/lit/ - Literature

You will burn in Hell, you disgusting Moloch worshipper.

>>14332004
Not an argument.

>>14332022
>Not an argument.

>>14331989
>trying to fit together two unrelated instances is what the author attempts to do
thanks for reminding me NOT to read this trash

>>14332022
You must be as intellectually impaired as you are morally if you interpreted that post as an attempt at debate.

Pregnancy is a result of having sex.
Don't have sex if that is a problem for you.
Rape babies can be aborted.

How is the woman in this scenario in anyway morally responsible for this man's kidney failure? She likely played no part in this man's kidneys peacing out. She did however, ride the shit out of Chad or Tyrone's throbbing 8 inch appendange, let them dump 2 milligrams of hot spunk in her hooha, most likely did not force them to wear a condom, and most likely was not on birth control. The existence of this oft dehumanized "clump of cells" is entirely on her. She brought this thing into existence, and thus it is her responsibility not to kill it. Which is what she's doing.

Is a healthy woman not obligated to breastfeed the child that he brought into this world? If there is no other option? Do we not levy on parents certain responsibilities that derive from their status as parents? Responsibilities that we would never say that they owe to a stranger? The woman in your embarrassingly poorly thought out scenario doesn't have to provide that man a roof over his head, food to eat, or clothes upon his back. Yet we, the people of nice society, would demand that she provide those things to the best of her abilities to the child she rears.
This argument seems t be contingent on not recognizing the fetus as a child, and my question is when does it become one? Is terminating a pregnancy for little more than convenience morally viable even if the clump of cells is 36 weeks old?

Both this and the violinist arguments are retarded because it implies that there is no choice involved and also misses the point that a mother has an obligation to the well being of her child.

>>14331989
A the human body revolves around reproduction. We only exist because our ancestors were the best at reproducing in their environments. The biological purpose of life is to breed. Humans were not designed to donate kidneys. Therefore they are not analogous.

>>14332096
Why is the entirety of right wing political thought about the sex they are not having

>>14332071
>Rape babies can be aborted.
Nope. Its beyond the choice argument. I would make an argument from maternal duty to the life of her child

did he fuck her with his kidney

>>14332107
>maternal duty to the life of her child

lol ok boomer

>>14332105
>Can't refute the argument
>Latches onto the two sentences shitposting about the process of impregnation
Utterly btfo

>>14332071
I don't understand people who are against abortion unless in the case of rape. It doesn't seem to follow a consistent moral system.

>>14332114
But boomers absconded their parental duty, which left us with the fatherless whores who pump and dump today

>>14332115
>incorporates his cuck-bbc fetish into his arguments

>>14332117
>the result of sex is pregnancy
>having sex is a choice
>therefore getting pregnant is a choice
>being raped is against the choice of the woman
>therefore she did not choose pregnancy
>therefore abortion is acceptable in the instance of rape

>>14332131
>Am I my brother's keeper?

>>14332131
your line of reasoning ignores the most important aspect of this though. abortion is a woman's choice as well. you haven't argued as to why this choice should not be permitted

>>14331989

The analogy would be further improved if the organ were already in use by the donee, such that cutting the beneficiary off would entail fatally violating the donee's bodily integrity to rescind the use of the organ. In this case, even intuitively, it seems extremely immoral to proceed.

>>14332129
I'm black weirdo. Now refute me

>>14332199
Well it would follow from the violinist argument. If you are involuntarily connected to someone else by the kidney, are you obliged to stay connected.
This is why I dont use the choice argument because it would seem to permit abortion. I woud rather propose a maternal obligation and the independent life of the child together as an imperative to maintain the pregnancy

>>14332207
>incorporates his cuck-bwc fetish into his arguments

>>14332210
>I won't use this argument because it would lead to the conclusion I don't like

>>14331989
I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO KILL BABIES
DO NOT TELL ME TO PRACTICE SAFE SEX
DO NOT TELL ME TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY ACTIONS

>>14332131
If you think it's acceptable to abort rape babies then you value the woman's choice more than the life of the child. Why can't you apply this to a woman who accidentally got pregnant after consensual sex and doesn't want the baby? Why does her choice begin and end at the act of sex?

>>14332102
>he believes in evolution

>>14332240
>he believe in creationism

>>14332217
its not the only valid argument. It fails to incorporate maternal responsibility, which I believe in

>>14332035
>avatarfagging

>>14332225
it becomes a baby when it is born and a person when it gains consciousness. tradcucks avoid the consciousness question because they fear one day we'll have a reliable way to detect it in others and they will be outed as NPCs

>>14332228
Per the argument from responsibility for choice, accidental pregnancy is still the responsibility of the woman. We all know that sex results in pregnancy, so everyone accepts the reality that pregnancy might result from it.
Rape is not something she chose, so is therefore, per that argument, not responsible for the act of preganancy, and could not justify a reason for continued responsibility for the childs life.
The argument from choice is an incomplete argument.

>>14332246
Realize, anon, that if the LORD did not create the earth 5780 years ago then that would mean the scripture is imperfect. And the scripture cannot be imperfect as it is from the divine, the perfect. The LORD our god is the truth (John 1:1). If evolution were real then the truth would be wrong, and the truth cannot be wrong.

>>14332282
Most people today do not expect sex to result in pregnancy. And they're right since most sex doesn't.

>>14332313
They're not right since sex relative to other acts carries the distinctive possibility of pregnancy.

>>14332291
Why can't you christcucks tell when scripture is supposed to be taken literally and when it isn't? You have two different accounts of creation in the first two chapters of genesis.

>>14331989
The female isn't responsible for the male's kidney failure.

In these arguments pro-choicers always seem to view sex as a right. The act of intercourse is not a right. The purpose of intercourse is procreation, which is pleasurable. To engage in intercourse solely for pleasure is to frustrate the natural end of it and is a perversion.

Why do people think they have such governance over their own bodies anyway. Did you make your own body? Did you give yourself the gift of sight, the miracle of hearing? Did you have any choice or power whatsoever to be born? You are loaned your body by God. Sick of the unmitigated temerity of people who are given something and automatically assume they can do whatever they please with no repercussions, it's reprehensible and indefensible.

Go on /gif/ and look at the removed fetuses at 10 weeks, then tell me it's just a clump of cells.

>>14332322
So why is it important that the woman be responsible for the pregnancy she risked having if you don't care about the baby's life since you are fine with her aborting rape babies? Why does it matter if she terminates the pregnancy if you wouldn't mind terminating the same pregnancy as a result of rape?

>>14332323
>A redactor merged two different stories of creation into one narrative
>He didn't bother to change the names
Do atheists actually believe this?

>>14332325
It's just a clump of cells.

>>14332313
>most sex doesnt
That doesnt counter my point. The point is that sex CAN result in pregnancy, so therefore voluntary engagement in coitus means you accept that risk, and therefore must accept the result

>>14332340
How do you explain it?

>>14331989
Wouldn't it be immoral? Especially in a society that is composed of only two members.

>>14332345
Hurr durr fuck off

>>14332333
>since you are fine with her aborting rape babies?
You're responding to the wrong anon. I made the original point. My original point is that abortion IS wrong in all cases, but the argument from personal responsibility does not prove that.

>>14332353
Why does the accidental baby deserve life and responsibility while the rape baby doesn't?

>>14332360
The account in genesis is totally singular. Point to the divergence

>>14332371
>deserve life
Total misunderstanding. The question is whether the mother is obligated to be the one who provides the life. Because the mother did not eneter the voluntary contract of life provision, she cannot be held to it, under that argument.
But again, for rhe third time, you're missing my point. I am refining the argument against abortion, in all cases, rather than supporting abortion in the case of rape.

Reminder that the Bible literally gives instructions on how to abort babies and half of the old testament involves killing children/babies

Any educated person is pro choice, we all know this.

>>14332372
>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
>And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

>Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
>And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
>And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
>These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
>And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
>But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
>And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

>>14332381
Sorry, I'm trying to talk to the guy who's against abortion except in cases of rape. I don't have an issue with your view.

>>14332404
Realm of Forms is God's mind, where he created the Idea of Man before instantiating him into physical reality. This was answered by Christian scholars 2 thousand years ago.

>>14332381
All of this is solved when women become property of men again. Take their rights away!

>>14332410
>Sorry, I'm trying to talk to the guy who's against abortion except in cases of rape
I am that guy, and you misunderstood my position. Sorry for the confusion
>>14332412
Yes, this unironically. My better argument against abortion is that upon becoming pregnant, the duty of motherhood is initiated, and motherhood demands the protection of the child, at all costs.

you can't deny that abortion is murder, even from secular viewpoint, but i guess you could possibly argue that the murder is okay.

>>14332411
This view doesn't rule out evolution or the earth being over 6000 years old. I'm talking to the guy who seems to be taking the the story literally.

>>14332428
Murder is,by definition, not okay. You would have to argue that its justified manslaughter, which then puts the burden of justification on the abortionist

>>14332428
Yes you can. We have many words for killing people that aren't murder.

>>14332439
I also take it literally, but you are correct. Genesis does not disprove either old earth or evolution

>>14332441
not murder, but merely killing. killing can be justified, though i don't see how killing a gestating human could be justified.

>>14332455
Cause it's gonna grow up to be a fucking incel

Simply put, the mother's freedom is worth more than the potentiality that is the clump of cells in the womb. I'm ready to debate this. I ask pro-forcers in the thread this: If you were chained up to a person, and if you dechained yourself, this person would die, would you not feel justified in unplugging yourself? Remaining plugged is certainly admirable, however, when someone is infringing on your rights, you have the right to remove them.

>>14332510
>the mother's freedom is worth more than the potentiality that is the clump of cells in the womb
Why?

>>14331989
Gotta love how a board of fourteen year olds and virgins will vehemently defend their positions on abortion

>>14332516
Because taking the parasite you don't want out is self defense

>>14332510
I absolutely would not feel I had the right to kill another person, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you have no empathy?

>>14332510
>If you were chained up to a person, and if you dechained yourself, this person would die, would you not feel justified in unplugging yourself?
you know your position is retarded when you have to come up with these retarded impossible scenarios

>>14332530
So pregnancy violates the NAP?

>>14332530
>parasite
so offspring are parasites?

Sex is for making babies.
It feels pleasurable.
Sex isn't for pleasure. Pleasure is a byproduct of making the babies.

If you don't want to risk babies, don't have sex. How arrogant does someone need to be to think they're entitled to everything pleasurable in the world?

>>14332551
>>14332540
>>14332516
>>14332561

In all honestly I am pro life. I only posted that to try and argue pro choice for fun but I cannot imagine any conceivable pro choice argument that makes sense at all. It all boils down to convenience.
>>14332546
It is a valid scenario in regards to this, in my opinion. However, I think you would be obligated to stay plugged up to that person. I don't see how a human life matters less than freedom -- especially when freedom is denied for what is deemed more important all the time in society.

>>14332530
It's not a parasite, it's the result of a two people making a choice
If you don't want a child, don't have unprotected sex

>>14332568
If you're gonna larp, at least follow through on it

>>14332589
There's no point.

>>14332567
Just as a heart isn't for making a thumping noise, it's for pumping blood. We live in a society that has given an activity with one purpose multiple purposes, and ascribed to all of these purposes chief importance. That is our main failing.

>>14332568
>It all boils down to convenience.
this is why no amount of debate will EVER end abortion. the only thing that will end it is bullets.

Abortion is helpful if you think about the people who get it...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K5yLaBaFIPQ

>>14331989
If you knew anything about the epidemiology of abortions and what they do to the uterus. You'd know that the correct analogy is
letting a woman cut of her nose to spite her face.

>>14331989
hurr durr killing babies is okay because muh words
get fucked you sicko

>>14332516
Not the person you're responding to, but I do believe it is justified. If you were chained up to a brain dead person you should be able to kill that person by unplugging for your own freedom. Something that can't think matters less than that which can think.

>>14332567
>Sex is for making babies
>Sex isn't for pleasure.
>Pleasure is a byproduct of making babies.

Please ponder your statements. Do you see any flaws or fallacies in your assertions?

>>14332644
>brain dead person
>potentiality that is the clump of cells in the womb
Two distinct ideas

>>14332669
They're both non persons as a result of their lack of sentience.

>>14331989
You could say that the man is the woman whose life "would be ruined" and that the healthy woman was the baby.

>>14332522
Which one are you?

>>14332736
Sentience does not grant personhood. If you terminate the potentiality in the womb, you are terminating lifeforce and extuingishing a soul

>>14332747
>Sentience does not grant personhood
Expand upon this. Why is it fine to eat animals then?

>>14332773
Animals are not human and personhood is exclusive to humans. An unborn human is pure potentiality for a full human life, thus granting it legitimacy in life. All of the elements for human life are already contained within the fetus, indicating the presence of the soul already present. The soul is what grants personhood.
Lets take your statement that personhood is contingent on sentience. Does an unconscious person temporarily lose personhood? No, that is absurd.

>>14332736
>non persons
them's is genocidin' words pardner

>>14332798
aquinas believed that ensoulment occured after conception, around 8 weeks i believe. not sure why though.

>>14332808
Thats interesting. I disagree though. I say it happens at conception

>>14332816
i don't think it matters either way to grant personhood.

>>14332824
Elaborate

>>14332837
their argument is that a fetus is not a person because it hasn't developed certain things. a baby has also not developed certain things, nor has a toddler, yet no one would argue that these aren't "people," and they certainly wouldn't argue that a toddler isn't a human being.
a human being that participates in life and is alive exists in a certain state, because life is a process. "baby" is a state, as is "toddler" and so on. these are human states of being, therefore a fetus and even a gamete are states of being as well, of human being. the whole "personhood" argument is a legal misnomer, they are human beings. once the sperm and egg join, they create something greater than the sum of the two parts and become something new entirely, the human being in its earliest state.

now killing is the quelling of human life. therefore, since a human being is a human being from conception to death, abortion is an act of killing. the only argument you can make is that it is somehow a justifiable killing

>>14332903
Oh right. I would have just gone full cartesian on the person hood thing and complicated it

>>14331989
>Most people’s (correct) reaction is to say no.
Baffling. In this hypothetical society (with a government yet only two citizens) we're already outside the realms of normal governance where the idea of a distant government forcing someone to get themselves cut open makes us squeamish.
Of course a more optimal situation would be to create incentives for giving the kidney and disincentives for keeping it, but never actually forcing someone to give it without some consent on their part.

>>14332117
Non aggression principal violation.

>>14332999
here's another argument:
the end of gestation is birth
abortion fails to use gestation for its natural end
therefore abortion is a sin against nature

The same argument would make it immoral to charge any parent with child neglect. You can't force a mother to feed her kid, after all, that would be using her body and she might not consent.

It doesn't matter to me if a foetus is a person or not. When you abort it, what it'll end up being is a mass of gore in a bin. Bit gross, I guess, but I'm not the one who performs the surgery, nor am I the one who's getting it removed, so there's no reason for me to have to look at one unless I wanted to for some reason.
Seems to me we might just let the doctors and the women hash out the morality of the situation.

If You Are Pro-Life, Then a Natural Extension of your Logic/Argument is Forced Organ Donation. If A = B and B = C then A = C...

When you present a logical argument, then as long as the rules of logic are followed your argument can and should extend to other arguments that use the same basis of logic that you claim with your points...

At the heart of Pro-Life Arguments is the notion that a life is so sacred, that a life is so important that it supersedes your right to choose what happens to your own body. That is, the Right to Life is so sacred that it gives the State the authority to overrule your body autonomy and make decisions in the best interest of the State, and in this case the State has decided that the life inside of you is more important than your Right to body autonomy.

This means that the State can use "the Right to Life" argument and "Life is so Sacred" argument to overrule body autonomy.

By extension, if you believe the above which is at the core of all Pro-Life Arguments, then the above logic easily applies to forced organ donation.

There is a 5-yr old child with some medical condition... He needs a liver transplant or else he will die. The liver is the only organ that can self regenerate, so someone can donate a piece of their liver, and the child will live. Your DNA is on file in the national database and it turns out that you are the best match for this child. Even though all surgery carries with it the risk of death (just as every pregnancy carries the risk of the mother dying) it does not matter, the State has the right to mandate that you donate a portion of your liver to save this child. The State mandates that you have to undergo this medical procedure to save "an innocent life".

So I ask you Pro-Lifers, do you support the above? Should the State have the Right to Force you to undergo medical procedures against your will to save someone else's life regardless of the disruption (or risk) to your own life?

>>14331989
But should the government prevent the man from overpowering the woman and taking her kidney?

>b-but the woman CHOSE to get pregnant so the analogy is invalid
Nope. What matters is the life itself, not any extenuating circumstances. If a fetus is a person, then their life has the same value as the man with kidney failure. If you mandate forced pregnancy you have to accept the man's life as outweighing the woman's right to convenience.

>>14333471
Thats not even a syllogism lmao

>>14333471
A more accurate analogy would be if the child already has the liver, and the donation already happened. The woman then decides she wants "her" portion of the liver back.
Even this is imperfect, because it dodges the incredibly important duty of a mother to her child. Abstractions will always shirk this, but it's central.

Why does a mother have any "extra" duty to her child she wouldn't have to anyone else?

>>14333601
because she created the child
next question

>would the government be right to force the woman to donate a kidney to the man?
The situation isn't even analogous, but yes, they would be.

>>14333607
>because she created the child
So?

>>14333629
you are responsible for your will. if i kick someone in the head i am responsible. if i create a painting i am responsible for it. if i create a person i am responsible for that child

>>14333601
She is a mother. It is her child.
>Why?
That's it. That's what a mother is and what a child is, it can't be further abstracted.

>>14331989

The argument is unnecessary and is only so much sophistry.

A fetus is not a human being. This argument makes a beggar of that question by giving the fetus membership in the society by assuming membership in its comparison to an actual citizen.
The society only agrees that the fetus has membership if the mother declares it a wanted pregnancy.
The fetus only gains that agreement of membership after the third trimester.

That is the agreement.

If you don't agree, change the agreement using the agreed upon method of changing the agreement (as in a constitutional amendment), or find another place to live.

Use violence or civil disobedience to force your dictatorship on the rest of us, expect to spend years in jail, because that is what the rest of us agreed on.

If you simply can't keep your agreements, we have all agreed that you should not be allowed to make anymore except what exercise you want to do in the prison yard.

Being an American is really simple: keep the agreement made, change the agreement in the agreed upon way or leave. That is called justice. It amazes me how many stupid people can't do it.

>>14333689
I never agreed to any of your agreements. I don't think they're valid, and I don't even know what the fuck any of them are, so how could we have agreed upon anything?
Are you a fucking libertarian or something? None of this makes any sense.

>>14332035

>>14333708

They are called laws dumbass. Your agreement is tacit and implied in your citizenship. That is why you are free to leave if you don't agree, and why ignorance of the law is not an excuse for not following the law.
That is why you are free to vote for someone who will change the laws, or challenge them in court. They are agreements. It is up to you.
That is how justice works and why it is called justice and not vengeance.
But I can see you are one of the dumb ones that missed that in civics class.
I guess you don't know what freedom is. That is why you want to give my democracy away to a dictator, you are that stupid.

>>14333785
>They are called laws dumbass. Your agreement is tacit and implied in your citizenship. That is why you are free to leave if you don't agree, and why ignorance of the law is not an excuse for not following the law.
I never agreed to any of that. I think many of the laws and the methods of enforcing them are unjust. I can't just leave. I was born here, my family is here, and there is nowhere for me to go even if I wanted to.
>That is why you are free to vote for someone who will change the laws, or challenge them in court. They are agreements. It is up to you.
I've voted many times, but none of the laws ever changed to reflect my values. Voting doesn't seem to work.
Courts depend on the body of law that I disagree with fundamentally, and they aren't even very good at upholding that.
>I guess you don't know what freedom is. That is why you want to give my democracy away to a dictator, you are that stupid.
What dictator? Not once have I brought up my own ideology. It doesn't involve dictators at all.

>>14332071
>rape babies can be aborted
>all sex is rape

>>14331989
What do right wingers think the fetus is building itself out of? Where do they think it gets its "construction materials"?

Do they think that babies just spontaneously appear from nothingness?

>>14331989
These are shit arguments
If a woman consensually has sex she is risking a chance at pregnancy. Birth control isn’t 100% and sex is basically pregnancy roulette. Men assume the risk of fathering a child.
If the woman doesn’t consent to sex, and really doesnt consent not the new bullshit, then rape and incest are permittable cases.
If a man who consents fathers a child and the mother doesn’t kill it, he is legally responsible for it. Why should she not equally be bound to bear the consequences of her choice to play pregnancy roulette. When does life begin? When it passes the pussy lips? When the birth certificate is signed?

>>14332808
Aquinas didn't see an independent principle of development as possible before 8 weeks. Biology proves his argument wrong on the facts, but not in principle.
He also agreed that abortion at any stage was immoral.
>>14333952
Newborns similarly take nutrition from the mother, yet abandoning them is met with disapproval. Where they get nutrients from is irrelevant.

I would say the man is responsible too, if a man didn't had sex with a woman, the woman wouldn't need to abort at all.

>>14332211
>He *still* can’t refute the point.
Embarrassing lad

>>14333900
kek

>parasite
>clump of cells
imagine unironically being this much of an evil subhuman holy shit so glad your """people""" are going extinct

>>14331989
I didn't know that babies just randomly popped into your uterus.
If the woman was directly responsible for the man's failing kidney, then an argument could be made.
Is this the power of analytic philosophy?

>>14333900
Noice m8. I think I woke up my neighbors with my hysterical laughter.

>>14332808
It's called the quickening.
The soul has entered the body completely as soon as the fetus begins to move its limbs.

>>14333471
Not so fast anon, organ donation leads to a irreversible decrease in quality of life and directly impedes your ability to donate your organs in the future to your friends or family. Being pregnant however lasts 9 months at which point you can give the child away and barring complications be able to have kids in the future without issue. This critical difference renders the entire rest of your argument moot and stupid.
>inb4 some pregnancies leave the mother infertile
We are arguing about the right to abort in the case where no complications are apparent.

>>14331989
The second kidney isn't useless. It doesn't cost nothing for her to lose it. Why do you think we evolved to have two, you dumb fuck?

Oh yeah, you don't need 2 arms, guess it's fine for the government to forcibly take one to give to an amputee. Retard.

>>14332325
Thoroughly based post.

>>14334744
OP annihilated.

>>14332325
>The female isn't responsible for the male's kidney failure.

What if he is her son?

Should parents be forced to give their kidneys to their children?

>>14334909
See >>14334744

>>14333629
All humans begin in a stage of dependency on their mother. This makes this an intrinsic part of human essence and demands the mothers particpation, as wel as making it distinct from other natters like organ failure of a stranger

>>14333689
This literally has nothing to do with fhe ethics of abortion

>>14331989
Critical error OP: Imagine if the woman was the direct cause of the man’s kidney failure, through her own decisions. Should he not then be entitled to some compensation?

>>14332117
NAP.
If the child is forced on you, though rape or even co tried scenario of spontaneous generation, it is an invader and you can btfo him/her.
If you have sex with consent, the child is not forced upon you and is not an invader. In fact the woman forced the child into her.
Imagine inviting someone into your house (more accurately, dragging him there) and shooting him because he is a 'home invader'.

>>14332117
I happen to disagree with this stance, but it is actually the logical conclusion of OP’s argument.

>>14332441
Murder is not, by definition, not okay. It is by definition not legal. If you can’t even get this basic premise right you should just fuck off.

>>14331989
False analogy. The kindey has the same DNA as the rest of female's body, ergo it is her body. The kidney has no genetic input outside the woman herself.
The fetus has a different DNA and is actually separated from his mother's body by the placenta - itself a piece of fetus with DNA different from mother's body. Ergo fetus is not the mother, and never becomes a part of her body. It is a small human, that temporarily lives inside her. Killing a human is killing a human.

If you disregard the DNA difference, it makes every single human a rogue piece of his or her mother, which the mother can voluntarily kill at any age and point of time with government thugs enforcing her decision.

So, sophistry. Just state planely you want to kill kids to whore around, be open for once.

>>14334909
Unironically yes, they should. Parents should be forced to die for their kids if absolutely necessary.

>>14331989
>Most people’s (correct) reaction is to say no.
I would say yes. It's quite a horrible thing to let someone else die. I would do it without hesitation.

>>14335151
Extremely low IQ statement

>>14332736
So you can murder sleeping people because they're not sentient at the moment?

>all these non-arguments from abortionists
Become an abortionchad and admit it's a huge massacre of infants for population control purposes.
All of these talks of killing being fine because it is unconscious, or temporarily in your care, or a burden, are embarrassing.

>>14335168
Then kill yourself and get out of thr way. Because thats the logical conclusion of having your stance. You dead while the people who would never do the same for you live.

>>14335207
>assuming life was ever important to begin with.

>>14332325
Pseudochristian scum, I shall smite you

>>14335136
If a woman has not elected to get a sterilization surgery, she has elected to keep the option of having children open. She has consented to the idea of having children. So by your logic, she should not be able to abort.

>>14331989

good enough argument for not making abortion
illegal, but it definitely backfires in that it serves
to help illustrate that abortion really is still murder.

>>14332510
> If you were chained up to a person, and if you dechained yourself, this person would die, would you not feel justified in unplugging yourself?
It's a pretty dumb analogy and it deserves no serious picking apart except for:
>TEMPORARILY chained for 9 months, and that person's life depended on you
How many people do you think would "unplug" themselves then?

>>14332736
>knocks someone out
>administers the Turing test on unconscious person
>Welp, time to put another one in the ground!

>>14332105
You should be grateful they can't help doing that otherwise you would have to face the fact their arguments make sense.

>>14335159

The argument is about the mother donating her uterus, you completely missed the point. The personhood of the fetus is assumed.

>>14335159
>
If you disregard the DNA difference, it makes every single human a rogue piece of his or her mother, which the mother can voluntarily kill at any age and point of time with government thugs enforcing her decision.
That sounds like a pretty good plot idea for a fucked-up Sci-Fi novel.

>>14335656
If she had sex, she's isn't really "donating", she is assuming the responsibility for the consequences.
When you hit another vehicle with your car, and you're sued for damages, you aren't really donating, are you?

>>14335136
Pregnancy can never violate the NAP as genesis of life is a unique female function which her body is designed to do. It volunteers itself.

>>14335223
>Then kill yourself and get out of thr way. Because thats the logical conclusion of having your stance.
Not necessarily, since I can creaye quite a bit of utility by remaining alive and donating organs after a natural death.
That said, I do seriously consider it sometimes, especially when i get suicidally depressed. It's a bullet I'm willing to bite.
>You dead while the people who would never do the same for you live.
That's a fault with them, not me. Hopefully such an act will wake them up to the value of altruism and beneficience.

>>14335752
>creaye
*create

Pffft, boring. Tie these people to a railroad track, then we'll see some philosophy.

>>14332102
How do you know this? Why would the thoughts given to you by a brain molded by evolution happen to correspond to truth, instead of merely survival? In other words, isn't your belief in evolution itself an evolutionary adaption, and therefore not to be trusted?
Why should monkey thoughts in any way correspond to truth?

>>14335762
Dont expect materialists to grasp the nature of the rational soul

>>14333471

>>14331989
Disgusting knave, bringing your peasant problems to my board! I should have you dressed up as a midwife and tarred for your blubbering

>poor life style choices lead to illness
sorry, but if you got diabetes you are fucked
>slip on the street and hit your head
get fucked kid, should have worn a helmet

I could go on, but there really is no rational arguement against abortion.

>>14333471
You are conflating legality with morality. Abortion is wrong, but I don't thing every wrong action should be illegal. That would be absurd. Try making your argument again without the word "state".

>>14335785
Neither of those are remotely comparable to abortion you faggot

>>14333471
lmao you dumb fag. You actually think the child's body is the same as the mother's body? LOL. You have the right to choose what happens with your body. How is a mother killing a baby analogous?

>Hurr I conciously made the decision to create a life and I'm currently harbouring it. It has unique DNA and is a completely different set of cells than mine. LEMME KILL IT HEHE!

>if you say I can't kill another person you basically mean I can take people's organs!!

You should kill yourself.

>>14335785
are you retarded? You think sex is some thing that happens on accident?? LMAO HOW RETARDED ARE YOU

If this arguement is true then the only right that exists is the right to property. It's a great arguement in favour of abortion but it kind of backfires and makes all forms of social welfare based on taxation immoral. Not sure how that would work out for philosopher of public policy like Bookin. Also, the arguement is a dud if the sex was consensual and only really applies to instances of rape

*ahem*
The analogy is false because the man in need of a kidney is not in analog with the baby in need of its whore mother's womb.

The man exists externally, independently, and inconsequentially to the woman. The baby, in perfect antithesis, is internal to, dependent on, and a direct consequence of the woman from the moment it comes into being.


Ergo, put Jewish abortionists to death and jail the women

Better analogy:
>Stupid fucking BITCH ties up child forcefully in her basement. She wants to hire a hitman to come inside her basement and execute the child. Is the government right to punish either the woman or the hitman?

>>14336466
>implying anyone cares about universal consistency
Its a pick n choose world bro

based op
Consent of risk is not consent of outcome.

>>14332510
If I was chained to someone, through some fluke accident, and detaching killed them, and the alternative was to wait 9 months and then (albeit painfully) detach myself, assuming all of this was true, following the precise rules of YOUR analogy, I would absolutely not detach myself. Not only would I not detach myself but if I did I would be racked with LIFELONG guilt over it. In my own mind, even if I had no part in ending up attached to the person and it was like some SAW movie scenario, it would feel like I’d killed someone and I’d spend my entire life atoning. Hell even if it was my life or their life I’d feel guilty for the rest of my life. And honestly anyone that is capable of this is in my book scary as FUCK. At the end of the day any woman who gets an abortion is terrifying to me because it reminds me that millions of people are literally ruthless.

>>14337305
Say that in Vegas and see how far you get

>>14337425
i did not ask for a hostile fetus to invade my uterus thank you very much though

>>14337436
uh

>>14337436
You actually did though

>>14337746
how??

>>14337871
You know that sex results in pregnancy
You consented to the odds
By consenting to the odds you accept there may be an outcome against your favor
You consent to the possibility of this outcome
Therefore you must accept the terms of the agreement and carry the fucking baby

>>14331989
Second worst argument for abortion I've read.

>>14337949
why

The Greeks must be turning in their graves when you read this kind of filthy postmodern sophistry.

>>14337929
i consented to sex not the fetus. im glad i flushed the parasite out

>>14338062

>>14338079
okay..

>>14332117
I think the argument goes something like even the product of rape is an innocent life. The child did not choose to rape.

>>14338143
Also, OP's analogy is silly.

>>14336336
>says is wrong for other person to want to kill someone else
>ends the post by telling the person to kill himself

>>14331989
i dont think these two arguments are the same: the man dies because of neglect or a lack of action that was done for your (the woman's) own good. The fetus on the other hand dies because of direct actions with full intent done to harm the fetus for your (the mothers) supposed good. The equivalent of abortion to the man with failed kidney would be killing the man to reduce the number of people who need kidney transplants. The concept of abortion is no different to raskolnikov bringing the axe alyona.

>>14338062
if you were really and genuinely glad you "flushed the parasite" you wouldnt feel obligated to morally justify abortion in a mongolian horse fucking website would you?

>>14333689
>a fetus is not a human being
what defines a human being then? The vaginal canal? It is already an individual since conception in biological terms since it has unique genetic material. How would you define a human being in a wholly inclusive way that doesnt that corresponds with out current laws