The best natural selection would be if another bubonic happened.

No really.

But I will say no more on this. It's too controversial

Abortion is artificial not natural selection fwiw

define natural and artificial

It's removing your genes from the gene pool

But I'm done commenting on this. This is one of the few issues I dislike talking about.

The technical distinction between babies and foetuses is used by abortion advocates to pretend the right they are in favour of doesn't kill. I make no such pretension, the right results in the killing of the foetus, and there is no hard moral distinction whatever between a foetus and a baby.

The right for your organs to not be used by others against your will trumps that in my opinion.

I am perfectly willing for all that death to occur in order for that right to be preserved.

It was nice talking to people with different views though. I like it.

@Whiskey-Vargas I do not hear many other advocates of reproductive rights holding this position though. Instead they merely scream "misogynist" when people disagree with them. I disagree with the curtailing of freedom to save young lives, but being against that freedom does not mean you hate women.

And these same people foolishly want to curtail the 1st and 2nd ammendments, which are magnitudes more important.

They want the right for a woman who makes the choice to terminate her pregnancy to not be judged for it, which is utter nonsense.

They also do not seem to realise that if you go after liberties that other people care about, that they don't much care about, those other people will go after theirs in turn, sometimes purely out of spite.

The abortion debate is a good example of this.

I'm sorry, I don't want to waste your time. I see you still typing. I moved to another channel. It was great talking to you. I'm very tired and these topics are tiring so I'm just shitposting now.

Luckily, cooler heads prevailed in the long term. Only once has a constitutional ammendment curtailed freedom, and it was repealed. It seems that enough people are aware of how foolish the game of going after other people's liberties is.

Ok.

So let me ask you something then

You are essentially advocating for the right for women to be in control of their property, right?

In control of their body.

I do not believe that children are property.

But organs?

Your organs are part of your body.

Mhm

Sperm, on the other hand, are a component of a fluid produced by a few different organs.

But sperm is by itself not life

They are not themselves organs, like how bile isn't actually the pancreas or gall bladder.

So what’s your limits on abortion then?

Until the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb?

Or right up until birth?

Once it can survive, what is the point of aborting?

You just get it out early and surrender it.

Though I don't know if anywhere in the world grants the right of surrender to men.

What if early delivery does more damage to the woman’s body?

(Despite it being granted to women.)

Then the choice falls to them.

So what point do you support abortion until is what I’m trying to figure out

What point should it be allowed until

After the baby is out.