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

[narwhalParticipant]

Ok, so if I were to say that it is morally wrong and unethical to have sex out of wedlock, would that be enough evidence to convince you that it is wrong to have sex out of wedlock? There is certainly a lot of people who believe that to be the case, and it certainly has been the moral standard of much of history, so is that truth too?

I’m guessing that would not be enough for you to agree that sex out of wedlock is wrong. I think it’s the same for people who are pro-choice as well. It is a matter of perspective.

As for your other examples, there is no need to convince people they are wrong because it’s already against the law, regardless of whatever justification the person committing the crime may have. They can go to prison still believing they are justified. Abortion is different because it currently is not a crime. That’s not going to change until public opinion or the law changes…or we find a way so that no one is ever faced with the decision to have the child or get an abortion.

I would fit into the pro-life camp personally. (Although I don’t feel bad about the morning after pill, and that doesn’t sit well with me) However, I just don’t think using the morality hammer is the right tool for the job.

I’ve heard it said that no one really wants to have an abortion, they never want to choose between having an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy. That seems like a better starting point for ending abortions.

Ok. Then do it.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

sidecar wrote:

Doc Fenderson 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.

So, technically, not wrong… just part of a larger problem.

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.

Which is why I advocate for vaccination against unwanted pregnancy. By your logic, a woman will reproduce if she wants to and you simply can’t stop her from leaving the responsibility for that choice on society’s doorstep. No solition = no problem therefore nothing to see here.

THAT is what is wrong. You dont cut down a tree by picking off the leaves… you cut off the branches, saw it off at the trunk then pull it out by the roots.

Safe, legal and convenient abortions are a large branch. Cut it off. Baby surrender is a branch. Cut it off. Social programs for single mothers is a branch. Cut it off. Prune the tree down to the point where there are no branches left then take away the privilege to reproduce at childhood, across the board.

Is it possible? Yes. Politically likely? Not at this point. Ethical? Absolutely. Nobody has a right to embark on a course of action that they can not possibly be responsible for. When society starts forcing women to shoulder the consequences of their choices, they will give up their privileges faster than you can say “Give her a knife and make her cut the baby out herself.”

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

narwhal wrote:

Ok, so if I were to say that it is morally wrong and unethical to have sex out of wedlock, would that be enough evidence to convince you that it is wrong to have sex out of wedlock?

You seem to have a poor grasp of what comstitutes an objective standard of ethics. Note, please, that I am not using the word “moral”. If you can find that the majority of the people in this society believe that it is perfectly ethical to destroy a non-combatant life for personal conveinence, then I will concede that our culture has decided that the murder of unborn children is ethical. But you wont find a handful of people to say that.

As it’s been said already, people justify abortion by saying an implanted fetus is not a human being and therefore destroying it is not murder and then they shift the focus of the argument to women’s control of their bodies, as though denying them the right to kill a fetus is equivalent to raping them. That has turned out to be an effective argument.

[narwhalParticipant]

If by ‘objective’ you mean ‘majority opinion’ then yes, I do know what you mean by an objective standard of ethics.

Regardless, we don’t really disagree about the result, just the argument and reasoning to get there. I’m ok with that.

Ok. Then do it.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Stargazer wrote:

So, technically, not wrong…

No. Just wrong.

Which is why I advocate for vaccination against unwanted pregnancy.

I don’t care what softening euphemism you use for it. It’s f~~~ing eugenics, and you f~~~ing well know it.

ANY GOVERNMENT WITH THE POWER TO FORCE STERILIZATION ON PEOPLE HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE ITS WILL IN OTHER WAYS. Ways you won’t like. What if the same government decides you’re not working at the right job? Or you drive the wrong car? Or you’re living in the wrong place? Or your property isn’t really yours?

By your logic, a woman will reproduce if she wants to and you simply can’t stop her from leaving the responsibility for that choice on society’s doorstep. No solition = no problem therefore nothing to see here.

Are you intentionally not reading what I’m writing?

That’s the problem right now. Women have all the reproductive rights and none of the reproductive responsibilities. And the solution is to put the balance back. Put the responsibilities back with the rights. Stop letting women dump their spawn on the shoulders of society. Eliminate welfare. Eliminate child support from men and instead put it right onto the heads of women where it belongs. Eliminate “safe haven laws”. Eliminate tax credits for children. Make women who CHOOSE to have a child PAY THE FULL PRICE for raising that child.

When women have to pay the full price for their reproductive choices, they will have no option but to make better choices.

And the best part of this solution is it requires less government, not more. A lot less government. And it’s a hell of a lot easier to enact than any fascist forced sterilization scheme. If it’s not done through legislation eventually malthusian forces will force it anyways (though probably by taking down civilization).

But keep abortion legal and make it freely available and free of cost to the recipient, because THEN WOMEN WILL HAVE ZERO EXCUSES FOR MAKING IRRESPONSIBLE CHOICES.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

narwhal wrote:

If by ‘objective’ you mean ‘majority opinion’ then yes, I do know what you mean by an objective standard of ethics.

No, I do not mean that, but I believe most people do. Society must have SOME standard of objective ethics and in the absence of religion, philosophy and strong leaders, mob rule will apparently decide what is right and wrong.

My point was that mob rule has decided abortion is ethical because they are lying to themselves about what constitutes human life. I said if you can find me a majority of people who would agree that it’s okay to destroy a human life for pure convenience, I would accept it but you couldn’t. So that leaves us arguing over what constitutes human life.

My initial argument was that it begins at conception… that is a clear, bright line at which point a sperm and an egg begin the process of becoming the thing they are genetically coded to be, just as germination is such for plants.

Everything else is equivocation.

[God is DeadParticipant 63]

Stargazer wrote:

As it’s been said already, people justify abortion by saying an implanted fetus is not a human being and therefore destroying it is not murder and then they shift the focus of the argument to women’s control of their bodies, as though denying them the right to kill a fetus is equivalent to raping them. That has turned out to be an effective argument.

Not sure if you’re referring to me, but yes, you caught me, I’m pro-choice. However, I just wanted to point-out that I do believe a fetus to be human, for what else could it be? Now, as for whether or not the act of abortion is equivalent to murder is highly debatable.

I do not believe that it is. Why? Because these unborn children have not yet reached a level of consciousness in which they are aware of their surroundings or anything that is going on around them. Heck, I’m not even sure if their brains have developed enough to even feel pain!

Do you remember anything from your time spent in the womb Doc? Because I definitely don’t. My first memories are of me crawling and walking around my parent’s bedroom, something that most kids can’t do until they’re around a year old. I have a hunch that a fetus may not even realize that it’s “plug has been pulled” so to speak because of how limited it’s sensory input is during the developmental stage. The equivalent would be the forms of non-painful execution available to those on death row, or turning-off someone’s life-support. The only way you could get me to switch sides and be pro-life would be to provide evidence that abortion is cruel and unusual.

sidecar wrote:

I don’t care what softening euphemism you use for it. It’s f~~~ing eugenics, and you f~~~ing well know it.

ANY GOVERNMENT WITH THE POWER TO FORCE STERILIZATION ON PEOPLE HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE ITS WILL IN OTHER WAYS. Ways you won’t like. What if the same government decides you’re not working at the right job? Or you drive the wrong car? Or you’re living in the wrong place? Or your property isn’t really yours?

What sidecar said. Giving the government more power is not a viable solution.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

sidecar wrote:

Eliminate welfare. Eliminate child support from men and instead put it right onto the heads of women where it belongs. Eliminate “safe haven laws”. Eliminate tax credits for children. Make women who CHOOSE to have a child PAY THE FULL PRICE for raising that child.

They simply won’t. Surely you know this.

So your choices are:

1) Status quo (men pay the price for women’s choice)
2) Sterilize everyone and establish criteria for who gets to reproduce (eugenics, selecting for responsibility)
3) Leave mothers and babies to die in the streets (not going to happen so really this is the same as 1 above)

Which do you think is more ethical?

You seem to believe that women would step up to the plate and take responsibility for their children if only such responsibility was thrust upon them. That has got to be the most un-MGTOW position I’ve read all month.

I say if a person (man or woman) can not or will not take responsibility for their actions, you take their privilege away. To do anything less is foolish… inhumane at best and criminal at worst.

Good luck getting those NAWALTS to pay for their choices. You’re not going to find a friend in any camp for that idea.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

God is Dead wrote:

Do you remember anything from your time spent in the womb Doc?

I don’t remember where I had my eighth drink last night or how I got home… does that mean you could sneak into my bedroom, cut me up and suck my head flat with a vacuum and be ethically justified?

Consciousness, viability, higher brain function, existence of a soul… these types of arguments about what is or is not a human life are so slippery, you could use them to justify any kind of killing.

Convenience. It’s all about convenience. I can pay someone to destroy this human life and it will simply go away, I can wash my hands of it and nobody even has the right to shame me for doing it. Then I can go right back out and keep on doing the irresponsible s~~~ again and again and again without ever having to answer for it. How convenient.

[Anonymous 11]

Professor Chaos wrote:

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

My favorite topic SJW/feminist lurker agitating material potential to the max, Feticide, so I just have to chime in on this one.

I am pro-life to the extreme as you can deduce from my refusal to use the “A” word. I do appreciate that I can freely express my views here w/o running into a buzzsaw of brainless SJW libtards though. I saw through SJW dolts and spit them out.

First off, I’d like to say the guy in Canuck’s video f~~~s up by starting out apologetically trying to connect abortion to racism to support his pro-life stance. I had to shut him off. Right off the bat, when feticide is committed one is snuffing out a human life, period, end of story. Who are we to say someone is better off dead? Though, I will admit there are some cases where that is true, but not fetuses for they are innocent until they commit acts that require them to be judged. They can’t commit those acts while in the womb.

Biggus Dickus and I have had some banter on this subject and have amicably agreed to disagree. I do understand where you guys are coming from when you make your financial arguments, but once one of our little swimmers creates a new life things are beyond our control. Human life cannot be reduced to money. I don’t care if it’s business or fetuses. Humans both men and (Gag, cough) women have intrinsic worth.

As for the c~~~s who do this, I hold them in utter contempt. Most I have known have felt huge guilt from being an accessory to feticide. The only ones I’ve known that have not were f~~~ing sociopaths.

As for the medical professionals who commit the actual feticide. They are all sociopaths or psychopaths. One would have to be to even consider doing it for a living.

Now, for the people who trade in fetus parts. These are the lowest scum on the face of this f~~~ing planet. Right down there with pedophiles maybe even lower. In a way they are pedophiles, they love making money off of fetus parts. They make lots of money too. It’s f~~~ing sick. They are all psychopaths to a one.

Unfortunately, unintended pregnancy is a risk of having real sex. If you’re not willing pay, then one needs to take every precaution possible to prevent it. Our little problems are not a fetus’ problem. It did not ask to be conceived. It just was. A huge part of life is accepting any and all burdens that have been placed on us.

Would any of you volunteer to have been terminated as a fetus? If so, please chime in and elucidate me.

@All SJW feminazi baby killer lurkers, I hope I am p~~~ing you off and making your blood pressure rise to f~~~ing stroke levels. You know all those safe spaces you bleat about needing. Well, they don’t f~~~ing exist. Call me a racist. Call me a misogynist. Call me whatever the f~~~ you want. I say you’re all practitioners of bestiality and necrophilia. Come on, prove you’re not.

Thanks for reading my rant 🙂

[STORMParticipant 738]

Too bad men are still knocking these one trick pony females up, they don’t deserve your seed, dead or alive.

If we listen to a female at all, It's no longer to find out if they're crazy, we know they're crazy, It's to find out what flavor.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

narwhal wrote:

As for your other examples, there is no need to convince people they are wrong because it’s already against the law, regardless of whatever justification the person committing the crime may have. They can go to prison still believing they are justified. Abortion is different because it currently is not a crime.

It’s not called a “Justice” system anymore for a REASON.
It’s called a “legal” system now — for a reason, too.

In a “legal system”……….

Just because something is “legal” doesn’t make it RIGHT.
And just because something is NOT legal, doesn’t make it WRONG.

So…. the entire “abortion debate” is designed to distract everyone from the fact that it simply doesn’t MATTER what a woman decides to do after she allowed herself to get pregnant when she didn’t really want to be. Whether it’s legal or illegal is not even the point. The point is that she has 12 forms of birth control available to her, + 3 if you count anal, swallowing and absitincence….

SO THERE IS NO “WHOOPS”.

For every woman’s “right” she has, she also has the right NOT to do it. She allowed herself to get pregnant and it was 100% avoidable by her. “Arguing abortion” is just how women deflect the focus away from themselves so they don’t get busted for being 100% accountable for the situation. Consensual sex never happens unless she wants it to.

“ABORTION THIS!!! ABORTION THAT!!! I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION!!!!”

“You had the right to NOT ever need an abortion. And you f~~~ed that up nicely.”

Pro-life or pro-choice doesn’t matter. She is WRONG. She wrongfully allowed herself to get pregnant when she didn’t really want to be — and she did it ON PURPOSE.

narwhal wrote:

I’ve heard it said that no one really wants to have an abortion, they never want to choose between having an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy. That seems like a better starting point for ending abortions.

Right!

And that proves it. She doesn’t want the abortion. So she knowingly allowed herself to get pregnant when she didn’t really want to be. Or her plan to get pregnant for ANOTHER reason (like keeping a man around) failed. Either way she is wrong, so who cares what she does after it’s already too late??

The abortion debate is not even about “abortion”. It’s about women avoiding being held 100% accountable. The sex doest happen unless she wants it to, and the pregnancy doesn’t happen unless she wants it to. But nobody wants to have that conversation. They are so fixated on where abortion is right or wrong they are missing the point entirely.

Why do you think women say:

“HE got her pregnant”.
“HE knocked her up”
“HE needs to live up to HIS responsibilities now”.
“That’s what HE gets when HE doesn’t keep it in HIS pants”.

“No. That’s what YOU get when you willingly spread your legs like the unaccountable tramp you know you are. You allowed YOURSELF to get pregnant. And just because it’s still legal in this country for a woman to allow herself to get pregnant without man’s consent, doesn’t make it RIGHT. That’s why women’s rights is a joke. Because you also have the right to AVOID it completely. So don’t tell me you didn’t want an abortion. You wanted to get pregnant and you made sure you did. What you decide to do about it now is not even the f~~~ing point.”

All this is how you get women who allowed themselves to get pregnant 15 times and think someone ELSE needs to pay for it. And then the very same idiot allows herself to get pregnant AGAIN – with a 16th kid.

So who gives a s~~~ if she’s “against abortion”???
She’s wrong either way.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Total LeeParticipant 1573]

Keymaster wrote:

“Arguing abortion” is just how women deflect the focus away from themselves so they don’t get busted for being 100% accountable for the situation

What about “it takes two to make a baby”.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Total Lee wrote:

What about “it takes two to make a baby”.

That’s a lie and a deflection too.
Because it doesn’t take TWO to make a baby.

It only takes ONE scheming, deceitful bitch.

That’s not “illegal” in a legal system either, and that’s why it’s not called a justice system anymore. Because women have no sense of justice on these matters. You can tell by their majority of votes and because paternity fraud is still “legal” in all states and provinces. So the actress pretending to “argue” her isn’t fooling anyone when the overwhelming majority of female voters don’t give a f~~~ what damage it does.

That’s what you get when you let women vote on anything other than American Idol.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[MadmanParticipant 772]

I used to be pro choice but taking the red pill ended that for me as well.
We have seen what women do when given pure freedom and its ugly.
Now they can decide wether another human being lives or dies. A person (baby) that cant defend themselves.

Abortion is fundamentally wrong on a cosmic level.

Our society promotes negative s~~~ at every turn.

[Anonymous 11]

Keymaster wrote:

That’s what you get when you let women vote on anything other than American Idol.

F~~~ing classic!

[Masculine_ManParticipant 2735]

This is 100% due to irresponsibility. There’s a 20-25% chance of getting pregnant when considering ovulation cycles, sperm counts and if the fertilized egg sticks. The reason why women get pregnant is because they have sex a lot and it increases their chances. Slutty behavior results in unwanted pregnancies and the correction is abortion.

If it costs you your peace of mind, then it is too expensive.

[AnthonyParticipant 2281]

Keymaster wrote:

The point is that she has 12 forms of birth control available to her, + 3 if you count anal, swallowing and absitincence….

SO THERE IS NO “WHOOPS”.

This. Keymaster is right on the mark with this one. Why be “pro-life” and “pro-choice” when women have that many forms of birth control? If women weren’t sleeping around with so many Chad’s and manginas to begin with, the abortion debate wouldn’t even be an issue. Women always let themselves get pregnant. As Keymaster said, there’s no “whoops.”

Anonymous wrote:

@All SJW feminazi baby killer lurkers, I hope I am p~~~ing you off and making your blood pressure rise to f~~~ing stroke levels

Ha, I used to know plenty of manginas that would get p~~~ed off by reading your statements. I’m glad I dumped those blue pill f~~~wits as friends.

Once you have a Fleshlight real vaginas become worthless.

[Anonymous 11]

F~~~! I was so worked up that I forgot to include you lousy manginas.

So as a mangina would you volunteer for “Mandatory Feticide”? I just might grant an exception if a genetic test for mangina were developed.

Yeah, I’m a huge Slayer fan, but I’m not a hypocrite because manginas aren’t human. I’m thinking more alien hybrid genetic engineering experiment failures.

That should make some manginas cry.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Stargazer wrote:

1) Status quo (men pay the price for women’s choice)

We are already seeing how that is utterly unsustainable. MGTOW is a symptom of that unsustainability. Men are walking away and taking their surplus of labor with them. Inevitably it will collapse. The only question is what it takes down with it.

2) Sterilize everyone and establish criteria for who gets to reproduce (eugenics, selecting for responsibility)

Darwin already figured out how to select for responsibility without forced sterilizations and without a government to enforce it.

Moreover YOU ARE ADVOCATING A TOTALITARIAN STATE TO ENFORCE YOUR RELIGIOUS WILL ON THE PEOPLE.

Think about that for a moment.

You don’t like abortion. I have no problem with abortion. In fact I prefer it to spending money on welfare. You cannot prove that denying people abortions is “better” or more “moral” or more “ethical”. All you can do is repeat those empty assertions; every argument you make for them is nothing more than personal opinion. However I CAN prove that abortion is cheaper than 20+ years of welfare and generational dependence. I have the numbers to back that claim.

Your entire argument against abortion is fundamentally a religious one. You try to hide it behind weasel concepts like “morality” and “ethics” and other such bulls~~~, but it is still a religious position.

Where the f~~~ do you get off imposing your religious beliefs on other people? How the f~~~ can you think it’s a good idea to establish a totalitarian state to do that? Do you not understand how that puts you in the same boat as those muslim jihadist caliphate c~~~~~~~~~s?

I am losing a lot of the respect I had for you here, Doc.

3) Leave mothers and babies to die in the streets (not going to happen so really this is the same as 1 above)

This is an inevitability. Eventually we will no longer be able to subsidize women’s irresponsible reproductive choices. When that happens babies WILL starve. It’s just a question of eliminating the subsidies now in a controlled manner so that a few babies will starve or waiting for them to run dry and have millions of babies starve.

You seem to believe that women would step up to the plate and take responsibility for their children if only such responsibility was thrust upon them.

I’m saying you don’t give them the choice. Because it’s not a matter of “thrusting responsibility on them”. It’s simply a matter of no longer subsidizing their choices. Whether they “step up to the plate” or not should be entirely on them.

You seem to think that it will be easy to get women to submit to forced sterilizations, but impossible to stop subsidizing their choices. One involves establishing a massively overpowered government. the other is an inevitability – the only question is if we do it intentionally or wait until continued subsidies are impossible.

That has got to be the most un-MGTOW position I’ve read all month.

And now you’re trying to use the “You aren’t a Real MGHOW™” argument as well?

Really REALLY losing respect for you here.

[Author]

Posts