Abortion is morally wrong — and it's sexist and racist, too

[Crazy CanuckMember 4215]

"If pussy was a stock it would be plummeting right now because you've flooded the market with it. You're giving it away too easy." - Dave Chapelle

[bob__Participant 946]

Doesn’t a baby mean 216 monthly payments either in child support or welfare? So why would women kill them? Because they want to focus on “careers”?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Abortion as birth control is nothing more than letting women murder the living consequences of their sexually “empowered” narcissistic lifestyles.

A dozen forms of pre-conception birth control weren’t enough… women are so irresponsible and so full of themselves that they couldn’t be bothered to do these things and so demanded the right to undo the very act of creating a living human being just so that they can f~~~ around and not have to be inconvenienced.

Let me be clear… as a farmer, I can tell you very clearly that a seed is not a plant, but that a sprouted seed is. This process is called “germination” and it is at this point that the seed (the “germ”) begins the process of developing into the more complex thing that it’s coded to be. As a rational human being, I will argue that the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, known as “conception” is the same thing for humans.

This is the basis of my argument that abortion is the destruction of a human being to be. I won’t use the words life or person or soul because these words are too problematic but I will say that terminating that now active process is just as unethical as if you let the little f~~~er grow up and get sent off to war to be killed over a sand dune or if you just shot the prick in the face yourself.

No, life is not sacred. It’s cheaper than pig s~~~ and about as appealing for most people. And no, no lives matter, either. The universe doesn’t give a toss about who lives and who dies. But if you can argue at all that such a thing as ethics even exists, you have to argue that destroying a non-combatant life, particularly so that you can keep the consequence-free c~~~ party rolling, is a perfect example of unethical behavior.

Your thoughts?

[sidecarParticipant 35874]

Morally schmorally. It’s a f~~~load cheaper than child support or welfare.

Stargazer wrote:

A dozen forms of pre-conception birth control weren’t enough… women are so irresponsible and so full of themselves that they couldn’t be bothered to do these things and so demanded the right to undo the very act of creating a living human being just so that they can f~~~ around and not have to be inconvenienced.

It’s still more responsible than the ones who go ahead and have the little welfare meal ticket and inconvenience everyone else. And when I say “inconvenience everyone else” I mean “bankrupt the nation”.

Nineteen and a third trillion dollars in debt and counting.

[eqlifeSpectator 370]

sidecar wrote:

Morally schmorally. It’s a f~~~load cheaper than child support or welfare.

Doc Fenderson wrote:

A dozen forms of pre-conception birth control weren’t enough… women are so irresponsible and so full of themselves that they couldn’t be bothered to do these things and so demanded the right to undo the very act of creating a living human being just so that they can f~~~ around and not have to be inconvenienced.

It’s still more responsible than the ones who go ahead and have the little welfare meal ticket and inconvenience everyone else. And when I say “inconvenience everyone else” I mean “bankrupt the nation”.

Nineteen and a third trillion dollars in debt and counting.

That’s assuming 100% of these unborn children would have grown up in poverty, which is absolutely not the case. Abortions aren’t just for poor people.

[sidecarParticipant 35874]

eqlife wrote:

That’s assuming 100% of these unborn children would have grown up in poverty, which is absolutely not the case.

It’s assuming nothing. The ones who grow up under welfare definitely do grow up in poverty, because that’s what welfare is.

Abortions aren’t just for poor people.

Just? Not even close.

Thanks to a welfare state that encourages, enables, and rewards irresponsible births, the irresponsible poor are the least likely to get them.

[experiencedParticipant]

Stargazer wrote:

But if you can argue at all that such a thing as ethics even exists, you have to argue that destroying a non-combatant life, particularly so that you can keep the consequence-free c~~~ party rolling, is a perfect example of unethical behavior.

this

"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."

[eqlifeSpectator 370]

sidecar wrote:

eqlife wrote:

That’s assuming 100% of these unborn children would have grown up in poverty, which is absolutely not the case.

It’s assuming nothing. The ones who grow up under welfare definitely do grow up in poverty, because that’s what welfare is.

Abortions aren’t just for poor people.

Just? Not even close.

Thanks to a welfare state that encourages, enables, and rewards irresponsible births, the irresponsible poor are the least likely to get them.

Not every “irresponsible birth” will result in momma leeching off taxpayer dollars. People have families that help them raise their children. Believe it or not some of them even turn out alright even if their parents are retards.

I dunno. I’m on the fence about abortion (sure as hell glad I wasn’t aborted tho), but it seems like encouraging them is part of why women lack accountability in the first place. Double edged sword I guess.

[Silverstone the SecondParticipant]

Used to be pro abortion, still am in some cases. But in this day and age with pills, condoms, morning after pills, getting your tubes tied, vasectomies and so on, abortion seems more out of the question than ever. This isn’t the 1900’s people, there are contraceptives.

Anyway, I think it’s funny how women will talk about how motherly and nurturing they are and how women are so much better as parents and it’s women who decide whether to get abortions or not. Nice motherly trait there, murdering your child. Sure, you’re “naturally” the better care giver. Yeah right.

Feminism is a movement where opinions are presented as facts and emotions are presented as evidence.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

sidecar wrote:

It’s still more responsible than the ones who go ahead and have the little welfare meal ticket and inconvenience everyone else. And when I say “inconvenience everyone else” I mean “bankrupt the nation”.

This mode of thinking is predicated on two faulty concepts:

1) that it’s better to clean up the results of the problem than it is to address the cause and

2) that a woman’s right to get pregnant is inviolate

I’m not saying we ban abortion as birth control and then absorb the resulting millions of unwanted babies… im saying we forcibly sterilize children until they can prove via their actions that they are adults capable of reproducing responsibly.

Allowing abortions is like throwing a soldier on a grenade… but it’s a LOT cheaper, easier and more ethical to disarm the grenade than it is to sacrifice the soldier or clean up the results of the explosion.

[narwhalParticipant]

I don’t think forcefully sterilizing women is going to be considered an option by the general public for a long long time, if ever….but I agree on the general concept. There needs to be greater prevention/deterrent/punishment on getting an abortion. I could come up with a problem a dozen different ways to do this, but virtually all of them won’t be acceptable to the general public, have a negative side effect, or create a slippery slope.

I think what makes the most sense to put more control back in the hands of men. That means a male birth control, instead of the conduct. That means giving men actual equal rights in child care. If those two changes occur, it’s not hard to imagine the abortion rate dropping off a cliff. However, women will fight to keep their inflated rights, despite the fact that it would be better for all, themselves included.

Ok. Then do it.

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3726]

sidecar wrote:

Morally schmorally. It’s a f~~~load cheaper than child support or welfare.

I’ve seen a few studies that suggested that the current dramaitc decrease in the violent crime rate (down something like 65% percent in the last 10 – 20 years) is due in no small part to Roe v. Wade and access to abortion. When you think about it, most babies that are aborted likely weren’t going to be cinderella stories, and regardless of the mother’s family’s economic status, would likely have grown up in poverty, neglect, and even abuse – the perfect recipe for a felon.

narwhal wrote:

That means a male birth control, instead of the conduct.

Ask and ye shall receive.

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[sidecarParticipant 35874]

eqlife wrote:

Not every “irresponsible birth” will result in momma leeching off taxpayer dollars.

That’s not the point.

What matters is that every single momma leeching off taxpayer dollars is the result of an irresponsible birth.

Stargazer wrote:

1) that it’s better to clean up the results of the problem than it is to address the cause and

“Better” has nothing to do with anything. When you say “better” you are trying to make a moral argument.

Morals schmorals.

It’s CHEAPER.

An abortion costs a few hundred dollars, most of which is unnecessary legal liability overhead.

Raising a fetus into some approximation of adulthood costs untold thousands upon thousands of dollars. And then you have to pay for the next generation as the female half of those fetuses in turn get pregnant and go on welfare. Rinse repeat.

A few hundred dollars versus thousands upon thousands upon thousands generation after generation.

Do the math.

2) that a woman’s right to get pregnant is inviolate

It’s not a matter of rights. It’s a matter of responsibilities.

When women get fat payouts for getting pregnant, regardless of what their rights are, they WILL find a way to get pregnant.

On the whole I am in favor of maximal rights. A government with the power to force sterilizations also has the power to enforce its will in other ways. Ways you might not want.

It’s much better to maximize individual rights, but make damn sure those individual rights are balanced by the individual responsibilities that should go with them.

The problem we have isn’t a woman’s “right to get pregnant”. The problem is WOMEN HAVE ZERO RESPONSIBILITIES FOR GETTING PREGNANT. None whatsoever. She doesn’t have to pay to raise the child. The taxpayer does. She doesn’t even have to raise the child at all. She can abandon it at any “safe haven” jurisdiction and walk away clean and scot free. She not only has a right to get pregnant, but a ridiculous privilege to have everyone else pay for her pregnancy instead of her.

When was the last time you heard of a man being able to legally walk away from any responsibility for a child? Never, that’s when.

Which brings us to the other half of the problem: While women have all the reproductive rights and ZERO REPRODUCTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES, men have zero reproductive rights but all the reproductive responsibilities.

Anyone can see how that will result in problems.

The solution isn’t forced sterilizations. A government with that sort of overreaching power is not a government any free man wants to live under. The solution isn’t male birth control, because even if 99.9% of men use it, women will still get pregnant for the monthly welfare check by the 0.1% of men who don’t.

No, the only solution is a correction of rights to responsibilities. If women are going to insist on having the sole right to reproductive choice, then women should have the sole responsibility to pay for their reproductive choices. The solution is less government, not more. End welfare. Dismantle the welfare machine. End child support, especially child support from unwilling fathers on paper only. Dismiss the family courts. End safe haven abandonment laws. Less government. If a woman CHOOSES to have a child, then she should be CHOOSING to fully support that child into adulthood. And if she can’t? Well then imprison her just like is done today to “deadbeat dads”.

The most she should ever get at taxpayer expense is a zero cash value voucher redeemable for an abortion, and that’s just to make damn sure she has no excuses. But it’s unlikely many such vouchers will be needed, because when women know they are solely on the hook if they get pregnant, they’ll be a lot more careful with their many birth control options.

When reproductive responsibility lays where it should, on the heads and shoulders of women with the sole right to choose, women will start making more responsible reproductive choices. Or pay the price themselves.

Problem solved.

[Professor ChaosParticipant 489]

The last thing the United States and the rest of the world needs is more teen mothers and people who don’t want to be parents forced into bringing another life into the world.

Yes, people should be responsible enough to use birth control but it’s not a perfect world. People make mistakes.

I don’t understand why so many MGTOW are extreme pro lifers.

[God is DeadParticipant 63]

Morals and ethics are relative, no? They can vary significantly from person to person.

I can understand how and why abortion is seen as morally reprehensible by some people, however I have no qualms over it. Here are my reasons:

-The world is not only overpopulated, but grows even moreso exponentially everyday (if it weren’t for abortions throughout the ages I’m pretty sure the human population would’ve reached it’s carrying capacity by now)

-Considering the fact that a woman must endure childbirth (something that is excruciatingly painful, judging by all of the videos I’ve seen), I think it’s only fair to give them the option to abort out of the situation; however, if abortions were physically impossible, the act of birthing a child in and of itself would be a strong deterrent to getting knocked-up

-If we were to somehow outlaw abortion, the women (some of whom would’ve gotten an abortion legally and safely regardless) will just go to illegal back-alley clinics, or resort to more drastic and dangerous methods such as doing it themselves

Now, I feel as if the morality of abortion (or immorality as it were) is closely tied to religion. Most people of faith view all life as precious, ergo detatching the umbilical cord (it’s “life-support,” so to speak) from the fetus is sacrilegious. Despite all of this, nobody wants to be or be told they’re a “happy mistake” from one or both of the people that they are closest to in this world.

Some of my brothers here are also bothered by how deceased fetuses are operated upon for stem cell research. Yet, I see this as a positive. These aborted fetuses are already dead, where is the harm in using their bodies for science? It’s very similar to being a registered organ donor on your driver’s license: if you’ve already kicked the bucket, why not share pieces of yourself to help enrich or elongate the life of another person? There is a possibility that stem cell research could be the key to finding a cure for cancer. Isn’t that worth searching for? Better than burying them in the ground, flushing them down the toilet, or throwing them away in a dumpster in my opinion! If I was an aborted fetus whose life was prematurely ended, I would want my short amount of time spent on this Earth to have meant SOMETHING, even if that means being surgically sliced and diced; at the very least my life being cut short meant that I may have helped somebody live longer (someone who has already lived at least two to three times the timespan of my own life).

What I don’t understand is how it is “sexist” and “racist.” Perhaps it is “sexist” because only women can be impregnated and therefore have an abortion? That’s fine, I’ve had no desire to be with child my whole life (one of the many reasons I’m proud and glad to be male). And it is “racist” because he wants his donation to go towards African Americans? Why does this matter? It reminds me of donations at several of my workplaces, wherein you can choose upon being hired if you want a portion of your weekly paycheck to go towards a good cause and you can then choose which organization to support with weekly donations.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Professor Chaos wrote:

Yes, people should be responsible enough to use birth control but it’s not a perfect world. People make mistakes.

Approximately 59 million “mistakes” have been aborted in the US since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973. Fifty nine million. Mao made some mistakes… Stalin and Hitler made a few mistakes too.

For me, this isn’t about preserving human lives. Yes, I am Team Human, of course, but I know that infanticide is a perfectly natural response to survival pressure. When it comes down to the choice between what’s best for a child and what’s best for a reproducing mother, the mother is more important.

We can talk about letting women pop out babies and leaving it up to society to take care of them if we want but it’s not about that. What it’s about is selfish women deciding that having fun and ignoring responsibility is more important than the life of a child and I say it isn’t.

I do not see how anyone could argue that it is.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

God is Dead wrote:

Morals and ethics are relative, no? They can vary significantly from person to person.

No, morals and ethics are not relative. Truly moral behaviors are those which promote and preserve the life of the individual and ethical behaviors are those which do the same for others which is, itself, also preservng the individual.

This has nothing to do with religion, nor with utility. It’s really quite simple… as a people, we simply do not mass murder our own children.

How much more clearly must this be stated? Nearly 60 million aborted children in the US since Roe v. Wade represent a literal ocean of blood and tiny, broken bodies. And all of those dealths just so that American women can be have sex without consequence by disposing of the inconvenient results then go back to do it again and again.

Is this what we want to call “good and right” as a society?

[narwhalParticipant]

I hear you Doc, but the thing is that those who are pro-choice do not see it as murder, they see it as just a bunch of cells. Therefore, your moral argument is irrelevant to them.

As for the ‘cheaper’ argument, yes it’s logical in terms of abortion. However, the argument falls apart when applied universally. If abortion is good/ok because it’s cheaper and mom can’t afford the eventual child, then the same principle should be applied to any child or adult who’s value to the world is ‘in the red’ so to speak. Why don’t we just kill off all the kids and elderly we don’t want. heck, if you’re unemployable adult or disabled, kill them off too? Why don’t we? Because it’s murder, and the cost benefit analysis is irrelevant.

The cost benefit analysis only makes sense in abortion if you do not consider abortion to be murder. Same goes for any other argument for any other pro-abortion argument. It all hinges on the premise that abortion isn’t murder…and falls apart if it is murder.

The way I see it, there are 2 options. You can get on everyone on the same page on what murder is…and that’s not going to happen. Or, you can change the rights and responsibilities regarding childbirth, shifting it back to men. We can all agree that the current set of rights and responsibilities is a huge failure, regardless of what we think about abortions.

Ok. Then do it.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

narwhal wrote:

I hear you Doc, but the thing is that those who are pro-choice do not see it as murder, they see it as just a bunch of cells. Therefore, your moral argument is irrelevant to them.

A six week old fetus is just a bunch of cells. Black people are no better than monkeys. The infidels are lost and killing them is doing them a favor.

People who have something to gain by distorting ethics will inevitably do so and make up whatever reasoning they require to justify it. Put simply, you don’t ask the willful murderer if their actions are ethical because they will simply say yes.

This whole “they don’t believe the truth so the ethics are irrelevant to them” argument is a cop out. Anyone who accepts this is complicit in the murder.

We either treat unwanted pregnancy as a disease and vaccinate children against it at an early age or we dismantle the safe, legal and convenient apparatus of murder, treat abortions as homicide and try both the practitioner and the mother for it whenever it happens.

That and a healthy dose of social pressure are the least we could do.

To be clear… I am not “Pro Life”. I am “Anti Choice”. Nobody has the ethical right to destroy a non-combatant life for pure convenience.

[sidecarParticipant 35874]

Stargazer wrote:

And all of those dealths just so that American women can be have sex without consequence

Wrong.

American women have sex without consequences whether they get an abortion or not. They get welfare. They get child support. They can legally abandon their children in “safe haven” jurisdictions. There are zero consequences and zero responsibilities for women.

It’s men and other taxpayers who have to suffer the consequences of female reproductive choices. They’re the ones paying the taxes to fund the welfare state and paying the child support, not the women. Abortion exists so those people, who have zero choice in the matter, don’t (always) have to pay the consequences for female irresponsibility.

[Author]

Posts