Was Lena Dunham Girls show the Sex&theCity for millenials?
Other urls found in this thread:
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
The dark haired prude was mamets daughter. I dont know enough about either show to match the rest.
The ugly dyke was the hottest.
She looks much better thin though good for her but I know Yea Forums thinks she's ugly inside.
What does the pic mean? What's the connection?
She can't have children now.
Dunham? More like Dumbham, LOL
She wanted to have a kid, just to be able to have an abortion and now she cant have kids at all
Hysterectomy means they took away her baby baking bits.
An abortion is when you make a baby then decide you dont want it after all so you kill it before birth which is legal.
Women love abortion because it's all the control and power they have over men now.
She was boasting saying she wanted to cuck a guy by aborting his baby. Now she cant do that.
niggas want me dead but scared to step to me
i rip they guts out like a hysterectomy
>endometriosis
>"debilitating disease"
Why are millennial women so weak?
i would have sex with this ugly fat pig
she probably froze her eggs. Rich women can afford surrogates. It would be karma if she pays a surrogate to carry her baby and she decides to abort it.
>this is how retards on 4channel view abortion
Who gives a fuck about the retard who knocked her up? I care more about the innocent baby that's being killed by these sick fucks.
No because the “Girls” were ugly unlikeable trogs and the fashion was shit.
The woman does, it's a spiteful act. She doesnt care about the baby just cares about making man unhappy.
>Being fat is being sexy!
>lol just joking I'm thin now buy my show
Thank goodness this hideous jewess will not breed.
white millennial western women are the most privileged class in history. that's why they're so weak.
Based baby killers btfo
this one was cute back then. the actresses all smashed into the wall tho, every single one of em.
>it's another "/pol/ virgin thinks a 6 week old clump of fetal cells is a baby" episode
I didn't imply anything about my stance.
I used the term baby because a) its more simple and b) I cant spell pheoteus
If you inferred a political position on abortion the I'm sorry but you are mistaken.
Feetus
Why are people so mean to each other?
I would be kind to her, and fuck her nicely.
>Women wanting to freeze their eggs so they can have a family after going far into their soulless career
I guess they found out they cant have their cake and eat it too.
post it
phaetoos
It is though, faggot
>being kind to a vile, poisonous cunt who would have no respect for you in return
based femdom sóyboy
I ate a big ass bag of almonds the other day. I murdered SO many trees.
Thinking about it makes my dick hard. Time to go fap and kill some babies.
Kill yourself
>trees = humans
Not even vegans agree with you on this shit.
You will NEVER be a real woman you tranny faggots
Still looks good to me user
You are just a clump of cells.
>against abortion
>get called a tranny
What a retard.
I feel both empathy and great schadenfreude reading about "professional" women who somehow think they're entitled to men "above" themselves (and none exist anymore because those women took their places in the job market) and fail to realize that men don't give two fucks about how successful a woman is and will 99% of the time pass over a successful older woman for a better looking younger one.
No, Sex and the City was genuinely popular. Girls was just welfare for millennial roasties. Its ratings were pathetic.
Girls was basically some Hollywood producer saying: “What if we took Sex in the City and made it way trashier?”
Thank god.
lmao at all the /pol/cels getting anally devastated at this post
based vintage meme
You two are some thirsty sons of bitches.
That's not a real thing, though. I'd be 'anally devastated' if he posted a pic of him fucking a 3 year old boy, too. Would you defend that?
im picking some MEW vibes from the right photo.
Would you?
>equating the abortion of a pre-human fetal clump to hardcore child sexual abuse
based triggered /pol/ incel
>has to dehumanize it in order to justify killing babies
You people are sick.
You're face blind. It's a common sign of severe autism.
Its because while it's obviously low quality bait it's also completely indistinguihable from some peoples actual held opinions.
The only clue to its illegitimacy is that nobody who actually thinks that is a good argument would post on here.
>has to humanize a clump of fetal cells in order to justify his manufactured outrage
lmao
Anywhere else roastie, but not here
>manufactured outrage
What's manufactured about being upset people are allowed and encouraged to kill babies? I don't understand how people can be so fucked up.
>has to humanize it in order to be outraged over medicine
You people are sick.
>pointing out the medically and scientifically established fact that fetal clumps are not viable humans isn't a good argument.
ok
I hope your haitian nurse smothers your useless clump celled ass in a nursing home when you become a burden no one wants to care for
>kill babies
Factually incorrect.
>b-but I feel like "fetus" is the same as "baby" :(
Facts don't care about your feelings.
what's manufactured is the purposely ignorant propaganda that fetuses are "babies", or that late-term abortion of viable babies is an actual common practice done on a whim by women who never wanted to be pregnant in the first place.
theyre both ugly
I hope you come up with a real argument.
>Factually incorrect
But it is a true fact
>not wanting to die as an old man being smothered by the large breasts of a haitian nurse after having lived a full life.
you're an actual homosexual aren't you.
That is wrong.
What's manufactured are words like viable babies. If the woman is pregnant that's a baby. Point blank period.
That's how you feel. I prefer to stick to the facts.
Its not a baby, simple as that.
Lots of things aren't viable humans.
Let's just shut down all hospitals, all medical research, hand back your pills please. Jail all doctors,nurses, therapists, if you aren't individually a viable human by this anons standard, if you cant look after yourself, then gtfo.
Retard.
>You people are sick.
Where the fuck do you think you are?
based emotional retard
I hope one day you will have a child and see what an amazing experience it is. Have a good life and seek help.
what does voluntarily having a planned child have to do with aborting an unwanted fetal clump? they're literally opposites.
are you legit retarded? you're a pro-birther. of course you're a retard.
>unwanted
There's always adoption. Stop killing unwanted babies.
>fetal clump
Man. They brainwashed you but good.
I already have.
>there's always completely ruining your body and vagina for absolutely no reason at all when you could have just had a simple procedure to abort the non-human fetal clump before it became an issue
no. in fact I'm going to get pregnant this weekend and abort it in your honor.
>everything is about me
What a selfish piece of shit.
>/pol/ incel who thinks fetal clumps are actual humans
>accusing anyone of being brainwashed
ayyy lmao
>if you think abortion is wrong you must be pol and a sexless virgin
and what compels you to think you should have control over every woman on the planet? surely not your own emotional immaturity and selfish ego? no, I'm sure you just really care about those poor children and their quality of life.
See now you're getting it. It's great to see a /pol/cel actually understand something for a change. Gives me hope.
Come on, make an argument.
What is a viable human?
People in comas? Let's just kill them off right?
Anyone in intensive care, not viable are they? Ok culled.
What about handicaps? Mentally Ill or feeble? Slow? Euthanised too?
What about broken bones? They aren't viable are they? Not for a few weeks or month anyway. Sound familiar?
Dont lower yourself to ad hominem come on, flesh out your argument, what do you define asxa viable human?
Nice to see this is all just some epic trolling. I'm out. Fuck this gay thread.
>mass replying to any mention of "/pol/" or "incel"
>"but I'm totally not a /pol/ incel haha..."
sure thing, kiddo.
>if you don't agree with my retarded emotional opinion you must be trolling
based incel
There's a law just passed in NYC that are literally allowing for abortion up to birth.
It's evil, pure and simple. I don't care if a fetus isn't self-aware, children aren't fully self-aware until about 3 or 4, it's still a human life. Anything past 6 weeks is state-sanctioned murder, simple as that. The worst part about it is our tax dollars are used to kill hundreds of thousands of human lives a year. We pay for LaShawnda to abort her 6th child, when maybe if it wasn't so readily available she would think twice about getting pregnant in the first place.
No. Sex and the City was genuinely popular, whereas Girls was watched by an average of 600,000 people. It only seemed like it was a big deal because every 20 something female "journalist" in Brooklyn watched it, and all their friends watched it, so they wrote breathless recaps and thinkpieces assuming that it was as omnipresent in the rest of the world as it was in their bubble. It was really just a nothing show. Might as well be asking if High Maintenance is the voice of our generation.
>abortion is healthier than giving birth
You do realize women literally go infertile if they have enough abortions, right?
A viable human is one that has developed all the necessary organs to survive outside the womb. its quality of life isn't actually important at that point, only that it possesses a functional brain and central nervous system and other organs necessary to be classified as an actual human. this happens at around 25-27 weeks development after conception, a point at which virtually all abortion is already illegal outside of emergencies, and which makes up less than 1% of abortions, by the way. You didn't honestly think women made a habit of carrying around a pregnancy for 6+ months just for fun only to abort it on a lark, did you?
aAso, yes, we should euthanize the brain-dead and severely mentally handicapped. Incels, for example, should be euthanized for the betterment and safety of society.
>preventing women from killing their own children is trying to control them and not just preventing homicide
Why then if a pregnant woman is shot and killed (at ANY stage of pregnancy) it's considered a double homicide in every police jurisdiction in the US?
Well, first people would have to have actually watched it
Lol whoops didn't see someone already posted the link. Based.
>Meat is murder!
>Lol fetuses are a clump of cells incel
I hate your kind
This bitch gets me hard
>The RHA legalized abortion at any time "when necessary to protect a woman's life or health". or in the absence of fetal viability
yes, I'm sure this new law will cause women to carry pregnancies to term and abort them for fun right before birth. that sounds completely logical and not like emotional evangelical propaganda at all.
Gametes and Zygotes are clumps of cells, A fetus implies that htere is far more development and even rudimentary organs, a fetus at 20 weeks can viable live outside of the womb so it is certainly murder if you were to abort a 20 week old baby. Goodnight.
>with her 45th birthday looming and no sign of Mr. Right, she decided to start a family on her own.
>Two eggs failed to survive the thawing process. Three more failed to fertilize. That left six embryos, of which five appeared to be abnormal. The last one was implanted in her uterus. On the morning of March 7, she got the devastating news that it, too, had failed.
>She remembers screaming like “a wild animal,” throwing books, papers, her laptop — and collapsing to the ground.
>“I questioned, ‘Why me?’ ‘What did I do wrong?’”
because it's a woman's choice, and the woman didn't consent to being shot nor the baby inside her being killed. there is no logical or ethical inconsistency here. you're acting like this is some make believe scenario in which a pregnant woman was on her way to an abortion clinic but then by chance ended up being shot and the pregnancy failing as a result, and that making it ok. it's a stupid argument.
It implies that law makers consider unborn babies and fetuses are people in one case but not the other. Despite them in reality being people in both cases and therfore abortion should be illegal.
No matter how many times you faggots co-opt our rhetoric, you'll never understand how to use it properly.
> ":("
You should kys roastie scum
If left to develop it will become a baby, you don't have any arguments against this fact.
>Muh miscarriage example
Not that common. You're a faggot.
>Meat is murder!
who are you quoting?
>a fetus at 20 weeks can viable live outside of the womb
a fetus has about a 10% chance at surviving at 20 weeks. the overwhelming majority of them simply are not viable humans at that point. that aside, it hasn't developed to the point at which it has a functioning brain and the ability to process pain in the way that humans do, so I wouldn't consider it a human at that point.
no it doesn't. you can look up the laws and the reasoning behind them yourself. it has everything to do with the woman's bodily autonomy and nothing to do with a fetus being considered a baby.
>Because I'm a vain piece of trash I should be allowed to commit infanticide
Um woah sweetie, that's a bit of a stretch.
You should impregnate your brain with a bullet, whore.
based literally autistic incel
The brainwashing is terminal. I hope that dumb slut you may be talking to (not sure if tranny or LARPer) actually does have an abortion and I hope they botch it and sterilize her in the process and I hope she is forever haunted by her decision after she's done being a stupid selfish whore.
>conciously choose to have unprotected sex despite the obvious consequences
>HATE BABBIES
>Violate the autnomy of unborn child by killing it
>Respect my autnomy u mysogyknees!
> Thinks human fetus isn’t human
> But elephant fetus is considered elephant
Really gets the noggin’ joggin’
Make no mistake any woman that supports late-term abortions doesn't care about children and should probably in all honesty kill herself because she's failed her purpose in life and since you obviously fall for the same rhetoric, you should do the same.
I can't wait for this whole issue to reach the supreme court again so evangelical cuckservatives can get BTFO again by the sane Republican majority supreme court just like they did in the 70s. /pol/ will 100% end up forming a new boogeyman conspiracy over it, which will be a nice change from "discord trannies"
less than 1% of abortions are late-term, you dumb angry incel.
But some of them have survived. So do you think that they shouldn’t be factored into being considered viable human? I would think you would have to guarantee a 0% survival rate to be able to truly make that declaration
The same leftists that support abortion are often the same bleeding heart faggots that cry over the slaughter of animals. It's just another example of the disgusting intellectual hypocrisy that progressive scum engage in every day.
>”Less than 1% of the people O.J. Simpson met were murdered by him, why are you focusing on that one specific outlier you dumb angry racist.”
>viable human
lmao, just accept that youre okay with snuffing out a developing human life
Less than 1% are due to incest and rape but your type seem to always bring that up in the argument.
Personhood is granted with the formation of high mental functions that really don't develop until nearly the end of the pregnancy. Until then adult elephants and a lot of other animals really are a lot closer to "personhood" than a human fetus is but we don't give them the same rights either.
Likewise although it's controversial I would definitely argue that taking a human born with severe anencephaly (no brain, just a brainstem maybe) off of life support isn't murder because with no brain, it's not a person. For this same reason until very late in the pregnancy I have no ethical issues with abortion at all. If we got serious and gave full personhood rights to say fish, chickens, and similar organisms that are more advanced than a human fetus is mentally, I would reconsider my stance on the timeline.
I think we should just go all the way with it. We saw with Casey Anthony there will always be cases of parents regretting their kids and they will go to any lengths to get rid of them. Until someone is ~16 and able to provide for themselves the parent should be able to euthanize them if they wish or if they become too great a financial burden. Same with those that are unemployed on Medicaid, after ~10 years with no prospects of success they should be officially put down by the government. People should also be allowed to kill themselves if they so choose.
the ones that survived had parents who fought tooth and nail for weeks or months and got extremely lucky. I believe that these parents should of course have the right to take these actions, just as a family of a "vegetable" should have the right to keep them alive (assuming they had no DNR) but I don't believe the fact that 10% of them can "maybe" survive when extremely time consuming and expensive practices are utilized should be taken into account when defining viability.
I’m really curious as to why no one suggests outlawing all abortions EXCEPT those needed for medical necessity, incest, or rape.
why do you even care discord tranny, you will never be a woman let alone bear children
>an emergency abortion because of extreme health complications is the same as O.J. Simpson killing his wife and her lover.
/pol/cels, ladies and gentlemen.
No, millions of people enthusiastically watched Sex and the City.
3/4 of people who know about Girls never saw it and just hate that formless melted ice cream woman.
pretty sure that is always the suggestion
The life was viable however, if were talking only about an arbitrary cut off for the abortion option I don’t think it can be ignored. The difficulty or expense shouldn’t matter if it’s possible. That’s like saying you shouldn’t try to resuscitate someone of you don’t think there’s “a pretty good chance” they’ll easily revive even though you know there’s been cases where it’s happened in the past
I am, in fact, ok with "snuffing out" (aborting) a "developing human life" (non-human fetal clump). Medical and statistical facts do not care about your emotional language.
Both examples show the absurdity of ignoring an example because it’s extremely uncommon due to the fact that the one example can be profound enough to warrant attention
I don't cry over the slaughter of animals but it's going against science to say that cows and pigs aren't far more cognitively and emotionally advanced than human fetuses. I only care about the capacity for complex thought and emotion, that's it, nothing else at all. Before that no, it's not immoral to terminate and it's economically far more practical too. I think that after a certain point, a ban should kick in, but that takes quite a while since we're just going off of complex brain function, the last thing to develop.
I also think if someone is truly braindead they're dead-dead.
Well at least you admit it. I think most of the vehement pro-choicers hold this position but purposely act like they don’t because they know it’s polarizing to the general public
it's better when you can nut in them and you know they can't get pregnant because they're a useless piece of meat
even if you implemented this, which unconstitutional according to the republican majority 7-2 decision that established Roe V Wade in the 1970s, there would be very easy loop holes classifying first trimester abortions (the bulk of all abortions) as medically necessary. if you were somehow able to create an air tight legal argument for completely removing woman's agency in this manner, you'd start seeing a sharp uptick in the deaths of pregnant women who end up resorting to back alley coathanger abortions and other risky procedures.
abolition has never in the history of america led to a win. not with alcohol, not with guns, not with the "war on drugs", and not with abortion.
literally everyone is a clump of cells
The one caveat I’m the fetus argument would be that you know for a fact that the fetus is going to develop advanced rain function unless you specifically prevent it from occurring (something that won’t happen with a pig or cow.)
It’s kind of like if you could send a ripple back through time that would cause someone to never be born so they disappeared before your eyes. Hypothetically, if everyone still remembered they used to exist would it be considered murdering them or not since they would have never technically existed even though the only reason is because you directly caused them to no longer exist.
pre-developmental fetal clumps with no brain or central nervous system are identical to functioning humans in every way. you've cracked the case.
I'm not him, but I don't care about killing fish to have nice fish and chips although they are more capable of thought than early term human fetuses and I don't care about the far less capable organisms that are early term human fetuses being killed a whit either. The fact that it "could be a person" is ludicrous reasoning; by that measure, we're murderers for not devoting all of society to genetic engineering and creating quadrillions of children from every conceivable DNA combination, all of which "could be people." The fact that "well this will happen if we leave it be" is just as ridiculous and also untrue, if the mother just lays there and does nothing, nature will take its course and both will die. It's facile and anti-intellectual to the point of hysterical, emotional retardation.
> Hyperbole, opinions through misrepresented facts. Goodnight.
Fixed that for you user.
You know you can drop a baby off at a fire station or hospital with no questions asked, right? I mean, the punishment is that they take the baby away. Not exactly a problem, in that case.
>you know for a fact that the fetus is going to develop advanced rain function unless you specifically prevent it from occurring
If everyone including the mother takes no action at this point, the mother will starve to death (well, die from lack of water first). You do need to take direct, specific actions to lead to a cognitively healthy baby.
To be honest this is illogical anyway. Every time someone has a baby, they're preventing the existence of countless other babies who could be developing from different sperm in that same womb instead, but I wouldn't call having a baby ethically identical to killing billions. If you have a baby who leads to the death of people through leaving a carbon footprint or whatever the fuck, I also don't call that murder. It's just silly.
All of our actions at all times can or do cause certain sperm not to fuse with certain eggs. If time travel were real, we could consider things differently, but with our current perception of the world, that's very silly.
I think the best counter-argument to that is the Casey Anthony example. Do we consider it her Agency to kill Kailee due to the fact that she no longer wished to provide for her and wanted to live her life independently rather than as a Mother. She and countless other women have and will continue to resort to back alley methods of disposing of their living, breathing children when legalizing the euthanasia of young minors would provide a healthier alternative that would allow the children to be humanely disposed of, the Mothers to live fulfilling lives free of public stigma, and sick children of parents who actually want their kids to get much needed tissue for transplants and other medical procedures.
What are your thoughts on this?
not really
all your mothers should have aborted you
just sayin' the truth, sorry-not-sorry.
murdering a child that has already been born is a false equivalence to the abortion of a fetus.
Your list of negatives towards abolition sounds like just rightful punishment for attempted murder.
I guess the rule of thumb would be if she were to go about her normal life doing what she needed to do to survive (since intentionally killing oneself is illegal and so something that it is to be assumed the person is compelled to do their best to avoid at all costs) the fetus will turn into a human unless additional invasive measures are taken to prevent it from fully developing
Therefore, since it can be assumed the Mother isn’t able to kill herself the baby can be almost guaranteed to survive without human intervention which is where the entire idea of said intervention being unethical arises
But why exactly? The things they can do the fetus would’ve been able to do without human intervention preventing it
she's a dumb bitch but I can't really judge her if she genuinely had a painful medical condition and had no intention to have children. she probably would be a lousy mother anyways.
>However a state that leads in education and has abortions
Is that what she means?
No orphan wishes they had been aborted. Women only have to hold out for 9 months, in exchange for an entire life. I swear, feminism has been running on nothing but zombie chivalry for a while now.
>with her 45th birthday looming and no sign of Mr. Right, she decided to start a family on her own.
That's actually the best part of the article.
a state which leads in education has fewer abortions in the first place, and higher quality of life for children born there. i'm sure it's just coincidence that these states happen to have "liberal" abortion laws.
Unironically based post making brainlets seethe in agony
If a mother starves, intentionally or not, the body will kill the fetus long before it kills the mother. Should we take this natural abortion as evidence of the supreme precedence of the will and safety of the mother over that of the fetus?
It usually does work but it is obviously a severe wager. I still feel bad for her. I don't think a woman is capable of happiness without a child. She's fucked.
But that leaves to me ask. Which state in the US has higher graduation rates and low abortions?
I can't believe it's New York and California. Leave them out of there.
>No orphan wishes they had been aborted.
can confirm that this is false
graduation rates are an extremely poor measure of academic performance and have virtually nothing to do with quality of education. that said, I'm sure you can look up the rates if you really wanted to and juxtapose it with those state's laws on abortion, not that any of it would logically correlate.
nigga half of millennials who were born to parents who wanted them wish they weren't born at all. orphans are one of the most troubled populations on the planet.
If a pregnant mother starves, the most vulnerable bei g of the two will die first, yes, just like a 3yo boy will die first if him and his parents were to starve aswell. You're just making an argument on how fragile a baby's life is, nothing as grandiose as you imply.
I'm not even against abortion but that is a silly position to take. Of course an unhealthy woman can't sustain a pregnancy. There are plenty of healthy women that struggle with it as well.
>if you don't agree with my retarded edgy opinion you must be an incel
based hypocrite
but your example is a family starving together, mine is the natural abortion of a fetus that the body instinctively activates in order to attempt to save the mother. a more accurate comparison would be if the parents in your example killed the 3 year old boy on their own and ate him to survive, all somehow without actually wanting to or knowing they were doing so or being able to stop themselves if they chose.
I agree with
Saying: “If someone accidentally doesn’t eat enough bad things will happen.” Isn’t really making any kind of a point about the issue
>graduation rates are an extremely poor measure of academic performance and have virtually nothing to do with quality of education. that said,
That's a very good point. A lot of talk about graduating certain people of just so they won't affect allocations of school budgets and that such. Well this is the first thing I found from Governing.com
>believing the medical fact that fetal clumps aren't developed humans is "edgy"
based delusional echo-chamber retard
This guy gets it
> nigga half of millennials who were born to parents who wanted them wish they weren't born at all
Source: your ass.
Orphans are troubled =/= orphans wish they'd never been born
you dropped your fedora my good atheist friend.
being rejected by your own parents and having to get passed around in foster care is true suffering
you're only kidding yourself if you don't think the vast majority of troubled people don't constantly think about, seriously consider, and eventually attempt to kill themselves with varying degrees of "success."
You definitely don't need to intentionally kill yourself to starve, it happens all the time all over the world. Effort needs to be taken to procure water and food (and shelter, etc.) really in order to successfully carry a pregnancy to term. Some people who desperately want all of those things don't get them for a multitude of reasons.
For what it's worth: euthanasia should be legal, too. But you can die easily from deprivation despite fighting tooth and nail to prevent it in this world. If a State decides to provide all of its citizens with care, water, food, shelter, etc. it has some leg to stand on here. Otherwise, it definitely doesn't, since it is just fine with allowing innocent men and women to die if they get sick, get in an accident and can't work and so on, so it seems even more idiotic than it already does. And it's really idiotic no matter what. Even the Bible doesn't have precedent, in fact it has an abortifacient prescription in one case and societies in the Middle Ages generally didn't consider a baby "ensouled" until late term either. This seems to be entirely a modern invention designed as a wedge issue that some people, secular or religious, have gotten confused and tricked into buying, really. Nor is it utilitarian in the modern day making it wholly witless in every possible way, no matter your country, beliefs, or politics.
A life being fragile has nothing to do with a body's "supreme precedence of the will and safety of the mother over that of the fetus", is just a vulnerable being that can die way more easily.
Many of the vital components on a human are less protected than others, that has nothing to do with any of its preferences, or do you think the body has the priorities of spleen > jugular?
My example about the 3yo boy is just to show that given the access to the same proportional conditions to starve an adult, the boy would die first because he is more susceptible to dangers.
>cuckservatives
>BTFO
>/pol/
>boogeyman
>discord trannies
This. It has nothing to do with priorities. It's just the body malfunctioning.
it was a contextual hypothetical to point out that even in nature the mother is more important than the fetus she's carrying.
the female body killing the fetus to save the mother is not a malfunction. it will naturally occur in 100% of cases in which such drastic measures are required.
a checklist of all the buzzwords that apply to you, thus trigger you? face it, trumpcel, the law is not and never will be on your side when it comes to abortion.
A fair number of animals will eat their offspring if needed or even expedient because evolution favors an adult capable of providing for itself over a newborn with no adult to care for it. If you're going off of "nature," infanticide is pretty well justified. I don't look to nature for morality, but a being needs to be sentient and capable of hope, fear, grief, and so on before I accord them full moral consideration as an entity unto themselves.
It has been a long time since I've considered the possibility for the existence of God. Dammit, OP, you made me think.
For all that you can say about Trump his true and clear belief is that he thinks abortion is just fine. The man is really an atheist, too. This isn't Trump's agenda or even the agenda of the vast majority of GOP politicians. A blanket ban on all abortions is also only favored by 13% of the US population. It's an extremely niche minority position.
are you two dumb? of fucking course it has to do with priorities. why the fuck you think your extremities get cold and end up frostbitten first instead of your vital organs? why do you think skin exists? or finger and toenails? or hair? in what fantasy world do you live in that you think autonomous functions are random and not subconsciously dictated by millions of years of evolutionary survival?
>My example about the 3yo boy is just to show that given the access to the same proportional conditions to starve an adult, the boy would die first because he is more susceptible to dangers.
which isn't relevant in the first place because a fetus isn't a three year old human living outside the womb.
>killing
That's a whole lot of assumptions you're making there, bud. The body is just proportionally providing resources as it it can grant to both the mother and child, and as one is more vulnerable, the latter will die first. And yes the body malfunctionig can kill its host many times, as when there's an infenction an the body generates a fever to fight it, many times times killing the host by the fever before the infenction does.
>trumpcel
Thats a new one, faggot. Do you have any other "creative one"
why are so much of that vocal minority on Yea Forums, I wonder. a lot of Alabamafags on here or?
Of course the body has its priorities you fucking retard, but it doesn't always work like that, as was pointed out in the case of the spleen and the jugular.
literally NEVER the suggestion but thanks for muddying the waters you retarded kike.
>why the fuck you think your extremities get cold and end up frostbitten first instead of your vital organs?
because they aren't in your core and get colder sooner?
God has punished the wicked Jew so she can never commit her sin
the body absorbing the fetus is not a malfunction, nor does the body distribute resources evenly between the fetus and the mother. the fetus gets only what it needs to survive, and if in dire situations the mother needs that instead the fetus gets nothing. in 100% of cases of starvation the fetus will die first. the only way in which it's "more vulnerable" is in the sense that it's not vital to the survival of the host, thus is high up on the chopping block when shit hits the fan.
>a being needs to be sentient and capable of hope, fear, grief, and so on before I accord them full moral consideration as an entity unto themselves.
If someone stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, but only harmed her, would you only lament her being hurt instead of the fetus being killed?
God created this Jew with the omniscient knowledge of everything she would do in her life. She may feel an illusion of choice, but to God there is no question of which actions she will take in every situation presented her. Why has God punished her for something that he made happen?
I would empathize with whatever she felt for the situation, as she's the one involved and it's otherwise absolutely none of my business.
Yea Forums understandably attracts a lot of people obsessed with thots and punishing thots in some abstract way who don't consider any of the logical ramifications of their actions (like an explosion in the nonwhite population and damage to the economy, which most of them wouldn't be happy with). It's just an emotional lashing out at abstract ideas of thots from clickbait articles. /pol/ is actually more amenable to abortion staying legal than the /r9k/ types running on pure hurt feels, lashing out without really understanding what's hurting them or how to stop it, because /pol/ still has a slight Libertarian bent and understands the economic and demographic implications of such policies. The people whining are mostly crying kids who aren't rational but strictly emotional, as well as gullible as all fuck.
sex and the city was a quite popular show back in the day. girls wasn't really popular. most people only know that scene where allison williams is getting her ass eaten out by some dumb white boy (they use that scene for mr skin website for some reason) and that's it.
too true
dumb roasties
If they don't wish to live, they can suicide. It's not other peoples job to decide whether they get to live or die, just because there is a slight chance they might not enjoy being alive.
>If someone stabs a pregnant woman in the belly, but only harmed her, would you only lament her being hurt instead of the fetus being killed?
Yes.
Let's say that same person burns a family's house down and destroys a family album, heirloom, or other cherished possession. Do I feel bad for say Grandma's wedding dress, a person's car? Fuck no. Do I feel bad for the people they hurt? Yes. I also don't think it should be legal to burn someone's house down provided they're not in it at the time.
>It's not other peoples job to decide whether they get to live or die
maybe you should keep your dick out of abortion politics then, hmm?
>1:00 AM: Baby still in the belly
>1:02 AM: Baby is out of the belly
Does that little fucker grow a consciousness while being pushed out, or do you reckon a newborn babies' life is also worthless until it manages to recognize itself in a mirror?
>One person can be the sole arbiter in determining whether an entity has human rights
Not how justice works, buddy
>should
I'm not sure if you let only women vote on abortion you'd get the result you want.
I AM - THE LAW
No, I am.
Not sure where you're from, but on Earth this suggestion is quite common although not ubiquitous among conscientious religious voters, particularly Catholics.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
If you want me to be really blunt: true personhood consciousness, according to our current understanding, likely doesn't develop until sometime after a baby is born. That's the truth, but it's not something feelings and emotions can handle.
To be safe, though: what you're talking about is when the cerebral cortex begins to function. This isn't until when the baby is nearly born. To be "safe": there's no chance of this even being a concern until toward the tail end of the second trimester, so put the cutoff point there in consideration of this being a grey area. That's at about 27/28 weeks. Sounds fair.
>user goes outside
>meets pregnant mother of future user
>"you should abort your child, sorry-not-sorry"
Kamen Rider Kabuto was in this show
So let's say for the sake of argument that a baby pops out, and it has [non-life changing] deformities, like being generally fucking ugly, which didn't show on the ultrasound, so the parents wishes to euthanize the child and try again.
Do you believe that's moral and should fall under the same rules as regular abortion?
>Does that little fucker grow a consciousness while being pushed out
the organs that classify something as "human" finish developing a few weeks before normal delivery. sentience doesn't come til quite a bit later, I imagine.
>do you reckon a newborn babies' life is also worthless until it manages to recognize itself in a mirror?
personally I consider all human life worthless until it becomes productive. this doesn't mean I think all worthless life should be exterminated, but that I simply don't care about it either way.
Don't cut yourself on that edge.
You missed the point of the question. See Obviously the child doesn't go through a cognitive transformation the minute it pops out, which begs the question for people who justify late term abortion; should euthanasia of newborns fall under the same rules as abortion? Since the newborn child is obviously just as sentient as it was when it was still in the belly.
children, especially babies, aren’t as intelligent as us so it’s ok to kill them
based religious bros dabbing at kikes and their puppets
I'm , not . I think 7 Months as a cut-off under most circumstances is morally fair. In special cases (say, a test reveals the child will be severely deformed) I think it gets much more morally dicey, but that the sooner a pregnancy can be terminated, the better if it's a severe condition and it's not practical to care for the child since it's just choosing whether you want death to happen now, when it's not clear suffering as we know it is even possible, rather than later, when a suffering horrible death is guaranteed. That's a terrible thing to do to a child if it can be avoided and the lesser of evils.
The family's economic status also needs to be practically taken into account then. Multi-billionaires can afford to keep a person who will never progress beyond goldfish level intellect (or has no brain at all) and who needs 24/7 extensive life support, hooked up to many machines, even to survive for a long time, for others it's just going to die in pain anyway.
In some cases, if something horrible happens or is discovered late, I do think it's permissible for a newborn to be allowed to die because that's just life. If a baby ends of brain dead because of complications at birth with no chance of recovery, for example, that's terrible, but sometimes people die.
Thank God that kike can't procreate
I would kill myself if I were infertile
Unironically my biggest fear
why? you can just adopt from africa
Pets don't make up for being childless.
My mom was never the same after that miscarriage
What are some movies about miscarriages? I already saw the orphan
Were the almonds planted and sprouted and and growing? No?
False equivalency because you are dumb as fuck. An equivalent comparison to your almond would be the accurate description of what happened. You swallowed a big ass bag of cum the other day. Thinking about it makes your dick hard. Time for you to go fap and eat almonds
If Tom Hardy can make it work, so can you.