Culture This State Could Become the First Without an Abortion Clinic - The State of Missouri vs. Planned Parenthood

Freya

i wanna go where the down boys go
kiwifarms.net
The nips did not invent vomit porn and they produce neither the most nor the best. Their claim to that title is shaky at best.

But yeah this kinda sucks, I think everybody should be able to abort, not because I think dead babies is a good thing in and of itself, but because either they need it for medical/life-saving type reasons, and a dead baby is better than a baby with a dead mother or dead both of them, or they want it and don't need it, in which case we've finally reintroduced some degree of natural selection after living in civilized society with medicine, plentiful food, and no predators has pretty much eliminated it.
the sad truth is that abortion is a necessity of modern civilization. you would not want to live in an America where abortion was illegal over the course of a few decades.

making it more difficult for women to get them means that the women with more money, resources, planning abilities and a stable family structure(someone has to watch the kids) will travel to another state to get one done where the poor re.tards will just pop it out.

it actively selects against the people who should be having kids
 

Spastic Colon

My pronouns are fuck/you
kiwifarms.net
This can be done in any type of gynecological or general hospital. PP's business is abortion, the rest is just a facade.
They do offer lost cost or free birth control to people, though. As well as STD treatment. If you are poor, it is the cheapest way to get the birth control pill, especially if you don't have insurance or your insurance policy won't cover it. They charge on a sliding scale.

And if you want to stop abortion, you've got to make sure that people have access to birth control. People shouldn't be having sex unless they could handle having a kid if the condom broke or she missed a pill -- but that hasn't stopped humans since the dawn of time from risking pregnancy for a little bit of sexy fun time. I doubt this and future generations are going to have more control over their sexual urges than any of the previous ones.

Hey I had one too and I never used it for vomit porn. Even I have standards. Stop blaming everyone but yourself for your bizarre fetish.
I don't even know what vomit porn is and I don't really want to know. Sometimes being a boomer has its perks. The internet came along after I was old enough not to look up degenerate stuff like that.
 
I hate the way 'babies' is always used to amplify the issue

if you think about it a baby is the most useless kind of human being outside of a terminally disabled/ridiculously old one
killing them actually leads to a massive increase in value once the tissues are harvested
No, it leads to a massive DECREASE in value through the destruction of your future workforce. That'd be like killing your calves because they're not big enough to eat, instead of raising them up to big beefs that are full of meat.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
No, it leads to a massive DECREASE in value through the destruction of your future workforce. That'd be like killing your calves because they're not big enough to eat, instead of raising them up to big beefs that are full of meat.
The Hartleys were more valuable as biomass than living things.

Yes I meant to write it that way without specific mention of the hooligans
 

The Pink Panther

Ate Pinkly
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Pro-lifers Kiwis, what are you guys on??
Late as fuck, but I am personally pro-life, but I wouldn't try to ban anyone from getting an abortion if I were in a position of power. People have their own choices to make in life. Personally, if it's not out of some sort of health risk for the person carrying the baby or maybe rape (although adoption would be best for that), I disdain abortion. I don't want to sound too harsh, but I see abortion as a sign of irresponsibility from both the man and woman's part if you don't get it for those reasons. If you're not ready to have a fucking child and you want to fuck raw, use contraceptives and birth control. And even if the girl doesn't want to use that shit, a dude could just easily buy themselves a condom...although to be frank for reinforcement, spermicide would be best to use as well. Safe sex should be practiced at all costs. 99% of abortions are these cases where the mother is not ready. A child's life is a precious thing. It is sickening to me to waste it through the puncturing of a needle with a fetus. The decision to have a child is an important one and one should take that into consideration. But if you want your child, because "muh stress" got you when you're 6 months, that's fine by me. I feel as if you should be more confident in your decision on whether or not you are mentally ready to be a parent.
 

Zero Day Defense

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"
kiwifarms.net
Pro-lifers Kiwis, what are you guys on??
A human zygote, embryo, fetus, whatever-- it's incontrovertibly, invariably, intrinsically, ontologically human. They're obviously not cats or dogs or dolphins. They're not dog-human hybrids. They're not chimeras. They're not tumors or whatever else the simpler-minded pro-choicers choose to call them, and the matter of "having a choice" in terminating a pregnancy is completely irrelevant if in fact we're talking about killing a baby-- the idea of female autonomy concerning their wombs if they're actually the host for new human life is normally irrelevant enough that I personally find it childish to bring it up because, among other issues, that's not where the conversation is going to meaningfully start.

People who try to establish a cutoff based on the development of certain characteristics baffle me.

What the hell does it matter that an embryo can or cannot feel pain-- if a child is born that has a disorder that prevents them from feeling pain, are they less human?

In terms of humanity, what does it matter if the embryo doesn't have a brain or a fully developed one-- if you were to murder a child with anencephaly, would you not still be charged with murder, and would you not be rightfully called a murderer?

We shouldn't do anything once the subject develops a consciousness? I suppose it's okay to kill those in a persistent vegetative state, along with the aforementioned anencephalic/microencephalic people.

If a child actually has a chronic disorder learned about ahead of time, can you say for certain that they'll suffer intractably their entire life, to the point that it'd be better to deny them any chance of life altogether?

With any of the aforementioned considerations, does the absence of (or in the case of the just-aforementioned, presence of) such qualities make these subjects any less human?

If you suppose that abortion is better than giving birth to a child only for them to live in miserable circumstances, you assume that you know for certain that they're going to continue to live in said miserable circumstances for the rest of their lives, and that because you don't have the vision and/or the wherewithal to secure anything better, they're certainly going to suffer the way you figure they will-- and if you unintentionally conceived out of consensual sex, you especially don't have any business making that determination.

If the child is a product of rape? Is it the child's fault that they're the product of a perversion of a profoundly intimate act?

People who try to establish a cutoff based on the development of certain characteristics are very much hitting the Slip n' Slide to eugenics if they're not already going for a third round-- and it wouldn't be infuriating if they just admitted that abortion is literally killing a child. You either suction them out, or you euthanize and scramble them before expulsion, or you euthanize and dismember them, finishing the procedure by crushing their heads and removing the fragments. What did you ever think it was?

Has anybody here actually considered that many of the women going to get an abortion either wouldn't have chosen to if not for external social pressure or an otherwise imminent death or are traumatized after they realize that the procedure wasn't the OB/GYN or whomever just chanting "fetus deletus"?

People that identify as "pro-choice", by and large, avoid all of the above, make the conversation about female autonomy-- not even considering that one could be forced to get an abortion by an abusive boyfriend not trying to take responsibility for once in his life or a father or mother trying to avoid shame in his ostensibly Christian town-- and then actively deflect pro-life arguments in a kabuki routine that culminates in strongly asserting that all pro-life people only care about muh patriarchy and snuffing female autonomy and couldn't give a damn about the child after they exit the birth canal, not even bothering to actually talk about what abortion is. Hell, a contingent of them clock into overdrive doing the most original thought they'll seem like they're doing trying to deconstruct ancient base notions of interpersonal responsibility by asserting that for some asinine reason, nobody-- not even your progeny-- have a right to your care.

As for the issue at hand? I think abortion should be legal, because it is very unfortunately a reality that it's necessary in a contingent of cases wherein the mother's life is actively threatened, the situation is unsalvageable, and loss of one life versus the definite loss of two has to be weighed intently. We should be working to make our support structures better for all the children abandoned or otherwise unable to be properly cared for. ADD: Whether or not it's legal isn't the important part-- the important part is how we handle the matters of life and sex, which would ultimately govern how we as a society would view and treat the prospect of abortion.

But guess what? The latter isn't where the conversation starts.
 
Last edited:

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
or maybe rape (although adoption would be best for that),
I don't think we should be rewarding rape as a reproductive strategy by allowing a rapists genes to spread and the resultant offspring raised on government money.

What the hell does it matter that an embryo can or cannot feel pain-- if a child is born that has a disorder that prevents them from feeling pain, are they less human?
It depends, but probably.

In terms of humanity, what does it matter if the embryo doesn't have a brain or a fully developed one-- if you were to murder a child with anencephaly, would you not still be charged with murder, and would you not be rightfully called a murderer?
You shouldn't be. It's really more like property damage than murder given there's not a person involved.

>but muh genes
Dandruff is 100% human too. It even may have the vaunted potential to be human if we were unethical enough to experiment with human cloning.

We shouldn't do anything once the subject develops a consciousness? I suppose it's okay to kill those in a persistent vegetative state, along with the aforementioned anencephalic/microencephalic people.
Yes, it is.

Well maybe not the microcephalics, they generally have consciousness and personality. They're just tards.

People who try to establish a cutoff based on the development of certain characteristics are very much hitting the Slip n' Slide to eugenics if they're not already going for a third round
Good. Voluntary, scientifically justified eugenics is good.

Honestly, your beliefs kind of baffle me. If you believe all this is true how can you endure the horror that is every day existence? Innocent little ensouled embryos constantly being shed, sometimes before the mother even has a chance to know she's pregnant.
 
Last edited:

Hellbound Hellhound

kiwifarms.net
A human zygote, embryo, fetus, whatever-- it's incontrovertibly, invariably, intrinsically, ontologically human. They're obviously not cats or dogs or dolphins.
Actually, within the first couple of weeks, the human embryo is phenotypically indistinguishable from the embryo of every other chordate species. You could put a human embryo at 2 weeks next to a salmon embryo at 2 weeks, and the only way you'd be able to tell the difference is by doing a DNA test.

This is where the "pro-life" argument falls down for me, because it is obvious, legally, socially, and philosophically, that we do not use DNA to define what it means to be a human being. Case in point: identical twins. Identical twins are genetically identical, yet they are ontologically distinct people. If one twin commits a crime, we do not charge them both, neither in a court of law, nor in the court of public opinion.

Personally, I prefer the argument from bodily autonomy. If, for example, an eccentric elderly billionaire were to kidnap you for the purpose of using your body and organs to extend his life (see: parabiosis), most people would agree that you'd have every right to disconnect yourself from him (violently if need be), even if that meant him dying. It doesn't matter, according to this line of argument, whether somebody is a fully formed human or not, because nobody has the right to take hostage somebody else's body like that.

Now, the common retort to this argument is that children are dependent upon their parents in other ways, but this retort falls down for me on the basis that a parent technically doesn't have an obligation to provide for their children provided that they're willing to surrender their parental rights to the state. Nobody's autonomy is technically being infringed upon when a child is taken away for adoption, because "autonomy" concerns government of the self, not of other people.

I don't like the idea of abortion myself, and I would like to think that, were I a woman, I would resolutely refuse to ever have one, but I recognize on an intellectual level that the moral arguments against it are unconvincing, and the pragmatic ones are nonexistent.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
The bodily autonomy argument is never going to convince most pro-lifers because instead of an evil eccentric billionaire you have an innocent baby. The way to bring reasonable people around I feel is pointing out the biological facts.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Vlinny Chan

Null

Ooperator
kiwifarms.net
How is this a bad thing? Vaccines absolutely should be mandatory. I don't understand why they're not. The only reasonable objections to vaccines are allergic reactions. You don't get to choose to spread disease. It's a matter of public health. The government is absolutely justified in vaccinating your child by force, with exception to people who literally can't get vaccinated for some reason.
I disagree with that primarily because nothing stops the governments from filling that shit up with whatever they want and forcing you inject kids with it. If people distrust the government, fewer people will vaccinate, creating incentive for the government to be more trustworthy. If they can just force it, like they force everything else, there's no consequence. When there's a plague there's consequences.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino