[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[The New California Republic]

It seems I can't convince any of the hard pro-choicers, so I hope that any moderates or anybody who's more open-minded (or even fellow pro-lifers who want to expand their knowledge on the issue) will watch Ben Shapiro talk against abortion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Jbmo3CYb0

I shouldn't have to personally list his arguments in very much detail. Moreover, I was providing it for those who want to watch it and learn some points, not one who merely wants to put all of the workload onto the opponents and make it all worth naught.

Read: "my arguments keep getting shot down on takeoff, so I'll resort yet again to linkdumping without providing any arguments of my own or providing any context..."

[The New California Republic]

It seems I can't convince any of the hard pro-choicers, so I hope that any moderates or anybody who's more open-minded (or even fellow pro-lifers who want to expand their knowledge on the issue) will watch Ben Shapiro talk against abortion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Jbmo3CYb0
Note: it's long (1:13:03, although many strong points will be discussed before 30:00), so I suggest you watch it when you have time. (Although, if you are browsing this thread and the heated argument, you probably have the time.)

On another note, your nation's factbooks are practically nothing but utter shilling against leftism, and you don't seem like a satire nation, or have confirmed whether your national politics align with your own. I don't like the far sections of the left, but I am inclined to say you're not making friends with sensible moderates anytime soon.

Not surprising really:

The problem is that the left alters the definition to fit their arguments (e.g. gender, socialism, person...). It leads to nothing but confusion.

Even though, as it was pointed out, the only one here who has been bending and twisting definitions so that a square peg will fit into a round hole is Strahcoin himself...

[Ifreann]

It seems I can't convince any of the hard pro-choicers, so I hope that any moderates or anybody who's more open-minded (or even fellow pro-lifers who want to expand their knowledge on the issue) will watch Ben Shapiro talk against abortion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Jbmo3CYb0
Note: it's long (1:13:03, although many strong points will be discussed before 30:00), so I suggest you watch it when you have time. (Although, if you are browsing this thread and the heated argument, you probably have the time.)

By the same tokens, I'm sure you'll be fascinated to watch this video by philosopher and actor Oliver Thorn about abortion and Ben Shapiro's argument for forced pregnancy.

[Godular]

I trust Ben Shapiro on abortions as much as I do the Pope. I have never seen a man talk so much yet say so little as Ben.

Hey! I like the Pope! He shouldn't be put in the same category as Ben Shapiro!

Ben Shapiro is not somebody you should be using as a role model of argumentation.

Out of curiosity, are you arguing in favor of a ban, or would you settle for non-ban measures to reduce abortion? You know, like the ones I listed in the poll above because you seem to have missed it the umpteen times I clubbed you over the head with them before?

I, at least, support both measures to make abortion unnecessary (as listed, excluding free contraception), and a ban on most abortions. But to understand why the former simply isn't enough for any intellectually consistent pro-lifer, understand their argument (regardless of whether you agree) -- we contend that abortion is the killing of a living, human being. To pro-lifers, this isn't really an either-or choice: if I argued that abortion killed a living human being, while simultaneously rejecting an abortion ban in favour of your plan, it would be akin to proposing to address the problem of theft with anti-poverty measures, whilst making it legal. This is non-sensical.

It is not. Look, I get that y'all are torn up about the fact that a fetus dies in the process of an abortion. The problem that y'all fail to understand is that no matter which way you lean on the issue is that there is no reason to deny a woman the capacity to control her own body, even if as one might say life is on the line. No born person has the right to use another person's body without their consent. This is not just some axiom that we fling out from the ether. It is demonstrated by precedent and by and large by the same conservative folks that keep trying to argue against allowing access to abortion services.

The Universal Declaration of Human rights affords all human beings the same rights from birth onward. The 14th amendment of the US Constitution states that no human can have their rights abridged for any reason without due process of law. The right to privacy extends to it not being your business how or when a woman becomes a parent. We champion the right to defend with deadly force our own bodies against born persons. We champion the right to defend with deadly force our own property against born persons. In many states we even champion the right to defend with deadly force the property of others against born persons. Yet when it comes to an 'unborn' person suddenly this right is denied, according to your arguments.

Abortion is not something that should be looked at in such black-and-white terms, for it is very much a moral gray area. Yes, one way or the other somebody is going to have their rights disrupted. In that situation, it would be best to reduce the chance that there is a conflict in the first place. Those policies listed in the poll are not even all that expensive, but I can tell you right now that an outright ban would both be infuriatingly expensive to enforce and ultimately counterproductive to achieving your goals.

This is not acceptable.

The pro-life view stems from the belief that killing a fetus is a fundamental injustice -- that it is the murder of a living, human person. Regardless of whether you agree, it's worth acknowledging then that if we believe the above statement to be true, abortion must not be legal.

The problem is that without adhering to the legal definition of murder, your argument inherently falls apart under attempting to foist your morality upon others who do not agree. Some people claim that killing in self-defense is still murder. Some people claim that eating meat is murder. When you rely only on your own definition to get your point across, you sacrifice a significant amount of credibility in your argument for the same reason that we can still defend ourselves with deadly force and enjoy a good steak every once in a while: your definition is not universal.

Unlike murder, when one individual is killed without justifiable cause and with malice aforethought, an abortion is the exact reverse. There is most assuredly a justifiable cause, and any attempt to claim that the woman is acting with malice towards the fetus dwelling within her body does a grave disservice to that woman. To deny the woman the right to remedy this situation places upon that woman an imposition to her rights on a most fundamental level, claiming that she does not have ownership of her own body because a particularly tenacious zygote managed to embed itself within her flesh.

This is not acceptable.

Help mothers all you want -- anything that doesn't legally prevent the fundamental injustice isn't reaching to the heart of the issue.

Any type of ban replaces one perceived injustice with another, eminently more tangible. This is not acceptable.

[Jebslund]

1. The purpose was to show that "high-risk" is a very broad category, which also includes situations that are really not high-risk. Try reading with an open mind before judging.

First off, 6-8% is between 1 in 15 and 1 in 12, approximately. To put this into perspective: I play D&D. In D&D, a critical hit is rolling an unmodified 20 on a 20-sided die. The chances of a pregnancy being high risk, statistically speaking, are higher than the chances of rolling a critical hit. I average about one a session.

Second, the reason pregnancies in women older than 35 are all treated as high risk is because older women are far more likely to develop complications in their pregnancies, and that risk increases with age. These pregnancies are all high risk, even if, averaged out with those of younger women, the actual percentage is smaller. Most women do not have children in their late thirties and beyond.

Third, if I told you to choose which of 12 cups to take a sip from, and that one of those cups contained an odorless, colorless, tasteless neurotoxin mixed in with the contents that would slowly and painfully kill you if you chose that cup, would you consider it completely safe to try your luck?

2. Do we really need to go over this again? If something is alive and human, it is a person. Otherwise, what is it? What can a living human be if not a person?
The problem is that the left alters the definition to fit their arguments (e.g. gender, socialism, person...). It leads to nothing but confusion.

The only one altering definitions (and definition shopping) here is you. "Person" is a legal term with a specific meaning, one which you have been told several times. That meaning includes only born humans. A human that has not been born is a fetus. The fact that the legal definition of the term "person" does not suit your appeals to emotion ("But it's a BABY! How can you kill a BABY?") does not change the definition or mean it is being twisted.

Now, while I'm all for moving the definition of person back to include fetuses 24 weeks and older (the difference between a fetus at 24 weeks and one at 23 is that the latter does not have the structures required to achieve sapience.), that still would not change the fact that no one has the right to compel a person to act as their life support system. The fact that it is necessary to permit abortion would not change, and will not, as the only way medicine will be able to perform the miracle of increasing fetal survivability is by creating an artificial womb that the fetus can be successfully re-implanted in, and, once that happens, abortion will be a simple matter of transferring the fetus from the woman into the artificial womb.

Abortion must be permitted because women are not merely incubators with no rights or will of their own. No person has the right to compel another to allow the use of their body as life support. No person has the right to force organ or fluid donations from another, even if said donation is as harmless as any medical procedure can be. This is a legal precedent that has been upheld many times. It is also one that was set despite the Supreme Court justices of the time believing it was morally indefensible for David Shimp to refuse to donate marrow to Robert McFall. Their reasoning was that the right to control one's own body was more important that the right to life, as having no right to refuse to make such donations would set a very dangerous legal and constitutional precedent. That right to bodily sovereignty does not change just because one is a pregnant woman, and the fact that a person cannot compel another to be their life support device does not change just because the person in question is a fetus (in the unlikely event personhood was expanded to include fetuses). The mother's rights do not end just because she's pregnant, nor do they end just because it is an unfortunate fact that the only way to remedy the situation results in the death of the fetus. David Shimp was Robert McFall's only match. Without a donation of marrow from Shimp specifically, McFall would have died (and, indeed, did die of a hemorrhage about a month later). That fact did not negate David Shimp's right to bodily integrity and bodily sovereignty.

[Kernen]

What makes you think if you can't make a reasonable argument for abortion any of us are interested in listening to someone who threw a temper tantrum on air and walked out of an interview when asked hard questions about abortion?

As I have said, everyone makes mistakes. He's much more cool-headed in the speech I have sent. (Besides, if you were publicly speaking about a controversial topic for so many years, chances are that you will make a mistake at least once, no matter how skilled you are.)

Firstly, after seeing how Ben Shapiro behaves when asked difficult questions in interviews, I'd double-check with another source before taking his word on the colour of the sky.

Second, don't just dump the link. Outline the arguments, so we can rebut them.

1. See above. Also, it's true that what he stated was his opinion. That's the definition of an opinion. You don't have to take his word on it, but I still suggest you watch - even a little bit - before you criticize.
2. You can try to rebutt them with the link. I shouldn't have to personally list his arguments in very much detail. Moreover, I was providing it for those who want to watch it and learn some points, not one who merely wants to put all of the workload onto the opponents and make it all worth naught.

You are who you are at your worst. Anything else is just a pretty lie.

[Honkworld]

No, they aren't. The third world is increasing in birth rates, while Western countries are falling birth rates. This is not normal. This was planned by the left.

I bet all the white women in your neighborhood are hooking up with black dudes.

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

[Kowani]

I bet all the white women in your neighborhood are hooking up with black dudes.

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

Meanwhile, in reality…

[Vassenor]

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

Meanwhile, in reality…

B-but the great replacement...

[Liriena]

I consider abortion murder. Pretty much, from the moment of conception, a human being has been created. It has DNA.

Does that mean that many miscarriages, depending on the circumstances, could be considered manslaughter? :thonk:

[Liriena]

No, they aren't. The third world is increasing in birth rates

[citation needed]

This is not normal.

It technically is.

This was planned by the left.

We lefties planned it?

Hmm, yeah, I guess we kinda did. I mean, we did advocate for better sex ed, legalized birth control, etc., and obviously all of this stuff was inevitably going to lead to fewer unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

But we did it in the name of, y'know, freedom. We didn't do it to scare a bunch of clown frogs into existential hysteria. Honk honk.

[Liriena]

cultural marxist propaganda

Cultural marxist propaganda is the best, yo. It's, like, super marxist, very cultural, and extremely gay.

[Liriena]

Meanwhile, in reality…

B-but the great replacement...

Does me dating guys automatically make me complicit in the great replacement, or do I have to specifically date non-white guys? I mean, either way I'm not producing a lot of white babies. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Godular]

I bet all the white women in your neighborhood are hooking up with black dudes.

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

I'm afraid to set the strawman on fire, if only because you might think it a cross burning and invite your friends over.

[Attempted Socialism]

cultural marxist propaganda

Cultural marxist propaganda is the best, yo. It's, like, super marxist, very cultural, and extremely gay.

I always like this line. It's not just that literal Nazis, basically Nazis and wanna-be Nazis* ascribe "cultural" "marxism" (Which I've yet to meet a single Great Replacer with the mental faculties necessary to define) great enough power to change the entire world, it's also explicitly a stronger and better organised movement than their own. In their own paranoid power fantasy, they are the "beta" to the "marxist" "alpha". Sure, none of it is true, but still.

We did try to get Honkworld to name sources for any of their BS arguments. Somehow they only followed up with more BS non-arguments. It leads me almost inexorably to the conclusion that their arguments are BS grounded in something other than reality.

*sure, people can technically use the imagery of wanna-be Nazis, the language of basically Nazis, and promote the same policies as literal Nazis, without being Nazis, but at that point all we're arguing over is which classification to use, and we have one handy.

[Kernen]

I bet all the white women in your neighborhood are hooking up with black dudes.

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

You say that as though interracial relationships are a bad thing.

[Highever]

I bet all the white women in your neighborhood are hooking up with black dudes.

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

Some ads are not all white people? Shit you cracked tho code of the liberal conspiracy to kill off the first world by introducing a human Genophage and showing people of other races in advertisements.

[Jebslund]

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

You say that as though interracial relationships are a bad thing.

Cultural marxist propaganda is the best, yo. It's, like, super marxist, very cultural, and extremely gay.

I always like this line. It's not just that literal Nazis, basically Nazis and wanna-be Nazis* ascribe "cultural" "marxism" (Which I've yet to meet a single Great Replacer with the mental faculties necessary to define) great enough power to change the entire world, it's also explicitly a stronger and better organised movement than their own. In their own paranoid power fantasy, they are the "beta" to the "marxist" "alpha". Sure, none of it is true, but still.

We did try to get Honkworld to name sources for any of their BS arguments. Somehow they only followed up with more BS non-arguments. It leads me almost inexorably to the conclusion that their arguments are BS grounded in something other than reality.

*sure, people can technically use the imagery of wanna-be Nazis, the language of basically Nazis, and promote the same policies as literal Nazis, without being Nazis, but at that point all we're arguing over is which classification to use, and we have one handy.

No, they aren't. The third world is increasing in birth rates

[citation needed]

This is not normal.

It technically is.

This was planned by the left.

We lefties planned it?

Hmm, yeah, I guess we kinda did. I mean, we did advocate for better sex ed, legalized birth control, etc., and obviously all of this stuff was inevitably going to lead to fewer unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

But we did it in the name of, y'know, freedom. We didn't do it to scare a bunch of clown frogs into existential hysteria. Honk honk.

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

Some ads are not all white people? Shit you cracked tho code of the liberal conspiracy to kill off the first world by introducing a human Genophage and showing people of other races in advertisements.

I was under the impression this thread was about Abortion.

[Kowani]

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

I'm afraid to set the strawman on fire, if only because you might think it a cross burning and invite your friends over.

This is golden.

[Internationalist Bastard]

You say that as though interracial relationships are a bad thing.

I always like this line. It's not just that literal Nazis, basically Nazis and wanna-be Nazis* ascribe "cultural" "marxism" (Which I've yet to meet a single Great Replacer with the mental faculties necessary to define) great enough power to change the entire world, it's also explicitly a stronger and better organised movement than their own. In their own paranoid power fantasy, they are the "beta" to the "marxist" "alpha". Sure, none of it is true, but still.

We did try to get Honkworld to name sources for any of their BS arguments. Somehow they only followed up with more BS non-arguments. It leads me almost inexorably to the conclusion that their arguments are BS grounded in something other than reality.

*sure, people can technically use the imagery of wanna-be Nazis, the language of basically Nazis, and promote the same policies as literal Nazis, without being Nazis, but at that point all we're arguing over is which classification to use, and we have one handy.

[citation needed]


It technically is.


We lefties planned it?

Hmm, yeah, I guess we kinda did. I mean, we did advocate for better sex ed, legalized birth control, etc., and obviously all of this stuff was inevitably going to lead to fewer unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

But we did it in the name of, y'know, freedom. We didn't do it to scare a bunch of clown frogs into existential hysteria. Honk honk.

Some ads are not all white people? Shit you cracked tho code of the liberal conspiracy to kill off the first world by introducing a human Genophage and showing people of other races in advertisements.

I was under the impression this thread was about Abortion.

A lot of people have race based conspiracy theories about abortion actually. It’s rather hard not to discuss it without someone mentioning genocide

[Katganistan]

Only because of liberal and cultural marxist propaganda, claiming that "ITS RACIST TO MATE WITH YOUR KIND, DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!!!!1!!!" Which is why they always have a black man with a white woman in advertisments nowadays.

Meanwhile, in reality…

LOL, seriously.

[Great Minarchistan]

Abortion must be permitted because women are not merely incubators with no rights or will of their own. No person has the right to compel another to allow the use of their body as life support. No person has the right to force organ or fluid donations from another, even if said donation is as harmless as any medical procedure can be.

Yeah, then literally don't incur into the risk of getting pregnant if you don't want to be in this situation

[Liriena]

Abortion must be permitted because women are not merely incubators with no rights or will of their own. No person has the right to compel another to allow the use of their body as life support. No person has the right to force organ or fluid donations from another, even if said donation is as harmless as any medical procedure can be.

Yeah, then literally don't incur into the risk of getting pregnant if you don't want to be in this situation

This is some bizarre logic to apply to anything related to people's private health decisions.

Applied to people currently pregnant, it's beyond useless. Like telling someone with lung cancer that they shouldn't have smoked tobacco. They're already sick and they are asking for medical help. You don't get to pick and choose whether people should get the medical help they require based on whether the way they came to need that help morally offends you.

Applied to people who are not currently pregnant, it's simplistic, myopic. Sometimes people miscalculate. Sometimes they change their mind. And no third party has the right to tell them that their individual autonomy is void if they make an honest mistake, or if the prevention they relied on fails.

Either way, your logic is just self-indulgent moralism and has no value other than reinforcing your own sense of moral superiority against people who need or may one day need an abortion.

[Jebslund]

Abortion must be permitted because women are not merely incubators with no rights or will of their own. No person has the right to compel another to allow the use of their body as life support. No person has the right to force organ or fluid donations from another, even if said donation is as harmless as any medical procedure can be.

Yeah, then literally don't incur into the risk of getting pregnant if you don't want to be in this situation

Expecting abstinence from humans is like expecting a dog not to eat. The reason prison rape and molestation in the Catholic Church are things? Abstinence isn't healthy. There are those who can handle it, but many cannot, and expecting them to, especially when married, is unreasonable in the extreme.

[Great Minarchistan]

This is some bizarre logic to apply to anything related to people's private health decisions.

Applied to people currently pregnant, it's beyond useless. Like telling someone with lung cancer that they shouldn't have smoked tobacco. They're already sick and they are asking for medical help. You don't get to pick and choose whether people should get the medical help they require based on whether the way they came to need that help morally offends you.

Unlike smoking-related diseases, pregnancy's byproducts (in practical terms, having a baby) are brought in the short term and are predictable, not black swan events

Applied to people who are not currently pregnant, it's simplistic, myopic. Sometimes people miscalculate. Sometimes they change their mind. And no third party has the right to tell them that their individual autonomy is void if they make an honest mistake, or if the prevention they relied on fails.

Retarded decisions are often done and you aren't supposed to murder a person to reverse yours, unless of course if you're so self-centered that you believe that'll maximize your personal utility