Checking in on the libs

“Errrrm why are we punishing her it’s not like this is any different from abortion” - autistic gay furry lib

Ghislaine - https://poa.st/users/Ghislaine and they said the defense of post-birth abortion was a slippery slope meme that would never happen

Was there ever a single slippery slope fallacy that didn't turn out to be 100% correct? All of the slippery slope fallacies I remember people talking about when I was a kid all turned out to be completely true.

Honestly I think he’s correct if you think abortion is ok. Really, where do you draw the line? Any line drawn seems arbitrary. The only correct way is to also declare that abortion is murder, because that is what it is.

I think there’s obvious lines between when the baby is viable to induce/ preemie / completely nonviable

To talk about viability of abortion is to miss the point entirely What is murder? The unjust killing of a human being. So what makes a human foetus any less human than a baby?

Because it looks like a tadpole and can’t live at all outside of the womb

>can’t live at all outside of the womb If your point is that a foetus is entirely dependent on the mother, the same applies to a day-old baby. Honestly I don’t see that much of a difference between a foetus being dependent on a mother’s umbilical cord and a baby being dependent on a mother’s breast milk or whatever means the mother uses to feed her baby. >looks like a tadpole But it is the start of the life cycle of a human and will in fact grow into a human if given enough time and proper nutrition and upbringing. Is it a fully developed human with fully developed abilities, no but so is a day-old baby or a child.

>day old baby can easily be taken care of... Not the point, the point is dependence of the baby on another. Even if I were to grant you your point, you will also have to explain to me how this point of yours is not completely facile and actually has some level of significance. >sperm and egg (I'm shortening these for convenience)... AFAIK, the chances of one sperm fertilizing an egg is actually very low in the first place. So it is already not guaranteed that an individual sperm will actually reach an egg. Also, a sperm is a sperm. It can't really be compared to an embryo because a sperm compared to a full human embryo is like, missing half the DNA or something. A sperm by itself will also still remain a sperm unlike a human embryo even if it is fed with food and given time.

the context here which seems to have escaped you is that this libtard faggot (and you I guess) are equating slashing an already born, happy, healthy baby’s throat with first term abortion which is frankly insane

I’m saying your context is flawed Murder is murder, anything else is not sufficiently significant. Also, AFAIK abortions can actually be pretty gruesome. They just seem less disgusting because it happens in the womb and therefore not immediately visible to naked eyes.

If I remember correctly first trimester abortion doesn’t make people squeamish (which is why it’s pretty popular). Plan B and other abortion drugs are totally ick free. Obviously third term abortion is an abomination. even in commiefornia abortion is illegal after fetal viability (which they define as third trimester). >murder is murder is this dogma? you’re not making an argument.

I already explained to you why I think abortion is murder. The argument I‘ve made previously and stand by is: 1) Murder is the unjust killing of a human being. 2) A foetus is a human. 3) Abortion, which is the killing of a foetus, is therefore murder. It is necessarily unjust because the foetus could not possibly do anything on its own. There is no dogma involved here. There is just an argument taken to its logical conclusion. Abortion, being murder, is therefore in essence really not that different from that leftoid woman brutally cutting open the throat of a baby.

and you use these things to justify the insane claim that plan b (chemical abortion immediately after conception) is equivalent to slashing a baby’s throat. I’m thinking one of your premises is flawed here. Let’s look at the big picture. Our country is being stolen from us by racial outsiders who are invading our country. I don’t consider it a priority to use state power to mandate that they cannot thin their own numbers. I’d say that keeping invaders and racial others from thinning their own numbers is a negative priority. Preventing white children from being culled is probably a worthy use of state power here but that is not the bulk of abortees. I’ll grant that on the individual level abortion (even plan b) is a sin. But obviously it’s not as great a sin as slashing a baby’s throat. Not all sins are illegal either. Just slapping the “murder” label around willy nilly and demanding state intervention against our interests is stupid and immoral. Remember the words of the psalmist: >O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalm 137:8-9, KJV) You’ve got to look at the big picture.

>insane claim How? Is killing someone using poison somehow less of an act of murder than brutally ripping out the throat of someone? One might be more ”civilised” or “less brutal” than the other. That doesn’t mean it’s any less of an act of murder than the other. >keeping invaders and racial others from thinning their own numbers is a negative priority Or come up with some other means of making them not a problem instead of abortion? >not all sins are illegal So? The law should be just. An unjust law is a mockery. >demanding state intervention against our interests is stupid and immoral It’s less about state intervention against your interests but about upholding justice and virtue. I might also add that if everything is subservient to practical interest then what’s the difference between you and an animal and therefore by extension the same blacks that you dislike so much?

As far as I can tell the pro lifer playbook is has the effect of niggermaxxing our country which enables the communists to exterminate us. Therefore it is immoral. And it gives Christianity a bad name. Don’t interrupt your enemies when they’re making a mistake even if gasp they’re sinning. >come up with some other means Be my guest if you can but politics is the art of the possible. I’d prefer a cleaner method but one is not available. Any ideas? I’ve never heard a pro lifer suggest anything even remotely possible or reasonable. Just “first we midwife, house, and feed a billion niggers, then God blesses us for being retards. Maybe we lose our country but at least we weren’t MEAN.“ As far as the murder thing is concerned I see you are fully propagandized and cannot recognize the absurdity of your position so I don’t see any need for further debate on that front.

>if someone is being consistent, he’s propagandised “Everything I don’t like is propaganda, everything I like is objective facts and truth”

Also I’ve literally explained to you why abortion is murder with very clear examples and reasoning. If anything, you are the one who is “propagandised” because you refuse to let go of your obviously untenable position that makes no sense and would not be held by someone who genuinely thinks in good faith.

My position on abortion being murder makes sense and is shared by the majority of Americans. Yours are the result of extreme pro life propaganda. My position on the survival of our people may not be overwhelmingly popular yet but we’re working on it.

>displaying clear reasoning that has not actually been refuted is propaganda Lmao. You’re actually a joke. You have yet to actually refute any one of my statements besides handwaving about “muh propaganda” and using what I call “feel good” statements. And you accuse me of being seduced by propaganda? Why don’t you look into the mirror, you imbecile?

>clear reasoning literally every cult can explain it’s clear reasoning. communists love explaining how their reasoning flows naturally from their premises. it’s all so simple if you accept stupid shit as axiomatic.

And funny how you said nothing about my premises, you just brought this up all of a sudden right after I explicitly pointed out that you have yet to offer a single refutation for anything I said. I’m starting to think this isn’t a coincidence. Oh and LMFAO at using popular opinion as some sort of gauge for truth

Since you‘re so good at pointing out premises, please tell me: what premises are needed to accept my previous arguments as true? Spoiler: there aren’t any, because I deliberately made them in such a way that any honest and reasonably intelligent man capable of thinking for himself is able to accept them. Well, unless you’re a psychopath who thinks murder is fine and dandy.

Plan b isnt murder in the same sense that baby throat slashing is because an embryo in the fish stage is not as human as a baby. Maybe in some technical sense that doesn’t matter at all you could say they’re both murder.

Ok, but a baby is not as human as an adult man either by this same reasoning. Yet, why is it that we are more outraged over a baby being murdered in cold blood as opposed to that of an adult? If your reasoning is correct then killing a baby should be less of a murder than killing an adult. I’ll tell you why: because a baby is defenceless unlike an adult male of fighting age. So why can’t the same reasoning apply to foetuses?

you are a common sense denier. babies are human. adults are human. zygotes? come the fuck on dude.

Morally killing a "zygote" (another term to dehumanize them) is no different than killing a fetus, baby, or toddler since all of the above are completely reliant on rational, moral human beings caring, protecting, and nurturing them. Sure, there are "pratical differences" between killing a fertilized egg and a newborn baby. But when you're staring down the barrel of the gun, what difference does it make? How does killing a fetus at day 1 of life rather than day 300 justify itself? Would it have been so hard to have simply been on birth control and wear a condom?

@Largo@poa.st - https://poa.st/users/Largo @plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st - https://poa.st/users/plotinus_enjoyer

Morally they are. How are you supposed to face God at judgement and tell him that "killing this one is justified" You still haven't laid out why killing one over the other is justified. Is it because the "zygote" can't feel pain? We have living adults with such diseases. Is it because they won't remember being alive? We have elderly suffering from similar illinesses. Is it because the "zygote" is easy and quick to dispose of? (likely) Give me a bobcat and I can dispose of an adult man in 30 minutes.

Common sense dude. You regurgitating using these slick arguments no doubt provided to you by prolifer propagandists. “Give me a reason why there’s ANY difference“. For the record I think killing a zygote is a sin but a SIGNIFICANTLY lesser one. But hey think of it this way… God designed you to have intense love and empathy for one but not the other. curious.

>usage of reason and logical argument really just means you’ve fallen for prolifer propaganda lmao All you have to offer so far is endless question begging and some appeal to “common sense”