Blackpill If Abortion Is Immoral, Then So Is Any Sexual Intercourse That Doesn't End In A Birth

[BlkPillPres]

People are always talking about how immoral abortion is because you are ending a possible life

Why not make the same argument against contraceptives though, the difference between abortions and contraceptives, is like the difference between directly setting someone on fire after soaking them in accelerant, and locking someone up in a room and setting that building on fire, either way is a death sentence, in the latter the victim just has a tiny chance to miraculously survive.

I never get the morality arguments about abortion, it just seems like special pleading from one faction of normies, so they can play holier than thou towards another faction of normies, either way this is only an issue for people who can actually have sex, and they are just playing semantic BS games going back and forth with each other. They are all immoral either way, because both parties attempt to "cheat the system" and enjoy sexual intercourse, without paying the expected toll (parenthood)

I think its an arbitrary difference between pre-emptively keeping a child from existing by preventing conception (pulling out, condoms, birth control pills, etc), and killing the child after conception (abortion), either way you've denied a possible living being a chance to exist and enjoy a full life, both parties are immoral.

 

[Deleted member 12355]

yeah, the thing that a lot of abortion advocates do is that they refuse to take the morality of abortion to its logical conclusion. Why shouldn't it be allowed past a certain point, why should the line be drawn at post birth? Why shouldn't you be able to kill your off spring as long as it isn't self aware?

 

[NeetSupremacist]

Accepting abortion as a morral act leads to more fornication and unregulated sex. The problem with anti-abortion activists is that they dont tackle the problem from its core, namely: sexual freedom, premarital sex. If you're anti-abortion and pro sexual freedom you're a hypocrite in my book.

 

[TheRiseOfCope]

jerking off is immoral too in that case because you're killing a potential child

 

[Ugly_equals_Death]

Its immoral to take a foids virginity without marrying her

 

[Deleted member 15752]

they dont tackle the problem from its core, namely: sexual freedom,

Exactly, there needs to be minimal sexual freedom for them.

Maybe if abortion was lets say, banned completely.

This would rule out a large amount of foids that actively only look to reproduce with Chad and consider their actions before they proceed to go which such things.

My stance will always be against what foids are trying to convince people is right. They are the enemies.

This is my problem.

Make euthanasia legal anyways, there are plenty that wish to die and ultimately it would be better off if they were aborted without being aware of what is occurring.

 

[Smallondick]

Accepting abortion as a morral act leads to more fornication and unregulated sex. The problem with anti-abortion activists is that they dont tackle the problem from its core, namely: sexual freedom, premarital sex. If you're anti-abortion and pro sexual freedom you're a hypocrite in my book.

Even because women will get pregnant just to abort ... usually poor women who will generate *** (censored by incels.co), thugmaxxers, incels, sometimes some chad in the process.

Its immoral to take a foids virginity without marrying her

Yes, let's go back to the paternal hypergamy. I honestly do not like any model I would be degenerate since it was already redpilled if I ascended.

 

[BlkPillPres]

jerking off is immoral too in that case because you're killing a potential child

Nope, hence why I was specific and stated sexual intercourse, not masturbation, a child is not even a possibility without two parties being involved (both male and female).

Now you can argue that its immoral for other reasons, but on the same note of abortion, no it isn't immoral, because there was no possibility for a child to exist.

I mean if we take your stance to its logical conclusion, that even when the raw materials die regardless of if it had a chance to become "life", then existence itself is immoral.

When cloning gets perfected every cell in your body is possibly a life, so by not creating a cloning you are preventing a life from existing lol

There has to be some limitation on the concept else it stops making sense and just existing is immoral

 

[Sans]

Cope

 

[BlkPillPres]

(censored by incels.co)

 

[Ratboy]

If a foid gets pregnant because she was to dumb to protect her, then she should take the responsibility to take the child but if she gets raped then she should have the choice if she wants to abort or not tbh. Seeing masturbation or protected sex as a moral issue is pathetic tbh

 

[Deleted member 8353]

I think it's an issue of ethical ambiguity, specifically regarding the assumed(or implied) right to exist of developing children. Whether or not you have a positive view on procreation, I believe that we should safely ground the issue on sex itself. If not, then we run into the minefield of not doing everything possible to reproduce being potentially immoral, along with both ejaculation(outside of reproduction) and menstruation as well, none of which really makes any sense.

Basically the pro-life position isn't (usually) centered around the creation of life as an intrinsic "good", but rather on the cessation of pregnancy being an inherent "bad". Regardless of consciousness(or the lack thereof in this case), abortion is forcefully ensuring that one specific individual will never exist, and is effectively no different from killing them.

Make euthanasia legal anyways, there are plenty that wish to die and ultimately it would be better off if they were aborted without being aware of what is occurring.

I think euthanasia would be an effective alternative to abortion tbh. If taken as a choice, it completely eliminates the consent argument from the equation while simultaneously not providing foids with any of the power which legal abortion does.

 

[Deleted member 15752]

I think euthanasia would be an effective alternative to abortion tbh. If taken as a choice, it completely eliminates the consent argument from the equation while simultaneously not providing foids with any of the power which legal abortion does.

I would say it should be legal at the age of 18, at that stage your body has developed enough to know if you will live a life full of joy and pleasure(chad) or a life full of pain(incel).

At that age your life either starts or ends completely based off genetics.

 

[FrothySolutions]

People are always talking about how immoral abortion is because you are ending a possible life

No, that's not what they're saying, anybody who told you that is probably a pro-choice false flagger.

The whole reason anyone opposes abortion is not because of what it might become, but because of what it is already. What it is already is a thing that is unethical to kill. That's the whole reason we have late term vs. early term abortion debates. Because the question we're trying to ask is "When is this thing no longer ethical to kill? When is it too sophisticated an organism? When does it become cruelty to kill this thing?"

 

[starystulejarz]

Its immoral to take a foids virginity without marrying her

not raping foids and ending with creampie is also immoral since you could make more babies

 

[Michael15651]

jerking off is immoral too in that case because you're killing a potential child

That's a good point.

 

[BlkPillPres]

The whole reason anyone opposes abortion is not because of what it might become, but because of what it is already

It isn't really anything at the moment of conception, it is merely possibly something, that same women could suffer a miscarriage, you don't even know if it will survive all stages of development to even be born.

the question we're trying to ask is "When is this thing no longer ethical to kill? When is it too sophisticated an organism? When does it become cruelty to kill this thing?"

Ok but 1 second before conception it was separately just a sperm and an egg, so why aren't the sperm and egg cells also part of this equation, its just special pleading to argue that at the moment of conception, now its immoral to prevent this life from existing, but you can cum down a bitches throat all you like when you are supposed to inseminate her. Both parties are equally immoral.

I go back to my fire analogy, nobody would argue that setting someone on fire is immoral, but setting a building on fire with someone locked in a room is "debatable" because they still have a chance of surviving, just as a child has a chance of being born despite contraception, its still just people trying to cheat a biological system for the sake of pleasure without consequence

 

[Wonder]

By this logic, isn't not having sex immoral also because you are preventing a potential life from existing?

 

[LastTryGhost]

I guess the problem with abortion is, you're ending a life that actually developed enough to proceed in growth ( if left to it's natural processes). contraceptives only prevent the beginning of a life, whilst abortion is quite literally ending a life.

You could say something like, "Killing 3 year old kids is wrong, but doesn't that make contraceptives wrong?" and it would literally mean the same thing

 

[Deleted member 5333]

if foid want to abort, she need to abort herself too, what's the point of her life

 

[Deleted member 17724]

I'd say there's a big difference between killing a fetus, which pretty much resembles a living being, and preventing sperm from fertilising an egg. In the latter case, life is prevented from created but nothing that was already alive is killed.
If you think that using contraception is equally immoral as abortion then you could make the case that masturbation is the same as abortion as well since you're wasting live sperm.

I do think that contraceptions are to blame for our hypersexual hook-up culture but if two married people who are loyal to each other decide that they do not want to have (more) children and use contraception because of that then I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Reddit_is_for_cucks]

Just lol at being a incel and thinking about morality and shit. That shit is at the top of the pyramid while we stick at the bottom of pyramid without even having our basic needs met.

 

[Gengar]

Accepting abortion as a morral act leads to more fornication and unregulated sex. The problem with anti-abortion activists is that they dont tackle the problem from its core, namely: sexual freedom, premarital sex. If you're anti-abortion and pro sexual freedom you're a hypocrite in my book.

Tbh, agreed.

 

[GowkBird]

If abortion is kill, then masturbating is massive genocide. We need take all mens who want pure christian sex and gas them, they are useless anyway.

 

[BlkPillPres]

By this logic, isn't not having sex immoral also because you are preventing a potential life from existing?

Is not having sex you circumventing a natural biological system to attain pleasure and avoid the intended cost/end result?

That's what makes contraceptives and abortion immoral, the fact that you are basically "stealing a good" and not "paying the producer". People who do this are circumventing the tradeoff that's supposed to take place in a selfish way.

 

[Deleted member 17724]

circumventing a natural biological system to attain pleasure and avoid the intended cost/end result

Sounds like masturbation.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Sounds like masturbation.

1. How many people do you think are choosing masturbation over sex, give me a percentage, be honest. Of those masturbating who would choose not to have sex instead?

2. How is that person circumventing a biological system when impregnation is not possible via masturbation?

If I was having sex, yes I would agree that I am circumventing a natural system to get pleasure and avoid the usual end result of it, but that's not masturbation, the usual end result of masturbation is nothing, two parties have to be involved (both male and female) for the end result to even be a factor

 

[Deleted member 17724]

How is that person circumventing a biological system when impregnation is not possible via masturbation?

Sperm is created for impregnation, it doesn't matter if you wish you could have sex or not, if you use your sperm for anything but impregnation then you are avoiding using it for its natural purpose. If you do not want to circumvent any biological system you should just wait until you are given an opportunity to have sex with the purpose of creating life, nature does not care if you're an incel.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Sperm is created for impregnation, it doesn't matter if you wish you could have sex or not, if you use your sperm for anything but impregnation then you are avoiding using it for its natural purpose.

Like I told another guy in this thread already

I mean if we take your stance to its logical conclusion, that even when the raw materials die regardless of if it had a chance to become "life", then existence itself is immoral

When cloning gets perfected every cell in your body is possibly a life, so by not creating a cloning you are preventing a life from existing lol

There has to be some limitation on the concept else it stops making sense and just existing is immoral

Your point doesn't stand, if you stretch a concept to a ridiculous extreme then it stops making sense because it becomes all encompassing.

For example, if I don't masturbate, the sperm dies anyways because it just gets reabsorbed into my body for resources to create more sperm, so those millions of possible of existences all die anyways.

So if we take your logic at face value, am I not obligated to endlessly chase after chances to impregnate before those instances of sperm cell absorption, at any cost?

If you take your point to its logical conclusion just existing is immoral, when in my example its about someone exploiting a specific system that has an obvious end result that they are purposefully avoiding.

There is no technique or special device of prevention one uses during masturbation, there is no conscious thought to circumvent a system or avoid anything, no pulling out, no condoms, no morning after, etc. To compare masturbation and sexual intercourse as though BOTH parties are PURPOSEFULLY trying to avoid an intended end result is ridiculous, there is no end result for those masturbating to avoid.

Also i'll ask again, the question you failed to answer:

How many people do you think are choosing masturbation over sex, give me a percentage, be honest. Of those masturbating who would choose not to have sex instead?

The point of that question was to see if you could admit to the difference between someone masturbating and someone engaging in modern day sexual intercourse - INTENT

People who are masturbating, didn't intend to prevent a life from existing, that wasn't the purpose of their actions

People who use contraceptives and/or abortion, did intend to prevent that life from existing, that was the purpose of their actions

 

[Deleted member 17724]

People who use contraceptives and/or abortion, did intend to prevent that life from existing, that was the purpose of their actions

No, they don't. People who abort a baby do of course but people who use contraception don't intent to prevent life from existing, that isn't their main objective, they just want to have an intimate experience with another person without having to deal with unintended consequences.
But I suppose there is no point in going further into this since I'm an antinatalist anyway.

 

[Deleted member 3385]

well morals change, something may be "immoral" but if the population votes to legalize it then it doesn't become so even if it is.

most women are sociopaths, one of the characteristics of a sociopath is the inablity to feel remorse or guilt. the amount i've seen who are proud over the fact they killed something growing inside them that was dependent on them to survive and celebrate it as some kind of empowerment so they can go out slutting again.

if women were physically stronger than men this planet would be a literal hell.

 

[BlkPillPres]

No, they don't. People who abort a baby do of course but people who use contraception don't intent to prevent life from existing, that isn't their main objective

Strawman, my point had nothing to do if it was their "main objective", my point was that the purpose of a contraceptive is to prevent a pregnancy, and that is the intention of those using contraceptives, quite obviously. The intent indeed is to prevent that life from existing, because that life existing is a consequence.

they just want to have an intimate experience with another person without having to deal with unintended consequences

MY POINT EXACTLY (lol are you even reading what I'm saying?)

You do realize the exact same argument can be used by those who get an abortion right?

Are you even thinking your arguments through before you make them?

Dude quit while you're behind

 

[Deleted member 17724]

The intent indeed is to prevent that life from existing, because that life existing is a consequence.

Look, there's a massive difference between preventing life from coming into existence because you do not have the money or maturity required to raise a child and ENDING the existence of a living creature, no point you make will change that.

You should stop eating eggs while you're at it since those could have become full-grown chickens. You should stop eating fruit because you're preventing the seeds within them from turning into new fruits.

 

[Napoleon de Geso]

Aborting future chad is always moral

 

[BlkPillPres]

Look, there's a massive difference between preventing life from coming into existence because you do not have the money or maturity required to raise a child and ENDING the existence of a living creature, no point you make will change that.

Again the same argument could be made by people who opt for abortions, again I ask, are you even thinking your arguments through?

Who decides when someone else is financially fit or mature enough to raise a child, and they dare not end that existence since they meet X criteria?

You should stop eating eggs while you're at it since those could have become full-grown chickens. You should stop eating fruit because you're preventing the seeds within them from turning into new fruits.

You seem to be confused, I think morality is subjective, it doesn't matter, the point of this thread was to point out the hypocrisy of those who think that morality is objective and like to boast as being morally superior than others.

Dude just stop lol, you aren't making any sense, all your arguments in defense of those using contraceptives can easily be replicated in some form by those using abortion

 

[Invalidusername]

Abortion is immoral because you're killing a living being

Contraceptives, compared to abortion, are not immoral because you're not killing a living being

Using a condom to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg isn't the same as actually ending a living being inside a womb

 

[BlkPillPres]

Abortion is immoral because you're killing a living being

Contraceptives, compared to abortion, are not immoral because you're not killing a living being

Using a condom to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg isn't the same as actually ending a living being inside a womb

Abortion = Ending a possible existence
Contraceptive = Preventing a possible existence

The difference is arbitrary, hence my fire example, setting someone ablaze directly, is basically no different than setting their domicile on fire while they are locked inside (preventing them from escaping)

One is DIRECT, the other is INDIRECT, the end result is the SAME

A possible existence was denied a life

 

[Words2_live_bye]

Fucking idiot. Then that would mean that male Masturbation is also immoral.
Sex with no pregnancy is fine, just as masturbation is fine. Once the woman is pregnant, it is no longer a "possible life". If is ALREADY a life, growing into a child. Abortion at this point should be considered murder (unless the woman became pregnant from rape, or sex in which she cheated on her boyfriend or husband).

 

[BlkPillPres]

Fucking idiot. Then that would mean that male Masturbation is also immoral.
Sex with no pregnancy is fine, just as masturbation is fine. Once the woman is pregnant, it is no longer a "possible life". If is ALREADY a life, growing into a child. Abortion at this point should be considered murder (unless the woman became pregnant from rape, or sex in which she cheated on her boyfriend or husband).

Read other comments in the thread, these arguments have already been addressed, in masturbation you aren't circumventing anything, because nobody can even get pregnant during the act, no attempt WITH INTENT to prevent a life from existing was made

If you are having sex and you PULL OUT you are TRYING TO KEEP A LIFE FROM EXISTING
When you PUT A CONDOM ON you are TRYING TO KEEP A LIFE FROM EXISTING
When you get an ABORTION to are TRYING TO KEEP A LIFE FROM EXISTING

When you masturbate, you aren't trying with intent to keep a life from coming into existence, it is not an action that could even lead to an impregnation

To go back to my fire analogy

Abortion = Setting someone on fire directly using an accelerant
Contraceptive = Locking someone in a room and setting that building on fire
Masturbation = Burning something and accidentally setting a building on fire

Masturbation doesn't even compare to the two, because there is no INTENT to prevent a life from existing

Nobody is masturbating thinking - "I have to make sure X life doesn't exist because it will inconvenience me"

But people are thinking that when using contraception or abortion, in fact that is the intention of these things, to purposefully keep a life from existing

 

[Words2_live_bye]

If you are having sex and you PULL OUT you are TRYING TO KEEP A LIFE FROM EXISTING
When you PUT A CONDOM ON you are TRYING TO KEEP A LIFE FROM EXISTING

Yeah no shit sherlock, it's called not wanting to raise a kid in this cucked clown world. Anyone who would rather have a potential incel child and have to raise a child alone while the mother is whoring off is a cuck and idiot,
Rather have protected sex then the things mentioned above.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Yeah no shit sherlock, it's called not wanting to raise a kid in this cucked clown world. Anyone who would rather have a potential incel child and have to raise a child alone while the mother is whoring off is a cuck and idiot,
Rather have protected sex then the things mentioned above.

I can't tell if you are trolling, or just another retard who reads a title and responds instead of properly reading the thread, I don't want to have children either, I don't think its a good idea in these times, the entire point of the thread was to show that the normies who are acting holier than thou towards abortion users, when they use contraception, are HYPOCRITES, because either way both parties are preventing a possible life from existing WITH INTENT to do so via external and unnatural measures.

The only sex i will have is protected sex, but I'm not going to moral fag about it as though I'm better than people who choose abortion, because I know full well what I'm doing when I put a condom on, I am purposefully preventing a life from existing because it will inconvenience me. Either way I think morality is subjective, do you get the point now.

If you aren't going to properly read a thread why bother respond

 

[Words2_live_bye]

If you aren't going to properly read a thread why bother respond

 

[Deleted member 17599]

(censored by incels.co)

 

[FrothySolutions]

It isn't really anything at the moment of conception, it is merely possibly something, that same women could suffer a miscarriage, you don't even know if it will survive all stages of development to even be born.

A miscarriage wouldn't be murder, it would be an accident. Kids die in accidents all the time.

Ok but 1 second before conception it was separately just a sperm and an egg, so why aren't the sperm and egg cells also part of this equation, its just special pleading to argue that at the moment of conception, now its immoral to prevent this life from existing, but you can cum down a bitches throat all you like when you are supposed to inseminate her. Both parties are equally immoral.

I go back to my fire analogy, nobody would argue that setting someone on fire is immoral, but setting a building on fire with someone locked in a room is "debatable" because they still have a chance of surviving, just as a child has a chance of being born despite contraception, its still just people trying to cheat a biological system for the sake of pleasure without consequence

A sperm cell and an egg cell, on their own, they aren't a human life yet. That's why people don't care if you jack off or have your period. It's not because you should've saved the sperm for sex, if possible. It's because the sperm cells are just sperm cells at the moment. It's got nothing to do with what's possible. It's entirely about what "is" at the moment.

 

[BlkPillPres]

A miscarriage wouldn't be murder, it would be an accident. Kids die in accidents all the time.

A sperm cell and an egg cell, on their own, they aren't a human life yet. That's why people don't care if you jack off or have your period. It's not because you should've saved the sperm for sex, if possible. It's because the sperm cells are just sperm cells at the moment. It's got nothing to do with what's possible. It's entirely about what "is" at the moment.

I've already argued all these points, so I'm just going to give you the summary I made earlier on, because you don't seem to get the point, maybe I should have been more specific in the first post.

These arguments have already been addressed, in masturbation you aren't circumventing anything, because nobody can even get pregnant during the act, no attempt WITH INTENT to prevent a life from existing was made

If you are having sex and you PULL OUT you are TRYING TO KEEP A LIFE FROM EXISTING
When you PUT A CONDOM ON you are TRYING TO KEEP A LIFE FROM EXISTING
When you get an ABORTION to are TRYING TO KEEP A LIFE FROM EXISTING

When you masturbate, you aren't trying with intent to keep a life from coming into existence, it is not an action that could even lead to an impregnation

To go back to my fire analogy

Abortion = Setting someone on fire directly using an accelerant
Contraceptive = Locking someone in a room and setting that building on fire
Masturbation = Burning something and accidentally setting a building on fire

Masturbation doesn't even compare to the two, because there is no INTENT to prevent a life from existing

Nobody is masturbating thinking - "I have to make sure X life doesn't exist because it will inconvenience me"

But people are thinking that when using contraception or abortion, in fact that is the intention of these things, to purposefully keep a life from existing

Contraception is the prevention of a life WITH THE INTENT TO DO SO
Abortion is the prevention of a life WITH THE INTENT TO DO SO

That's my entire point, both parties are equally immoral, because they both are circumventing a system to derive pleasure, and intentionally preventing another life from existing in order to do so.

 

[HueHueBr]

I am in favor of abortion, as long as the man has the right to leave the woman and the child without paying a pension or leaving an inheritance.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I've already argued all these points, so I'm just going to give you the summary I made earlier on, because you don't seem to get the point, maybe I should have been more specific in the first post.




Contraception is the prevention of a life WITH THE INTENT TO DO SO
Abortion is the prevention of a life WITH THE INTENT TO DO SO

That's my entire point, both parties are equally immoral, because they both are circumventing a system to derive pleasure, and intentionally preventing another life from existing in order to do so.

I saw you make that point earlier. I'm saying no, preventing a life existing is not why people hate abortion. You're saying "Masturbation is fine because it's not preventing a potential life." And I'm saying "No, that's not why masturbation is fine." The whole reason anyone cares is not because of potential life, but because of the life that exists already.

 

[BlkPillPres]

preventing a life existing is not why people hate abortion.

My argument has nothing to do with why people in general hate abortion, it has to do with what actually makes abortion immoral

The whole reason anyone cares is not because of potential life, but because of the life that exists already.

But the life doesn't exist

It isn't a human life yet at the point of conception, its just a mass of cells, you have to wait much longer for it to be anything close to human.

 

[FrothySolutions]

My argument has nothing to do with why people in general hate abortion, it has to do with what actually makes abortion immoral

People in general hate it for the reasons that it's immoral. So whatever makes it immoral must be the thing people hate it for. And the thing people hate it for is because it's murder of a life.

But the life doesn't exist

It isn't a human life yet at the point of conception, its just a mass of cells, you have to wait much longer for it to be anything close to human.

Lots of people have lots of different opinions about where the line is between "Mass of cells no one cares about" and "Wait, too far along, it would be cruel to kill this." That's why we have heartbeat bills and pictures of fetuses that show just how human they look. Some people think that the point of conception is also too late. A sperm and an egg are fine on their own, but once they meet, some people think that's when it gets its soul, or whatever.

 

[BlkPillPres]

People in general hate it for the reasons that it's immoral. So whatever makes it immoral must be the thing people hate it for. And the thing people hate it for is because it's murder of a life.

Alright so majority rules then,personal discernment doesn't matter, the black pill is wrong, normies are right because as a larger collective they decided that the black pill is wrong, gotcha

A sperm and an egg are fine on their own, but once they meet, some people think that's when it gets its soul, or whatever.

Yes and I'm calling BS on that because its arbitrary