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

[Braincel14w]

This is the most retarded thing I've seen you write. People that object to abortion believe that life begins at the moment of conception so to end that life is murder. Preventing a sperm from reaching the egg stops life from being created so it's not murder because murder only applies to killing a living being.

 

[BlkPillPres]

This is the most retarded thing I've seen you write. People that object to abortion believe that life begins at the moment of conception so to end that life is murder. Preventing a sperm from reaching the egg stops life from being created so it's not murder because murder only applies to killing a living being.

Its just you deciding that it has to be murder to be immoral, I'm asserting that preventing that thing from becoming a "life" is also immoral, because under normal circumstances it would have been allowed to, you have to go out of your way and use unnatural measures to prevent it from "becoming a life", and you have to do so WITH INTENT. That isn't any less moral than directly ending the life in my book, one method is DIRECT and REACTIVE (Abortion), the other is INDIRECT and PREEMPTIVE (Contraception).

The end result is the same, you are really just arguing semantics and playing a dictionary definition game - "well it isn't "murder" because X isn't alive as a human yet, and I'M SAYING it would only be immoral if it was "murder", so because I SAID SO, that mean it isn't immoral"

That's not how this shit works, I'm saying its bad whether its murder or not, that's my point, I was never arguing it was murder, you are basically strawmanning the argument by inserting your specific restrictions on why its immoral and trying to frame my argument as though I was arguing on the basis of your restrictions, I never was, where in my post did I say it was murder.

 

[Braincel14w]

Its just you deciding that it has to be murder to be immoral, I'm asserting that preventing that thing from becoming a "life" is also immoral, because under normal circumstances it would have been allowed to, you have to go out of your way and use unnatural measures to prevent it from "becoming a life", and you have to do so WITH INTENT. That isn't any less moral than directly ending the life in my book, one method is DIRECT and REACTIVE (Abortion), the other is INDIRECT and PREEMPTIVE (Contraception).

The end result is the same, you are really just arguing semantics and playing a dictionary definition game - "well it isn't "murder" because X isn't alive as a human yet, and I'M SAYING it would only be immoral if it was "murder", so because I SAID SO, that mean it isn't immoral"

That's not how this shit works, I'm saying its bad whether its murder or not, that's my point, I was never arguing it was murder, you are basically strawmanning the argument by inserting your specific restrictions on why its immoral and trying to frame my argument as though I was arguing on the basis of your restrictions, I never was, where in my post did I say it was murder.

I agree that contraception is immoral and in a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary but surely we can agree that murder is several degrees more immoral than contraception?

 

[BlkPillPres]

I agree that contraception is immoral and in a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary but surely we can agree that murder is several degrees more immoral than contraception?

Yes, but then again, some would argue you can't murder a "fetus" because it isn't really human yet

Also ironically the same people who would say its a human at the moment of conception would use the morning after pill, and conception can occur 5 hours after sex, so when you take a morning after pill, you are essentially killing what you would consider a human being

This is what I mean when I say the argument against abortion is peddled by normie hypocrites, who just want to feel holier than thou towards another group of normies, they are all immoral.

 

[Braincel14w]

Yes, but then again, some would argue you can't murder a "fetus" because it isn't really human yet

Also ironically the same people who would say its a human at the moment of conception would use the morning after pill, and conception can occur 5 hours after sex, so when you take a morning after pill, you are essentially killing what you would consider a human being

This is what I mean when I say the argument against abortion is peddled by normie hypocrites, who just want to feel holier than thou towards another group of normies, they are all immoral.

If they argue that the morning after pill is fine but abortion isn't then that's just dumb imo but I guess they have some other definition of when human life begins. Seems to me their reasoning just fits their own convenience.

Question: is it immoral to use a condom even if it's the only way you could ever have sex? Would you keep a man a virgin for life for the sake of this morality?

 

[BlkPillPres]

Question: is it immoral to use a condom even if it's the only way you could ever have sex? Would you keep a man a virgin for life for the sake of this morality?

Yes, but only if he is trying to hold morality over others, I personally think morality is subjective, I just think people who want to "moral fag" should also be held to the fire. So if said man was trying to make moral arguments about abortion, I would tell him to be consistent with his morality

Me personally, I've abandoned morality, it means nothing to me

 

[Braincel14w]

Yes, but only if he is trying to hold morality over others, I personally think morality is subjective, I just think people who want to "moral fag" should also be held to the fire. So if said man was trying to make moral arguments about abortion, I would tell him to be consistent with his morality

Me personally, I've abandoned morality, it means nothing to me

There's a lack of nuance in your view imo. I would say even though morality is subjective there are clear levels of severity of immorality. Some things can be easily forgiven and permitted in small doses whilst things like murdering babies are unforgivable and must not be permitted.

 

[Hate_my_life]

I see where OP is coming from and that's exactly why there's certain religious denominations that are strongly against all forms of contraception (as well as sex during a foid's period), because they understand sex is purely for the purpose of creating life and if they are to say they're against abortion then they have to extend that to say they're against contraception as through both methods in a way, you're preventing what could have been a life.
I'm not stating that life begins at conception, but through the fertilisation of the sperm and the egg, you form what may become a child.

Although OP I do have a questions, if someone was to have azoospermia and not seek measures to correct it, yet be against abortion and proceed to fuck women anyway: would they be a part of the hypocrites?

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

Stealing this analogy tbh.

 

[BlkPillPres]

if they are to say they're against abortion then they have to extend that to say they're against contraception as through both methods in a way, you're preventing what could have been a life.

I find it weird people can't get this simple point, they are acting like its rocket science

if someone was to have azoospermia and not seek measures to correct it, yet be against abortion and proceed to fuck women anyway: would they be a part of the hypocrites?

I would say no, because there is no intent to keep that life from existing, and they didn't go out of their way to prevent that life using unnatural measures. They had a defect, and I don't expect that person to do the reverse, and now go out of their way to correct the defect so that they are now liable to be a hypocrite, that would be a complete reversal of the "onus".

 

[mediCel]

Sex doesn't always end with pregnancy though, also that would mean impotent men and women are immoral.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Sex doesn't always end with pregnancy though, also that would mean impotent men and women are immoral.

Please read the thread, arguments like these were addressed already

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.

Impotent people aren't intentionally trying to prevent a life from existing, they have a defect, now if someone purposefully made themselves impotent then I would argue that they could no longer say abortion is immoral because they essentially did the same thing.

Isn't that what contraception is though, temporarily making yourself impotent via artificial means

 

[FrothySolutions]

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

That's not the same. The blackpill is only wrong if we can find evidence that it's wrong. The blackpill is basically saying "People tend to act a certain way." All we need to do to prove that is point out enough people, and we have. It would be false if we couldn't find enough people. It's got nothing to do with the majority "deciding" it's false. The majority can think it's false, but it's not decided by majority opinion, it's decided by majority actions, because the blackpill is talking about what the majority of actions are.

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

Technically it's all arbitrary, that's why we debate it. It's arbitrary to say you shouldn't be able to kill a fetus 2 days from birth. It's still inside the mother, so why can't you kill it? But most people probably wouldn't kill a baby that late in the pregnancy.

 

[arabce1]

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