Are there any actual good pro-abortion arguments/books?

>thinking anyone has a right to life

kek

kek

KEK

this

most of the pro-choice arguments build on dehumanizing fetuses

If they aren't persons, then kill 'em imo

very edgy my fellow reditor

The only good argument that is pro life is that it takes the life of a future consumer and future tax payer.

Taking into account europeans nations are shaking becuase they can't pay enough taxes because they had no babies since decades ago, it seems dumb for a population rather than making babies, import black people from the thirld world.

This is the end game for feminism, rather than raising and taking care of the country babies, they import niggers.

Good luck.

Look up on the economics of abortion and you'll see abortion should be banned.

lazy bait gets lazy fish

Do you ever make posts that aren't about blacks and women?

>ignore the argument because of some pol shit

wow

capitalism really DOES decode everything

>The only good argument that is pro life is that it takes the life of a future consumer and future tax payer.

Uh, no. Here's the pro-life argument.

1: The unborn from the moment of conception is a human being
2: It is immoral to kill human beings
conclusion: Therefore, abortion is immoral.

1: Life is scientifically defined as a unique organism in the state of development. The unborn from the moment of conception is a unique human organism that is growing. That means the unborn is human.

2: Defends itself.

>2: It is immoral to kill human beings

I meant to say it is immoral to kill innocent human beings. That matters

the moral argument is a retarded one filled with semantic traps.

is the pleb argument for the low IQ religious massess and atheist fedoras.

is a garbage argument.

change it to the economic one and you see how nobody can't even argue against it.

>implying it's immoral to kill people
my sides
>implying it's immoral to kill innocents
even more my sides

Yes, if you're talking about retarded Americans who make it into a moral issue

What are these semantic traps?

and yet they are persuasive.

can you even consider people who fall for this thinking to be human?

why is everyone so inclusive? Clearly some "people" are insane machines of flesh. Kill them all

Oh man, you don't want to know about the traps. They'll make you question yourself in ways you can't even fathom.

changing the definitions to fit your political goals.

is a bullshit argument.

Please prove that a foetus has a right to life

I'm using the biological definition of life, a distinct organism in the state of development. If you have a better definition I would like to hear it and the justification for disregarding the scientific.

You let people starve and don't consider it murder. What if we do kill it but rather remove it from it's mother and if it survives it has every right to live.

because if you start to abort babies you soon have a demographic problem and you can't pay the elder pensiums, therefore the only logical conclusion is to import niggers to your white nation.

fucking retard.

there's not a single proper way to define when a fetus gain a soul (if you allow the religious argument), moving some weeks is simply some arbitrary BS reasoning.

may as well argue why you can't kill babies at this point, since they're not concius.

I don't let people starve. If they're hungry I'll give them something to eat so I don't know what you're talking about.

The act of removing the unborn from the only environment that it can survive is an act of killing in the same way that a parent locking a 2 year old child outside of the house during a blizzard is an act of killing. If one is murder than so is the other.

White women belong to me

>there's not a single proper way to define when a fetus gain a soul (if you allow the religious argument), moving some weeks is simply some arbitrary BS reasoning.

I have no idea what you're talking about with weeks and not killing babies at certain points. The unborn is a distinct human organism that is in the state of development from the moment of conception. That fulfills the biological definition of life. Do you understand that my argument is that it's wrong to kill from the very moment of conception onwards?

It is immoral to disallow abortions unless the state is willing to pay the expenses of raising a child, including healthcare and other things.

It's real easy to base your argument on morality since it is not clearly defined and you can twist it however you want :^)

People starve in this world. You are able to help. You do not help.

If that same child knocked on a strangers door would it be murder if they didn't let them in?

pls ignore then my answer.
I assumed you were pro choice.

>Needing to reason morality
>Being capable of reasoning morality
Y'all can't possibly be fucking serious.

So your argument is that in order to be pro-life I have to be active in charity and stuff like that right? Well by that logic you need be an active member of a neighborhood watch group in order to oppose robbery.

>If that same child knocked on a strangers door would it be murder if they didn't let them in?

That doesn't apply because the fetus in its scenario can't do a similar action in order to save its own life. The toddler in that scenario dies in the same way a fetus would when forced into an environment it can't survive.

There is actually. The soul is the human form and since at the moment of conception your form is developing you have a soul.

I may have fucked up my thomism, if anyone knows, please, correct me.

Most pro life folks donate to various missions in Africa and to the Church Caritas, but even if this wasn't the case, what you have is a non sequitur.

>this /pol/-tard arguing from """""economics"""""

No my argument is that what is and is not murder is unclear. Both arguments apply because the question of whether they are murders are questions of whether someone is obligated to care for someone that can't care for itself which is at the heart of the abortion argument.

If you see how white people are being genocided then you'd understand.

try the redpill

No it isn't because the question is to what degree are we morally obliged to care for those who can't care for themselves.

desu I think pro-choice jumped the gun at some point and became pro-death.

Not really. You just need not to kill it and sell it to the local slave ring.

>can't even counter the argument
>huh duh pol cries

70% of history and politics is demographics

>No my argument is that what is and is not murder is unclear.

It's perfectly clear, you just don't want it to be. If I had a magical device that could teleport you to the moon without a spacesuit and I hit that button which causes you to teleport the moon and die of exposure then I would be guilty of killing you.

If I remove a toddler from an environment that he could survive (inside the house) and locked him outside during a blizzard I would be guilty of killing that toddler.

If you remove a fetus from the environment that he can survive and put him into one that can't you would be guilty of killing that fetus.

Best anti abortion authors: David Oderberg and Elizabeth Anscombe.

?

Are they easy to read? I looked up Oderberg and the first thing I saw was metaphysics and that scares the shit out of me.

best pro-abortio writers

get it there are none bcuz they've all been aborted xDDDDDDDDDDD

You didn't answer my questions because you know you are incapable of answering them in a logically consistent way.

You don't believe parents are obligated to provide food and shelter for their kids? The only difference with the born and unborn is the type of food and shelter required. A parent can end the obligation they can't just dump their newborn babies off at a dumpster. They have to end their obligation through adoption but this isn't an option for the unborn.

No, not at all, read Don Marquis's paper

But again you never answered my questions.

What is your question?

anons who will never impregnate a woman are barred from these discussions, sorry

doesn't this mean that I have to defend the life of every single animal then?

2 was meant to be "it is immoral to kill innocent human life" so no, you don't have to be against the killing of every life or even every human life.

Are there any good arguments against abortion that do not center around demonoizing those who support it? Also why is it wrong to abort a pregnancy if the baby has yet to develop any consciousness?

Kant says abortion cannot be universalized so I agree, it's bad.

Why don't you read the thread and find out?

Are you obligated to feed someone who is starving?

Are you obligated to feed someone in Africa who is starving if you are capable of it?

If a small child knocks on a door in a snowstorm and isn't welcomed in are the homeowners guilty of murder?

Because it will develop a conciousness regardless. You are basing the foetus in mechanism rather than organic life, you're fucked.

>abortion cannot be universalized
but that's wrong, we can universalize it and it would solve all suffering

Not an argument.

This is my usual response when somebody brings up consciousness is a way to define life.

The scientific definition of life is a distinct organism that is in the state of development. The unborn from the moment of conception is a distinct human organism that is growing so that makes it a human. A lot of people will disregard this in favor of a purely philosophical definition of life or "personhood" but I don't think this is justified. Thinking and feeling are actions that humans can perform but to say those are what makes us human commits the fallacy of confusing cause and effect. You have to be a human before you can act like one, so you would have be a human before you can think or feel like one.

Suppose in the future with advanced technology we could figure out a way to temporarily shut down our brains. I don't think we would be able to call ourselves inhuman while our brains were shut down and for this reason the ability to think or feel should not be what defines humanity. The problem with this naturalistic approach where you assign value and rights based on the intelligence or awareness of the creature is that I think a good argument could be made that dolphins and whales are more intelligent and aware then a newborn baby. To the naturalist this could mean the dolphin and whale are more "human" than the newborn baby and more deserving of protection. I think we could agree that would be a silly belief because we all recognize on at least some level that there is a sort of "humanness" to humanity that goes beyond the capabilties of the brain or level of development.

>Are you obligated to feed someone who is starving?
>Are you obligated to feed someone in Africa who is starving if you are capable of it?
Yes, It's called tax.

>If a small child knocks on a door in a snowstorm and isn't welcomed in are the homeowners guilty of murder?

Also yes, literally.

What type of questions are theses?

Schops leave and don't come back until you've taken the leap of faith

You're not necessarily obligated to feed somebody unless you are the reason they are starving. Like if you did something to them that caused them to rely on you, like destroy their livelihood in the case of the beggar or engage in an act that has the natural consequence of creating a life that depends on you as is the case of the unborn.

It is impossible to have a logically consistent worldview and be pro abortion. Either you support the killing of innocent humans in order to convenience others, or you don't. If you do, there are a whole host of corollaries that logically follow which you almost certainly don't agree with.

>2: Defends itself.
Kill yourself my man

Justify killing innocent human beings. I won't hold my breath.

Rape?