They have souls

>>18514728
>you WILL raise ze tard because of dualist mumbo jumbo
shan't

>>18514723
>jews want white christians to raise this thing*
ftfy

>>18514734
The so called white christians want to make it illegal to abort the potato.

>>18514723
Without that thing, 4chan wouldn't be populated today.

File: DumpsterBabies.png (804.5 KB)

>>18514723
>Christians want to force you to raise this thing. Are they nuts?
Yes. They only care that the babies are born. After they are born they are fucked, the post abortion of a dumpster baby probably causes more suffering than ending it while it is still in the snatch.

>>18514739
the only reason anyone would encourage a people to burden themselves with the disabled is to destroy them, this also applies to convincing non whites they shouldn't abort all pregnancies

>>18514723
>"enlightened" atheists: eugenics is le bad
>also said atheists: abort every baby with down syndrome

>>18514739
They should

>>18514749
>atheists: you should be allowed to abort babies. also, hitler was retarded.
>retarded theists: that's literally hitler llolmaoxddd!

>>18514749
>atheichad: eugenics is good
>christcel: don't you DARE abort that potato

>I believe in human rights
>But not for unborn people or retards

>>18514775
>human rights
human rights is a retarded concept. rights belong to the children of God, come from God, and apply to none others

the modern idea that there is such a thing a rights which apply to all people is heretical and suicidal

>>18514775
Human rights are made up.

>>18514723
Can an aborted baby comprehend that they are being killed or feel pain? If yes, then bad. If no, then what's the difference compared to a sperm that didn't go into a vagina, or did but lost the egg race?

>everyone has the same opinion ITT
/his/ is dead

>>18514745
I don't think that's the case everywhere.

>>18514775
I don't believe in human rights

>>18514775
Just a clump of cells and no ones calling to exterminate retarded people, just preventing any more from being born. This also goes for things like messed-up limbs, health disorders, etc. If you can detect it and prevent the suffering before it happens, why wouldn't you?

>>18514912
So it’s ok to strap you to a table and torture you with a chainsaw.

>>18514961
That’s not what human rights are.

>>18514961
>christians unironically believe "I don't want to be tortured" = "I believe in human rights"
Mental midgets, the lot of you.

>an atheist sees a baby
>is filled with an unquenchable bloodlust and an irresistible urge to kill

>>18514983
>>18515064
What right do you have not to be tortured?

>>18515065
You think atheists have x-ray vision? lmao

>>18515069
Invalid question. The concept of "rights" is entirely made up. There's not some immaterial legal document in the sky that says "anon shall not be tortured, I do declare".

This board is fucking retarded

Babies should be gassed if they have disorders. Back in the day we used to throw them to the pigs. Nowadays "muh feelings, human rights and shit"
You stupid fucking subhuman troglodites have no idea how much money and time it costs to raise these type of children. Nobody is helping you, your life becomes a living nightmare, you wont have time to keep a job and maintain your own life.
You are all subhuman mongloids and you are making life more helish that it already is because of your retarded feelings.

>>18514749
More ironic is when self-proclaimed theocratic fascist Matt Walsh says that aborting downie fetus is the worst thing he has read on twitter. I guess fascists draw the line at eugenics now.

>>18515069
A right isn't what you get, it's what you deserve. As in what you should get.

>>18514723
Remember Christianity grew to be a 10% of the Empire even pre Constantine in large part because Pagan Families callously threw away unwanted children and left those dying of the Antonine plague to perish. In contrast the Christians would pick up and raise them, or during the plague would choose to stay and attempt to relieve the ones suffering. Mercy is a powerful force when a society begins passing its earlier desperate phase, effectively stirring the hearts of people for the betterment of the downtrodden.

>>18514749
>"enlightened" atheists: eugenics is le bad
Those people aren't actually atheists. They're liberal humanists. While they like to pretend that they're irreligious because it makes them feel superior, their belief system is 100% a religion based on an irrational, arbitrary set of moral principles that they adhere to through faith alone.

Real atheists absolutely support eugenics, where it's proven effective at suppressing negative heritable traits.

>>18515205
I don't understand your point. Are you mad that a fascist has morals when you've been led to believe they don't?

>>18515345
Yes. In the liberal humanist religion, a fascist is their version of a demon.

File: 1778313864579568.jpg (7.6 KB)

>>18514959
You are a far larger clump of cells, that's not any reason to murder anyone.

>>18515345
>Morals is when forcing people to raise retarded babies

>>18515522
>Morals is when you don't kill innocent people who fail to live up to your arbitrary ideals

>>18515072
OK, so there’s nothing at all wrong or objectionable about torturing you to death.

>>18515528
>Morals is when forcing people to raise retarded babies with the powers of fascism

>>18515531
Of course there is, it's just that it's made-up
not that complicated

>>18515536
If morals are objectionable like you say then there's ultimately nothing wrong with people being tortured to death, genocide or putting puppies in a bag and drowning them in an icy river.

>>18514723
One of the greatest sins perpetuated by Christianity was discarding the eminently rational "pagan" practice of killing deformed babies.

>>18515478
It is the organization of those cells, and the electrochemical consciousness housed generated by them, that makes something "human" and of moral worth. Thus cancer cells in a Petri dish (or an undeveloped fetus) are not human.

>>18515545
Actually, human life begins at conception, not some arbitrary point after that.

File: f1afe-4w0d.jpg (6.8 KB)

>>18515547
Sorry. pic related is not and has never been a moral agent.

>>18515561
Restating your arbitration doesn't make it true. Human life begins at conception without exception. Consult a biology textbook.

>>18514723
>ITT soulless anons pride themselves in their willingness to kill their own children (they won't even have one)

File: ehp2268_f1.jpg (839.1 KB)

>>18515570
Sorry bud. as we can see here it's not till the third trimester that anything approaching a human mind can be said to exist.

>>18515535
>If I cannot kill babies, that's literally fascism.
You're a retard, but you have every right to exist and continue your retardation.

More retards = bigger convert pool.
Simple as.

>>18515589
That doesn't matter, it's still a human being. If I drew the line at brain activity, I would logically have to accept that people in comas or vegetables could be killed for any reason.

>>18515540
It's more of a "rule of law" problem than a Christianity problem. Despite it being unchristian to kill deformed babies, they were still almost universally killed until after the Industrial Revolution, along with unwanted babies in general. High natural infant mortality rates combined with the weakness of state power meant that people generally turned a blind eye to the practice.

>>18515538
Yes

>>18515696
You must be some antisocial freak

>>18514723
Atheistism (naturalistic neo Darwinian atheistism, which is what 90% of atheists believe in) and eugenics go hand and hand if you strip down all the liberal superfluous stuff.

And people called me crazy when I said atheistism is a threat to human rights,
When there isn't anything above you, there is only what's below you.

>>18514723
If you spent all your time on twitter you'd think everyone second pregnancy was a Downs baby.

>>18515701
No, you're just mentally retarded. Saying that there's no magical immaterial document in the sky which claims "thou shall not torture anon fr fr" does not mean that you're personally fine with people being tortured. Because make no mistake, when you say "there's something wrong with X", what you actually mean is "there is an immaterial magical document in the sky that has "there is something wrong with X" written on it in magical immaterial ink", which is obviously utterly retarded garbage that has nothing to do with how society actually functions.

>>18514723
they believe babies are evil

>>18515855
The antisocial thing is thinking that opinion could be both a basis for morality and just as easily discarded.

>>18514723
>Are they nuts?
Actually yes. Christianity is literally a mental illness.

>>18515910
I often wonder if you're some assraped eastern european or mentally retarded SEAmonkey who doesn't know a single fucking thing about Christianity.

>>18514723
Yes you should be forced to. Life's not fair get over it. Atheists talk about how evil Christians are but at the same time hate it when you're required to be selfless. Their hypocrisy and stupidity has no limits.

>>18515898
When you say "morality", you also mean "an immaterial magical document in the sky that has "there is something wrong with X" written on it in magical immaterial ink".
You're talking about magical sky documents, not about the way society is organized or the ways people interact.

>>18515918
How can someone who does not possess the Holy Spirit understand those who do?
>“For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
To those of the world, I'm sure we do look crazy. Of course, they are the afflicted ones, and we know what exactly afflicts them, but it's not like they listen when we tell them.

>>18515930
More like
>There is truth written into the code of the universe about all things ranging from mathematical laws to physical laws to codes of conduct for conscious beings.
If you have to be this misrepresentative about what you're arguing against, maybe it's not as bad as you're pretending it is.

>>18515933
That's literally no different from the magical sky document which has "X is le bad" written on it in magical ink. You're still not talking about the actual organisation of human societies.

>>18515938
It is quite different. Unless you believe there is a magical sky document somewhere with e=mc2 and every other physical law on it.

>>18514723
>>18514734
Enjoy burning.
>>18514740
Well said.
>>18514745
Grow up.
>>18514909
Meds.

File: killing fully grown babies in the womb.png (750.6 KB)

>>18514723
Why do people pretend the only opposition to abortion comes from religious principles? What about not wanting to kill an innocent human being? Do you need to be religious to believe in that?

The unborn is a human being and even if you believe in some weird logic about people not being human if their body look undeveloped enough, the pro-abortion jurisdictions often allow killing very developed fetuses. It's already recognized that fetuses can feel pain in the first trimester (this shouldn't matter for a debate about right to life, you aren't excused to murder people if they can't feel pain, but that still proves the absolute sadism of the pro-abortion position)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8935428/

>>18515947
Of course I don't believe that, that would be retarded. Objects interact in certain ways and we've come up with descriptions of these interactions, that's all there is to it.
Now if you tried to say that E ought to equal mc2 and if it doesn't, it ought to be ostracized from the community of physical interactions, then yeah I'd say you're appealing to an immaterial sky document again.

>>18515960
>Of course I don't believe that, that would be retarded.
Then you understand the concept of universal laws that don't exist as magic sky documents and you were just being as inflammatory as possible?

>>18515970
Go back and read the rest of the post. You can do it, I believe in you.
>Objects interact in certain ways and we've come up with descriptions of these interactions, that's all there is to it.

>>18515975
Yeah, that proves you do understand the concept and you were just trying to be inflammatory. Why might you be doing that, anon?

>>18515978
Do I really have to dripfeed you the post through multiple posts like this? Are you an invalid?
>Now if you tried to say that E ought to equal mc2 and if it doesn't, it ought to be ostracized from the community of physical interactions, then yeah I'd say you're appealing to an immaterial sky document again.
The two things are not analogous because you're equivocating on the word "laws". .

>>18515987
That's not an equivocation. Unless you are saying that physical laws and mathematical laws cannot both be laws because they have differing properties. If you accept that they are different, but both laws, then your argument against moral laws on those same grounds is undercut.

File: brainsci-15-00734-g004-550.jpg (114.2 KB)

>>18515545
>>18515561
Your electrochemical consciousness can be stopped at any moment with propofol, specially useful for surgeries. You also cease to experience reality every day under N3 sleep. Your little subject-homunculus watching the universe is gone in these moments. Does that stop you from having moral worth?

A lump of cancer cells aren't a coherent animal specimen of the human species. The embryo is. They have a coherent body, a coherent clone lineage, a coherent genome, but may be in a temporary state of unconsciousness not unlike yours when you are under slow-wave sleep. You already having the hardware that COULD make you conscious doesn't make any difference in the actual reality of unconsciousness, because both sleeping you and the embryo are equals in that you're unconscious but could be conscious in the future. Having a non-wake brainstem doesn't make you better than an embryo. The reality of the facts is that both are lacking subjective experience at that moment.

Pretending to use subjectivity and qualia as principles but weirdly assuming a non functioning, assumed conscience-producing biologic mechanism has intrinsic worth on its own is a leap of logic. At least I admit I draw my line on the human individual. You draw your line on a abstract and complicated principle masquerading as rational philosophy of mind.

>>18515991
It is an equivocation and I've demonstrated this by juxtaposing the fact that E equals mc2 and the idea that E ought to equal mc2 or it ought to be ostracized from the community of physical interactions.
Your entire argument rests on linguistic grounds stemming from the fact that someone decided to use the word "laws" to describe the fact that objects interact in certain ways.

>>18516001
You have been the only one to inject "ought" into these conversations. You're arguing with a strawman you've built.
It'd be better said that the moral law is unequivocally, "Sin leads to separation from God and ultimately damnation" any ought that arises after that isn't an aspect of that law, but a person or society's response to that law.

>>18516001
>1+1=2 - Mathematical Law
>Current is directly proportional to voltage and inversely proportional to resistance - Physical Law
>Sin separates from God - Moral Law
These things are all equally true, share universality, and describe the nature of reality. They can all be called laws and this is not an equivocation. Get smarter, anon.

>>18516008
So when you say "morality", or "X is wrong", you mean "X has a consequence that I don't like". Fine, under that definition, morality definitely exists.

>>18516015
Can you reason without shoehorning what your opponent says into a box you feel more comfortable with? I'm not seeing any evidence that you can anywhere ITT. Just strawmen, reductions, and oversimplifications. You ostensibly have the capability to reason, but you're squandering that ability. Why? Afraid you might have to engage and change with new information?

>>18515959
>It's already recognized that fetuses can feel pain in the first trimester
Saying it's "recognized" might be an overstatement. While your journal article is from 2021, a recent WebMD article from 2025 still treats it as something that is only considered to be a possibility by a subset of scientists https://www.webmd.com/baby/when-can-a-fetus-feel-pain-in-the-womb

Also your article was published in the Linacre Quarterly, which is the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association. So if there are problems with the article, they're the journal that might be willing to overlook them and publish it anyway.

>>18516022
I don't care about your outrage.
You claimed that I must be an antisocial freak because I claim there's nothing wrong with XYZ. Now we've come to the point in the conversation where we've sufficiently disentangled that claim to see what it really means.
Your claim is that I must be an antisocial freak because I claim that it's not the case that "XYZ leads to separation from God and ultimately damnation".
That is the full extent of your claim and any other possible interpretation was just parasitically hanging on to the other possible connotations of your original claim.

>>18516031
>You claimed that I must be an antisocial freak
No, I didn't. I'm NTA. I started replying here>>18515933

>>18516037
If you want to jump in and change the central topic, either indicate as much or be ready to have the person you're talking to keep arguing the original point.
As far as I'm concerned, whether you go the invisible sky document route or the "morality is not defined by oughts but merely by the fact that certain things separate you from god" route is irrelevant because neither is capable to support the original accusation of me being an antisocial freak.

>>18516041
>neither is capable to support the original accusation of me being an antisocial freak.
Again, I didn't make that accusation. I don't care if you are or aren't. I made my points, and you didn't do much more than deflect, strawman, or oversimplify.

>>18516041
I am also not the original anon you were arguing with, but you definitely acted like an antisocial freak during this whole exchange, so I think you're just mad because the shoe fit.

>>18516026
>this shouldn't matter for a debate about right to life, you aren't excused to murder people if they can't feel pain

>>18516048
You completely misunderstood what the conversation was about. The point wasn't whether some supernatural spook, be it a magical sky document or god that you can be separated from, exists. The point was that merely believing the spook does not exist doesn't make you an antisocial individual. That's why the two definitions of morality are interchangeable for the purpose of this argument.
You're just mad that I didn't start having an entirely different separate argument with you. Guess what? There is no magical sky document which says "anon ought to switch to whatever pet topic randos want to discuss after jumping into an ongoing conversation without even indicating that they're nta".

>>18515938
This guy believes in "organization" and "society" but morality is a step too far!

>>18516074
>this guy believes that humans behave in certain ways in groups, but believing in a magical document in the sky is too far!
Astonishing observation.

>>18516076
And where does organization or society come from?

>>18516082
You believe it comes from an invisible magical sky document? Any evidence of this?

File: kitty.jpg (124.6 KB)

>>18514723
Well it really seems like the popular form of Christianity that took over the Roman Empire was a bit like the "spiteful mutants" idea. Later on things like Catholicism improved the situation considerably but the ideological roots of this type of Christianity are pretty dysgenic and anti-human.
Overall Christianity was useful for a time and did some good, but now it has outlived its usefulness to our species.

>>18516087
What, are you too afraid to defend your own worldview?

>>18516092
What, are you too afraid to defend your own worldview?

>>18515931
You kind of sound like a reddit atheist talking about "I am enlightened by my intellect" and "I am too high IQ to be understood" desu

>>18516093
Well, organization, society, ideas, morality, mathematics and logic all exist within that same realm where they cannot be measured with instruments. So I'm wondering how you could know that a society or organization exists but morality does not.

File: 1774817376954291.jpg (49.2 KB)

>>18516054
The only correct object of moral concern are spirits, not arbitrary arrangements of matter, with or without human DNA. And a spirit, like someone moving into a house, obviously doesn't move into a body until it's at least complete (i.e. capable of surviving on its own). Before that, the body is only a structure with no occupants, so it's fine to tear it down if the property owner doesn't want it there.

>>18516098
>see group of people
>best dressed guy steps forward
>you two go there and do X
>you two go there and do Y
>I'll check in on you to see if you're doing it right
Ok I just observed organization. Anything else?

>>18516104
But it is just matter acting at random, you're not observing anything that is organized.

>>18516109
You said:
>This guy believes in "organization" and "society" but morality is a step too far!
What I mean by "organization" is the sort of thing I just described. Whether you personally consider it organization is none of my concern.

>>18516102
Proof of your jewish/kardecist worldview?

File: 1692562050771343.jpg (64.1 KB)

>>18516113
You literally believe in a worldview where matter acts at random for no reason.

>>18516116
Thank you for conceding your earlier point and moving on to another one.
I believe things have properties.

>>18516119
I'm not letting you off the hook, faggot.
Nothing could be organized in your paradigm.

If you really want to shift, how about you talk about society and dig a deeper hole for yourself.

>>18516120
There's no hook. You have some definition of "organization" under which the scenario I described does not qualify. I do not subscribe to that definition, which means that you can't get me with the
>This guy believes in "organization" and "society" but morality is a step too far!
gotcha.
That's all there is to it.

>>18516121
You believe in (presuppose) transcendental categories which cannot actually be observed thoughbeit

>>18516125
>lose argument
>immediately pivot to presup
I did expect you to do that.

>>18516127
I know you're incapable of comprehending English but you really don't understand how ORGANIZATION as a concept transcends actions of individuals and papers for an office or corporation? Are you more retarded than the supposed mentally deficient fetuses you want to abort?

>>18516129
As I said, I don't care about your definition of organization. I told you what I mean by the word, and with the way I use it, your gotcha doesn't work. That's it, argument over. Better luck next time.

>>18516131
You're just afraid and unwilling to defend your own worldview because you know it's wrong.

>>18516137
Nah you just tried to get a gotcha, failed and now you're mad.

>>18516139
Is it a "gotcha" because atheism is wrong about these things?

>>18516140
Its a gotcha because you tried to trap me in an inconsistency with this:
>This guy believes in "organization" and "society" but morality is a step too far!
The issue is that with the way I use the words, an invisible sky document really is a step too far from "organization" and "society". Maybe not with the way you use the words, but that's not how I use them.

>>18516144
Okay dipshit, does society emerge when there's 2 people or 10? How about the number of trees to make a forest?

>>18516145
>words that describe a large amount of X do not have a precise threshold for what counts as "large amount"
>therefore invisible sky things
Okay I get it, you're just shitposting. Sorry, I didn't notice it earlier because I'm slightly autistic.

>>18516146
You can't engage because you're incapable of defending what you believe in

>>18516147
Yeah I guess I can't argue against an argument that claims invisible sky things must exist because the word "forest" does not specify a precise number of constituent trees. Too high level for me.

>>18516148
You believe in the existence of those things though, right?

>>18516150
You mean the invisible sky things? No, I don't.

>>18514723
A mongolian?

>>18515345
morals that are incompatible with fascism, yes.
If he stylized himself as a humanist hippie I wouldn't say a thing

>>18514723
>Christians want to force you
You're a lying antichrist. Christianity is not about forcing people to do things. Christianity is not Communism.

>>18515538
>ultimately
this word is doing all the work
of course there will not be anything "ultimately" wrong, in a view without ultimate wrongs - there's just gonna be regular wrongs

File: La_masacre_de_San_Bartolomé,_por_François_Dubois.jpg (512.4 KB)

>>18516383
>Christianity is not about forcing people to do things.
Mind explaining what's happening in pic then?

>I would logically have to accept that people in comas or vegetables could be killed for any reason

Stuff like this is so fucking silly
I would need to appeal to exactly zero broad overarching principles (about brain activity?) that entails how I should feel about abortion, to be for or against
I can have entirely particular views on these matters


For example, I don't have to care about fetuses feeling pain. Fetuses could feel zero pain, and I could still be against abortion - zero contradiction
Suppose fetuses could feel pain, does that automatically make abortion impermissible? Of course not

>>18516388
When will you geniuses ever gonna learn that religious institutions and religions are different things? There is a HUGE difference between a religious institution and a religion.

>>18516405
Religion is when sitting at home and thinking the thought that it was true a man walked on water 2000 years ago

File: oigetit.webm (704.4 KB)

>>18516405
Oh of course! The Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic faith! How could I not see this?

>>18514749
I get it, you look ridiculous with the barmy fairy tales you were told and dare not ditch, so you rage against atheists and invent shit about them, aided by your inability to understand that 'most A are B' does not imply 'most B are A'.

>>18516000
>>18515959

>Fetuses MIGHT feel pain, therefor you have to raise the retard who will never be able to live by yourself, assault or kill your if you don’t give it candy, and who will never carry on your genes and who will ruin your marriage and relationships
Nothing is more dysgenic

>>18516535
>the retard who will never be able to live by yourself, assault or kill your if you don’t give it candy, and who will never carry on your genes and who will ruin your marriage and relationships
But enough about yourself, anon. This isn't your blog.

>>18516540
I have kids and a job and have never assaulted anyone, something the retards who you adore will never be able to say.

>>18514723
>Christians want to force you to raise this thing. Are they nuts?
That's purely a development of boomer/post-Vatican II churches. In the Middle Ages they would have said that baby was cursed by God and just left it in the woods to die.

>all this virtue signaling ITT just to enforce dysgenics
These are the same people who beleive that brown criminals need infinite chances in life to infest your country btw

>>18515694
>I would logically have to accept that people in comas or vegetables could be killed for any reason.
Yeah, what's the problem there?

>>18515694
If the person is brain dead ie a vegetable they are dead

File: An evil road of thought.jpg (89.3 KB)

>>18516535
The pain part is irrelevant. You shouldn't kill innocent people, full stop. I don't care if they can or cannot feel pain, if they are unconscious or not. You could be put under anesthesia today, stop feeling pain and stop being conscious but you don't stop being a living human being with the right to life because of it.

Your eugenicist ideology is just a few steps removed from euthanizing born kids and adults deemed problematic. Right now you merely make an out-of-womb prerequisite.

>>18516811
I don't care about any of that
I just want it to be permissible to abort fetuses with Downs

>>18514723
So you have two options
Option A:
>Keep the retard baby
>Devote all your time and money to take care of the retard because he needs 24/7 care
>Don't experience the joy of seeing your child grow up. The retard will stay a retard his whole life
>Don't have more kids because you don't have the time or money to take care of them
>If you somehow manage to have more kids you will neglect them and irreversibly damage their childhood because the retard will always be the family's priority
>The retard will be nothing but a burden on your family and society as a whole
>Even as you grow old, you're still gonna have to take care of the retard
>You'll die sad and utterly exhausted knowing that your bloodline ends with you
Option B:
>You abort the retard baby
>You have healthy children instead
>You watch them grow up, become adults and have children of their own
>You experience the joy of being a grandparent
>As you grow old, you can relax as your children will take care of you
>You die knowing that you did your duty and your bloodline will continue
Option B is objectively better

>>18514723
Is it Christians or is it White people because Christianity itself doesn’t seem to prohibit abortion.
Now obviously having an abortion to continue a life of carnal debauchery is wrong. But abortion because a baby is brown or black or has another type of disability is not directly prohibited.
>>18514749
The replies are proof you are correct.
Lefties want spiteful mutants but they don’t want the wrong kind of spiteful mutant.

>>18515070
>you’re not seeing me, you’re seeing a reflection of the light on my body, my true form is obscured from you
Yeah ok

>>18515522
Uh yeah. Promoting an action based on a code of ethics is a form of morality and moral enforcement.
“Fascists” like Matt “arch Shabbos” Walsh do have a morality. You disagreeing with it doesn’t magically phase it out of existence.
Abstract permanence is lost on lefties.

>>18515589
>>18515561
>da rational mind is what matters
Oh fuck off. Dead bodies have value and legal rights.
Objects have value. We can ascribe qualities to inanimate objects such as “do not touch” and enforce laws based around those qualities.

It's all or nobody.
The moment we draw a line saying "THIS can be aborted" and "this can't" it will only and obligatory be a matter of time and whim until you literally kill and torture wantonly without any single regard for any life, ever, forever.
In terms of "take care of" and "mercy", it should absolutely be all or nothing. That's why Jesus said you're either cold or hot, you can't serve 2 masters. That being said, I know a family with 2 kids, 1 of them is a retarded vegetable and it's hell on earth.

>>18514723
I remember reading a pretty sad story about a woman raising a severely disabled boy
>Husband left her because he didn't want to raise a retard
>The boy was developmentally stuck at the level of a one year old
>Physically he was developing pretty fast and was actually far stronger and bigger than most kids his age
>He needed 24/7 care, couldn't be left alone
>He was constantly throwing violent tantrums and by age 12 his mother was barely able to physically subdue him
So stuff like this would happen regularly:
>He shit his diaper so it needed changing
>Didn't want his mom to change his shitty diaper
>He just punched his mom in the face when she tried to change it
>Just about any normal daily activity could have resulted in him assaulting his mom
It got so bad that the mom had to put him on expensive meds that basically made him an inactive vegetable.
Honestly, I don't blame people for not wanting to have a life like this and aborting the the disabled baby.

>>18516984
The religious style of morality allows you to ignore the predictable consequences of an action in favor of attachment to a few especially simple and clear-cut rules. If things turn out badly as a result, well, it must be the will of God. This is effective for tard-wrangling people who aren't even good judges of what's in their own best interest, let alone society's best interest, but at the edges it risks devolving into paperclip-maximizing.

>>18517009
>leftism is when want to abort chromosomally defect fetuses

>>18514723
>I should be allowed to kill my children because they look funny
No.

You guys seriously think abortion is "killing children"?
If I really thought that, I wouldn't be shitting up the internet, that's for sure - that seems like something so fucking massively urgent and important, I would take action

Look, I'm not saying that you should bomb abortion clinics, just that you are dishonest

>>18517072
>that seems like something so fucking massively urgent and important, I would take action
You should look into Abolitionists Rising. I fully support them.

>>18514723
>Christians
>Are they nuts?
yes. have you seen the rot they believe in?

>>18517072
no. both anti-abortionists and homophobes are just envious of the sex lives of other people. it does not take much nudging for them to trot out some form of "she deserves to be burdened with the child for her deeds" or to start sharing their fantasies about the bountiful sex life of homos.

>>18517072
Christians are always like this.
I don't think they neccesarily are dishonest, just that they live with a massive amount of cognitive dissonance to cope with the impossible entailments of their beliefs.

For example, if eternal hellfire was something I believed in, I would take sin extremely seriously, I would be joining a cloister or praying 24/7 or whatever it is you're supposed to do.
I would not be posting racisms on 4chan.

>>18517072
I think the industrial killing of human beings in the womb is equivalent to the transatlantic slavery or the holocaust of our times

>>18517135
It's unironically the worst atrocity ever perpetrated.

>>18517682
Fucking wild how little action the people who says this take