The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

Bani

Pocket Clown
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
disagree. They condemn themselves by not being responsible or caring for themselves. There is a large argument to be made that many of these homeless ate incapable of caring for themselves and belong in state hospitals. I would happily let my taxes fund that.
Well, homelessness is a complicated issue, and there are plenty of ordinary, "responsible" people who face homelessness. For instance, maybe they do have a steady job, but the cost of housing in within commuting distance surpasses that which their salary can cover. I suppose the solution here is more affordable housing, more public transit, and fewer enormous parking lots that waste tons of space where housing could potentially be built. I agree with you that there's no reason why the medically infirm should be camped out on the street, particularly if they're elderly, veterans, or children.

Neither do illegal immigrants but they are still people. Lie. People without socials do get tax ids, and there are multiple legal immigration statuses that don't earn you an SSN. That is on top of the fact that many state governments issue drivers licenses to non citizens and even illegal immigrants.
I think we've got our wires crossed, here. Yes, undocumented immigrants are counted in census data because many of them pay taxes and use public resources like schools. However, "undocumented" is a bit of a misnomer, because most of them actually arrived here through the legal channel of a green card, only for the green card to eventually expire. Documents created in your country of origin don't vanish from existence the second you move to a new one. They still have birth certificates, passports, their countries' equivalent of a social security/identification number, etc., and applying for a green card requires that you supply that data. In fact, undocumented residents even have to sign up for Selective Service! Long story short, yes, a resident with an expired green card is very much a person in the eyes of the state, and they do have documents to substantiate their personhood. Fetuses do not.

banning the possession of drugs is a restriction on bodily autonomy. As are drug testing laws.
I said trafficking, not possession. Those are two different things. And in any case, my point was that neither abortion nor drug use should be crimes, because as you've said, they're a restriction on bodily autonomy. Same goes for the draft and Selective Service. I'm against all of those things for the same reason. I think your purpose in pointing this out was to insinuate that I'm a hypocrite for supporting autonomy in one case and opposing it in another, but that was predicated on the wrong assumption that I agree with those other, more "socially acceptable" forms of restrictions, but I'm not.

or choose to have sex, of which pregnancy is an extremely predictable outcome. Men don't get the choice of whether or not to support a child through child support, and i think that is fair, for the same reason. If you choose to have sex, you choose to accept the risks of having a child. with that said, i don't oppose exceptions for rape or incest.
I don't think it's a punishment at all. Most people change in ways they could have never imagined through being a parent. Ways that mature them and make them tougher far beyond what they could imagine they were capable of.
Many women cite needing to care for existing children as the reason for an abortion. 59% of women who have the procedure already have children. 62% consider themselves to be religious. These aren't wild college girls-- these are adult women with families, many of whom are in committed relationships. That same study found that 45% were married or cohabitating. Do expect people not to be sexually intimate with their long-term partners at all, especially when most men consider sex to be an important part of relationships? Birth control isn't perfect, and it isn't free (interesting that the people trying to outlaw abortions are the same ones that carved out exceptions for insurance companies to omit birth control coverage from their plans.)

Paying a couple hundred bucks a month is not the same as risking your health and disrupting your/your childrens' lives for a baby you aren't able to adequately care for. This is when you set aside that fact that most people expected to pay child support just don't, at least not in full, and single mothers are way more likely to be living in poverty than single fathers. Lawyers aren't free, and not everybody has the luxury of taking a bunch of work off to drag their deadbeat ex to court. You can blow off child support payments pretty easily. Caring for a thing that grew inside of you nine months, screams constantly, and that you'll be arrested for neglecting? Not so much. In a perfect world where men actually cared for children they fathered as frequently as women do, maybe we wouldn't need abortion. But until the burden of caring for kids stops falling disproportionately on women, they need an out.

And what are the standards going to be for proving that a fetus is the product of rape? What regulations would you put in place to prevent people from lying about being raped so they can obtain an abortion? Does the rapist have to have been someone found to be guilty of sexual assault in a court of law? And how is that not murder in your eyes? Does a baby cease to be a person to you when its conceived by rape? Are you aware that some of the state laws passed against abortion do not have exceptions in cases of rape and incest?

Can i abort my ex wife for being a parasite? Can we abort welfare queens? No, that would be monstrous.
No, because she's a person in the eyes of the law. Your can't "abort" an undocumented immigrant, either, because they're legally people as well.

Also, welfare queens are a Reagan-era myth, and welfare fraud is actually extremely rare.
 

Uberpenguin

Flightless Bird Agriculturalist
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Well, homelessness is a complicated issue, and there are plenty of ordinary, "responsible" people who face homelessness. For instance, maybe they do have a steady job, but the cost of housing in within commuting distance surpasses that which their salary can cover. I suppose the solution here is more affordable housing, more public transit, and fewer enormous parking lots that waste tons of space where housing could potentially be built. I agree with you that there's no reason why the medically infirm should be camped out on the street, particularly if they're elderly, veterans, or children.
It really isn't though. That's extremely idealized.
Realistically if you were to break homeless people down into groups, probably 70% are addicts of some kind (they have some level of crossover with the mentally ill though obviously), maybe 20% are transitive who might only be homeless for a month or so, and then 10% are the non-addicted mentally ill, like the actual raving schizos. Hell, in a lot of places if you can manage to piss clean and maintain employment for any length of time they'll give you housing, and they tend to have open spots for a reason.

The homeless can be fine to be around most times, but they're generally addicts regardless. All the churches and shelters recognize it, and they recognize most won't change. In bigger cities they'll go more towards center city, beg, then head back to higher drug trafficking areas and get high for the rest of the day. Does that make them evil people? Not necessarily, but it's reality regardless. How many have you interacted with? You ever been homeless? Probably not since 77% of homeless people are men.


This is exactly how women operate: "Oh, _____ is just misunderstood! You're just being a selfish asshole" *they get what they want* "Uh...I didn't think it would be like this, someone else fix this now! Don't you understand? It's inconveniencing me! You deal with it NOW NOW NOW!"

Great, systematically give insane sexually hopped up drug addicts with no inhibitions what they need so they can reproduce while the people supporting them are collecting cats and work 60 hours a week as stress and their impending biological clock makes them so fucking sick they can't even feel anything anymore.
People talk about eugenics, how the fuck is childless people giving what little they have to those who are having kids constantly not eugenics? When are you going to support their ability to have a family?

And no matter how bad it gets still, STILL people like you do this shit. Why is investing in the least valuable members of society beneficial aside from your fee fees? Oh, they're going to have to suffer; yeah, they will, and if it doesn't happen now then it will later, because the world isn't a magical fairies and unicorns land where everything is magicked into existence, it requires talented, intelligent, hard-working people to keep it running. The same ones who are being taken from.
Everyone's fucking suffering in case you couldn't tell. Why are these people's suffering more important? Because they're incompetent so they threaten your ego less?

Oh well, thank god nature is righting itself regarding feminism as stuff like Roe vs. Wade is terminated and trannies force their way into women's spaces and state rights gain center stage, because it's clear that women will fight to ruin not only themselves, but everyone around them until their last breath unless their autonomy is taken away.


And no amount of ridiculous biased studies or bullshit about how welfare queens like Melinda Scott with 7 kids who don't work totally don't exist and are a "Reagan era myth" is going to change it. Keep deluding yourself though at the expense of your long term well being; maybe that's why you identify with homeless junkies so much?
 

Netizennameless

Goosama Bin Laden
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
I can't reply to you directly Bani but I will respond a bit here:

For instance, maybe they do have a steady job, but the cost of housing in within commuting distance surpasses that which their salary can cover. I suppose the solution here is more affordable housing, more public transit, and fewer enormous parking lots that waste tons of space where housing could potentially be built. I agree with you that there's no reason why the medically infirm should be camped out on the street, particularly if they're elderly, veterans, or children.
I strongly disagree about putting resources into "affordable" housing. People don't want to live around poverty, crime and unrest. People with enough money flee those areas and the property values of the area declines. This discourages further residential projects in the area by anyone but government. This punishes the property owners who stay and encourages more flight. Eventually what is left is an area full of people too poor to leave and undesirable to the people who have the means to improve it.

More investment in public transit I support. It is more efficient than individual cars, it empowers people to find/travel to work, go to school, participate in the economy etc. without having to own a vehicle.

I think we've got our wires crossed, here.
We are going to fundamentally disagree on whether or not a fetus is a human being and that will make coming to total agreement impossible, but I understand the logic of your position. I wouldn't love it, but I could live with a compromise of abortion in the first trimester.

I said trafficking, not possession. Those are two different things.
You're right, you did. My mistake on this one.

Many women cite needing to care for existing children as the reason for an abortion.
I find this argument to be morally detestable, but it comes from the fact that to me a fetus is a child and to you it's not. Poverty doesn't mean you get the right to start choosing which of your kids you let live and which you let die. Moreover, if you don't want more children, sterilization is an option for both partners. As is adoption.

Birth control isn't perfect, and it isn't free (interesting that the people trying to outlaw abortions are the same ones that carved out exceptions for insurance companies to omit birth control coverage from their plans.)
Abstinence is perfect and is free. Oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy. Anal sex doesn't cause pregnancy. If having another child would mean your family could starve, it's irresponsible to risk that for pleasure. Like to the point of being mental illness. Incels don't have an inherent right to have sex, nobody does.

This is when you set aside that fact that most people expected to pay child support just don't, at least not in full, and single mothers are way more likely to be living in poverty than single fathers. Lawyers aren't free, and not everybody has the luxury of taking a bunch of work off to drag their deadbeat ex to court.
There is so much blatant sexism in this part I don't even know where to begin. this applies to fathers who want their children too, but no mention of that. There are more single mothers in poverty because women by default are the primary custodian and it's incredibly difficult for a father to be given the same. They have to pay for lawyers, and have the luxury of taking a bunch of time off of work to drag their ex into court.
You can blow off child support payments pretty easily.
Here are some consequences of not paying child support for men:
1. garnishment of your wages
2. seizure of any tax refunds
3. suspending your driver's license
4. loss of professional licenses
5. ineligible to obtain a passport
6. imprisonment

Also, if you lose your job, your child support obligations don't magically change. You have to pay a lawyer, go to court and have the obligation amended (if the court even agrees to). So it is completely possible (not trying to say it happens often) for a father to lose a job and end up in prison for it.
Caring for a thing that grew inside of you nine months, screams constantly, and that you'll be arrested for neglecting?
Every state in the US allows parents to abandon their children at a hospital or fire station with no consequences. This is precisely to not force someone to care for another against their will.
Not so much. In a perfect world where men actually cared for children they fathered as frequently as women do, maybe we wouldn't need abortion. But until the burden of caring for kids stops falling disproportionately on women, they need an out.
The other side of this entire screed you completely fail to mention is that men have no input into the abortion decision apart from choosing not to have sex. If the woman wants to have the baby and the father doesn't, he doesn't get a choice. He gets 18 years of child support obligations and to be called a deadbeat who isn't responsible for his children. If that same woman doesn't want the child and the father does, she gets to kill it without his input and he doesn't even get the choice of raising the child as a single father. They both made the choice to have sex. How can you honestly think this is fair?

In a perfect world where women exercised better judgment and were more selective about who they let inside them there would also not be a need for abortion. But somehow I don't think you are going to find that argument convincing or fair.

And what are the standards going to be for proving that a fetus is the product of rape?
What are the standards for proving a rape occurred? Nothing changes.
What regulations would you put in place to prevent people from lying about being raped so they can obtain an abortion?
Charge women who are caught lying about being raped with murder if they have an abortion and it's later proven they lied.
Does the rapist have to have been someone found to be guilty of sexual assault in a court of law? And how is that not murder in your eyes? Does a baby cease to be a person to you when its conceived by rape? Are you aware that some of the state laws passed against abortion do not have exceptions in cases of rape and incest?
I hoped you would bring this up. This is exactly the argument for why conservatives don't want an exception for rape or incest. To get to the meat of your question I do still think it's killing a baby. But abortion is a fucking uncomfortable subject, and I can't bring myself to support forcing women who were raped, who didn't make any choices for herself in the matter to either carry the unwanted baby to term or face murder charges. Here is how I would handle the situation:

1. If the woman is proven to have lied about being raped to obtain an abortion, she is charged with murder.
2. If the man is proven to have committed the rape and the woman has an abortion, he is charged with murder on top of rape. That will make it capital murder, and will come with a mandatory life without parole at minimum.
3. If the man is acquitted of rape or isn't charged, but the woman can't be proven to have been lying, nobody is charged with murder. However, there does need to be at minimum an accusation and a corresponding investigation opened to obtain an abortion.

Also, welfare queens are a Reagan-era myth, and welfare fraud is actually extremely rare.
that was just snark on my part. The last part is not true at all. 3-5% of welfare spending is proven to be fraudulent. Like $1-3 billion per year that we know of. Most reports aren't investigated.
https://safeatlast.co/blog/food-stamp-fraud-statistics/ (they cite their sources at the bottom of the page.)
 
Last edited:

Bani

Pocket Clown
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
I can't reply to you directly Bani but I will respond a bit here:
I'll give a full reply later, but I had the same problem when replying to you-- there was no button at the bottom of the post. Not sure what that's all about, but I basically just did what you did and copy+pasted the text.
 

Netizennameless

Goosama Bin Laden
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
I'll give a full reply later, but I had the same problem when replying to you-- there was no button at the bottom of the post. Not sure what that's all about, but I basically just did what you did and copy+pasted the text.
it's because our messages are so damn long haha.
 

Gilgamesh

Headshooter
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
I think it's pretty simple, it's a personal freedom and personal freedoms are good. I think "my body my choice" applies to everyone. Who cares.
Also, fuck condoms. we yeeting that shit if my gf gets pregnant.
 

Bani

Pocket Clown
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Netizennameless said:
Every state in the US allows parents to abandon their children at a hospital or fire station with no consequences. This is precisely to not force someone to care for another against their will.
Yes. There are also programs and lawyers that match expecting mothers with adoptive families. All good things.

However, I think it's important to note here that the average cost of giving birth in the United States is six-thousand dollars after insurance. Without insurance, that number climbs to thirteen thousand. That's a big chunk of change, even if you have nine months to save up for it.
Netizennameless said:
There is so much blatant sexism in this part I don't even know where to begin. this applies to fathers who want their children too, but no mention of that. There are more single mothers in poverty because women by default are the primary custodian and it's incredibly difficult for a father to be given the same. They have to pay for lawyers, and have the luxury of taking a bunch of time off of work to drag their ex into court.
This is actually an urban myth. Women are awarded custody because men don't typically seek it. In the less common instances where fathers do seek custody, courts have shown to be deferential to them.

I don't know why the state is failing to enforce it, but overall, only about two thirds of child support money actually gets collected, and only 44% of custodial parents receive the full amount allotted to them by the court.. Yes, the states can garnish wages, but doing that requires that the custodial parent report the delinquency, and the fact of the matter is that they often don't. Women aren't as vindictive about this matter as the media portrays them to be, especially when you consider that they don't want the father of their children to go to jail. I think that for many mothers, their kids growing up with their father in jail is worse than not getting a couple hundred bucks a month.

Netizennameless said:
What are the standards for proving a rape occurred? Nothing changes.
Charge women who are caught lying about being raped with murder if they have an abortion and it's later proven they lied.
I hoped you would bring this up. This is exactly the argument for why conservatives don't want an exception for rape or incest. To get to the meat of your question I do still think it's killing a baby. But abortion is a fucking uncomfortable subject, and I can't bring myself to support forcing women who were raped, who didn't make any choices for herself in the matter to either carry the unwanted baby to term or face murder charges. Here is how I would handle the situation:

1. If the woman is proven to have lied about being raped to obtain an abortion, she is charged with murder.
2. If the man is proven to have committed the rape and the woman has an abortion, he is charged with murder on top of rape. That will make it capital murder, and will come with a mandatory life without parole at minimum.
3. If the man is acquitted of rape or isn't charged, but the woman can't be proven to have been lying, nobody is charged with murder. However, there does need to be at minimum an accusation and a corresponding investigation opened to obtain an abortion.
I have to give you credit, this is an interesting solution. It makes sense on paper certainly, but it relies on a much more effective criminal justice system than the one we have. First and foremost, there's the tricky-to-measure issue of women choosing not to report sexual assaults. Because rape is overwhelmingly committed by people known personally by victims, they often suffer social or career fallout for choosing to come forward, so they just don't. I suppose the potentiality of being forced to carry the baby to term would encourage more women to report, but it's impossible to know for sure. The other issue is that what women do report, their cases get stuck in bureaucratic hell; there is famously an enormous backlog of rape kits gathering dust in evidence rooms around the country. The sum of all of this is that less than one percent of rapes result in a conviction.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that this completely invalidates your idea-- what I mean to suggest here is that you can implement any of those suggested changes before a serious overhaul of both rape law and the criminal justice system. That's a lot of time, work, and taxpayer expense when it's a heck of a lot cheaper and easier to just allow victims of sex crimes to abort.

Most of what we've been talking about is the legalization of abortion, but the criminalization of it is another story entirely. Suppose the doctor is on the hook for "murder" if he performs an abortion. Legally, it makes no sense to prosecute him exclusively, because he was performing a paid service to someone else-- if he committed murder, then the woman is guilty of solicitation to commit murder. There's no other way to slice it; if an abortion is functionally the same as murdering an adult, then all the same laws should theoretically apply. Criminalizing abortion also gets very ugly very fast. Recall the statistic I mentioned earlier about how most recipients of abortion are women with existing children. Those are the people you would be sending to prison, along with a bunch of gynecologists, which really doesn't bode well when the United States already has the highest rate of birth complications in the first world.

There's also the argument (and I'm sure you've heard this before) that outlawing abortions doesn't prevent them, it just prevents safe ones, greatly increasing the rate of dangerous clandestine attempts. This parallels the theory that outlawing guns just takes them out of the hands of "good guys," while criminals will find ways to obtain them anyway. The takeaway here is that criminalization is not how you alleviate a systemic problem-- it's better to incentivize the public behavior your want than punish the kind you want to reduce. If we make the world a better place for women to give birth in, they'll seek fewer abortions, simple as. In the meantime, it ought to stay legal.
 
Last edited:

Apis mellifera

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
I support aborting tard babies that are downies or are 'taters born with only a brainstem. Same goes for any other major mental or physical disability. Don't misunderstand me, I recognise that abortion is semantically akin to murder in late-term, and if it were legal, I'd also support killing the profoundly retarded. People who just drain resources and can not ever exist on their own do not deserve to live, unless they are beloved elders and members of the community.

Also, if the pregnancy posed serious harm to the mother in the case of a child getting raped, I'd support it. Wouldn't want my daughter dying at 13 because a nigger raped her.

#killallretards
 

gang weeder

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 12, 2022
Yes. There are also programs and lawyers that match expecting mothers with adoptive families. All good things.

However, I think it's important to note here that the average cost of giving birth in the United States is six-thousand dollars after insurance. Without insurance, that number climbs to thirteen thousand. That's a big chunk of change, even if you have nine months to save up for it.

And if you're too poor Medicaid has you covered. Even if it doesn't, the best you could say here is an argument that giving birth should be free, not that we should be allowed to kill babies because hospitals charge money for giving birth. Infants will end up costing their parents a whole hell of a lot more than 6000 smackers and yet we don't allow the parent to all of a sudden murder the infant because they decided they don't want that financial burden after all.

Most of what we've been talking about is the legalization of abortion, but the criminalization of it is another story entirely. Suppose the doctor is on the hook for "murder" if he performs an abortion. Legally, it makes no sense to prosecute him exclusively, because he was performing a paid service to someone else-- if he committed murder, then the woman is guilty of solicitation to commit murder. There's no other way to slice it; if an abortion is functionally the same as murdering an adult, then all the same laws should theoretically apply.

Okay, so the woman is guilty of solicitation to commit murder. Wow, that was a really big serious difficult moral quandary and dilemma.

There's also the argument (and I'm sure you've heard this before) that outlawing abortions doesn't prevent them, it just prevents safe ones, greatly increasing the rate of dangerous clandestine attempts.

Outlawing murder hasn't prevented murder either. Maybe we should legalize that?

This parallels the theory that outlawing guns just takes them out of the hands of "good guys," while criminals will find ways to obtain them anyway.

Outlawing gun ownership has the unique property of shifting the balance of power in society away from those who are law-abiding and towards those who are law-breaking. Breaking a "no guns" law makes it easier to commit and get away with other crimes, while obeying such a law makes you vulnerable to be targeted by criminals, even those who don't themselves have guns either. To a large extent, outlawing gun ownership is outlawing self defense. Outlawing the practice of abortion (or nearly anything else that gets discussed in current politics) clearly does not have this same effect.

The takeaway here is that criminalization is not how you alleviate a systemic problem-- it's better to incentivize the public behavior your want than punish the kind you want to reduce. If we make the world a better place for women to give birth in, they'll seek fewer abortions, simple as. In the meantime, it ought to stay legal.

"If we make the world a better place for people to avoid practicing slavery, they'll buy fewer slaves, simple as. In the meantime, it ought to stay legal."

@Bani
 
Last edited: