No Widgets found in the Sidebar

They always go like this. Every time.

There is no issue I hate debating more than the issue of abortion.

Not because I can’t argue my position or anything, abortion is probably the easiest, clear cut, objectively correct position held by conservatives. It’s so obviously not even close to being morally okay that anyone in their right mind, outside of a political scene, even a radical liberal feminist will tell you so.

The reason I hate arguing abortion is simple – I don’t like seeing people I care about back themselves into a corner where they are forced to defend what they know is the murder of a child, and then not change their position.

Pro-abortion arguments are by far the easiest left wing arguments to fight against, because they all depend on obfuscation, lies and what-about-isms without exception.

They always go like this. Every time. They all just repeat the same crap they hear on TV and social media, so easy to deflect you’d think they’d have come up with something new by now.

They start by saying that the baby isn’t a baby, that it’s just a clump of cells. They’re literally just factually wrong, and usually with enough pressure they will admit to this. It’s just simple biological science. Babies are babies. The only difference between a fetus and a baby is size and location.

Then they try to back it up by saying it can’t feel pain, or that it can’t live outside the womb so it doesn’t even matter if it’s a baby or not. That’s a simple moral problem that can be deflected by those suffering with paralysis, coma, dementia, etc. It’s still a human being and you still don’t get to kill it.

They say “my body, my choice” during the phase where they deny the baby’s humanity, where they claim that they have the right to “choose when and where to reproduce” as if reproduction hasn’t already occurred.

Then when they admit the baby is a baby and not a “clump of cells,” they either do one of two things – they either start going down a list of extreme hypotheticals that literally never happen in the real world, or they do something that I find truly despicable, which they get from the evictionists but drag it to the extreme.

Pro-aborts will say things like “I have the right to bodily autonomy, consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy and so I have the right to terminate the child at any time for any reason, because it is using my property, that being my body without my consent.” I wrote this in my article for Left or Right which I did get some things wrong in, admittedly:

…an evictionist believes that women have the right to “evict” the fetus from “her premises” as she sees fit, as a fetus being in her “private property” against her consent (which can be withdrawn at any time) is seen as a violation of the non-aggression principle, regardless of whether or not the fetus is threatening her life, or if it became a resident of her “private property” by her invitation when she engaged in unprotected sex.

The eviction analogy allows the libertarian to compare the rights of the pregnant woman with the rights of the landlord, who reserves the right to evict any tenant from his private property for any reason. The issue here is simple; evicting a tenant from a piece of real estate isn’t the direct murder of a tenant, while the removal of a developing fetus is. Both camps hold that the fetus must be removed from the mother unharmed and in-tact, leaving it to die of natural causes, but that also implies that they reserve the right to evict a tenant they know perfectly well would die instantly upon being removed from their property.

Morality is not subjective, it is objective, and directly and intentionally causing the death of another person is objectively morally wrong in any case unless they directly threaten your physical safety. On top of that, the age of the victim has to be taken into account. An adult tenant is fully capable of rational thought and is responsible for his own expenses. A fetus is an underdeveloped child whose responsibilities lie with his parents.

It is inexcusable to use ideology to rationalize and over-nuance a simple moral question.

https://www.leftorrightpolitics.com/index.php/2021/08/02/evictionism-is-worse-than-being-pro-choice/

Evictionists and departurists both believe that the fetus must be removed unharmed through what is called the departurist procedure, after the point of viability, unharmed and put up for adoption, and departurists believe that this is only allowed when the baby is directly threatening the the mother, evictionists believing this can be done for any reason.

The reason that they are wrong is that it is a moral disgrace to abandon and abuse your own child, and to assume your body is just a piece of property that the baby is renting out.

It should also be noted that actually, yes, consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy because that is literally the whole point of sex – reproduction.

The leftist, however will use the landlord analogy to justify killing the baby. At any time, for any reason. Even though landlords do not have the right to kill their tenants, and even though there is such a thing as squatter’s rights.

The long list of hypotheticals I’m about to mention is why so many say they are “personally pro-life, and politically pro-choice.” I myself for a long time fell into this camp, then was a part of the “only for rape and incest” camp. Now I am pro-life without exception.

Basically, the argument goes as follows – “there are this number of common circumstances that in which, abortion, while still being wrong, would be a necessary evil.” The more radical types will say “what if she was raped” as a sort of gotcha, and as a result there are people who will end up being in the position of saying, “well I know it’s obviously wrong, but I think it should be legal for x reason,” that reason being teen pregnancy, rape, incest, etc. But let me ask you this. Would you be okay with banning it in all cases except for those rare cases? The radicals will make this argument, and when asked this question say no and revert to “it’s just a clump of cells,” but the more reasonable people will immediately turn over and become pro-life in all cases except for x, y and z.

Clearly a step in the right direction.

You see, the reason that the pro-aborts swerve off to these insane, nearly non-existant hypotheticals is so that more compassionate people will say, “okay, okay, we can compromise here, here and here,” and to ultimately get you to “personally pro-life, politically pro-choice.” It is imperative that we fight this.

This may sound harsh to some, but this is the compassionate position. Unless the life of the mother is directly threatened by the mere existence (not salvageable by c-section) of the child, she does not under any circumstance have any valid reason to abort. Rape and incest do not invalidate the life of the child, as tragic and horrific as those acts are. It is not the child’s fault the woman was raped, it is the rapist, and the rapist should be executed at the minimum (as long as it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt). It is not the child’s fault that it was conceived through incest, it is the fault of those participating in the incest. It is not the child’s fault you are poor, not ready, too young, or any other reason you can think of. Those problems, as real as they are, do not invalidate the child’s right to life, as life supersedes all other rights.

The only reason feminists go down this long, always identical line of argumentation, is that they want freedom from the consequences of their actions, and freedom from the fundamental, tragic nature of society. But no one is free from those things. Not a single person who as ever lived, has had no experience making a mistake and having to cope with it, save Jesus Christ and his Mother.

Going down this line of argumentation with someone you care about is hard, but necessary. I am so uncomfortable whenever I have to talk about this issue, because so many people are so brainwashed into thinking that the mass genocide of unborn children is a human right, and even if they agree with you in the end, the whole argument will make at least one person involved cry.

But, there is no valid justification for abortion. There is no good argument for abortion. They just repeat and repeat because that is all they know how to do. Too much time on the TV, their phones, computers. The media tells lies.

My guess is that a lot of these people know abortion is evil, but keep fighting because that’s what they’re supposed to think. To support women or whatever. Not be called a sexist.

Some of these bitches could really benefit from some balls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.