Ew, r-types

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/26/quiet-revolution-ireland-votes-repeal-tough-abortion-laws/

Look how happy they are in all the photos.

Liberal birth rates: a feature, not a bug.

I’ve seen more muted reactions to winning the lottery.

They aren’t quietly respectful and pleased to have medical options, they are openly celebrating the intentional creation of life only to snuff it out like an Ikea candle.

TBF

I am totally in favour of abortion as long as it’s left-wingers doing it. Thankfully, it is.
[Considering partisanship is heavily genetic.]

Otherwise, they give the kid to the State and we end up raising it or they poison it and if it isn’t miscarried, it’s born defective.

What happened to keeping the Government out of their bedroom?

Why are Christian taxes expected to fund this?

I guess it’s karmic. Their parents should’ve aborted them it’s just one generation delayed. Fewer shitty parents in the world but holy fuck will they howl when they discover they’re infertile in a few years with a clock ticking louder than the crocodile in Peter Pan.

We’ll be expected to pay for IVF too.

Little known fact: the fail rate is directly connected to poor genetic quality.

Better looking IVF couples (and same race) have more success. Look!

Technically, this is a supremely eugenic result. More realistic selection pressure.
And people too thick to use condoms should really be weeded out of the gene pool.

Where are you, baby Jesus? Did they sell you for body parts too?

Plus, their cancer rate is higher, the pluripotent cells are heavy carcinogenic risks. Stem cells aren’t always a good thing.

They don’t list it here but the Pill is (women shouldn’t be on it).
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
Buried here:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/medical-treatments/abortion-and-breast-cancer-risk.html
It starts “But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.”
For legal reasons, lower down, past where most people read:
“Some case-control studies, however, have found an increase in risk.”
So they lie.

Case control is more scientific. You can’t claim no link when there are links. Mixed evidence is still evidence. Notice they can’t claim it reduces the risk? The lawyers won’t let them.

When there are no children to pay their pension, we can laugh.

On the bright side, they have no respect for life, so if Greece gets its act together and starts shooting down boats they can’t cry about Teh Children.

Americans don’t know logical fallacies ex.A

I’m bashing this one out like a horny 13yo, please forgive minor errors but this isn’t worth deep thought.
It’s funny if you have a working brain.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/10/19/this-simple-question-will-make-anti-abortion-activists-squirm/

Loaded question.
False dichotomy.
Black and white thinking.
False equivalence.

I could go on.

The correct answer legally is to ‘save’ nobody because you are not legally obliged (humans are not Superman) but in the attempt you become responsible for any and ALL deaths.

Stupid Americans. You love human law more than Bible, right? It turns out without Jesus, everyone is a jerk.

Keep packing that strawman tight.

If C, you all die, then it’s impossible to save anyone.

This is one of your intellectuals? Burn the Ivies.

Just Burn them All.

You wanted low trust society, that means no cooperation.

If you do not conceive the child, it is not yours. You’re not supposed to go anywhere near it.
People who oppose abortion i.e. people with a conscience, also object to their forced financial involvement. There is no money stolen at gunpoint here.

Inb4 lefties don’t want to abstain from taxes on moral grounds – oh, like taxes that go to churches or to fund the Iraq war?

Matters of conscience and lifestyle choice. Agency comes after responsibility.

Why do dopey Americans think you can call any stupid question, loaded with false premises that beg the question, a ‘thought experiment’ and it magically becomes logically, morally, legally and experimentally valid?

Do you want to be a eunuch or a moose? Ya gotta pick one.

It’s absurd.

BTW, they say, if you pick the moose option, that’s badthink* and you hate trannies. I see no ad hominem here. From google: “is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.” they’re not even waiting for a reply, just assuming you hate one child because they placed one child in danger, they cry out in pain as they strike you!

Thought experiments have a genuine structure and I don’t think anyone over there is even functionally capable of explaining it, let alone the practice of constructing a clever question.

The trolley experiment is limited in method. Nobody said otherwise.

This is a non sequitur too, it presumes – the trolley problem applies to other people’s responsibilities (minors) and also, here’s some fire.

It reminds me of the study saying right wingers could predict the reasoning of the left, the moral reasoning, but they had no idea how we operate.

But how could anyone justify letting the kid die?

How could anyone justify letting a severely autistic kid live, knowing it can’t? Two can play the emotional appeal game. What about the flipside of abortion, euthanasia? The only difference is the age of the people who would ‘suffer’, like this example.

It reminds me of a question that often makes evangelical Christians squirm: “Is Anne Frank burning in Hell?”

Duh, obviously. Except Jews don’t believe in Hell, which explains a lot. So technically, it’s impossible for any Jew to go to Hell. She might be in outer darkness.

*Speaking of “illegal thoughts” and forbidden moral choices.
[If I am amoral, everyone must be amoral! To be moral! – moral relativists]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

A better version of this would be;

There is one oven, instant incineration. You are a Nazi in the 40s. Either you can save one small Jewish child you must raise yourself or a pregnant white woman who is dying and will leave their child an orphan.

Which do you save?

What if the races were reversed?
And it doesn’t mention that, does it?
Considering the majority of abortions are performed on non-whites.
#blackgenocide

Those with pro-life convictions should at least have the decency to be honest and say they’d let the child die. Even if it makes them look like monsters.

No, they save more life that way, and the parents of the 5yo are responsible for it. Not you.

It’s the logical and utilitarian thing to do. Don’t Communists love killing the minority to spare the majority?

Hell, they already sound cruel when they argue that rape victims should be forced to give birth to their attackers’ babies,

I’ve never heard that.
The reasoning is consent. You consent to sex, you consented to pregnancy. Goes for the father too.
Nobody consents to rape. Prior to Roe v Wade, women did get abortions – for rape. Nobody minded.
That has always been true, because it was accepted rapists wanted to breed. Otherwise, they’d choose oral, or something else unlikely to result in pregnancy. It isn’t about power, it’s about orgasms and r-selection. Sexual sadism.

I know most readers of this site share my pro-choice views, but I’m genuinely curious if anyone can explain how saving the 1,000 embryos could be a valid option without coming off as an awful person. Can you play Devil’s advocate?

1.not what that term means.

2.if it isn’t a valid option, there is no question and you’re lying.

Logic says you’re intellectually dishonest, like all the other amoral cowards.
Free love but no free abortions, eh? No free STD shots? No free infertility treatments?

“friendlyatheist” no such thing, totally individual belief set, no belief in the sanctity of life because ergo no sacred exists, none of those children have souls, born or unborn.

I put it to you, since the Left love murdering children so much in your “thought experiments”: What if that one child was Hitler?

What if the embryos were the future of the Jewish race?

Where is your high horse now, motherfucker?

Some miscarriages caused by genetic defect

Darwin was right, what a shocker this one is.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171002145008.htm

Allow me to explain.

There are three selection events in humans.

  1. Pre-birth, failed by miscarriage. Many go this way.
  2. Birth itself to infancy. Many went by malnutrition, starvation, abuse, maladaptive development or illness.
  3. Reproduction. Nowadays, this tends to be how people go. Better written up as genetic suicide, when intentional.

Parental age (both genetic contributors) does affect risk, yes, but genetics research does NOT want to EVER acknowledge the varying benchmark of genetic quality to begin with. There are teenagers who miscarry for this reason or produce children with defects, the risk is always there with every conception that the conception event goes awry, it’s simple maths. The possibility is always there.

It really goes by family. If the people in your family could be first-time parents successfully in their 30s/40s, you’re fine, the overall genetic quality level is good.

Overt abortion pill use on rise

More people than ever are accessing abortion pills in the UK

Even though it’s legal, they don’t want it tracked. AKA limited, regulated by their blessed State.
The Pill itself is already abortifacient.

https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-pill-contraceptive-or-abortifacient/266725/
If that is its biological mechanism (it is) then it’s a form of abortion.

“Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say.”

Naturally, they’re now lying about this and trying to cover up the way it literally works (what informed consent?) to push it legally, including on minors or those women still developing (into mid-20s).
Medically, the rule is if you’re not sure, don’t do it.

“Further inconsistency among pro-lifers is seen in the fact that greater opposition exists among abortion opponents for the morning after pill than for the regular birth control pill, which in most cases is the same medication taken hours later and in varying dosage, but working in the same way

Yes, the same way.
The Pill is a choice to sleep around and have others pay for your pleasure (but not alcohol or other drugs, oddly). Plan B is intended for rape victims. Not really a choice, and not about personal jollies.
That’s why the difference.

“In the case or rape, the intent of Plan B is not to stop life, but to stop the act of the rapist from reaching its ordered end: impregnation, which would be a form of success of the violent assault. Therefore, a Catholic health plan may include emergency use of Plan B in case of rape, provided it is accompanied by a pregnancy test.”

to prove they weren’t already pregnant and lying about the rape

exactly, if it were just pleasure the rapist wouldn’t be doing that kind of reproductive sex
pregnancy is the aim of heterosexual rape, always has been
that’s how r-types reproduce with K-types, otherwise it wouldn’t happen

Iceland doing open eugenics

Well, there’s no such thing as non-eugenic abortion, yeah.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

At the very least, it reduces the fertility of people unfit to be parents.

So it’s a genetic cull, is it?

Of those with mutations that reduce fitness?

Of those with medical conditions?

Wasn’t…. wasn’t homosexuality a medical condition for a long, long time?

What about when they start aborting gay kids?
Isn’t that genetic too?

Be careful with your Born This Ways.

People might believe you.

You can be Unborn This Ways too.

I bet the state’s budget for HIV meds and STD shots is much higher than Downs.
The State only cares about more money for the state.

Statism is a vampire.

On the other hand,
comment
“China and India practice gender-selective abortion. Millions of unborn females have been aborted simply because of their gender. Abortion is evil.”
Isn’t that a genocide? It meets all the literal criteria. You know that’s what the MRAs would be calling it if the sexes were reversed? It’s one of the few times SJWs are factually accurate.
Asia generally doesn’t value the individual, let alone their rights. Then they bitch and colonize the West, everywhere actually, even Africa now because they don’t have anyone to marry off their shitty sons to…

History buff wades in
“The Nazis called it Lebensunwertes Leben, Life unworthy of life.”

Science nerd ruins everything
“Mewl all you want, bawl about murder and whatever god makes you cozy at night.
The future is coming through the implementation of CRISPR, and once that’s out of the bag, you can kiss goodbye forever such things as Down syndrome.
Everything will be edited at the genetic level. Imagine, if you will, you and your spouse have the free choice to have an edited child free of malady, gifted intellectually and physically.”
The everyone is equal thing doesn’t really work with genetic defects. An arms race of eugenic traits is going to ensue, with parents who don’t partake instantly at a fitness disadvantage. What if Hitler had DNA tests?
The question is only if we erase something important from the population with a superior group fitness advantage in a minority of cases e.g. genius. That’s why Asia is smart enough to research the genius DNA they don’t have before clipping it out before we know the full effects. That’s competitive…. on a racial level.

Based Bob says
“Is Iceland still boycotting Israel?”
There are genetic tests for being a Jew.
Reminder to all the biologists out there.
Amazingly, Israel developed these. The codes can be released online. Open science FTW.

Lefty tries to be edgy
“Trying to create a super race. Hey, what could possibly go wrong with that?
BTW, if medical science discovers the “gay gene” or the “trans-gender gene” and parents have the option of aborting the “defective” fetus, how will the cultural elites react? Will they be so quick to defend the mother’s right to choose? After all why raise imperfect children in this brave new world?”
Well, who are you to tell a person what to do with 18 years of their life and money?
Many parents want grandkids.
“You can’t end a person’s life because they have an illness or handicap.”
someone hasn’t followed the Trump-supported baby case
our State literally does that
every day
socialized healthcare
look up “care pathways”
AKA death pathways
children and the elderly placed on them
Then there’s this guy
“Now do the same thing with liberals…The world would be a great place!”
They already are, it’s genetically heritable. They’re aborting themselves.
“If we are all equal in the eyes of the creator, then the sick and disabled are no exception.”
Why would a God punish someone like that from conception?
And where is it in the Bible that someone God made to die shortly before or after birth should be intervened?
rare good point
“Simply a matter of religion, eh? Are you OK with capital punishment? After all, the person committing the capital crime made the free choice to do so.
I find it interesting that both sides of the abortion issue manage to take opposite sides on the capital punishment issue. Must be religion.”
Except it says in the Bible to enforce God’s law… by killing people, including adulterers.
Without modern medicine, I doubt most of those Downs fetuses would have survived, so it’s really a point of how much we should spend for the ego of the parents of the defective, who don’t want to pay for it themselves.
“Parents deserve a healthy baby, considering the substantial costs and sacrifices of parenting. To claim that some parents should be forced to raise a Downs child — that is a callous, cavalier observation. Make your own sacrifices. Leave others to decide theirs.”
However, I’ve heard of false negatives in every test and false positives.
They’re all based on probability.
“In cultures where infanticide was accepted (as opposed to outlawed, which is the case in all modern industrial nations), I’ve read that seriously deformed newborns were often caused to die by the parents not caring for them, or leaving them out in the open someplace away from the community. They did not have the resources to bear the burden of caring for them, and sometimes believed (wrongly) that these unfortunate babies were the work of some evil spirit.”
I wonder how many in the West would claim disability for themselves or a child if they couldn’t get paid for it.
Think of the incentives there. Many people who want to control and abuse someone need only prey on the vulnerable by taking those jobs, it’s like teaching as a profession that puts you in a position of trust, how is reducing the vulnerable a bad thing? You can also breed them at home, pedophiles have children for that reason.
“I thought this was what the right wanted…..people not to have babies they can’t take care of. sure, those on the high functioning end of the spectrum can be integrated, but the majority can’t be. and they will outlive their caregivers, who will die in poverty.”
The most interesting fact is that one of the key issues with Downs is in the amygdala.
Don’t liberals have an atrophied amygdala? Literally shrunken?
“The child has a defect that causes him to attack others and self harm.”
Then he should be in prison. Case closed. We have asylums for literally this reason. If you can’t behave.
“Not just with trisomy-21, but with all genetic diseases. Our short-sighted approach has created tens of thousands of new disabled people every year. We keep them alive and even allow them freedom to reproduce, adding hugely to total human suffering.”
Freedom to reproduce is also freedom to fail or to bear the consequences.
They don’t. They’re bred like cattle so government workers can claim more money.
“The same empathy that makes us want to help the poor baby on TV but ignore climate change makes us want to help the individual to the detriment of the whole. Empathy is irrational and evolved to help us predict the future actions of enemies and prey. The “mirror neurons” thought to be responsible for empathy have been found in another species – cats.”
A parent’s unconditional love can be irrational, it can be pathological altruism in abuse cases. Not to mention, whites show absurdly high-rates of ingroup compassion compared to others, it’s a weakness at this level.
Any time you see some whining bitch vomiting disease-positive claptrap all over you, search for the condition plus violence or abusive.
They’re often defending their abusers.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=down+syndrome+violent+behavior

They must tell themselves their ‘baby’ is always the victim because they cannot hit back.

Sounds healthy.