Who let you back?

It ain't any of your business

-mute @rory 10080 (pending ban for previously documented offenses)

🔇 Muted `GOD#4651` for `1 week`

I can’t feel my mouth

uwu

https://files.catbox.moe/qwtwqt.jpg

This server is kind of a dumpster fire, isn't it?

Yeah, although a particularly shit mod just left so maybe less so now.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/6nJbttNzWjHk/

hate it when women say cant hit back

No one should hit in the first place >.<

I haven't seen any abortion convos on here that I can remember

Kinda weird

there have been quite a lot but in the general chat

I haven't seen any in general

Hmmm

wait nvm

there's been a lot

but all I remember is something about killing women who get abortions

Has anyone here but me participated in providing an abortion?

Just curious

Hmm

I'm not pro life or pro choice. I'm pro education, the new born baby is technically a clump of cells and it isn't a living person yet. I don't believe we should do abortions in late stages of pregnancy, but we should also do abortions because some people might be victims of rape.

The arbitrary constitution or configuration of cells is not, in itself, sufficient to define what is and is not a property of human life.

What are categorical truths regarding the nature of those cells?
1: They are genetically distinct from both parents; amalgamated, yes, but also distinct through mutation (particularly on the Y chromosome)
2: They self-replicate and possess an individual metabolism

The question should never be "what constitutes life", because by all meaningful definitions even a zygote is "alive"; the question of whether or not it is self-sufficient or even self-aware is irrelevant; neo-natal infants do not develop self-awareness until they are 6-12 months old. Any argument that can justify the termination of a zygote can also be used to rationalize the murder of an infant; the difference is by degrees.

In fact; any argument used to justify abortion on the premise of life-utility or deontological/arbitrary definitions can be used to justify murder.

"A fetus feels no pain until X point in time"
By this rationale it should be moral for me to murder a quadriplegic as long as the killing blow falls below the neck.
"A fetus is not self-aware"
By this rationale it should be morally permissible for me to murder a severely retarded person, or a person in a vegetative state/coma.
"A fetus cannot survive by itself"
By this rationale, as previously stated, it should be morally permissible for me to murder a 1-12 month old child.

The only abortion question that is logically and morally consistent is "If this thing is a burden, why can I not kill it"
Everything else, literally every other argument, is an argument of convenience (which is ironic, because the whole subject, and act of abortion boils down to what is and is not convenient) to distance one's self from that nihilistic reality.

And I think, if framed in such a way, most people would understand that abortion is *wrong*; now the question is then... does that matter? Does it matter if it is categorically wrong? Window dressing the issue to divorce it from this single moral question doesn't change the fact that this is *the* moral question.
"Does it matter if it's wrong?"
In a round-about way, no, not really. But in every significant way, YES, it matters. It matters for the same reason we look down at, and are disgusted by, alcoholics getting liver transplants; it matters for the same reason we feel a grim sort of satisfaction when pedophiles are chemically castrated. People who make self-destructive choices which result in their own annihilation (be that physically or spiritually) are degenerate, in the purest most clinical sense of the word.

Therefore I hold that it is literally true that abortion is categorically immoral, strip away the varnish, gloss and embellishments of illusion and excuse and examine the thing as it is by it's own merits.
A person who has sex, with or without protection, must accept the potential consequences of this action. The same way a person who eats 5 big macs a day must accept obesity as the consequence of their actions. The same way heroin junkie who shares needles must accept AIDS as the consequences of their actions.
I see no reason on earth to legitimize such shameful things or to make excuses for them. Women who get abortions should be looked down on, the same way we look down on anyone who purposefully enters into a state of apoptosis.

There is no such thing as a pregnant virgin.

Does this mean abortion should be illegal? I personally think it should, but what does it matter? Really? There are plenty of immoral things which are perfectly legal. It's not illegal to drink one's self into a coma, it's not illegal to ride 40,000 miles of cock in college, it's not illegal to eat your own shit.
But no one should feel sympathy for, or attempt to legitimize or render unto subjectivity, the immorality of promiscuity, shit eating, or alcoholism. These things should be shamed, the people who engage in them should be made to feel bad about themselves.
Furry Fandom isn't illegal, but these people should be shamed and shunned, and made to feel inferior, because they are, they're disgusting creatures.

Women who get abortions should be made to feel the same way.

GG @Volkswätcher, you just advanced to level 2!

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Fight me god damn it

Even if the abortion is to preserve her own life?

I am abhor abortion but I participate in performing them when they are toxic to the mother's continued existence.

I provide drugs toxic to the fetus to save a woman's life.

Unless the woman explicitly says otherwise, I will maintain an existent life over a potential one.

That's a completely different set of circumstances and I think it's reductive and Orwellian to describe them in the same breathe.
Murder is wrong, but if separating a retarded twin from his functional conjoined counterpart would kill the retard, even basic act-utility would say "go for it";

Although I would say that under at least some circumstances it would be better to let both the mother and the fetus die; clearly natural selection has spoken.

Or to put it succinctly, I don't think it's right or fair to present some iteration of the trolley problem; of course it would be morally correct to let.. say... a thousand homeless people die to save the life of an army general. Of course it would be morally right to let a hundred thousand kittens burn up to save one orphan from a burning building.
I think the two issues are mutually exclusive. Abortion, full stop; is morally different from medically necessary abortions. I think both issues need their own conversation.

Furries and women who get abortions should be treated the same way

But the punishment should be death for getting an abortiona and death for being a furry