/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20723646]

>abortion is…le evil!
Refuted by open individualism.

If you take the assumption that all experiences belong to the same universal self of consciousness itself, then abortion is morally irrelevant as it neither causes suffering nor takes away positive experience. If you are all lives, then why do you care if you are aborted in some of them? This is the ultimate golden rule. Arguing against abortion is about as logical as arguing that every woman should give birth to as many babies as she possibly can in her lifetime.

[Anonymous No.20723721]

I'm so sick of all the retards on this board like OP.

[Anonymous No.20723737]

>>20723721
not an argument

[Anonymous No.20723743]

Not /lit/ and peak fucking retard. Go to /his/ or /pol/

[Anonymous No.20723761]

>>20723646
>every woman should give birth to as many babies as she possibly can in her lifetime.

[Anonymous No.20723763]

>>20723743
I posted a book about a foundation for ethics. I gave an example of how this ethical system can be used in practice with abortion. I don’t know why you’re so triggered

[Anonymous No.20723824]

>>20723646
not /lit/

[Anonymous No.20723875]

Nothing riles up intellectual insecurity more than open individualism

[Anonymous No.20723886]

>>20723646
fuck women

[Anonymous No.20723986]

>>20723646
Cope
What about abortion is 'logical,' anon-- and why is it that /you/ feel compelled to take refuge there?

[Anonymous No.20724000]

>>20723646
>If you take the assumption that all experiences belong to the same universal self of consciousness itself,
Ok, but why would I take such a blatantly ridiculous assumption at all to start with?

[Anonymous No.20724021]

>>20724000
Because there is no way to coherently define the self otherwise

[Anonymous No.20724038]

>>20723875
>open individualism
Kek. I love stances impossible to refute because they consist of nothing to begin with

[Anonymous No.20724041]

>>20723646
Human abortion is necessary because human pregnancies do not work the same as 99.999% of other mammals. The dynamic relationship between the human fetus and the mother is essentially parasitic (I mean, forgetting parasitism cant exist intraspecies), the fetus grows a circulatory system instead of letting the placenta feed it.
Every other mammals (barring some primates and bats I believe) have the ability to shut off a pregnancy at any point if it becomes dangerous for the mother. We dont.

[Anonymous No.20724081]

>>20724041
>We don't
This sounds dire, but it feels also like such dangers can only afflict a relatively small proportion of human pregnancies. We already know that men are against women; what's weird about your view, however, is that it supposes that Nature is against women too....

[Anonymous No.20724104]

>>20724041
>some mammals will abort if they see an unknown male nearby
so all other animals will save resources trying to go after better genes but humans shouldn’t do this because le EVIL.

You WILL breed rape babies.
You WILL breed black babies.
You WILL have no control over your body.

[Anonymous No.20724116]

>>20724041
>essentially parasitic (I mean, forgetting parasitism cant exist intraspecies)
So it's not "essentially parasitic". Fucking retards love their rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.20724123]

>>>/lgbt/
>>20723721
fpbp

[Anonymous No.20724133]

>>20724081
>relatively small proportio
No, its essentially the reason why human birth has such a ridiculously high death % (or had until the advent of modern medecine). Cats dogs and many other mammals give birth to 6+ pups that weight almost as much as them put together and 10 minutes later they are back up and running.

[Anonymous No.20724142]

>>20723646
>If you take the assumption that all experiences belong to the same universal self of consciousness itself
But that's wrong, dummy

[Anonymous No.20724157]

>if you assume stupid premises you can arrive at stupid conclusions
wow! this is revolutionary

[Anonymous No.20724163]

>>20724116
You are retarded.

[Anonymous No.20724176]

>>20723646
>If you take the assumption that all experiences belong to the same universal self of consciousness itself,

[Anonymous No.20724189]

I love you OP but what are you doing on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.20724194]

>>20723743
>>20723721
>>20723824
>>20723986
>>20724142
>>20724176
Who do you work for ?

[Anonymous No.20724204]

>>20724189
Don't mention me tranny, go back to twitter

[Anonymous No.20724206]

>>20723646
Abortion can't be evil. The earth has a finite amount of resources, therefore, the population can not infinitely grow. Reducing births reduce the weight created on our systems of life support. Creating more competitors limit the possible wealth for everyone else through scarcity.

[Anonymous No.20724220]

>>20724206
You’re right. The universe has a finite amount of resources so it’s best to limit population before we have the technologies to utilize resources more efficiently and provide people with better lives overall. If 10 billion people existed 5,000 years ago, the world would probably be on a worse track then it is now.

[Anonymous No.20724228]

>>20724133
Are /you/ arguing in favor of abortion or are you suggesting that /we/ 'cancel' human birth altogether?

[Anonymous No.20724234]

>>20724220
I mean, this was the reality China realized through their one child policy. Wide spread access to contraceptives, and family planning to reduce kids will too, without abortion, but they don't want that either.

[Anonymous No.20724257]

>>20723646
>nor takes away positive experience
It does, it takes away my positive experience so I will fucking take you to the court if you killed that baby because he is a part of me.

[Anonymous No.20724262]

>>20724228
I'm just saying abortion is inbuilt in other species, and not ours, and yes, this is to the detriment of the specie. As to why we evolved with that specific form of pregnancy, what advantage it has, it really isnt clear.
I dont see how you could cancel human birth. I mean, besides cancelling every human.

[Anonymous No.20724270]

>>20724206
Kek. By this reasoning murder can't be evil either EXCEPT in the form of war, which (mis)appropriates 'resources' that destroy others (the war dead being here perhaps a positive epiphenomenon?)

[Anonymous No.20724316]

>>20724262
No human being lucky enough to be alive right now would be cancelled, only future humanity which, because it doesn't exist now, need not exist at all. Resources would be saved (for our more fortunate animal friends) a perfect human equality would be achieved (women would no longer be allowed to descend/ascend to the burden/privilege of motherhood) and in just a few years (if science in the interim doesn't discover the means to keep us alive forever) all our problems would be solved!

[Anonymous No.20724335]

>>20724270
nta, but according to his logic you could reason that murder would be evil if it is a form of defective appropriation of resources (which it is simply because it is going to be disputed by the relatives of the victim).
I'm the one arguing >>20724041 >>20724133 and I still think abortion can be evil. As a biological event it is a feature of mammalian lifeforms which we lost for some reason, and which we necessitate for health reasons. As such, it cannot be just evil. But we humans need to act to have an abortion, it is part of our agency, not so in the case of other mammals (they don't decide to stop a pregnancy, they just do the same way we start eating our muscles away if we starve). Therefore there are moral questions that can be asked about individual acts of abortions.

[Anonymous No.20724429]

>>20724335
>be disputed by the relatives
Nonsense. The bullets could be extracted by the authorities and given to the families of the martyr (all 'victims' would become martyrs thenceforth as all the dead now will have died for a good cause) as relics.

[Anonymous No.20724443]

>>20723646
How does it not cause suffering? If you believe that all experience is witnessed by universal consciousness then when you cause suffering it experiences it... What a dumb take.

[Anonymous No.20724444]

>>20723646
So you don't mind if I kill you, OP?

[Anonymous No.20724472]

>>20724443
>>20724444
Fetuses don’t experience suffering. Especially if done early. No one cares if a woman gets an abortion. The fact that even she has no bond with it shows that no one else values it, so no one else suffers either. If you were to kill me, even without me suffering, my family would suffer. Also, we have rules to make society function. If murder were legal, then we would only have chaos. But abortion does not lead to chaos.

[Anonymous No.20724481]

>>20724472
But the people who are against abortion will feel suffering for Fetuses.

[Anonymous No.20724546]

>>20723646
You’re right, but global consciousness doesn’t actually justify an ethics at all. Anyway, I am only against abortion because it makes people irresponsible. You shouldn’t be able to get an abortion voluntarily. Abortion should only be allowed if it’s mandated by the state, and the state should mandate abortion in any pregnancy that wasn’t pre-approved by the state. Of course this won’t exactly encourage responsibility either so it should also be a crime to get pregnant without approval with fines or imprisonment as punishment unless the pregnancy was due to rape

[Anonymous No.20724554]

>>20723646
>If you take the assumption

[Anonymous No.20724605]

>>20724472
>has no bond with it
This is not only not why any woman gets an abortion, but also why some decide to keep their babies. The bond is natural, and therefore almost always problematic. Visions of personal socio-economic horror are why most women (who suffered no crime) get an abortion. An abortion is generally a privilege the authorities allow to a woman to enable her to erase a 'mistake.'
No similar privilege is offered the male. If he doesn't want the child some woman is carrying that she decides she wants to keep, well, then, he 'should've kept his dick in his pants.'

[Anonymous No.20724706]

>>20724605
>No similar privilege is offered the male
So what? Men have the privilege of not having to give birth, being able to impregnate multiple women at the same time, and it’s much harder for them to be raped. If you don’t want a child, don’t have unprotected sex in the first place. Better yet, only have sex when you actually know the girl well enough to know if she wants kids or not, and what she thinks about abortion if an accident happens

[Anonymous No.20724850]

>>20724443
>How does it not cause suffering?
Why do you hate suffering so much?

[Anonymous No.20724869]

>>20724038
it’s just logical, if qualia exists something must perceive it
sorry to hear that your awareness is obscured by your ego

[Anonymous No.20725085]

To those of you that don’t believe in open individualism: what probability would you assign OI being true? Do you think it’s possible for it to be true? If so, then why not have faith that it is true?

[Anonymous No.20725134]

>>20724869
Both grammatically and logically (even if I give your grammar the benefit of the doubt) *false*. For instance, wouldn't it be more logical that the burden of 'existence' be placed upon the perceiver ('something' in your parlance) than on the perceived ('qualia')?
>If purples exists something must see it
What if, again, purples absolutely rely on an existing 'something' to be perceived in the first place? or at all? What then?
I could of course go on and on and on but will cease lest my monstrous 'ego' you've heard so much about get in the way of this otherwise fruitful discussion about fruitlessness..

[Anonymous No.20725142]

>murder is…le evil!
Refuted by open individualism.

If you take the assumption that all experiences belong to the same universal self of consciousness itself, then murder is morally irrelevant as it neither causes suffering nor takes away positive experience. If you are all lives, then why do you care if you are murdered in some of them? This is the ultimate golden rule. Arguing against murder is about as logical as arguing that every woman should give birth to as many babies as she possibly can in her lifetime.

[Anonymous No.20725154]

>>20723646
>If you take the assumption that all experiences belong to the same universal self of consciousness itself, then abortion is morally irrelevant as it neither causes suffering nor takes away positive experience.
Great, so then there's no reason to have an abortion and your attempted intellectualization of why you want to murder babies is also irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.20725187]

>>20725142
murder causes a lot of suffering for those involved, and the legalization of murder would create chaos
>>20725154
ok, I could have worded it better. People can get abortions to reduce suffering, not only for themselves, but for the baby and society as a whole. That’s why they do it in the first place. Even animals have abortions

[Anonymous No.20725195]

>>20724706
>of not having to give birth
Kek. Negative benefits; my favorite.. And yet as we speak many men actively await the potency to dispense with this 'privilege' altogether, as if it were not the privilege you claim it to be
What, pray, has OI to say about this btw?

[Anonymous No.20725206]

>>20725195
I have no idea what you’re saying

[Anonymous No.20725213]

>>20725187
>murder causes a lot of suffering for those involved
so does abortion
>and the legalization of murder would create chaos
I thought consequentialism was out since ethicists realized that genocide would improve most things...

[Anonymous No.20725218]

>>20724706
So, females get spared the banal moralizing-- hmm, so
The program's this: women get to *choose* whether or not to be miserable via political protections whereas for men it's just, well, the luck of the draw..
I actually have no problem with this

[Anonymous No.20725224]

>>20725213
>so does abortion
no it doesn’t. It most likely reduces suffering overall
>I thought consequentialism was out since ethicists realized that genocide would improve most things.
Hitler tried to genocide the Jews and look how that turned out. Consequentialism is in play, we just can’t always control consequences effectively

[Anonymous No.20725233]

>>20723646
I'm anti abortion open individualist. The baby is me, and living is great

[Anonymous No.20725249]

>>20724605
I'd wager making sexual selection primarily up to the male. If not totally. Either we're fuckin or I'm fuckin

[Anonymous No.20725254]

>>20723646
Abortion is how I'm gonna have only males sons. Fuck raise another man's glory hole.

[Anonymous No.20725257]

>>20725233
Wouldn’t you rather weed out all those lives as a black baby in the inner city? Or being born to some teenage favela girl?

[Anonymous No.20725264]

>>20725254
>all of your sons get cucked and die with your genes
In 2022 having girls is the strategy, unless you’re a really good father and have good genetics

[Anonymous No.20725267]

>>20725187
>People can get abortions to reduce suffering, not only for themselves, but for the baby and society as a whole
That requires a value judgement of the baby's life. Who's to say they wouldn't have cured some societal ill like homosexuality for example and thereby reduced all of our suffering? I don't see any way around it being a purely selfish act.
>Even animals have abortions
Animals have miscarriages or kill their young once they're born. They do not naturally have medical interventions to murder their offspring for their own benefit.

[Anonymous No.20725270]

>>20725224
>no it doesn’t. It most likely reduces suffering overall
this is the average misanthropic cope. I can accept it when mothers choose to be aborted along with their unborn children. Somehow I have the feeling that this would make abortion a lot less attractive, because life is awesome.
>Hitler tried to genocide the Jews and look how that turned out
it worked out great for all participants? Even if you account for the growing pains, jews got their own country and germans learned how to dominate their "peers"

[Anonymous No.20725280]

>>20725270
>it worked out great for all participants?
except it just caused a bunch of jews to be tortured for no good reason. Now they rule the west and China is our only hope of genetic engineering, because the Jews certainly won’t allow it

[Anonymous No.20725281]

>>20725206
Was adding trans women into the equation; if it's more respectful, let 'men' in the former post = (new) women. I actually know a former male who wishes he could have kids, and abortions too (no doubt). It's presented as an identity thing. For all the sex/gender talk what's ultimately craved is (ultimate) biological reality for the initiates, however, and it's only a matter of time before it arrives. What a brave new world that'll be, unironically

[Sabine No.20725296]

>>20724133
No, this is completely incorrect. Humans are more or less designed for traumatic births due to the fact that human infants have a large skull circumference (an adaptation to accomodate large brains). This could be mitigated through women evolving to have broader hips than they do now, however 1) this would make physical activities such as running significantly more inconvenient 2) as humans are bipedal, the pelvis serves as a basin to support the mass of organs in the abdomen. Having a larger pelvis would create a gravitational hazard that is unique to bipedals.

[Anonymous No.20725299]

>>20725249
That's a problem. It should always be we're, but it more often than not isn't
I subscribe to the theory of evolution btw, but it's not a social program subservient to a litany of excuses for social irresponsibility: Social Darwinism is always a mistake

[Anonymous No.20725322]

>>20725280
>He doesn't know about the Jewish history of Chinese "communism"
lol

[Anonymous No.20725334]

>>20725322
If China is ruled by Jews then why do they hate foreigners so much? The fact that they aren’t being flooded with immigrants proves that China is independent. Why do you think Russia and China are our enemies? Wake up

[Anonymous No.20725345]

>>20723646
I would just like pro-choice people to stop pretending like they aren't ending a life. People used to let the kids die of exposure. Okay great. If women should have the right to kill kids they don't want then just say so, be honest, instead of this clump of cells nonsense.

[Anonymous No.20725350]

>>20725280
>except it just caused a bunch of jews to be tortured for no good reason
it's only been 74 years, but men have died for a lot less on all sides
>Now they rule the west
it's always funny how much you can overestimate your opponent

[Anonymous No.20725356]

>>20725334
>The fact that they aren’t being flooded with immigrants proves that China is independent
Incredibly ignorant statement. In your lifetime you'll see the Chinese population crash and their importation of the third world, all of which has little to do with Jews anyway. At the very least you could have read a Wikipedia article or two about their early history before opening your mouth, even they aren't shy about it.

[Anonymous No.20725362]

>>20725345
>I would just like pro-choice people to stop pretending like they aren't ending a life.
Why would they? It's their only and so most successful cope.

[Anonymous No.20725397]

>>20723721
Same.

[Anonymous No.20725399]

>>20723646
>everybody is talking about abortion in the news so i have to make a thread about it

[Anonymous No.20725410]

>>20723721
>UGH I JUST WANT TO HAVE EMPTY MEANINGLESS SEX AND KILL BABIES FOR THE JEWISH GOD MOLOCH WITH ZERO REPERCUSSIONS WHY IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK

[Anonymous No.20725414]

>>20725399
Abortion is one of the most moral gray areas there is. My high school teachers didn’t even let us write papers on it. Open individualism simplifies the matter quite easily. Notice how no one ITT argued that abortion would still be immoral or evil if OI were true. In a normal discussion about abortion you hear “human life is sacred!” and “it’s MURDER” etc. But with OI all of that bullshit goes out the window

[Anonymous No.20725452]

>>20725362
The most common argument is bodily autonomy. It doesn't really matter if it's a life or not until the fetus is viable. I think most "my body my choice" people would agree that late term abortions are immoral.

[Anonymous No.20725456]

>>20725452
>The most common argument is bodily autonomy
That's a fallacy, not an argument.

[Anonymous No.20725471]

>>20725456
How is it fallacious? I think it's a stupid argument but at least it's coherent

[Anonymous No.20725478]

>>20725414
its the first thread about abortion i see in /lit/ because intuitively we all know its basically a normie topic. you just see too much tv or follow too much social media.

[Anonymous No.20725503]

>I believe in bodily autonomy; my body, my choice!
>No, don't le heckin' commit suicide!

[Anonymous No.20725513]

>>20725478
no it just highlights the incoherency of the average person’s moral beliefs. They have to rely on absolute principles like “human life is sacred,” but they can’t compare such principles to the principle that suffering is bad, for example. They have no hierarchy to their morality, they don’t understand moral axioms, they often end up with inconsistent beliefs. You can use several thought experiments to prove this. For example, a laboratory that creates billions of human zygotes and immediately kills them, and a laboratory that raises a child and gives it horrible living conditions. Most people would choose to destroy the laboratory with the single child rather than saving the countless human fetuses, because they instinctively know that it’s not actually immoral, and if it were, it’s so minuscule that the suffering of a single child outweighs it all.

[Anonymous No.20725519]

>>20725471
It completely ignores the bodily autonomy of the baby.

[Anonymous No.20725526]

>>20725471
It isnt coherent.

[Anonymous No.20725542]

>>20725519
the baby isn't assigned autonomy until it is able to survive without the mother's assistance. depending on who's arguing this is either around 24 weeks when you can c section and put the baby in an incubator or until it's born naturally.
>>20725526
please tell me how

[Anonymous No.20725546]

>>20725542
>the baby isn't assigned autonomy until it is able to survive without the mother's assistance. depending on who's arguing this is either around 24 weeks when you can c section and put the baby in an incubator or until it's born naturally.
That's cope. Bodily autonomy isn't assigned. If it was then bitches wouldn't be having abortions.

[Anonymous No.20725550]

>>20725519
>>20725526
>>20725542
pointless discussion. Why is autonomy so important anyway? Why does it matter if a baby has autonomy or not? Why does it matter if it’s just a clump of cells or a human life? All of this is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.20725559]

>>20725550
It doesn't really matter, it's just cope for murdering babies which is objectively wrong.

[Anonymous No.20725565]

>>20725559
>objectively wrong.
define it

[Anonymous No.20725582]

>>20725559
You can’t explain to aliens why killing a human fetus is objectively wrong. They would just laugh at you

[Anonymous No.20725589]

>>20724270
War isn't always considered evil though. Defense wars aren't considered evil. Clearly, you can make exceptions. Same rule applies. Abortion isn't always evil because you easily make the case for the need for population control.

[Anonymous No.20725591]

>>20725565
Murdering babies.

>>20725582
Sure I can. What they believe isn't my problem. What you assume they believe has nothing to do with what they believe either.

[Anonymous No.20725593]

>>20725591
>murdering babies is objectively wrong and objectively wrong is murdering babies because…it just is OK?!
the aliens are making fun of you

[Anonymous No.20725604]

>>20725593
They flew lightyears to argue with me about abortion, I'm the one laughing bro.

[Anonymous No.20725630]

Abortion is a simple argument of agency.
Any position that doesn't consider the mother's and child's agency is arguing in bad-faith.
>>20725565
Why is murder wrong?

[Anonymous No.20725638]

>>20725630
>Why is murder wrong?
Yes, explain it. Define wrong and describe how murder fits this definition. Bonus: show that it’s objectively wrong

[Anonymous No.20725648]

>>20725638
Sure. "Wrong" in this case removes the agency of another living thing. Therefore, murder is wrong.

Do you think murder is not wrong?
Answer the question and quit with the pilpul.

While you are at it, answer this one.
>Do women have agency?

[Anonymous No.20725652]

>>20725630
murder is wrong definitionally. you'd have to establish that abortion is murder and not a justified killing (or not a killing at all) to say it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.20725656]

>>20725652
You can't separate murder from abortion definitionally without semantic waffling and pilpul.

Answer the questions you fucking demonic kike.

[Anonymous No.20725661]

>>20725656
you are using semantic bullshit when you beg the question.

[Anonymous No.20725663]

>>20725648
>agency
are you vegan? Is killing animals wrong?
>Do you think murder is not wrong?
it’s only wrong subjectively. I recognize that murder should be illegal because this leads to a more stable society, and I would prefer to live in a stable society.
>Do women have agency?
not even sure what you mean by agency. Can they make decisions? Obviously. Are they sentient? I don’t see why not.

[Anonymous No.20725678]

>>20725661
>semantic
I don't think he's Jewish anon.

[Anonymous No.20725684]

>>20725661
You are the one who started the semantics bullshit; your argument for murdering babies is reliant on it.
Remember this:
>>20725638
>Define wrong. Bonus: show that its's objectively wrong.

>>20725663
>are you vegan? Is killing animals wrong?
No. Yes.
>not even sure what you mean by agency.
Are women responsible for their own actions and should women be responsible for the consequence of their actions?

[Anonymous No.20725690]

>>20725656
Murder means unlawful killing. We can agree that abortion is killing life. So you have to argue why it should be unlawful, or immoral, rather than simplistically labeling it murder

[Anonymous No.20725699]

>>20725684
There are multiple anons here. That should have been obvious.
>No. Yes.
So you’re just as immoral as women who have abortions.
>Are women responsible for their own actions and should women be responsible for the consequence of their actions?
They should certainly be held accountable in the sense that their good behavior should be reinforced and their bad behavior should be punished.

[Anonymous No.20725705]

>>20725656
Babies aren't conscious, aware or sentient until a bit after they've been birthed. Abortion is done while the baby is still developing, their brains are still underdeveloped at best. They're less a being than any of the animals you eat daily were.

[Anonymous No.20725708]

>>20725690
>So you have to argue why it should be unlawful
No, that's the state's job. The state makes it lawful or unlawful. The state also defines murder. Not anon. And it is unlawful and murder in most states. I guess it would be accurate then to say that it is unlawful murder.

[Anonymous No.20725722]

>>20725690
You are still arguing definitionally when you know I'm arguing ethics. And now you are bringing in societal law. Good lord, your argument is a fucking mess. Waste of time to even try with you.

>>20725699
>So you’re just as immoral as women who have abortions.
Yes. I feel guilt for this. Glad we agree.

>>20725705
Semantics. You are taking the future and agency away from a living being.
>They're less a being than any of the animals you eat daily were.
See above.

[Anonymous No.20725732]

>>20725722
Why is taking away agency wrong?

[Anonymous No.20725735]

>>20725722
>Semantics.
It is explicitly not semantics, they are facts and you are disregarding them and instead choosing a stance based on what makes you look better and harms "the opposition" more.
>See above.
So you're vegan? I hope so, or you're a hypocrite.
And if you're a vegan and pushing your views on others, that opens a wealth of even more problems.

[Anonymous No.20725768]

>>20725732
Are living things not entitled to life and agency? This seems an innate truth to me.

>>20725735
>They are facts
According to whom?
>So you're vegan? I hope so, or you're a hypocrite.
No. Though I try. Irrelevant to the conversation, though.

[Anonymous No.20725780]

>>20725768
>Are living things not entitled to life and agency? This seems an innate truth to me
entitled by whom? by what? It’s not innately true to me. It seems morality is subjective

[Anonymous No.20725782]

>>20723646
If you have the land for it it's immoral of you to not plant an apple tree there. You aborted the potential tree you murderer. You can't be perfect.

[Anonymous No.20725795]

>>20725780
>entitled by whom? by what?
Entitled by being born. Existing. Carrying one's being forward through time.
>It's not innately true to me. It seems morality is subjective.
No, Morality is biological.

[Anonymous No.20725804]

>>20725795
right, that’s why animals kill each other all the time

[Anonymous No.20725811]

>>20725804
Yes. Glad you understand.

[Anonymous No.20725866]

>>20723646
It does cause suffering. Fetuses can feel pain at 7 weeks, yet we have people in America aborting babies in the 8th month of pregnancy.

[Anonymous No.20725944]

>>20725866
>Fetuses can feel pain at 7 weeks
What about black fetuses?

[Anonymous No.20725981]

>>20725768
>Irrelevant to the conversation, though.
God you're so fucking dismissive. Your only fucking argument is "babies always good, kill babies bad, any disagreements are irrelevant".
You are a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.20725983]

>>20725981
At least he didn't murder his unborn child though amirite?

[Anonymous No.20725988]

>>20725983
Yeah I guess you don't need to think too hard when you're standing on (what you believe to be) a moral highground.

[Anonymous No.20726001]

>>20725988
Or a pile of aborted fetuses apparently.

[Anonymous No.20726011]

>>20726001
Or a puddle of sperm, probably shouldn't ejaculate anymore. Those could have been your kids, you heathen.

[Anonymous No.20726016]

>>20726011
Oh I don't masturbate, gotta keep those abortions up. Praise Moloch and all that.