.

I simply claim that to create a person is to violate their autonomy and since there are no good reasons for procreation which outweigh a persons liberty we shouldn't do it.

Spooky fucking thread guys. Not suprised because it is one of liberals favorite subjects.

Exactly, because there is no liberty. Not in that liberty is totally infringed upon and therefore non-existence. But in that it is totally negated. In fact the idea of "infringing" on liberty acknowledges that liberty is a positive phenomenon of which there can be a greater or lesser amount. In the absence of people that consideration is negated as there is neither more nor less of it, it is simply annihilated along with other human abstractions.

If we consider liberty to be the freedom of choice there can be no choice without humans to make them, ergo there can be no freedom in making them.

I'm aware, but nonetheless I was arguing against abortion in that passage. It doesn't really make sense to address it as if I was aware of the main premise of your argument, when at the time of writing I was still under the impression that abortion was the topic at hand given it was the original source of the argument before you arrived.

And I've already explained that I'm talking about abortion.

From inception the topic of debate was abortion, at least that was my understanding. If you haven't been debating that all along then there's not really any point in continuing to follow my arguments that are specifically addressing abortion and not general anti-natalism.

And I've already outlined why I consider bringing people into existence to be a good thing, and indeed "potential people" if you will (since they're not even foetuses yet, rather they're purely theoretical) do not have autonomy to be violated any more than a clay sculpture not yet formed has autonomy. They are an idea, only unlike a piece of clay a potential person will one day develop to a point where they are conscious and do have autonomy. It is at that point where they may decide if they want to exist or not by deciding whether or not to kill themselves.

morally against it, but it should be free for all women to do it if they want

Dumb, spooky, moralfag thread scum.

Holy shit is this thread a Holla Forums raid or something? Who fucking cares if someone wants to abort a goddamned fetus.

No one is for abortion they are for the personal option of abortion.

What species is it, then?

I am

I'm against criminalising abortion, but I think there's something weird about the way liberals tend to fetishise abortion as the maximum expression of individual freedom and empowerment, rather than a last resource measure for severe birth defects or birth control failure. When in fact, people are deprived of freedom in all other sectors of life. Maybe some women do want to be independent professionst porkies, that's in fact encouraged by capitalism, but what about the ones who want to have kids and raise a family? that's become increasingly difficult.

jacobinmag.com/2017/05/handmaids-tale-margaret-atwood-trump-abortion-theocracy

I am pro-death. Every fetus should be aborted.

Fuck don't remind me. When this article dropped so many fucking "leftist" women on my feed sperged the fuck out about "brocialists" because "how dare they diminish the problem of lack of access to healthcare" and a bunch of other retarded shit. Ignoring of course that the author here isn't a guy. I seriously fucking hate liberal infiltrators.

I find it more odd conservatives don't support technology to greatly reduce abortions.

Abortion should be legal and free at any time during pregnancy and any attack on working-class women's reproductive rights should be frustrated by force if necessary.

Except it is.

80% of american conservatism is virtue signaling to evangelicals though

There goes my knee.

...

...

not like you would have any opportunity to use one

How about realistic sex bots with AI and augmented reality and VR porn with tactile sensory input?

this.

can you believe there are people who wake up and think "what our country really needs is more unwanted children and impoverished mothers"

vasectomy is the best way to go

good under capitalism, as the child may end up being sent out as an orphan or killing the household its in because they cannot afford it. Bad under communism since no one would need to worry about that sort of thing. Of course you have the arguments about when the baby has a bunch of defects or if it's a rape baby but those are different matters

If they didn't want children and didn't take precautions then they deserve to be sterilized. Evolution dictating, such lack of sexual hindsight, what can be described as an evolutionary boon as it increases reproduction, these people, as in, the people who get the most abortions due to their complete lack of thought into the matter and then drain the state and fuck up socialism, should be ethnically cleansed.

Basic communism. I wonder who could be so immature, base, and barbaric to have so little demonstrable intelligence, and for it to follow evolutionary guidelines would imply ethnicity.

What ethnicity gets the most abortions and, in abstract, is sexually weak? Generations of such a sickness might even produce a subhuman man, where the evolutionary imperative is that of quantity of individuals, not of naturally selected quality.

Wow, user, why are you so presumptuous?

Can you imagine waking up and thinking "income inequality is a good thing"

"Disproportionately African American and Hispanic"
Poverty rates are to blame, clearly, as poor women have more abortions!

So why is it that poor women, disproportionately African American and hispanic, also have the most children?

Odd, the same group has both the highest birth rates as well as the highest abortion rates. It would mean that, at an already massively disproportionate rate, this particular group of women is hugely predisposed to "unintelligent pregnancies," and thanks to contrary statistics, we know it's not because they're poor: Poor women have more children then wealthy.

It's because they're genetically unintelligent. And before you say intelligence isn't genetic, that 'belief' was scientifically proven false about a week ago. Intelligence is purely genetic.

I'm a communist and I support a new cleansing of these parasites that make socialism impossible. Kill all subhumans.

And remember, Holla Forums, there is no race. There is only Humans. Some humans are not equal to other humans, that is a godly belief. There is no god.
There is no political ideology; There is only Humans, and that which furthers us. Just like in times past, some have to die for the betterment of the whole human organism.

You're welcome.

btw women in the developed world are, on average, having less kids than they would want to. The notion of 'female empowerment' that's promoted by hegemonic media is an explicitly capitalist notion: women can and should be sociopath CEOs just like men. This does jack shit for the average woman, but a lot to redeem CEOs, effectively making capitalism synonymous with social progress. This ideology has even extended to the third world, where women are forced into debt slavery by micro-loans marketed as empowerment by western ONGs. In general, capitalism wants to make everyone believe they are independent entrepreneurs, masking a return to 19th century labor conditions.

*NGOs
english is not my native language

Pro forced abortion.

Except for make pregnancy.

this
human extinction when

edgy

You could either start by killing yourself or just waiting for capitalism to cause extinction.

you forgot calling them "lumpen" and telling anyone who disagrees "ur idpol"

Y'know, I usually only come here to troll you losers but sometimes, SOMETIMES, you're alright.

For. It should be mandatory to be honest.
It is gravely unethical to bring any more life into such a horrible world filled with so much suffering.

Birth rates go down from development of a country. If you want to solve the disproportion you fix the development of the developing and undeveloped countries. The whole concept of having to have an endlessly growing population is bourgeois propaganda to keep capitalism going because the money is debt based so it takes more and more people to counteract that change in value.

Really made me think

I wasn't implying that. As things currently stand now, both 'being a mother' and 'being a CEO' are unattainable bourgeoisie luxuries. some people are community/family oriented than others I guess, to each their own.

I think that, in the end, we essentially have two divergent options here.

Firstly, we should recognize that if a person is seriously considering having an abortion then they are probably not prepared to have a child. This could be due to financial constraints, not being able to miss something like four months of work, or maybe they have some physical or health concern that would keep them from going forward with the pregnancy. Hell maybe they just hate kids. In any case, if they're considering aborting it tells us that they aren't or weren't planning on having/wanting a child.

Bearing that in mind, we can either-

1. Force the individual to carry the child to term, at which point they can put it up for adoption or keep it.
2. Allow the abortion and terminate the pregnancy.

If we select the first option we have a few new things to consider. Firstly, is it right to force a child into the world without parents to care for it? This is, I think, compounded by how unfortunate most adoption agencies and orphanages are organized.
Secondly, it has to be remembered that even before there was an 'abortion procedure' people were still managing to scramble the fetus before it developed further, either via sharp metal rod or by repeated trauma to the woman's stomach. Banning the practice of abortion will necessarily endanger the lives of many pregnant individuals who seek the abortion regardless of local law.
Third, if you don't want a kid but are forced by the state or whatever local power rules you, is that child going to have the kind of upbringing that will allow them to self-actualize and properly care about other human beings? Being born into a family which does not really want you, to people who may not be able to properly show you love, is probably a pretty good way to acquire some form of abuse and bad coping habits as a result.

Whereas, what is truly lost by allowing abortion? To my mind there are already too many orphans. The planet has no shortage of spare children, partially in thanks to all of the atrocities humans keep committing against one another. Why force someone to try and care for a child they may indeed not be able to properly care for or love? This has always struck me as the fundamental hypocrisy of anti-abortion protestors. There is so much good that could be done for needy children without parents that already exist - yet there are individuals out there that wish to impose some sort of 'morality' on others by forcing them to create children which will not receive love or good homes?

Seems wrong to me, though I realize that I prioritize human happiness over human quantity.

If I start cloning a fetus in a lab, should I be forced at gunpoint to continue the process to completion?
Because breeding is cloning with the body as the lab

I just don't think fetuses have any of the qualities that give a human life value to me

Mostly oppose, at least past the point where we can reasonably expect the child to feel pain from it, or when the child has a genetic disease. Not that I would ban it, but I will judge people who get late-term abortions for no good reason harshly.

They couldnt feel anything till about 20 weeks development. Most abortions happen way before that and just about all the one at that point beyond are medical reasons.

One the one hand I like killing babies, but I hate it when women are free to choose things…

Most animals have a central nervous system, I assume you are a strict vegetarian who does not wear leather user?

For but against but for but against.

For: Well, fuck forcing someone to keep a kid they don't want
Against: I mean, I do regard it as a human or a human to be, ideally if we had the technology to suck it out and grow it in a tube that would be a better "third option" since nobody dies but the mother doesn't have to deal with it.
For: In any case life is shit and that technology doesn't exist.
Against: I don't really like women so if promising to restrict abortion rights could get the Conservative Christian demographic voting for nationalisation, sorry girls you're fucked. (Or perhaps, you shouldn't be if you want to avoid having kids, even…)

So basically I tend to ignore the issue.

Peter Hitchens was broadly right in talking of the ideology of our times being selfism, encapsulated in the phrase "Nobody has the right to tell me what to do with my body." with all else being held subservient to it. (Including notions of civic duty, or being enabled to harm another because it's inside you.)

Now I mean in that circumstance I have to emphasise I just don't care about abortion (or the preservation of life), but it does seem a good encapsulation of the basic mindset. My body, fuck yours.

Why not both?

Now this I can't stand for.
Conservatives wreck the economy. Every period of high inflation and low growth that SocDems got the blame for was caused by a conservative chancellor. (Except the Lawson Bubble, which everyone just agrees to forget.)

Also: Read Peter Hitchens. The "Conservative" party conserves nothing and is basically just New Labour.

You can be independent - indeed, far more independent - if you kill the little sperm before abortion'o'clock.
Abortion means "I fucked up every other stage of birth control and now have to undergo an invasive medical procedure to avoid 9 months of hell", yet it's semi-celebrated as a means of independence instead of a last-chance termination of a big mistake.

I mean, people are spooked about the non-whites having big families so Ceaușescuing up the birth rate for whites might get muh railway nationalisation through…

You individually? Nah, but why shouldn't some porky research lab be forced to?
(Except perhaps the economic utility of stem cells, I could easily be convinced to start an abortion-train if I was strongly convinced of that. Sorry babies, adult lives matter more!)