/lit/ - Literature

File: 110 KB, 1256x693, John Milbank_Eastern Orthodox Friar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:01:33 2015 No.6574429 [Reply] [Original]

>What’s this new scientistic fanaticism all about? Well, I suppose it is fundamentally about the collapse of all secular ideologies in the late twentieth century. One is left with the truth of science as the only reality of the modern. If science is simply the freedom to know, it can become Faustian. And apart from this freedom there is only the right to choose one’s own lifestyle. The crucial thing here that the left has missed here is that sexual freedoms have increased exponentially while all other freedoms have declined.

>Today in Great Britain, you scarcely have the right to demonstrate, and a higher proportion of Great Britain’s population is in prison than the proportion of China’s population that is in prison. The boy at the shopcounter with no customers is not allowed to read a book to improve himself, but who cares what he gets up to with sex and drink after the shop closes? Of course, there’s also a double-think about sex—it’s all OK and yet male sexuality is nearly always exploitative, etcetera—but in general, it would seem that, as Adorno and Horkheimer and Marcuse predicted, sexualization is intended to keep us all quiet: neurotic, hysterical, frustrated, and unhappy but still “looking.” Knowing that we they can watch a porn film when they get home from work, workers may overlook the fact that they have lost the lunch-hour when they could have caught up with public affairs over a sandwich in the local library.

>Thus with sex divided from procreation, science and sexual freedom come together in a tacit Malthusian programme of biopolitical manipulation. The State aspires both scientifically to control reproduction and to keep its citizens ‘drugged’ with dreams of sex and the need to compete in the sexual agon. Michel Houillebecq is completely right about this and the left has to rethink its 60’s-derived libertarianism if it wishes to continue to oppose capitalism.
cont

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:01:56 2015 No.6574432

>Instead, by supporting the total disjuncture of sex and procreation, the left is really supporting a new mode of fascism. “Women” are lined up with science and choice in order to produce a new kind of ideal human subjectivity—male and autonomous and yet pliant in a “female” manner. The re-envisaged autonomous female body is the final site of the coming together of scientific objectivity and absolute freedom of choice. Perhaps one could even speak here of a new racism of the human race as such—it’s to be made the object of an endless “objective” improvement and the expression of a will to freedom/will to power. Of course, this also means that the specific phenomenology of the female body is destroyed. It’s denied that this body is inherently linked both to the male body (as also vice versa) and to another body that is itself and yet becomes not itself—the baby. Having denied the link of babies to men and also to women, save as objects of their (“male”) choice, babies thereby become pure consumer objects, and all human relationality and personhood is abandoned.
Opinions?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:04:01 2015 No.6574440 >implying I'll read all that

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:05:56 2015 No.6574444 >waaaaah waaaaaah I don't get it my way anymore

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:08:54 2015 No.6574451

Has read his Frankfurt School, and the things he's right about come from there, nmaely about the desublimation of sexuality cumilating in the elimination of its revolutionary potential, and scientific positivism becoming a substitute for utopian thought. I am somewhat under the impression that his own conclusions tilt more to the conservative side, though.

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:12:12 2015 No.6574464

>>6574451
He's a socialist
>>6567913

He's traditionalist, yes, of course, he started the Radical Orthodoxy movement, which is a returned to Medieval theology applied to things like politics and ethics. But he's not conservative in political jargon as you'd generally understand it.

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:13:51 2015 No.6574467

>it's denied that this body is inherently linked both to the male body (as also vice versa) and to another body that is itself and yet becomes not itself—the baby

I mostly agreed. This part struck me as backwards though. The baby starts out as not-itself and later becomes itself.

>tfw pro-abortion, rather than pro-choice, even though bodily autonomy is paramount

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:19:06 2015 No.6574482

>>6574464
Well of course he isn't conservative in the fiscal sense, and that cannot possibly bhave been implied in my assessment of his position. No, my point is that while the Frankfurt School, which he takes his best ideas from, saw the bourgeois freedoms as something that is incomplete without socialism, and thus reproduces unfreedom, he thinks those freedoms are in the way of socialism and must be removed.
Oh well, at least he doesn't think Adorno was a necromancer, which is as good as it gets for reactionaries.

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:21:46 2015 No.6574487

>>6574467
Yes, well I partly agree with you, but abortion should be limited to early term. Longer than that, it's really an issue, because it's like saying carrying a child across a river,and then suddenly dumping the child in because you want bodily autonomy. If it's unexpected and sudden and the fetus isn't developed yet, then you're just defending your body, but longer than that, especially to the point where it's similar to infanticide, is not a good thing at all, and it will make it considerably easier to push things like infanticide (which Peter Singer, perhaps the foremost analytic moral philosopher already supports the legalization of) and euthanization people with disabilities down the road

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:22:16 2015 No.6574490 >>6574429 >>6574432 > tfw someone puts in words what you think and you dont know whether they have a point or you agree because of your bias Welp. I think he's right.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:23:44 2015 No.6574495 >>6574467 think it means starts out as the mom, then becomes not the mom

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:24:58 2015 No.6574500

>>6574482
No, he actually wants more traditionalist freedoms that capitalism have eroded. For instance, the freedom of a family to support itself with just the man (or woman, if preferred, he added) working outside the home, rather than an idea of each individual for themselves.

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:27:01 2015 No.6574503
File: 60 KB, 498x668, 1418861046060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Well, I suppose it is fundamentally about the collapse of all secular ideologies in the late twentieth century.

People are more ideological than ever today, I would say secular ideologies have even expanded.

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:27:55 2015 No.6574504

>>6574500
>For instance, the freedom of a family to support itself with just the man (or woman, if preferred, he added) working outside the home, rather than an idea of each individual for themselves.
That doesn't even make sense if you're a socialist, though, as socialism aims for a state of affairs where the collective effort of the species sustains the individual.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:30:45 2015 No.6574510 >>6574504 He's not referring to the abrogation of the division of labor

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:33:08 2015 No.6574513

>>6574503
But they aren't really that different, just parts of a muddled liberal soup
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-milbank/liberalism-undoing-itself_b_7104638.html

>Historically, each "face" of liberalism seemed to be the opposite of the other. The liberal left appealed to the state in order to protect the people from the forces of market fundamentalism that the liberal right championed, while the liberal right defended conservative values of family and the nation against the multiculturalism and emancipation that the liberal left celebrated. But far from representing genuine alternatives to one another, the two liberalisms are mutually reinforcing in that they fuse economic-political individualism with bureaucratic-managerial collectivism and social-cultural atomization -- as Max Weber realized better than Karl Marx.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:35:17 2015 No.6574519 >>6574510 Well what kind of socialist is he, then?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:35:20 2015 No.6574521 >>6574495 It's a piss poor use of an apposite introduced by a dash, then.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:36:25 2015 No.6574525 >>6574500 >the freedom of a family to support itself with just the man (or woman, if preferred, he added) working outside the home That's a very modern invention.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:38:16 2015 No.6574529 >>6574429 It's all completely correct.

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:40:23 2015 No.6574536

>>6574432

Needs examples, otherwise it's just really vague, abstract, shallow analysis.

I get the sense that sex has become meaningless and unnecessarily time consuming as well, but I think the reason is because, for whatever reason, people feel it's too expensive to start a family these days. Ordinarily you'd just have sex, have a baby, get married and get on with your professional life, collecting funds to retire on and pay the mortgage with. Now we just live hand to mouth and fuck purely for the endorphins.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:41:27 2015 No.6574538 >>6574519 One who derives his socialist politics from theology. He has distributist leanings, but he contends that distributism would have been the same movement as socialism if socialism hadn't been so atheistic at the time.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:43:26 2015 No.6574546 >>6574525 No, it was fairly common before mass urbanization. But regardless, he's not talking about a throwback to prior economic models, he's talking about a theological ideal.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:43:50 2015 No.6574547 >>6574538 In other words, his critique of capitalism aims at re-establishing pre-capitalist conditions, not overcoming capitalism by fulfilling its promise. What a useless, posturing cunt.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:43:56 2015 No.6574548 It's solid, but >The State aspires both scientifically to control reproduction and to keep its citizens ‘drugged’ with dreams of sex isn't adequate. The mindset he's talking about is rooted in modern western culture, not politics.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:46:30 2015 No.6574551 >>6574548 >culture and politics do not interact

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:46:43 2015 No.6574553 >>6574548 You must remember that he's coming from a leftist vantage here, meaning culture is very political.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:51:26 2015 No.6574560 >>6574551 Well that's obvious, I'm just saying it's a lot more grassroots. The mindset he's talking about is based of modern childrearing. >>6574553 Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:53:30 2015 No.6574562 >>6574560 >I'm just saying it's a lot more grassroots. The mindset he's talking about is based of modern childrearing. Now what if I told you that modern childrearing is determined by the shape of the political economy in which it takes place?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:54:10 2015 No.6574565 >>6574547 No, he aims at establish more freedoms. The hell is wrong with you that you think it makes someone a cunt for wanting a family to have the freedom of just one parent working outside the home? Is your head on straight?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:55:00 2015 No.6574569 >>6574562 What if I told you that culture has a greater impact on politics than vice-versa.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:58:28 2015 No.6574583 >>6574429 This is good. >>6574432 Here he loses himself.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 09:58:28 2015 No.6574584 File: 1.76 MB, 408x225, 333.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6574547 >wants the workers to own the means of production in a post-industrial society >re-establishing pre-capitalist conditions

Anonymous Fri May 22 09:59:11 2015 No.6574590

>>6574565
Because, a) there is no human emancipation without political emancipation, i.e., society consisting of abstractly free individuals. The problems this creates cannot be solved by re-establishing the division of society along sexual lines. b) freedom is either individual or all encompassing. There is no such thing as the freedom of a family.

Anonymous Fri May 22 10:00:15 2015 No.6574595

>>6574583
>Here he loses himself.
I think he alienates a lot of people here because his critique is theological (and he's frank about that), and this is where is stands on theology and nothing but theology. So of course if you're not reading it in theological terms, you'll say, "What the fuck are you talking about?" at this paragraph.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:00:22 2015 No.6574596 >>6574584 But he clearly doesn't want that, otherwise he wouldn't talk about single-income households.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:01:25 2015 No.6574599 >>6574569 And how would you know that?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:03:34 2015 No.6574611 >>6574590 Then why is there such a thing as freedom for the individual?

Anonymous Fri May 22 10:05:46 2015 No.6574621

>>6574596
Nooo, his point is that you could have a society where you have households that only one parent works out of, which was once an idea politically, with the family wage, but that it is now gone. Even though there wouldn't be wages in socialism, that doesn't mean you couldn't have such an arrangement. In fact, why exactly wouldn't socialism accommodate such a thing?

Anonymous Fri May 22 10:26:07 2015 No.6574686

>>6574611
It is the purpose of the freedom of the species.
>>6574621
>Even though there wouldn't be wages in socialism, that doesn't mean you couldn't have such an arrangement
of course it does mean that. No wages, no family wages. Sort of a strong implication right there.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:28:35 2015 No.6574692 >>6574686 >of course it does mean that. No wages, no family wages. Sort of a strong implication right there. So you're saying you couldn't have it where just one parent worked outside the home, because such a thing is only possible with a wage system?

Anonymous Fri May 22 10:34:43 2015 No.6574707

>>6574692
Since under socialism, the survival of the individual doesn't depend on the extent or shape of their contribution, any kind of individual life is possible, as long as it doesn't involve taking charge of the means of production individually.
What isn't possible, however, is a socially ordained division of labor between men and women.

Anonymous Fri May 22 10:40:24 2015 No.6574723

>>6574707
>Since under socialism, the survival of the individual doesn't depend on the extent or shape of their contribution, any kind of individual life is possible, as long as it doesn't involve taking charge of the means of production individually.
Survival, yes, but there's more to life than survival
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

>What isn't possible, however, is a socially ordained division of labor between men and women.
I think we already went over the fact that he added the woman could be the one working outside the home.

Anonymous Fri May 22 10:47:18 2015 No.6574746

>>6574723
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution
Whoch, as you well know, is at best a temporary set up to e abolished by, To each according to his need.
>I think we already went over the fact that he added the woman could be the one working outside the home.
I don't think we did. Oh well, guess this turns him from a cunt into a flawed, but halfway intelligent leftist.
Still, the family unit would be one of the myriad ways that people could arrange their personal affairs in when given the choice, with any possible deliberate proportionality of housework and 'real' labor (note something? That's one artificial division if i've ever seen one.).

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:50:12 2015 No.6574752 Why do you keep spamming this moron and his terrible opinions on /lit/?

Anonymous Fri May 22 10:50:22 2015 No.6574754

>>6574536
People have always had a hard time raising a family. Now when it became arguably easy compared to before
>>6574686
we are just selfish enough to kill our children in wombs.
Do you not understand how spooky you are? You critique him for abstract ideas while you fail to even have a basis for your pretentious ideology.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:52:12 2015 No.6574759 >>6574429 JOUIR SANS ENTRAVES O U I R S A N S E N T R A V E S

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:53:48 2015 No.6574765 >>6574752 This moron is much more intelligent and better argumented than say Chomsky whose cock you probably suck.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:54:26 2015 No.6574767 File: 26 KB, 530x772, For_Only_sex_matters!.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6574429

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:55:00 2015 No.6574768 What are some good books to better understand this denunciation of science/scientism?

Anonymous Fri May 22 10:55:01 2015 No.6574769

>>6574754
>we are just selfish enough to kill our children in wombs.
That is hardly the worst expression of our selfishness. Also, the problem seems to lie with conditions that turn children into a burden.
>Do you not understand how spooky you are?
The spooky rarely know that..
>You critique him for abstract ideas while you fail to even have a basis for your pretentious ideology.
Now that is one baseless accusation from you. What IS my ideology, anyway?

Anonymous Fri May 22 10:55:34 2015 No.6574771

>>6574429
Sex transcended its role as a tool purely for reproduction long ago in evolutionary hisotry. Many animals, including humans, use sex to bond, punish, extort, manipulate, for recreation, etc.

Furthermore, humans being able to actually control birth and plan how many people we want born into the next generation just shows our high intelligence and culture.

>boohoo the world isnt adhering to my cozy christian values anymore

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:55:53 2015 No.6574773 >>6574768 try reading your own ass. It will be as about as valuable.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 10:59:11 2015 No.6574780 >>6574767 >waaah why can't men force women to abort/not abort That is still the creepiest MRA talking point. Congrats for showing the world how much common sense you don't have.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Fri May 22 11:00:10 2015 No.6574783 >>6574768 Nietzsche and Foucault are whom you're looking for.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 11:00:39 2015 No.6574785 >>6574773 What about books or texts that argue against this viewpoint then?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 11:01:02 2015 No.6574786 >>6574562 >determined by the shape of the political economy in which it takes place? It's determined by a whole hell of a lot more than that. Certainly more than to place economy as the scapegoat.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 11:01:54 2015 No.6574788 >>6574785 books that arent explicitly anti-rationalist.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 11:02:30 2015 No.6574789 >>6574783 No. Dialectic of Enlightenment.

Anonymous Fri May 22 11:02:56 2015 No.6574790

>>6574771
Milbank isn't saying sex is purely about procreation

> we should not re-define birth as essentially artificial and disconnected from the sexual act - which by no means implies that each and every sexual act must be open to the possibility of procreation, only that the link in general should not be severed.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 11:03:17 2015 No.6574792 >>6574786 >people raise children with the goal of them becoming independent, functioning members of society >what it means to be an independent member of society totally isn't the most important determining factor Because, fuck logic.

Anonymous Fri May 22 11:05:56 2015 No.6574798
File: 177 KB, 831x769, e99upw78.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6574429
He is right, but he fails to viw the long term effect. Everybody notices what he is explaining, except the basic feminists (and even the other ones benefit from the current situations) as well as the most pathetic betas, but the human nature makes it so that we always are too extreme in our stances. That the degenerates from the 70s were radical in their theses is understood has the radical events that occured the decades before. We sway from one extremety to another one, like a pendulum, always approaching the point of rest, where hysteries are minimized.
The democratic process takes time, is only done by trials and errors from the succession of the generations. We will leave this current situation sooner or later, in going towards another hysteria, another exaggeration. This new excess will last a few generations anew, at least as long as the persons generating it will live, plus their children, the parents tending to format their children to their views.

Today, a solid 20 years remain before seeing the baby boomers disappear, one by one. The situation that he described will not be resolved soon. Perhaps, it will change when we will be old, and our view of 2015 could well be applied when we will be 60 years old.
The conclusion is that we must not be worried.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 11:07:38 2015 No.6574805 >>6574792 >what it means to be an independent member of society totally isn't the most important determining factor And that has numerous interpretations within the same political economy, so..

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 11:11:39 2015 No.6574817 >>6574805 This contradicts my point...how? Also, those interpretations typically mirror shifts in the political economy, otherwise they wouldn't become widespead enough to be noticeable.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 11:13:13 2015 No.6574826 >>6574771 How stupid do you have to be to think birth control is a new thing? Abortion has been here for thousands of years.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 11:16:47 2015 No.6574842 >>6574826 i am not talking about birth control as such, but about societies being able to control birth, like China did for example. That is only possible with high intelligence and organization, humans are the only animals who can do it.

Anonymous Fri May 22 11:46:42 2015 No.6574940

>>6574817
>those interpretations typically mirror shifts in the political economy

No, you can have no shift in the political economy and still have numerous interpretations of "what it means to be an independent member of society." It contradicts your point because it goes to show that the interpretation can differ while the political economy stays the same. Case in point, *you* probably have a different definition of "what it means to be an independent member of society" than the stereotypical Fox News Republican, yet you (presumably) exist in the same political economy. And if you don't, you could. That's not to say political economy can't have an influence, but it it isn't the only influence.

Anonymous Fri May 22 11:57:59 2015 No.6574991

>>6574940
>Case in point, *you* probably have a different definition of "what it means to be an independent member of society" than the stereotypical Fox News Republican
I don't think I have, the difference lies in the fact that I don't approve of what it means.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 12:05:19 2015 No.6575032 Why do you literally make a thread about this dude EVERY day?

Anonymous Fri May 22 13:11:30 2015 No.6575283

>>6574842
>high intelligence
not sure

we figured out the incest bit, far before the genetics mechanism that we have today (and other forsaken models)

Sex and births were regulated through filiation which was itself regulated through the mariage

There is nothing more natural to us than to regulate things, especially sex

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 13:15:05 2015 No.6575295 >The boy at the shopcounter with no customers is not allowed to read a book to improve himself.. What? Does he mean while working? Well, he's not allowed to have sex nor drink while working, either. This guy is a grade D thinker.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 13:49:08 2015 No.6575447 >>6574780 But if a man wants to keep his kid a woman has the right to kill it regardless of his feelings? I agree the MRAs are generally spergy creeps but the ends justify the means. They're seriously picking up some steam these days

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 13:54:14 2015 No.6575463 >>6574842 You underestimate the animal kingdom friend, many of the most efficient predators live solidarity and have relatively low birthrates. Evolutionary birth control to maintain balance in the ecosystem.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 13:54:34 2015 No.6575465 >>6575295 The boy actually works as a bartender and make prostitute, so wrong on both counts.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 13:56:48 2015 No.6575478 >>6575295 The point being that working class humans are prevented from self improvement due to long hours amd whatnot. Also I work nights at a gas station and I sneak reading whenever the stores empty

Anonymous Fri May 22 14:00:33 2015 No.6575487

>>6575447
Since it is growing in her body, not his, obviously she can. This also isn't some super scary jewish pomo marxist position, but well founded within good old natural law theory. Hobbes went as far as stating that the mother has the right to kill the child after birth, and only she does, as fatherhood can't be established with certainty.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 14:15:54 2015 No.6575553 >>6574780 They're saying men shouldn't have to support a child they didn't consent to being born. The same way a woman doesn't have to support a child she doesn't consent to being born.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 14:17:30 2015 No.6575562 >>6574798 >The conclusion is that we must not be worried. >Nothing bad happens ever OK.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 14:23:49 2015 No.6575587 >>6575553 Well that's a slightly less creepy, but still pretty retarded position, given the way human reproduction works. Actually, it's an instance of what milibank talks about, the disjunction of the female body from reproduction.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 14:33:11 2015 No.6575623 >>6575587 how is that creepy? Because a man doesn't want to support a child he didn't want in the first place

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 14:34:16 2015 No.6575630 >>6575487 >fatherhood can't be established with certainty. That was true in 1650. It is no longer true.

Anonymous Fri May 22 14:38:43 2015 No.6575652

>>6575587
>pretty retarded position, given the way human reproduction works
How so? Parenting and child support are clearly social and legal constructs, respectively, they have nothing to do with reproductive biology.

>Actually, it's an instance of what milibank talks about, the disjunction of the female body from reproduction.

I agree, but that Milibank isn't the one making the argument. The people making that argument don't care about that disjunction, they just pointing out that there's an unprincipled exception being made in order to benefit women at the expense of men.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 14:50:35 2015 No.6575695 >>6575623 Think about the consequences of letting men force women into abortions for just a sec.... yeah grim isn't it.

Anonymous Fri May 22 14:53:53 2015 No.6575714

>>6575630
Which might change natural law in the direction of gving a father rights regarding the child once it is born.
>>6575623
>I don't have to take consequences if I don't want to
sure thing.
>>6575652
You do realize that child support works both ways, right? if the child lives with you, she may have to pay.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 18:03:12 2015 No.6576389 >>6574783 Yes. In the case of this thread History of Sexuality and then The Birth of Biopolitics where discipline is replaced by seduction.

Anonymous Fri May 22 20:07:13 2015 No.6576855

>>6575487
>Hobbes went as far as stating that the mother has the right to kill the child after birth,
Yes, and like I said earlier, Peter Singer also subscribes to this position. It is not a good direction to be taking society, because ultimately the state has a lot more right over its citizens than the mother has over her children.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:33:04 2015 No.6576966 >>6575562 >>Nothing bad happens ever this is true though

Anonymous Fri May 22 20:35:28 2015 No.6576976
File: 187 KB, 850x637, 23d2afc2642f8fc92920ef8b4773b16d2b6817ac.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6575447
>But if a man wants to keep his kid a woman has the right to kill it regardless of his feelings?

Indeed

I am pro abortion since it favorize a large and liquid women market. But the ultilitarian doctrine is weak on this one:

from wikipedia
>Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which compares the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

this stance says that somebody else than the fetus can calculate the utility of the fetus's life. Here the utility is null since at 8 weeks, nobody feels anything as we suppose that the utility comes from the senses.

The thing is that singer denies, beforehand, the possibility of the fetus to feel anything since you abort it before it can feel anything. So singer stance is the fallacy : let us prove that the fetus can be aborted by saying that it can be aborted. He does not let the fetus a chance to actually be relevant in his doctrine.

Furthermore, he does not take into account the utility of the father, who could very well be pained by the abortion (reminder that the females do not need to even tell the fathers about the pregnancies). If the female does not take into account the wishes of the father, then we must look at what happened before the ejaculation, aka the sex.

>>	ΟΥΤΙΣ Fri May 22 20:35:38 2015 No.6576977 File: 182 KB, 639x420, 84.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6576966

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:38:55 2015 No.6576988 >>6576976 >since you abort it before it can feel anything And really, since Singer is not only a defender of early term abortion, but even post-birth infanticide, this is a shit argument on his part.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:49:51 2015 No.6577039 >>6574429 why do the left always presume they know what the working class want? pretty patronising tbh

newti !!BglvqPaJ/9X Fri May 22 20:52:47 2015 No.6577053

>Thus with sex divided from procreation, science and sexual freedom come together in a tacit Malthusian programme of biopolitical manipulation. The State aspires both scientifically to control reproduction and to keep its citizens ‘drugged’ with dreams of sex and the need to compete in the sexual agon.

This happened even before contraception was in wide-spread use.
Mankind has always cared a great deal about sex and finding the best mate. You can't say that the government of great Britain has been conspiring to make people care about sex.

What a fruitcake.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:54:34 2015 No.6577060 >>6577053 Except finding the best mate actually had a conclusion, it wasn't a constant, neurotic carrot.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:56:13 2015 No.6577070 >>6577039 >why do abolitionists always presume they know what slaves want? pretty patronising tbh

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 20:58:31 2015 No.6577084 I'm not a Christian or a socialist but I think he makes some good points. Isn't this more related to politics than literature though? It should probably go to a different board.

>>	newti !!BglvqPaJ/9X Fri May 22 21:01:43 2015 No.6577099 >>6577060 says who? affairs and infidelity happened. And furthermore how is this the result of a concerted government effort to keep citizens drugged? what evidence is there that Great Britain's government set out to achieve this?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:01:51 2015 No.6577101 >>6577084 To say that talking about sexuality and biopower as philosophical subjects doesn't belong on /lit/ is pretty strange. Do you think there's any other board which reads the literature being referenced here?

Anonymous Fri May 22 21:03:32 2015 No.6577111

>>6577099
>says who? affairs and infidelity happened.
Which really had nothing to do with forming a new family unit. That's not the same thing as serial matrimony.

>And furthermore how is this the result of a concerted government effort to keep citizens drugged?
I don't think he's talking about a state conspiracy so much as a culture shaped by market interests which keeps us distracted from the state. The state and the market apparatus both serve the same class, after all.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:07:02 2015 No.6577132 >>6577099 >affairs and infidelity happened. They weren't remotely as accessible, pedestrian, accepted and integrated throughout everyday life as pornography is.

newti !!BglvqPaJ/9X Fri May 22 21:30:23 2015 No.6577226

>>6577111
ok, divorce does happen a lot., and people will need to look for new mates when divorce happens.

what he says is aspires, as in
>The State aspires both scientifically to control reproduction and to keep its citizens ‘drugged’ with dreams of sex and the need to compete in the sexual agon.
which denotes intent.

One of the key things that lead to sex in our society being the state it is now compared with early in the 20th century could be called 'market forces

Anonymous Fri May 22 21:34:06 2015 No.6577248

>>6577226
He's referencing Foucault on all this, and it's him you have to read if you want an in depth examination of what he's talking about as far as the state aspiring to control reproduction and use seduction rather than fear to control its citizens.

>>	newti !!BglvqPaJ/9X Fri May 22 21:43:56 2015 No.6577275 >>6577248 fair enough but I doubt Foucault is going to provide any evidence for this claim either and will instead just write continuously about the conspiracies he likes to imagine.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:46:13 2015 No.6577286 >>6574429 >sexual freedoms have increased exponentially Lol no. The most common way to ostracize someone these days is to accuse them of a sexual crime.

Anonymous Fri May 22 21:48:07 2015 No.6577293

>>6577275
No, he provides a plethora of evidence. Foucault was a feverish researcher and inspired by Nietzsche's genealogy of ideas. He goes through long developments of ideas and quotes original sources as he goes along, naming various developments and the motives pushed at the time

Anonymous Fri May 22 21:52:30 2015 No.6577312

>>6577286
Accusing someone of a sexual crime was always a grave issue: look at Joseph and the pharaoh's wife. There's just equal protection today for independent women without husbands. On the other hand, things that used to be taken seriously as sexual crimes such as adultery, are considered relatively innocuous today.

Anonymous Fri May 22 21:53:14 2015 No.6577319

>>6575447
>I agree the MRAs are generally spergy creeps

How much of an insecure manchild do you have to be to *constantly*, and I mean constantly because this happens all of the time these days, define yourself against the straw-enemy de jour? Defining yourself against "MRAs" is the new "I'm not racist, but..."...the only purpose of this way of speaking, this going-out-of-your-way to name the enemy in the guise of some kind of throwaway comment, is to disavow your own prejudices, whether it be racism or, god forbid, a negative opinion about a woman. Speaking of women, don't think they haven't noticed how you pick up on their language in order to fit in with them and stalk them and trick them into fucking you. That "MRA" sure is "super" "creepy", right? Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:54:29 2015 No.6577329 >>6575695 no worse than regular abortion. my and your argument are plebby appeals to emotion, we have to do better than that.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:55:29 2015 No.6577337 >>6576976 >I am pro abortion since it favorize a large and liquid women market. disgusting

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 21:59:42 2015 No.6577354 >>6574440 >sad but true when i see a pic of some dumbfuck sheep in his religious garments i lose all interest in everything

Anonymous Fri May 22 22:00:44 2015 No.6577361

>>6577312
The weight of a sexual crime is generally more than that of any other crime, though. Whereas in the past, anything sacrilegious ran the gamut.

>On the other hand, things that used to be taken seriously as sexual crimes such as adultery, are considered relatively innocuous today.

It hasn't been a tapering off of sexual crimes, it's been an exchange. Adultery is still vilified, but not to the extent that it was. On the other hand, sleeping with a 15 year old, which was normal in a certain age, would completely ostracize you these days. And, to a degree, so would sleeping with a student, even if she's of legal age. And, gradually, the idea of rape is leading to the ostracism of men who have sex with girls while they're drunk or (in the extreme now, but idk what the future holds) with their wives when they don't consent.

Anonymous Fri May 22 22:05:20 2015 No.6577385

>>6577361
>The weight of a sexual crime is generally more than that of any other crime, though
The hell are you talking about? Mike Tyson seems to be doing pretty well.

>Adultery is still vilified, but not to the extent that it was
No, there's a lot more empathy for both adulterers and adulteresses. It all depends on which is your friend or whom the story sympathizes with.

>On the other hand, sleeping with a 15 year old, which was normal in a certain age, would completely ostracize you these days
I really don't think so, because I have slept with a fifteen year old when I was 22, and most of her friends knew it, including her adult friends, and several of my friends knew it. I got reprimanded by a couple, but only because of the risk I was taking with the law, not because it's immoral. She and I are good friends to this day.

I actually regret it a lot now, but this issue is largely dependent on if you know the person, and those are the people who would have to ostracize you after all.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 22:05:25 2015 No.6577386 >>6575695 Nah just stop She can have the child I just don't have to take care for it. Don't try to strawman hoe >>6575714 >implying abortion isn't just escaping responsibility I'm just keep in it real

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 22:07:02 2015 No.6577394 >>6577386 fucking autocorrect

Anonymous Fri May 22 22:08:39 2015 No.6577401

>>6577361
>On the other hand, sleeping with a 15 year old, which was normal in a certain age,
I also think this is bullshit, aside from prostitutes. If a father caught you sleeping with his daughter at that age, it wouldn't just be peaches, you'd have to marry her or something. Just dicking her wouldn't be cool, especially before there was advanced birth control.

Anonymous Fri May 22 22:32:07 2015 No.6577529

>>6577385
>Mike Tyson seems to be doing pretty well.
His rape convictions are still brought up to this day, and certain organizations refuse to work with him. And that was 1992, imagine if a world class athlete like him was convicted of rape today. He'd be finished. No question.

>there's a lot more empathy for both adulterers and adulteresses

In parts of the middle east, adulterers are still stoned. But even in the west, cheaters are clearly despised as evidenced by how popular so many of those "revenge for cheating" videos get.

>anecdotal statutory rape

I don't know where you live, but around here your reputation would be fucking destroyed. But do you think you would have gotten the same treatment if you were 30?

>If a father caught you sleeping with his daughter at that age, it wouldn't just be peaches, you'd have to marry her or something

Yeah, and the marriage would only be because of the lack of birth control in tandem with the religious mores of the time. In the end, it would still be okay for a 30 year old to fuck and impregnate a 15 year old. And it wouldn't be considered a strange case.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 22:39:37 2015 No.6577557 >>6577354 Don't you have homework, kiddo?

Anonymous Fri May 22 23:11:45 2015 No.6577689

>>6577529
>His rape convictions are still brought up to this day, and certain organizations refuse to work with him. And that was 1992, imagine if a world class athlete like him was convicted of rape today. He'd be finished. No question.
You weren't talking about convictions, you were talking about accusations. Kobe Bryant got accused of rape, and it sure didn't finish him. And he later admitted he did rape her, and apologized. He's doing fine.

>cheaters are clearly despised as evidenced by how popular so many of those "revenge for cheating" videos get.
But these are as abstracted, these videos are mainly for the savor of those who have been cheated on. We're talking about people we actually know in person, which is quite another matter.

>I don't know where you live, but around here your reputation would be fucking destroyed. But do you think you would have gotten the same treatment if you were 30?
Provided my friends were the same age, yes. I think they would have been a lot more uneasy with it, but I don't think they would have ostracized me.

>Yeah, and the marriage would only be because of the lack of birth control in tandem with the religious mores of the time.
No, I think it would more have to do with the daughter was under the aegis of her father. You're wronging him by bypassing his consent.

>In the end, it would still be okay for a 30 year old to fuck and impregnate a 15 year old
Within marriage, yes. Because women (and men generally too) weren't expected to go through a lot of education.

>, it would still be okay for a 30 year old to fuck and impregnate a 15 year old. And it wouldn't be considered a strange case.
And it will be again too. The age of consent laws were from a pitch of sexual morality combined with children being exploited in prostitution, they part of the same movement which was cracking down on lots of other things. That particular dimension of the new sexuality morality movement (which went hand-in-hand with the teetotaler movement) lasted longer than the rest, because other parts of the movement saw a large reaction against them. Age of consent laws, even where they applied, were not actually something the public was entirely sympathetic with (Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is certainly over thirty, and he's in trouble for fucking a fifteen-year-old, yet that's not supposed to get in the way of the audience's sympathy). Age of consent laws only recently gained a large movement among the public with the sexual predator scare that tied with things like the Catholic Church. That's largely subsiding now, and little girls are being sexualized more and more and more.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 23:56:05 2015 No.6577888 >>6575487 >her body her choice! Faggot Until things like infant circumcision are outlawed this argument will get you no where. You think its morally ok for one half of a conjoined twin to the kill the other too?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:06:38 2015 No.6577930 >>6575695 Then ditch child support for men who want no custody at all. >but muh tax money will have to take over Too bad.

Anonymous Sat May 23 00:10:14 2015 No.6577950

>>6577070
Are you for real? You know damn well the middle class left only *invokes* the existence of the poor & minorities to push policies that help themselves. If poverty was solved theyd have no more political power, they dont want that. Dont be so naive. Dont trust politicians or activists of any political ideology.

Anonymous Sat May 23 00:12:59 2015 No.6577966
File: 143 KB, 964x689, article-2193132-14AD30BF000005DC-195_964x689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6577286
>Lol no. The most common way to ostracize someone these days is to accuse them of a sexual crime.
precisely, because we value sex and the liberty of desire of sex so much though the key humanist concept of consent

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:13:18 2015 No.6577967 >>6577950 John Milbank is a theologian, he's not a politician or an activist. He's not interested in simply solving poverty, he's concerned about how capitalism molds society to the detriment of our spirituality.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:14:01 2015 No.6577973 >>6577966 >though through

Anonymous Sat May 23 00:16:06 2015 No.6577979

>>6574429
The marriage has always been about filiation, about the legitimate descendants. The purpose was to marry two families. Today, with the marriage for love, it is only two individuals who get married. A marriage for love fits well into the individualistic era such as ours, but it remain an aberration.

Today, since the homos have the right to marry, we say that the filiation happens only via the education. This is pure ideology naturally. What makes you a parent ? It can be :
-the genes
-the education
-the genes and the education

With the human rights for all, you see that the couples infertile by the nature of their relationship, or by their natural infertility, can enter into a filiation only through the education.
The first step became apparent when the bastard children were recognized the same rights as the legitimate ones, in the marriage for the heteros, especially when it comes to the inheritance.

Of course, women never had any remorse to be fucked by the neighbor, give birth to bastards nor to pass them as legitimate, so the theory of the marriage is a bit phony but as we conceived them by the dozen, as they died a lot, we might as well go with the flow. Now, that we conceive only a few children, we tend to be picky on the filiation.
You see here a tension between the 'everything is social like the left dreams about' and the stance that 'everything is genetics, from the right' since it is common knowledge today that we are determined genetically for what matters.

Nowadays, the marriage is dead and buried. There is clearly no relevance in going into it. Even more so when the sexual fidelity is no longer accepted and desired, when the divorce without fault becomes the rule (I am tired of you, so let's divorce and you do not even have a word to say in my decision).

The bourgeoisie destroyed the marriage by their mores.

Anonymous Sat May 23 00:17:12 2015 No.6577985

>>6577966
And circumventing consent is a crime against the very legitimacy of the sexual society, an element of which sex is abstracted as much as possible from procreation--not merely in actuality, but in *popular conception*. Sex has to be what it's all about, and its legitimacy rests on perpetuating the idea that we all want it all the time more than anything. When you perpetuate sex without consent, it is like passing counterfeit money.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:18:06 2015 No.6577989 >>6577319 I love it when newfags assume things about the people behind anonymous 4chan posts.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:21:14 2015 No.6578002 >>6577979 >it is common knowledge today that we are determined genetically for what matters. Well, George W. Bush went to Harvard and Yale, but I don't know if his genetics were so immensely superior to yours or mine, relative to his achievements.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:23:46 2015 No.6578009 >>6577967 I wasnt talking about whoever youre talking about. I was talking about how your greentext was illogical.

Anonymous Sat May 23 00:24:53 2015 No.6578012
File: 177 KB, 1752x1088, Handle with care, this triggers the feminists -- An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women. Final Report-fs8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6577985
>When you perpetuate sex without consent, it is like passing counterfeit money.
and also because the feminists are nothing without rape (but only rape on women from men, not the converse), especially once the pay gap is proven to be too imprecise to be used in a sincere debate.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:25:05 2015 No.6578013 >>6578009 My greentext was in response to yours, which was a criticism of John Milbank.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:28:00 2015 No.6578022 >>6578012 That's correct. The Vagina Monologues received great acclaim among feminists, even though it includes a character recalling, as a little girl, being raped by an older women, then reflecting that it was "good rape".

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:31:42 2015 No.6578044 >>6578002 But its your own spooky thoughts that makes going to an Ivy League "matter"

Anonymous Sat May 23 00:32:44 2015 No.6578045

>>6577689
>he's in trouble for fucking a fifteen-year-old, yet that's not supposed to get in the way of the audience's sympathy)
Exactly
because the author made it clear that radical feminism has castrated the modern society into thinking that consensual sex is wrong if the man is old while the woman is young and that man sexually expressing himself is inherently predatory
learn to read

Anonymous Sat May 23 00:33:09 2015 No.6578047

>>6578044
I'm saying George W. Bush got to be President because of his social connections more than his genetics. Education is often just an extension of being in the right social web. If George W. Bush were born in a trailer park, he would not have amounted to much.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:34:23 2015 No.6578055 >>6578045 However you want to read into it, we're talking about how the work functioned with the public, not the author's intent. The statutory rape didn't get in the way of sympathy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:35:35 2015 No.6578057 >>6578013 That wasnt me idiot. Once again I point out the fact that we are posting anonymously.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:38:05 2015 No.6578062 >>6578047 Your still misunderstanding what that anon was trying to say but whatever

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:41:03 2015 No.6578070 >>6578057 Then maybe you should look at the context of my post before attacking it

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:42:22 2015 No.6578074 >>6574525 No it's not. Read again. He's not referring to 50's families.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:47:16 2015 No.6578084 >>6578070 Maybe you should post actual arguments instead of shitting up /lit/ with greentext sarcasm

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:49:13 2015 No.6578094 >>6574759 Fuck off boomer.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 00:50:26 2015 No.6578097 >>6575630 Except there is a movement against paternity tests. They are outlawed in France, for instance.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:07:46 2015 No.6578153 >>6578097 They aren't. They are strongly regulated but not banned.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:11:04 2015 No.6578164 >>6578153 Yeah, sure, if the person being tested can and does give legal consent. C'mon, man.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:14:22 2015 No.6578181 >>6575487 FUCK YOU! My ex killed our unborn baby to spite me. You have no idea what it feels like when a women you've been married to for years, decides that a baby will inconvenience her and unilaterally aborts it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:16:22 2015 No.6578186 >>6578181 hahahaha

Anonymous Sat May 23 01:18:44 2015 No.6578196
File: 1.02 MB, 520x375, 1373348601732.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6578097

Some feminist woman said that paternity tests are misogynist and that men should just have to raise the brat if the woman decides it's his.

I can't believe this horseshit I think I'm going to have an ulcer

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:21:22 2015 No.6578202 >>6575487 >good old natural law theory real natural theory would condemn abortion in the first place

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:24:31 2015 No.6578216 >>6578164 That's wrong. You just need a court order which is always granted.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:33:44 2015 No.6578236 >>6578216 >which is always granted Sounds like bullshit to me http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-france

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 01:48:30 2015 No.6578282 >>6578236 It's not.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 03:27:08 2015 No.6578513 >>6578181 I'm so glad I'm pro choice. If I was the type of person that viewed a fetus as a sacred soul I would have gone insane and bombed an abortion clinic and killed a feminist.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 03:34:56 2015 No.6578530 >>6575487 >>Since it is growing in her body, not his, obviously she can. as if she has not stolen the sperm, which the american justice does not even consider

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 04:43:42 2015 No.6578691 >>6578513 I agree with pro choice on everything, but to a degree i think infanticide should be equally morally permissible

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 04:49:03 2015 No.6578706 >>6578691 And this sort of thing is why I am not pro choice >>6574487 Neither is Milbank https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZyOTnlI-w8

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 04:49:32 2015 No.6578709 >>6578691 abortion is legalized infanticide without the consent of the father this is the libertarian take on the fact that the infanticides have always existed, that it is judged bad, and that it whould be regulated (but not too much) by the state

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 04:52:58 2015 No.6578716 >>6578706 And I'd like to point out again, that the state has far more right over its citizens than a mother has over her child, so consider the precedent this sets

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 05:08:52 2015 No.6578743 >>6578513 >I'm against murder so I'll murder people Is this what atheists really believe?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 05:13:49 2015 No.6578754 >>6578743 It's often the best way to prevent more murder.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 05:18:00 2015 No.6578760 >>6578743 Can't murder what isn't a person yet.

Anonymous Sat May 23 05:19:03 2015 No.6578764
File: 394 KB, 584x622, 1413835207814.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

How many religion meme fads do we have to go through? First it was Hellenismos, then it was Catholicism, now we have this Millibank bullshit. This isn't lit related, it's stupid, and I wish you all a warm stay in hell. Tips Fedora*

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 05:25:28 2015 No.6578773

>>6578709
>abortion is legalized infanticide without the consent of the father

Abortion is not infanticide. The meanings of words actually matter, regardless of how badly you want to misuse them to lurid effect.

>this is the libertarian take on the fact that the infanticides have always existed, that it is judged bad, and that it whould be regulated (but not too much) by the state

Actually, the libertarian position has always been for a woman's right to choose. Maybe you should read the platform. It's still in there, despite the party having been largely overrun by fake libertarians who are just republicans, embarrassed to admit it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 05:28:42 2015 No.6578776 >>6578760 You might make somewhat of a case that early term fetuses aren't person, but it would be ridiculous to argue such for late term fetuses.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 05:33:43 2015 No.6578782 >>6578776 Yes, I agree. Somewhere around 20 weeks is the cut-off point.

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 05:34:05 2015 No.6578783 >>6578776 >You might make somewhat of a case that early term fetuses aren't person, but it would be ridiculous to argue such for late term fetuses. The kind that are almost never aborted?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 05:34:58 2015 No.6578784 >>6578782 Then at the very least, you support reducing permissiveness in abortion laws.

Anonymous Sat May 23 05:40:24 2015 No.6578795

>>6578783
I'm not sure what your point is here. It's okay because it's far less common? The problem is that it gets bundled into abortion altogether, because the majority who are pro choice support it, or at least the courts do. I do not thing any abortion is good, it is very troubling, but keeping early term abortion legal is still preferable to the alternative. But the thing is, that's never going to become illegal again, and pro life people can't directily puish for that. They do stand a chance, however, of rolling back how late you can get an abortion, and for that reason I am more aligned with their interests than with the pro choice interests. Besides mere politics, there's also the matter of culture and social mores, and as much as I support early term abortion being legal, I do not support pushing for our culture to treat like it's insignificant morally, let alone an increasingly prevalent attitude among liberals that it is empowering for women. This sort of blind support for abortion is a gateway to infanticide, which in turn is a gateway to all sorts of other horrors.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 05:44:52 2015 No.6578802

>>6578795
>I'm not sure what your point is here. It's okay because it's far less common?

My point is that it doesn't need to be made illegal by people who don't 'approve' of it because they have no appreciation of the circumstances. Sometimes a mother's life is at stake. Sometimes there are catastrophic birth defects and the baby is doomed to a short and grotesquely painful existence. What a woman and her doctor decide is the best course of action is none of your or my business.

Anonymous Sat May 23 05:50:33 2015 No.6578810

>>6578802
It's absolutely society's business, because the fetus, which in late term might as well be an infant, cannot speak for itself. It has no voice. That entire demographic has no voice. They cannot stand up for themselves political, they cannot form solidarity, they cannot cry out for help. It is your moral responsibility as well as mine to actually at least make this a topic, rather than just turn a blind eye. If there are exceptions, then there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions, and so any law concerning the matter should incorproate them: but you don't say because of exceptions, there should be no law, because that is
throwing
the
baby
out
with
the
bathwater

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 05:51:53 2015 No.6578814 >>6578784 Maybe. I'm not that well read on the subject but the criterion of fetal "viability" seems less important than when it has functioning connections between the thalamus and cortex.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 05:57:51 2015 No.6578833

>>6578810
>It's absolutely society's business

It's society's business that women be able to access late term abortions, so women don't die needlessly from ectopic pregnancies, as often happens in Latin American countries.

It pleases people who want to chip away at women's freedoms over their own bodies to imagine that women (who were careless sluts to incur an unwanted pregnancy in the first place) have just been out clubbing or shopping and never got around to having an abortion until the third trimester, but that is not actually what is happening. Nearly all of these procedures are performed with very good reason, and you not being aware of those reasons is no reason to impose your blind morality on people facing circumstances you have no comprehension of.

Anonymous Sat May 23 06:02:31 2015 No.6578838

>>6578833
If a doctor's opinion is that the woman's life is at risk, then permit the abortion. Okay. What does this have to do with admitting all late term abortions, full stop?

I'm not interested at chipping away at women's freedoms, half these fetuses are are female. What you're doing now is a terrible argument based completely on calling my motives into question. This method of argument becoming very popular among liberals, including freemarket liberals, and I advise you do not perpetuate it.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 06:07:12 2015 No.6578845

>>6578838
>If a doctor's opinion is that the woman's life is at risk, then permit the abortion. Okay. What does this have to do with admitting all late term abortions, full stop?

The decision is between the woman and her doctor. Not you, not a government panel. Her and her doctor.

>I'm not interested at chipping away at women's freedoms, half these fetuses are are female. What you're doing now is a terrible argument based completely on calling my motives into question. This method of argument becoming very popular among liberals, including freemarket liberals, and I advise you do not perpetuate it.

So you are all for the unrestricted access of women to abortion services excepting late-term procedures?

Anonymous Sat May 23 06:14:30 2015 No.6578854

>>6578845
>The decision is between the woman and her doctor. Not you, not a government panel. Her and her doctor.
Yes, this is descriptive. I'm talking in normative terms. Killing late term fetuses, which is tantamount to killing a person, should require extenuating circumstances determined by the doctor. What those circumstances can be should be in law, and doctors should have input on why these circumstances are extenuating.

>o you are all for the unrestricted access of women to abortion services excepting late-term procedures?
Yes, legally. HOWEVER, I am not for for the political push to try to make it like it has no moral implications, and even empowering for the women or something to be proud of. I don't necessarily favor shaming women who get abortions, but I certainly don't want abortions to become political statements you get high-fived about...which they are becoming.

Anonymous Sat May 23 06:15:55 2015 No.6578858

I find it scary that so many people think women have the so choice on the life of their child. II've recently started to see why the anti-abortion side is so adamant, this shit is getting crazy. If we permit abortion at all, and that's a big if, it must be a joint decision by both parents. Both carry the responsibility.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 06:20:24 2015 No.6578866

>>6578854
>Yes, this is descriptive. I'm talking in normative terms. Killing late term fetuses, which is tantamount to killing a person, should require extenuating circumstances determined by the doctor. What those circumstances can be should be in law, and doctors should have input on why these circumstances are extenuating.

If it is a doctor's opinion that the procedure should be performed, why should anyone else need to be consulted? To turn it into a political football? So people with an agenda can interfere?

>Yes, legally. HOWEVER, I am not for for the political push to try to make it like it has no moral implications, and even empowering for the women or something to be proud of. I don't necessarily favor shaming women who get abortions, but I certainly don't want abortions to become political statements you get high-fived about...which they are becoming.

Jesus Christ, having an abortion is a difficult, painful thing for a woman to go through. I guess it pleases some people to believe they are having abortion parties and bragging about their latest procedure, but it's really sick-minded.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 06:22:33 2015 No.6578871

>>6578858
>I find it scary that so many people think women have the so choice on the life of their child. II've recently started to see why the anti-abortion side is so adamant, this shit is getting crazy. If we permit abortion at all, and that's a big if, it must be a joint decision by both parents. Both carry the responsibility.

Actually, only one of them is pregnant, so she is not really subject to anyone's approval over what she chooses to do with her body.

Anonymous Sat May 23 06:25:52 2015 No.6578878

>>6578866
>If it is a doctor's opinion that the procedure should be performed, why should anyone else need to be consulted? To turn it into a political football? So people with an agenda can interfere?
Are you suggesting the abortion won't happen if the doctor is against it?

>Jesus Christ, having an abortion is a difficult, painful thing for a woman to go through. I guess it pleases some people to believe they are having abortion parties and bragging about their latest procedure, but it's really sick-minded.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/14/choice-words-about-abortion-0/

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 06:29:37 2015 No.6578883

>>6578878
>Are you suggesting the abortion won't happen if the doctor is against it?

The woman is unlikely to perform it on herself.

>This is the sort of thing I'm talking about

One woman's perspective on not letting anti-choice people control the narrative. So? That doesn't mean Hallmark is selling 'Congratulations on your abortion!' cards.

Anonymous Sat May 23 06:37:16 2015 No.6578901

>>6578883
>The woman is unlikely to perform it on herself.
And she could sue the doctor if he said, "We;;, your life isn't in danger, the kid is healthy, I'm not going to do this."

>One woman's perspective on not letting anti-choice people control the narrative.
Do you understand what she's saying and do you understand that is becoming more prominent? Not just that abortion should be legal, bur that there is nothing wrong or immoral in the slightest about abortion at all under any circumstances, and that abortion is something to be celebrated in all circumstances.

>So? That doesn't mean Hallmark is selling 'Congratulations on your abortion!' cards.
I wouldn't be surprised if cards like these already existed, but I'm not talking about cards, I'm talking about willfully railing against a woman feeling moral pangs or issues with getting an abortion. Even if you have one as a necessary evil, it is still an evil, and trying to break down that is utterly crushing any moral sense society has for itself, it is numbing our humanity.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 07:19:59 2015 No.6578985 >>6578513 >im so glad I support the Indian practice of women committing suicide when their husbands die, if I actually considered women as a sacred soul I might fight injustice instead of being brainwashed

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 07:29:05 2015 No.6579001 >>6574513 >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-milbank/liberalism-undoing-itself_b_7104638.html Thanks for the article. I feel the exact same way Milbank does.

Anonymous Sat May 23 07:52:46 2015 No.6579050
File: 696 KB, 3500x2342, 2014-11-13T074931Z_1448044381_GM1EABD17SO01_RTRMADP_3_AUSTRALIA-PROTEST.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If the two parties said explicitly that none of them want a baby, then the lines above about the fallacy apply.

If the male said explicitly that he would like the child, then the mother uses something from him against the will of the man.

if the male does not care, then we fall back to the above fallacy

if the two parties does not discuss this subject, whereas knowingly the consequences of their acts, then they used a liberty while refusing the responsibility that comes with it. It is against the most basic libertarian principles do deny the responsibilities whereas the liberals are fine with this state of affair.
If none of them discusses the consequences, it means that each party denies the humanity of the other one.

The fetus does not have to pay for them, otherwise it is nothing but a scapegoat.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 08:00:42 2015 No.6579066 >>6579050 let's add that this situation is purely the fault of the liberals who constrain the father to accept the paternity in denying the right of the father to abondon their children, like all the mothers have.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 08:04:43 2015 No.6579074 >>6579050 Seems like you're only talking in terms of the father's and mother's rights, with not attention to the child's.

Anonymous Sat May 23 08:06:04 2015 No.6579076

>>6578833

Abortion is a human sacrifice ritual -- the most powerful known to exist. It was invented by eugenics operatives within the occultic elite to cury Satan's favor while gaining his protection of their warmaking, usury, currency manipulation, and control over the minds of men.

Why is abortion the most powerful form of ritual human sacrifice? Because it entails the most defenseless victims conceivable (the unborn) being murdered by the very persons most duty-bound to love and protect them from harm -- their own mothers, and medical doctors who've sworn oaths to their gods to do no harm.

These ritual murders which society misnames abortions are, furthermore, carried out in a nonchalant and routinized fashion exclusively to facilitate hedonistic apathy, laziness, and convenience; symbolically placing ten seconds of vaginal pleasure above the value of a human lifetime's worth of a living, breathing human being's consciousness.

In short, Satan loves abortion because it symbolizes evil within cruelty within evil. It proffers that a few seconds of vaginal contractions mean more than human life itself, and it does this using the greatest symbols of love and compassion (mothers and doctors), satanically inverted into spiritually numbed, unfeeling executioners.

So the next time you see a western woman screeching about her abortion rights on the steps of some state capitol, look into her empty eyes and know that you're seeing more than a simple murderer. Look into her eyes and know that you're seeing a demon, the very definition of evil. And know that the steady stream of death she inflicts on the unborn is what powers the elite's satanic karma.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 08:07:57 2015 No.6579081 >>6578833 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. You are just a murder trying to justify murder, which is what all pro-'choice' morons do.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 08:08:12 2015 No.6579082 >>6579076 >karma Had me up until then.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 09:04:28 2015 No.6579194 >>6574429 >>6574432 Mix, stir, let simmer for a few decades, welcome to Brave New World.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 09:34:45 2015 No.6579252 >>6578833 >Nearly all of these procedures are performed with very good reason Really? Name one. And no, "I am a brainless slut" isn't a good reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 09:40:36 2015 No.6579263 >>6579252 > i want stupid people to have kids Good thing theres plenty of that happening.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 09:44:46 2015 No.6579269 >>6574780 >That is still the creepiest MRA talking point. Congrats for showing the world how much common sense you don't have. too bad that those are nothing but facts nice projecting for a 20 yo though, well done.

Anonymous Sat May 23 09:55:55 2015 No.6579298

>>6579252
It's the best reason you fucking mong. Even if we put aside the fact that procreation is immoral on a foundational level, the worst thing you can do for a new-born is have her mother be an irresponsible single mother cunt, maybe even an user to top it off.

Anonymous Sat May 23 10:18:25 2015 No.6579355
File: 1.04 MB, 737x769, 1385052542364.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6579298
No, don't you get it? We have to punish the mother for being irresponsible! Also life is a gift so the kid is gonna be fine with his gift. Win win situation, you child murderer.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 10:24:13 2015 No.6579372 >>6574429 >the left has to rethink its 60’s-derived libertarianism if it wishes to continue to oppose capitalism. spot on

Anonymous Sat May 23 10:24:43 2015 No.6579374
File: 9 KB, 262x310, 1420032291905.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6578773
>>Abortion is not infanticide
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.

In any case, the abortion is the form which takes the infanticide in some hedonist/utilitarian doctrine which minimize pain for some people who are chosen to matter for the doctrine, here typically the mother, doctrine which excludes other people directly involved in the story.

and it is clearly libertarian since the usual argument for those in favour of abortion somehow regulated by the state is ''admitedly, it is not the a good situation to be in (for all involved in this, which is only the mother currently), but it is the lesser of two evils, a necessary evil''

As usual, all those humanist always sell their system inclaiming that their system is the least worse of all.

Anonymous Sat May 23 11:00:45 2015 No.6579539

>>6579298
Well, maybe if we look at a new born child as a member of society, that ultimately society needs to take good care of, an incapable mother would become a weak argument against abortion.

We can ask ourselves to what extent is society at large responsible for taking care of its children.
In many ways, the myriad, stages of a child's life are already tied to social structures that look after it.
Parent dont raise their kids alone. We have schools, kindergartens, social workers, adoption etc...

You could also say that the problem is a result of bad counteraction. If it was very hard to have an unwanted child we would not be facing any of these problems.
Maybe the real solution is technological. Finding a proper way to make sure there are no unwanted children.

Anonymous Sat May 23 11:13:48 2015 No.6579600

>>6579539
I also want to add that of course what happens to the baby during pregnancy must also be considered.
Its not only a problem of the ability of the mother or parents to raise it but also the ability of the mother to not harm her child during pregnancy.
To ensure an unwanted child is not harmed during pregnancy(the mother didnt want the baby because she knew she couldnt stop herself from harming it) would require the mother to be under a sort of arrest or supervision and of course it might already be too late(she noticed she is pregnant after some period of drug use and the baby was already harmed).
A drug addict cannot stop taking drugs immediately thus even if a mother wants to stop after discovering she is pregnant she wont be able to for some time and thus will unwillingly hurt her baby.

Of course we can declare and delineate what cases would be approved for abortion but here there will be many grey areas.
Obviously, ideally we would want a solution that does not leave room for many intricate and complex decision making processes as they would pose a weakness against errors in judgment.
This is an argument for an overriding black and white decision about abortion.
Her legal abortion seems to have an advantage because banning abortion would necessitate many elaborate decisions about exceptions.
On the other hand an overriding legal abortion status becomes problematic when we start considering the rights of the father and how a father is harmed if a woman is allowed to abort at will, no matter what.
It is not fair to discriminate women because they become pregnant(cant fire them for that etc.) but it is also not fair to discriminate men because they are unable to become pregnant by not giving them any power in the decision of having or not having a baby.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 12:30:54 2015 No.6579917 >>6578833 Absolutely immortal, and absolutely corrupt.

Anonymous Sat May 23 12:36:21 2015 No.6579939

>>6574780
>common sense
You say this like you have it.

Women who have children without the consent of the father should be penalized, and he should not be liable for it, because the law already works in the inverse. That's what true equality would look like, not this hysterical made-up college crap.

Anonymous Sat May 23 12:36:39 2015 No.6579942
File: 16 KB, 1057x576, 1429095859617 (1).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6578833
it's not a reason not to curb the abortion numbers

russians did it, there's no reason for the westerners to praise abortion like a god

westerners do this all the time, because the government hasn't made it illegal, it somehow has to become the new moral imperative

though i do not expect you westerners to understand, you're absorbed with your "equality" cult, and any attempts at fixing the issue of abortion is seen as an act of war against ALL WOMEN in the world

this is ridiculous

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

Anonymous Sat May 23 12:49:47 2015 No.6579988

Haha nice subject that is abortion.

In france, the number that the hippies form the 70s talked about was 200 000 abortions a year. They told everybody that if it were legalized, the number would go down, especially with adolescents educated on sex.

Forty years later, the number is still 200 000 abortions a year, if not more, whereas most of the girls say that they are well educated on sex.

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:00:09 2015 No.6580025

>>6579600
>On the other hand an overriding legal abortion status becomes problematic when we start considering the rights of the father and how a father is harmed if a woman is allowed to abort at will, no matter what.
ho yes, the famous case of complexity

also, the complete problem regarding abortion is not ''ho a girl suddenly gets pregnant'', it is
> a woman gets some sperm in her cunt and gets pregnant for 9 months

you see that
-a pregnancy is only for nine months
it is not the end of the world, and most pregnancies are fine, or even improve the health of the women once it is over
-a woman does not get easily sperm in her cunt, unless she is Mary
since the feminists talks about consents ALL THE TIME, they must be the first to ask the provider of the sperm whether it is alright to use for this
-admitting that the concept of consent makes sense, like the humanists love to believe, if there is proven lack of consent, there can be an access to abortion
or again, she can continue the pregnancy since:
--she can abondon it
--she might change her mind during the pregnancy or after abandonning the child
In this cases, the aboriton seems overkill, given that their are alternatives which are far less radical (you cannot be more radical than abortion)

So you see, you have several variables werewith you can play to get a solution.
it is too easy to reduce the problem such as the feminists love to do, especially when they deprive men of ANY right, and even worse when they call themselves righteous because they supposedly fight for some strange equality once their concept is applied IRL.

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:02:23 2015 No.6580033

>>6574432
It's amazing how the reactionary mind can make the completely wrong conclusion from a correct observation. He is absolutely correct when he says "the left has to rethink its 60’s-derived libertarianism if it wishes to continue to oppose capitalism," but he, of course, makes the critical mistake of misidentifying leftism with identity politics liberalism. The solution to the commodification of sex and the human body clearly isn't to enforce (falsely named) traditional sexual values and sex/gender dichotomy, which merely streamlines the sex product in the market. Simply put, making sex into Coke or Pepsi can not be a revolutionary process. This is, of course, an impossible problem for Milbank because the correct conclusion here is not reconcilable with reactionary Christianity in any form and the false solution he thinks he wants is exactly the fascism he claims he wants to avoid.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:05:59 2015 No.6580052 File: 43 KB, 470x370, splish splash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6579917 >Absolutely immortal Hardening claws of fetus tell me we are closer to abortion times Through the days of bitterness, still the utero lays untouched! HUH!!!

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:06:37 2015 No.6580055

>>6580033
Or rather, he is not proposing to make sex into Cock or Pepsi but saying that the choice itself is wrong (which it is) and that the solution is to "go back" and make Coke the only choice (which it isn't).

I'm preserving the original Coke/Cock typo, it's too perfect to correct.

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:08:54 2015 No.6580065

>>6580033
>Simply put, making sex into Coke or Pepsi can not be a revolutionary process.
many of the ''revolutionnaries'' at the time believed this. I think that he agrees with you, but you must fight what (most) people believe (with the language that they understand)

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:13:22 2015 No.6580081 File: 33 KB, 310x350, 3ub99v.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Subject X is not worker rights >Therefore, X is a distraction from worker rights >This is only possible if X was put there on purpose to weaken the labor rights movement

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:16:12 2015 No.6580090 that feel when no gf

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:17:11 2015 No.6580093

>>6579988
>In [F]rance, [in] the 70s, [there were] 200[,]000 abortions a year.
>Forty years later, the number is still 200[,]000 abortions a year

Okay, but you realize that in 1975 France had a population of ~52,800,000 and in 2015 France has a population of ~64,500,000, meaning less abortions per year per capita even if the number itself has in fact remained stagnant. Even if the actual number of abortions increased 100,000 it'd still be a decreasing trend in relation to population growth.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:19:30 2015 No.6580102 >>6580081 It sounds too much like a conspiracy theory, it's true. Leaving all the leftist crazy talk aside, our culture is too obsessed with relationships. You can't derive your fulfillment from someone else.

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:22:47 2015 No.6580110

>>6575623
If he didn't want children there are measures he could have taken to avoid impregnating a woman. Condoms, vasectomy, even pulling out can work well if you do it right.

MRAs like to think men don't have a choice, but if you're at the point where a woman is deciding on having a child (or an abortion) then you've already fucked up so prepare to be penalized one way or another.

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:22:58 2015 No.6580113

>>6580065
>many of the ''revolutionnaries'' at the time believed this.
Yes, and we must properly conclude that the "revolutionary" demand to recognize free love was not in fact revolutionary, that capitalism's inevitable willingness to accommodate this demand and to exploit it for its own gains shows us that reformism is not a solution. We agree in that regard but his solution is the same solution the hippies proposed, only it is reductive.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:24:07 2015 No.6580119 >>6580081 Who exactly are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:30:25 2015 No.6580139 >>6578833 >ectopic pregnancies >late term abortions You're an idiot

Anonymous Sat May 23 13:34:19 2015 No.6580154

>>6580119
I'm not directly quoting anyone. It's called "paraphrasing" and you should try it some time.

By stripping away Milbank's verbiage, I want to expose an essentially fallacious line of thought that I've seen in numerous leftish critiques of modern society. Of course, as this guy >>6580102 points out, lefties aren't the only ones to use such reasoning.

Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Sat May 23 13:37:26 2015 No.6580164

>>6578773
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.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:39:05 2015 No.6580171 >>6578833 lol you were linked to on /pol/ tripfag >>>/pol/45539665

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 13:39:09 2015 No.6580172

>>6578901
>And she could sue the doctor if he said, "We;;, your life isn't in danger, the kid is healthy, I'm not going to do this."

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.

>Do you understand what she's saying and do you understand that is becoming more prominent? Not just that abortion should be legal, bur that there is nothing wrong or immoral in the slightest about abortion at all under any circumstances, and that abortion is something to be celebrated in all circumstances.

It's not becoming more prominent, though. This is just a narrative that the anti-choice people want to point to, with no little hysteria, because it is self-serving.

>Do you understand what she's saying and do you understand that is becoming more prominent? Not just that abortion should be legal, bur that there is nothing wrong or immoral in the slightest about abortion at all under any circumstances, and that abortion is something to be celebrated in all circumstances.

Anti-choice people want to make it out like abortion is regarded (too) lightly, when in fact the opposite being true is what is evidenced here. She is trying to make the process less painful for the women who undergo it.

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 13:42:12 2015 No.6580183 >>6579076 >Abortion is a human sacrifice ritual In the minds of anti-choice people, whose capacity to fetishize it to absurd heights evidently knows no bounds. These procedures are not actually Black Masses, you know.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 13:42:19 2015 No.6580184 >>6580154 >Can't infer that the meaning of the question was to point out that you're not actually quoting anyone Maybe you should try intermediate reading skills next time?

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 13:51:19 2015 No.6580236

>>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.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 13:53:30 2015 No.6580244

>>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.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 13:55:31 2015 No.6580254

>>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?

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 13:58:44 2015 No.6580272

>>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.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 14:04:06 2015 No.6580293

>>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?

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 14:05:09 2015 No.6580295

>>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.

Anonymous Sat May 23 14:30:05 2015 No.6580397

>>6578833
>It pleases people who want to chip away at women's freedoms over their own bodies to imagine that women
>Abortion is a woman's freedom over her own body.

No, that's not what that word means.
Besides, that same train of logic could be used in absolutely ridiculous circumstances.

"It's prohibited to shoot guns at people? Stop chipping away my freedom"

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 14:35:25 2015 No.6580420 >>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.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 14:43:13 2015 No.6580450 >>6580081 >This is only possible if X was put there on purpose to weaken the labor rights movement It wasn't, but that doesn't stop people from exploiting it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 14:46:54 2015 No.6580464 I support abortion for the same reason I support Transexualism. It's straight eugenics and beneficial to the human race. If some lazy and stupid whore wants to murder her own child than as far as I'm concerned humanity is winning in a huge way.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 14:49:08 2015 No.6580477 >>6580244 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.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 14:52:43 2015 No.6580488

>>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.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 14:56:43 2015 No.6580508 >>6580488 Take a late term fetus and it's nearly identical to a newborn.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 15:01:31 2015 No.6580524 >>6580102 Humans are social animals. You can absolutely derive happiness from a long term fulfilling relationship, and in fact I might say that that might actually be the only road to happiness.

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sat May 23 16:05:11 2015 No.6580744 >>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.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 17:44:16 2015 No.6581131 >>6580524 You are wrong. You will find out the hard way.

Anonymous Sat May 23 17:49:42 2015 No.6581155

>>6580524
To expound, there is not a single work of philosophy that I have read that reflected this view. On the contrary, everything, and I mean every bit of serious philosophy says the opposite.

Human relations give satisfaction only while we are young. After that, only important work can provide fulfillment.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 18:04:29 2015 No.6581233 >people in this thread arguing as if the whole abortion debate doesn't turn on the simple question of rationality's role in the public sphere

Anonymous Sat May 23 20:24:22 2015 No.6581834

>>6580172
>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?

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

>It's not becoming more prominent, though. This is just a narrative that the anti-choice people want to point to, with no little hysteria, because it is self-serving.
It sure as hell is becoming more prominent. Do you think there's more of it today than there was ten years ago? I sure do.
http://www.worldmag.com/2015/01/pro_abortion_and_proud_of_it

"I fucking LOVE abortion, I tell other people all the time that I have had many of them, and would recommend the experience to anyone."
http://www.girl-mom.com/features/i-chose-abortion-and-i-am-proud-kaya-0

http://www.thanksabortion.com/

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/56925746/proud-parent-of-an-aborted-fetus_bumper-sticker?productId=551830914

>Anti-choice people want to make it out like abortion is regarded (too) lightly, when in fact the opposite being true is what is evidenced here. She is trying to make the process less painful for the women who undergo it.
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.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 23 20:26:20 2015 No.6581844 File: 388 KB, 600x624, 9fa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6580464

Anonymous Sun May 24 01:00:04 2015 No.6582781
File: 267 KB, 1165x1192, jacques-derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6580244
>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.
just like you use other words to describe the situation, to make it neutral to the woman, ''abortion is just abortion'' and if you see more than this into abortion, you oppress people. This is the traditionnal liberal reasoning that beyond the liberal principles, everything is a tautology.

" sex is only sex'', you can think otherwise, but not bother other people who think tautologically

this is the poverty of humanism right here, you deprive anybody of any right of action, unless the actions are the ones that you lie, and critize people who do not think like the humanists that you are, whereas you do exactly the same thing.
This the hypocrysy of the liberals which shows how well your unease towards your authoritary system.

Anonymous Sun May 24 01:07:37 2015 No.6582814

>>6580093
Yes, this is the typical argument that only relative numbers matter. And the feminists wanted the absolute number to decrease.

Other actions from the governments have the purpose to decrease absolute numbers, eg the deaths from car accidents. Nobody here talk about relative numbers for this, I wonder why.....

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 01:11:12 2015 No.6582826 >>6582781 It's intellectually dishonest to suggest abortion is infanticide, because it's not. Abortion is simply abortion.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 01:13:07 2015 No.6582830 >>6582781 While I'm pretty sure Derrida was against modern humanism and even more against tautology, I'm not so sure he'd be particularly against abortions.

Anonymous Sun May 24 01:15:21 2015 No.6582832
File: 80 KB, 190x448, Imagen 80.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6582826
When you say X is simply X you're not making any kind of argument and killing any interest the reader could have in your opinion. I agree that infanticide doesn't have the same connotation that abortion and that equating them shows a lack of understanding of the repercussion each has and the implications tied to it; but you are acting pretty retarded.

Anonymous Sun May 24 01:35:02 2015 No.6582871

>>6575295
I work at a literal shopcounter at a big box store and I can tell you you're fulla shit. Granted my thing is writing, not reading. My manager has disallowed me from writing anything in my notebook unless it explicitly has to do with my job. She believes that it's no different from if I was looking at a phone on the salesfloor, and has said so directly to me. While at work, I am expected to eat drink and breathe Bed Bath and Beyond. Since this mandate has come down, my word count has been slashed in half, and by the time I can get in front of a computer, I'm either exhausted from work or my original spark has been lost. I've had multiple short stories put on indefinite hiatus because of these absurd prescriptive rules.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 02:59:34 2015 No.6583174 >>6581155 The vast majority of philosophers were depressed hermits.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 03:04:49 2015 No.6583184 File: 320 KB, 349x415, boltman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >China's political model works

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 03:08:46 2015 No.6583196 >>6583174 Kek, no

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 08:15:23 2015 No.6583828 >>6579539 >>6579600 Death is an acceptable alternative to communism.

Anonymous Sun May 24 13:16:27 2015 No.6584581

>>6574429
consent matters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FTVjKohaFE
1. Teach young men about legal consent: Legal consent is number one for a reason. Without it, sexual contact with someone is rape whether you intended to rape or not. A woman who is drunk, unconscious, sleeping cannot give legal consent. And it's not about a woman simply saying "no," it's really about making certain she's saying yes.

2. Teach young men to see women's humanity, instead of seeing them as sexual objects there for male pleasure: There is a reason why women are shamed into silence and teenage boys in Steubenville, Ohio are caught on camera laughing about gang raping an unconscious girl at a party. The dehumanization of women spans all areas of American life.

3. Teach young men how to express healthy masculinity: The question that's being asked about what women can do to prevent violence against them is the wrong question. It's not what can a woman say or do that can prevent being attacked. We need to turn that paradigm.

4. Teach young men to believe women who come forward and not to blame the victim: The vast majority of women do not report their rapes to the police and many more only tell one or two people in confidence.

5. Teach young men about bystander intervention: Both Men Stopping Violence and Men Can Stop Rape have bystander intervention workshops for men of all ages. "It's about community accountability," says Pandit, "We require men to talk to other men in their lives and tell them about these programs. It is important that we have community networks that hold men accountable."

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 13:41:12 2015 No.6584679 >>6574432 >... all human relationality and personhood is abandoned Any socio-political thought process which leads to this conclusion has erred. That didn't even happen in the Soviet Union.

Anonymous Sun May 24 13:51:55 2015 No.6584729

>>6579939
>squicking some goo out of your pisstube
>harbouring a benign parasite for nine months before shoving a baby out of your fuckflap
>comparable

Childbearing has an innate inequality, the disparity in rights is intended to address that.

MRAs are among the stupidest people alive.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 13:52:52 2015 No.6584733 >>6584581 >healthy masculinity Why don't people just say "we want to castrate men"?

Anonymous Sun May 24 16:25:30 2015 No.6585425

>>6574536
I think there is more to it than expense way more people have always started families with next to nothing. Right now its about the hypocrisy of having loose sexual morals in your 20s and wanting to marry in your 30s, the hypocrisy of comes from the general incentivation of both males and females to be good short term prospects sexually, then later trying to find a partner that is a long term prospect. None exist simply because everyone else did what you did and slutted it up in your 20s. Its no longer politically correct to talk about what a husband or wife should be.

Tl;DR People are not becoming marriage material only fuck material.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 16:36:22 2015 No.6585471 >>6574790 The Evolution of Sexuality Sex For Procreation Sex To Enhance Already Established Deep Emotional Bonding Sex For Sexes Sake or Pleasure, purely mechanical pleasure. Pick Your Preferred.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 17:18:25 2015 No.6585691 Just to add if you are a woman who has had an abortion you are automatically put in the slut category and no feels will be given to you only dick.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 17:38:58 2015 No.6585787 >>6579988 The number of abortion world wide is 43 million a year the total mortality rate is 60 million

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 17:44:56 2015 No.6585803 File: 182 KB, 404x266, 1b8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6574429 >Radical Orthodoxy is a Christian theological and philosophical school of thought which makes use of postmodern philosophy to reject the paradigm of modernity.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 17:46:32 2015 No.6585815 File: 407 KB, 570x489, 1368999391460.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6585471 >implying that sex in the old days was so boring you had to coerce people to do it

Anonymous Sun May 24 17:49:07 2015 No.6585834
File: 116 KB, 1516x892, 1398569843398.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Oh, boy! He's the gift that keeps giving:

A key part of the controversy surrounding Milbank concerns his view of the relationship between theology and the social sciences. He argues that the social sciences are a product of the modern ethos of secularism, which stems from an ontology of violence.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 18:13:10 2015 No.6585971 >>6584581 I like how feminists are now reactionaries who want to go backwards but still using a feminists narrative. Relationships and sexuality are fucked but only because of things like the feminists movement/sexual liberation

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 18:20:53 2015 No.6585994 >>6585971 >everything would be fine if it wasn't for x everything would be fne if it wasn't for that kind of "thinking".

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 18:49:21 2015 No.6586091 >>6575295 >with no customers if you don't think that's fucked up...damn

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 18:53:09 2015 No.6586116 >>6577099 affairs were done because it felt good. people had sex because they liked it. nowadays sex is pursued for more than just pleasure. it is an active value. it's become totally neurotic.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 21:33:15 2015 No.6586627 >>6584679 How the hell....how the HELL did the USSR involve a "total disjuncture of sex and procreation"?

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sun May 24 21:49:27 2015 No.6586672

>>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?

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sun May 24 21:50:50 2015 No.6586677 >>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.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 21:53:47 2015 No.6586697 >>6586677 You do understand that the exact same thing can be said about you ? >>6586672 >Again, this would be a circumstance for a doctor's determination, not a bureaucrat's. What do you think that a doctor will bring more than a bureaucrat ?

Anonymous Sun May 24 22:06:26 2015 No.6586748

>>6586672
>Again, this would be a circumstance for a doctor's determination, not a bureaucrat's.
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.

>Is anyone advocating this?
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?

>No, it really isn't.
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?

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

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sun May 24 22:13:37 2015 No.6586770

>>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.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Sun May 24 22:17:36 2015 No.6586786

>>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.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 25 06:58:02 2015 No.6588121 >>6582871 Rape your boss. Class war now! Do it faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon May 25 07:00:04 2015 No.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.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 25 07:50:42 2015 No.6588230 >>6588126 >after becoming mothers. Can you explain why is that important?

Anonymous Mon May 25 11:32:45 2015 No.6588796

>>6574432
>Having denied the link of babies to men and also to women, save as objects of their (“male”) choice, babies thereby become pure consumer objects
I think its important to bear in mind that a baby born into capitalism will be just as much of a consumer as their parents, regardless of whether the child itself is a consumer object or not. Sometimes a child is an unsustainable drain on the resources of social production, either physical, social or economical (the signifiers for the functioning of capitalism's own oedipus trinity). How is it right to condemn them to a life of fortuitous and subordinated existence when you're capable of waiting and providing a better life for another? And if we choose never to have a child at all, aren't we rejecting their inherent commodification in a heteronormative, capitalist society? Idyllic family life is used to sell commodities, but to a great extent they are also selling something much more penetrating, the objet petit a, which is not only dangerously unrealistic but also commodifies the child in the process; a baby is the symbolic centre of a family, the perfect unity and accomplishment of oedipal desire. Using the child to sell both commodity and ideology is an objectification of the infant in itself.

Anonymous Mon May 25 11:37:42 2015 No.6588811

>>6588126
What makes you think maternal instincts wouldn't have a large part to play in the change of belief? Being a mother (or father, in fact) will naturally make you feel far more motherly (or fatherly), but it can also have a profound effect on the severity of your values and beliefs. its a pretty well-documented phenomenon

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Mon May 25 12:04:47 2015 No.6588904

>>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.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 25 17:46:43 2015 No.6590153 >>6588126 I bet your fat friends are pro fat acceptance as well, and your gay friends pro gay marriage and your pedo friends pro legalised boibussy.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 25 17:47:43 2015 No.6590160 >>6588904 >So they think a woman should have the right to choose. He's saying they believe women shouldn't have a choice and just do the same thing they did. Pro-life is code for anti-freedom.

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Mon May 25 21:35:21 2015 No.6591266 >>6590160 >Pro-life is code for anti-freedom. Agreed.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 25 21:37:01 2015 No.6591270 >>6591266 Pro-life is just holding people accountable for making stupid mistakes. Keep your legs together, ladies.

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Mon May 25 21:40:16 2015 No.6591285 >>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.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 25 21:42:22 2015 No.6591293 >>6591285 Maybe the threat of a screaming cabbage will get them to think about their actions. Drop trip, by the way. It's not necessary, here.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 25 21:43:34 2015 No.6591296 >>6591270 bring back hammurabi's code fuck yeah!

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Mon May 25 21:43:54 2015 No.6591299 >>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?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 00:53:38 2015 No.6591977 >>6591299 Filtered so hard motherfuckers wanna fine me.

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Tue May 26 00:56:04 2015 No.6591987 >>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.

Anonymous Tue May 26 01:48:09 2015 No.6592128 [DELETED]

>>6578802
>What a woman and her doctor decide is the best course of action is none of your or my business.
can you justify this ?

>>6578802
>because they have no appreciation of the circumstances.
just like a doctor whi is exterior to all this, just like the mothers themselves sometimes. You do understand that the liberal myth that people know what is best for us (for they know all the circumstances) is a myth ?

And if people new wha tis best for us, the mothers would not request abortion in the first place.

You are so prejudiced form your ideology that you are unable to criticize it and reflect for yourself.

Anonymous Tue May 26 01:50:16 2015 No.6592131
File: 32 KB, 600x450, 1406234629409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6578802#
>What a woman and her doctor decide is the best course of action is none of your or my business.
can you justify this ? You do know that if I pay for the abortion, I can have a say on its practice?

>>6578802#
>because they have no appreciation of the circumstances.
just like a doctor is exterior to all this, just like the mothers themselves sometimes. You do understand that the liberal myth that people know what is best for us (for they know all the circumstances) is a myth ?

And if people new what is best for us, the mothers would not request abortion in the first place.

You are so prejudiced form your ideology that you are unable to criticize it and reflect for yourself.

Anonymous Tue May 26 08:43:32 2015 No.6592950

>>6591293
>Maybe the threat of a screaming cabbage will get them to think about their actions.
It never did and it never will. Why do you think the lower classes have so many accidental babies?

Dumb people are going to fuck recklessly under all circumstances. Damage control just benefits the rest of us.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 08:47:25 2015 No.6592965 >>6591270 Let's make seatbelts and airbags illegal too and hold people accountable for their driving.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 09:55:50 2015 No.6593158 >>6577557 Only immature children are critical of religious cults.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Tue May 26 11:44:24 2015 No.6593507

>>6592131
>can you justify this ? You do know that if I pay for the abortion, I can have a say on its practice?

A) I don't know where you live that has you paying for abortions, and B) No, paying for it doesn't really give you a say on it, either. I understand you might think it should, but it isn't hard to think of examples that show this premise as false.

>>because they have no appreciation of the circumstances.
>just like a doctor is exterior to all this, just like the mothers themselves sometimes.

No, actually the woman and her doctor have a perfect understanding of the circumstances faced. You just want to inject big government bureaucracy into it, in hopes that you will be able to interfere in circumstances you have no specific grasp of.

Anonymous Tue May 26 12:15:16 2015 No.6593603

>>6591270
It's punishing the baby more than the mother. Procreation's immoral to begin with but
>hey you human number one hundred billion + n, your mom's an irrensponsible fuck up and you're paying the price for it, have fun dealing with a broken childhood and early crushed idealism

Anonymous Tue May 26 15:42:43 2015 No.6594393

>>6593603
>hey you
>yeah you
>you get murdered now
>sorry but you'll be statistically more likely to commit crime and we've preemptively decided that your life isn't worth living
>RIP young child, at least you can rest in peace knowing that you never had to be a burden to some dumb whore
>your sacrifice means she can further sleeping around with whatever men she wants, something that's clearly more important than your life

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Tue May 26 15:50:10 2015 No.6594438

>>6594393
>>hey you
>>yeah you
>>you get murdered now
>>sorry but you'll be statistically more likely to commit crime and we've preemptively decided that your life isn't worth living
>>RIP young child, at least you can rest in peace knowing that you never had to be a burden to some dumb whore
>>your sacrifice means she can further sleeping around with whatever men she wants, something that's clearly more important than your life

It's weird to talk to something that doesn't develop hearing until the 24th week or so.

Sometimes I think it's the rush of moral superiority that makes anti-choice people so determined to intrude into other people's business, and to want to use government to do it.

Anonymous Tue May 26 16:25:46 2015 No.6594601

>>6594438

Abortion is "other peoples business's just like murder is "other peoples business".

The State is. supposedthere to stop gross violations of human dignity like this, and somebody has to speak up for the unborn; they're the most prone and vulnerable group of people out there and utterly incapable of standing up for themselves.

It's funny how leftists will agree that a mother has responsabilities to her unborn child's wellbeing when it comes to things like drinking and smoking, but the much more severe crime of murder is absolutely permissable.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 16:27:22 2015 No.6594609 >>6594601 The State is supposed to be there*** t. phone

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Tue May 26 17:09:01 2015 No.6594755

>>6594601
>Abortion is "other peoples business's just like murder is "other peoples business".

No, it's not, because murder affects an actual person, not a developing fetus you want to assign personhood to. Why is someone else's pregnancy any more your business than your medical procedure a Christian Scientist may not approve of is THEIR business?

Why is it usually the people who feel like they have to speak up for fetuses that want none of their tax dollars going to these fetuses once they're babies?

>It's funny how leftists will agree that a mother has responsabilities to her unborn child's wellbeing when it comes to things like drinking and smoking, but the much more severe crime of murder is absolutely permissable.

It's not that funny, really. If a woman decides she is going to become a mother, she should take responsibility that the baby is born healthy. If she doesn't want to become a mother, she takes responsibility in another way.

Anonymous Tue May 26 18:14:53 2015 No.6594977
File: 44 KB, 800x493, abort mission.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6594755
>No, it's not, because murder affects an actual person, not a developing fetus you want to assign personhood to
All personhood is assigned and rather arbitrarily so, the boundaries where personhood begins rely solely on consensus.

It doesn't matter much what "pro life" fags think though, in the end it comes down to who has the power to enforce the policy of their choice and they're obviously on the losing end since most people do not agree that a fetus deserves personhood.

They legally granted an orang-utan persoonhood in Argentina a while back though.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 18:21:50 2015 No.6595007 >supposedly leftist >is anti choice This makes no sense to me at all. As far as I'm concerned, Milbank is a wolf in sheep's clothing

Anonymous Tue May 26 18:30:11 2015 No.6595046

>>6594755
>No, it's not, because murder affects an actual person, not a developing fetus you want to assign personhood to.
Fetuses are persons at a certain point, unless you are seriously making the argument that it's not a person until the umbilical cord is cut, tehn all of a sudden you have a person. A person is something that slowly develops, it doesn't suddenly come into being, either at conception or at birth.

>Why is it usually the people who feel like they have to speak up for fetuses that want none of their tax dollars going to these fetuses once they're babies?
Nice generalization. I have no problems with my tax dollars going to babies, it's a lot better than some of the other shit my money is spent on, like wars and bailouts.

>It's not that funny, really. If a woman decides she is going to become a mother, she should take responsibility that the baby is born healthy. If she doesn't want to become a mother, she takes responsibility in another way.
I'd prefer to be birthed by a mother who smoke and drank, especially if that's in moderation, than to be crushed in the womb.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 18:42:30 2015 No.6595088 >>6595007 >implying there wouldn't already have been a revolution if it weren't for abortions

Anonymous Tue May 26 18:57:34 2015 No.6595160

>>6595088
This, being pro life is accelerationist. It's like how Marx voted liberal:

>But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Tue May 26 18:57:41 2015 No.6595162

>>6595046
>Fetuses are persons at a certain point, unless you are seriously making the argument that it's not a person until the umbilical cord is cut, tehn all of a sudden you have a person. A person is something that slowly develops, it doesn't suddenly come into being, either at conception or at birth.

I don't dispute that fetuses are arguably persons at some point in their later development, but people who want to take away women's rights often decide that point is conception.

>Nice generalization. I have no problems with my tax dollars going to babies, it's a lot better than some of the other shit my money is spent on, like wars and bailouts.

That's laudable, but I doubt you'd dispute that the people I described exist in large numbers.

>I'd prefer to be birthed by a mother who smoke and drank, especially if that's in moderation, than to be crushed in the womb.

Well, society prefers that women who intend to become mothers do what they can to assure that their babies will be born healthy. This doesn't mean that society takes charge of her uterus when she becomes pregnant.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 19:40:31 2015 No.6595368 >>6595162 So your argument is based on saying my argument is invalid because many people who make my argument believe in other things which are inconsistent with it?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 21:00:46 2015 No.6595723 File: 58 KB, 495x600, 495px-David_Hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6595162 >>6595368 You just have different fee-fees, lads. That's all that this matter comes down to. "Person" is essentially an arbitrary value judgement.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Tue May 26 21:13:02 2015 No.6595781

>>6595368
>So your argument is based on saying my argument is invalid because many people who make my argument believe in other things which are inconsistent with it?

Anyone who makes your argument is wrong, regardless of what other things they may believe that are or are not consistent.

But if you believe abortion to be murder, then that should absolutely dictate your decision in the event of you having an unwanted pregnancy. But it's not binding for anyone else. Oftentimes, people who feel as you do have a change of heart when it's them who winds up pregnant, and not some 'slut who deserves it.' Then they look at things much more practically.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Tue May 26 21:14:56 2015 No.6595793

>>6595723
>You just have different fee-fees, lads. That's all that this matter comes down to. "Person" is essentially an arbitrary value judgement.

Absolutely. Which is why although I am uncomfortable with abortion after the point of viability, I do not think my personal distaste for these circumstances should bind a woman actually in them.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 21:34:29 2015 No.6595873 >>6595793 Yes, this is your opinion, and you have no rights to impose it on people.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 21:48:40 2015 No.6595941 >>6595873 Liberalism ("you have no rights to impose") is itself a rather arbitrary set of opinions though.

>>	Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Wed May 27 00:15:32 2015 No.6596630 >>6595873 >Yes, this is your opinion, and you have no rights to impose it on people. That's right, and I have no urge to. Women's choices about their pregnancies are none of my business.

Bachem !!AVHKAJ5YEoh Wed May 27 00:18:54 2015 No.6596645

>>6595941
>Liberalism ("you have no rights to impose") is itself a rather arbitrary set of opinions though.

Libertarianism is much more straightforwardly pro-liberties, or at least it used to be before the party was invaded by Republicans who brought their atittudes re: abortion with them. Now the cluster of cells has liberties but the actual person does not.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]