/lit/ - Literature

>>6591977
>Filtered so hard motherfuckers wanna fine me.

It's good that the filter option is available to weak minds who would otherwise get sad about reading perspectives that make their tummies hurt.

>>6591363
>Oh, I think you can. Saged and filtered.

I can get you to stop pouting at me FOR FREE? Awesome.

>>6591326
>On the contrary, it takes a really weak and insecure person to "make a name for themselves" on 4chan.

Actually, that's not "contrary" to what I said.

Weak and insecure people sign their names to what they write, hiding in anonymity is for the strong, courageous souls like yourself. OK.

I just can't imagine having so little to think about that someone having a name on 4chan would set me off in a bitter little tizzy.

>>6591298
>Kek you actually gave yourself a trip

If I was weak-minded I definitely would have stuck with anonymity, so I think you made the right choice.

>>6591293
>Maybe the threat of a screaming cabbage will get them to think about their actions.

Since you're not getting laid, no one else should be allowed, huh?

>>6591282

Didn't ask/don't care, dudelover.

>>6591270
>Pro-life is just holding people accountable for making stupid mistakes. Keep your legs together, ladies.

i.e. the 'sluts should be punished with babies they don't want regardless of their circumstances' position.

I'd be very happy to take my 5 to a desert island; hope everyone else feels the same way--especially 272.

>>6590160
>Pro-life is code for anti-freedom.

Agreed.

>>6589813
Buffett's life doesn't seem like it's wasted...

>>6588126
>Just dropping by to point out that all my prochoice female friends became prolife (aside from early term abortions of course) after becoming mothers. They actually caused me to reconsider my own views.

So they think a woman should have the right to choose. Interesting. Well, it makes sense, because mothers understand how difficult being a mother can be, and that a woman should want to become one, rather than be forced to become one.

>>6586748
>He can't prevent the woman from getting one, he can only advise against it, and he's probably get in trouble if he brought up morality in this regard.

Who is 'he'?

>Yes. Peter Singer, as I've already pointed out. But my point with you, is that if you think taking a human life can be justified by deformity, *and deformity alone*, then why wouldn't you support this?

I don't see where I said that anything was justified on the basis of deformity alone.

>Yes it is, and it's not perturbing pro choice at all. Are there any pro choice articles in response to articles like those I've linked?

It's not, and there are no responses I know of, because of the obscurity of this perspective in the first place.

>It never would, at least for me. If I were a woman and became pregnant and got an abortion for what I felt were the right reasons, I'd still never consider the choice "unquestionably" right. I'm using that phrase for women who do.

You said "And even where it is unquestionably the right choice, it's not a good idea to try to numb all feelings of guilt or negative emotion about taking a life." So my question remains.

>>6586697
>You do understand that the exact same thing can be said about you ?

When have a called abortion something it plainly is not? Or was this response merely reflexive and not considered?

>What do you think that a doctor will bring more than a bureaucrat ?

Medical insight untainted by political leaning or ambition.

>>6582781
>This the hypocrysy of the liberals which shows how well your unease towards your authoritary system.

It seems like you think I'm a bad guy for asking you to not misuse words hysterically in an otherwise lucid discussion.

>>6581834
>>Let's not retreat into hypotheticals, especially unsound ones. If the baby is born with no skull, there will not be a lot of disputing whether the procedure was warranted.
>But what if we're talking about a situation where there isn't such an issue?

Again, this would be a circumstance for a doctor's determination, not a bureaucrat's.

>I'd also like to know whether or not you support euthanizing deformed children after birth.

Is anyone advocating this?

>It sure as hell is becoming more prominent.

No, it really isn't.

>And even where it is unquestionably the right choice, it's not a good idea to try to numb all feelings of guilt or negative emotion about taking a life. It's healthy even for soldiers to feel negative about killing people, and if someone said their negative feelings were a bad thing that must be totally numbed, I think that person ought to be questioned, and I think we should be concerned about the implications of that in society.

How much suffering do you require, even when, as you say, abortion is unquestionably the right choice?

>>6580508
>Take a late term fetus and it's nearly identical to a newborn.

Late term fetuses are almost never aborted except when the mother's life is in danger or when catastrophic birth defects are present.

>>6580477
>Fetuses are children. Are you some kind of hermit neet or something? Pregnant women themselves refer to their fetuses as their children all the time.
>A fetus is a fetus and its also a child.

No, a fetus is not a child. Take one out at 8 weeks and dandle it on your knee for a while; I'm sure you'll begin to see the difference.

>>6580397
>No, that's not what that word means.

But it is.

>Besides, that same train of logic could be used in absolutely ridiculous circumstances.

If someone wanted to think ridiculously.

>>6580164
>Ain't a niqqa like me against abortion (niqqa what my bitch gon do without it?), but y'all bustas need to stop trippin with that justification and shit; y'all need to realize y'all killing babies, it ain't nothin else, and a baby ain't got no right to life, but you is still killin a damn baby and there aint nothin wrong wit it.

A fetus is not a baby. It would likely become one.

>>6580139
>>ectopic pregnancies
>late term abortions
>You're an idiot

On what grounds are women with ectopic pregnancies forced into life threatening situations where they have to wait to go into labor? How is ending a late-term pregnancy such as this viewed by flatheaded busybodies like yourself?

>>6579942
>it's not a reason not to curb the abortion numbers

Unfortunately, the same people who oppose abortion also often oppose sex education and the availability of contraception. Rick Santorum came in 2nd in the GOP primaries in 2012 saying contraception was wrong.

>there's nothing wrong valuing the traditional family that is man, woman, children

There's nothing wrong with people waiting to have children until they are ready to have them.

>>6579917
>Absolutely immortal, and absolutely corrupt.

Not "immortal" and not corrupt. You just don't like other people having freedom you don't approve of, and you feel like you should be able to impose your morality on people who do not share it. Because you're so important, right?

>>6579374
>you do everything not to call it infanticide since without abortion, do stop the process of life, which is your goal, you would have to kill the child. Remember that no abondon happens inthis scenario.

But abortion is not 'infanticide,' and a fetus is not a 'child.' Anti-choice people just misuse words they like the impact of because it makes them feel more righteous.

>>6579081
>An abortion isn't how an ectopic pregnancy is ended, a salpingectomy is. The end of an ectopic pregnancy is in no way, shape or form an abortion.

A salpingectomy is the removal of a falopian tube. It is not how the immediate ectopic pregnancy is dealt with, it is to avoid another one. Please make more of an attempt to know what you're talking about.

>You are just a murder trying to justify murder, which is what all pro-'choice' morons do.

Abortion isn't murder, you're just using overheated rhetoric to bolster your weak argument. Which is what many anti-choice busybodies do.