does no one lie in the middle of pro-choice/pro-life?

[Roih Uvet]

Lucky~9~Lives

Roih Uvet

3) Mass infanticide of children we can't support. The consequences of this are armed revolution, simply put.

Whereas the consequences of mass forced abortions will simply be, what - loud tutting?

Pretty much.

[Roih Uvet]

mnhnrnnyng

Roih Uvet

mnhnrnnyng

Roih Uvet

I'm neither pro-choice nor pro-life, I'm outright pro-abortion at this point. Not only should we be giving everyone easy access to whatever kind of birth control they want, including sterilization on demand, we should be taxpayer funding it, and abortion. And also, in some cases, abortion should be compulsory, like when the mother is unfit. Maybe we should have a license requirement to have children, I don't know.

But truth is, we've automated away so much work that we don't need more people. We just don't. There are enough people already. And policy should reflect this reality.

That will cause so many problems. It may sound good in your head, but it is actually really horrible.
Th government will then decide what an "unfit" parent is. Actually, the government where I am has.
An unfit parent can be one or more of the following:
single
poor
have been in foster care
have relatives with mental illness/addiction despite the mother not having any problems
Aboriginal

Take the last point into consideration. My government believes native women are unfit mothers. If they were all to be given forced abortions, instead of having their kid taken away for no reason which is what's going on right now, we now have the problem the government is breeding out the Aboriginals again still.
By being pro-abortion in this sense, you are supporting genocide.
My body, my choice: I understand that.
Forcing a woman who doesn't want an abortion to have an abortion: that's cruel.

All of those examples, save for maybe the aboriginals (they should have the opportunity to demonstrate their value) make perfect sense. If you can't support your child, you shouldn't have one.

Bear in mind that I'm in favor of a lot of government investment in infrastructure which, by its nature, means a lot of jobs, and I also want to pay the people that work these jobs well.

However, this welfare state s**t needs to stop. We have real problems to resolve, and the only people who deserve shekels in this case are people that actually advance things. So let's have a breakdown of what happens when an unfit mother has a child because she's too stubborn to get a ******** abortion, and was too dumb to use birth control in the first place.

We are left with three options, and I'm going to tell you the consequences of each of them. We can:
1) Finance these kids' food, education, and so on until they are of age through taxation, or a similar mechanism like increased insurance premiums where you're legally obligated to buy it. The consequences of this is that there is no longer any motivation to select a suitable male to breed with, since it's provided for anyway. It also burdens the rest of the population, as millions of working people -- the ones that build society and make it what it is -- now are held to parental account, albeit indirectly, for children that aren't theirs. This is the mass disenfranchisement of male reproductive imperatives; they are socially obligated to support children that aren't their own. Cue mass refusal to marry, cue resignation into NEET-ism, and in spending more time playing video games or jerking off to porn. Men might not be entitled to sexual or romantic opportunity from women, but on the other hand, women are not entitled to productive conduct from men. And yes, women do need that conduct; history has shown it. And yes, these policies actively disincentivize productive conduct.

2) Tell these women that they have made their bed with this new child and they can sink or swim. This is considerably crueler than the first one, because many of these women will be reduced to outright prostitution to support their offspring, and many of these children will die of starvation. Those that don't are likely to be uneducated, illiterate, and disenfranchised even worse than the men I described above. The consequences of this are a fundamental breakdown of social order, as food riots erupt and a generation of imbecilic malcontents grow up unprepared to take over the operation of their civilization after their parents grow old and senile.

3) Mass infanticide of children we can't support. The consequences of this are armed revolution, simply put.

So when you tell me that your reproductive apparatus is sacrosanct, you tell me that at worst my child will be actively killed if I'm poor at the time my wife gives birth to it (I own a gun--bad move) and at best that I exist to finance the children of some t**t too stupid and incompetent to keep her legs closed, or, failing that, use birth control, or take advantage of government-funded abortion. Yes, it's her poor decision making that I have to correct, now. But no, God forbid we restrict which poor choices she is allowed to make in the first place. Another bad move, because it incentivizes outright hedonism on my part, and that means seeking pleasure -- not production. If you want me to produce for the next generation, I'm going to have to be in on the gene pool, plain and simple.

Can you imagine the distress a woman would go through being forced to kill her baby?

So it's a baby now? I've been told for years that it isn't a baby, merely a fetus.

My rebuttal to this is: you want to allow mothers to kill their babies at all?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Roih Uvet

Lucky~9~Lives

Roih Uvet

3) Mass infanticide of children we can't support. The consequences of this are armed revolution, simply put.

Whereas the consequences of mass forced abortions will simply be, what - loud tutting?

Pretty much.

"...babies born alive are killed." - the response seems comparable in both cases i.e. if you're (not) going to stand by and let your child be killed, you're (not) going to stand by while your pregnant partner is forced to abort.

[Roih Uvet]

Lucky~9~Lives

Roih Uvet

Lucky~9~Lives

Roih Uvet

3) Mass infanticide of children we can't support. The consequences of this are armed revolution, simply put.

Whereas the consequences of mass forced abortions will simply be, what - loud tutting?

Pretty much.

"...babies born alive are killed." - the response seems comparable in both cases i.e. if you're (not) going to stand by and let your child be killed, you're (not) going to stand by while your pregnant partner is forced to abort.

I was actually linking to the forced abortion in China section. I completely overlooked the North Korea section. They also seem to be doing it to prisoners, who always get treated particularly harshly worldwide.

That said, North Korea is a particularly oppressive state, so I imagine that people there are more inclined to tolerate this kind of thing. I don't think mass infanticide would last very long in the Western World.

[mnhnrnnyng]

Roih Uvet

mnhnrnnyng

Roih Uvet

mnhnrnnyng

Roih Uvet

I'm neither pro-choice nor pro-life, I'm outright pro-abortion at this point. Not only should we be giving everyone easy access to whatever kind of birth control they want, including sterilization on demand, we should be taxpayer funding it, and abortion. And also, in some cases, abortion should be compulsory, like when the mother is unfit. Maybe we should have a license requirement to have children, I don't know.

But truth is, we've automated away so much work that we don't need more people. We just don't. There are enough people already. And policy should reflect this reality.

That will cause so many problems. It may sound good in your head, but it is actually really horrible.
Th government will then decide what an "unfit" parent is. Actually, the government where I am has.
An unfit parent can be one or more of the following:
single
poor
have been in foster care
have relatives with mental illness/addiction despite the mother not having any problems
Aboriginal

Take the last point into consideration. My government believes native women are unfit mothers. If they were all to be given forced abortions, instead of having their kid taken away for no reason which is what's going on right now, we now have the problem the government is breeding out the Aboriginals again still.
By being pro-abortion in this sense, you are supporting genocide.
My body, my choice: I understand that.
Forcing a woman who doesn't want an abortion to have an abortion: that's cruel.

All of those examples, save for maybe the aboriginals (they should have the opportunity to demonstrate their value) make perfect sense. If you can't support your child, you shouldn't have one.

Bear in mind that I'm in favor of a lot of government investment in infrastructure which, by its nature, means a lot of jobs, and I also want to pay the people that work these jobs well.

However, this welfare state s**t needs to stop. We have real problems to resolve, and the only people who deserve shekels in this case are people that actually advance things. So let's have a breakdown of what happens when an unfit mother has a child because she's too stubborn to get a ******** abortion, and was too dumb to use birth control in the first place.

We are left with three options, and I'm going to tell you the consequences of each of them. We can:
1) Finance these kids' food, education, and so on until they are of age through taxation, or a similar mechanism like increased insurance premiums where you're legally obligated to buy it. The consequences of this is that there is no longer any motivation to select a suitable male to breed with, since it's provided for anyway. It also burdens the rest of the population, as millions of working people -- the ones that build society and make it what it is -- now are held to parental account, albeit indirectly, for children that aren't theirs. This is the mass disenfranchisement of male reproductive imperatives; they are socially obligated to support children that aren't their own. Cue mass refusal to marry, cue resignation into NEET-ism, and in spending more time playing video games or jerking off to porn. Men might not be entitled to sexual or romantic opportunity from women, but on the other hand, women are not entitled to productive conduct from men. And yes, women do need that conduct; history has shown it. And yes, these policies actively disincentivize productive conduct.

2) Tell these women that they have made their bed with this new child and they can sink or swim. This is considerably crueler than the first one, because many of these women will be reduced to outright prostitution to support their offspring, and many of these children will die of starvation. Those that don't are likely to be uneducated, illiterate, and disenfranchised even worse than the men I described above. The consequences of this are a fundamental breakdown of social order, as food riots erupt and a generation of imbecilic malcontents grow up unprepared to take over the operation of their civilization after their parents grow old and senile.

3) Mass infanticide of children we can't support. The consequences of this are armed revolution, simply put.

So when you tell me that your reproductive apparatus is sacrosanct, you tell me that at worst my child will be actively killed if I'm poor at the time my wife gives birth to it (I own a gun--bad move) and at best that I exist to finance the children of some t**t too stupid and incompetent to keep her legs closed, or, failing that, use birth control, or take advantage of government-funded abortion. Yes, it's her poor decision making that I have to correct, now. But no, God forbid we restrict which poor choices she is allowed to make in the first place. Another bad move, because it incentivizes outright hedonism on my part, and that means seeking pleasure -- not production. If you want me to produce for the next generation, I'm going to have to be in on the gene pool, plain and simple.

Can you imagine the distress a woman would go through being forced to kill her baby?

So it's a baby now? I've been told for years that it isn't a baby, merely a fetus.

My rebuttal to this is: you want to allow mothers to kill their babies at all?

That's up for debate.
If you did that to a mother who wanted to keep the baby, that would destroy her emotional.
It's one thing for a sound woman to make a decision on her own to abort the baby, because her body her choice.
That's physical and emotional abuse to force a woman to go through that.

[Roih Uvet]

mnhnrnnyng

Roih Uvet

mnhnrnnyng

Roih Uvet

mnhnrnnyng

Roih Uvet

I'm neither pro-choice nor pro-life, I'm outright pro-abortion at this point. Not only should we be giving everyone easy access to whatever kind of birth control they want, including sterilization on demand, we should be taxpayer funding it, and abortion. And also, in some cases, abortion should be compulsory, like when the mother is unfit. Maybe we should have a license requirement to have children, I don't know.

But truth is, we've automated away so much work that we don't need more people. We just don't. There are enough people already. And policy should reflect this reality.

That will cause so many problems. It may sound good in your head, but it is actually really horrible.
Th government will then decide what an "unfit" parent is. Actually, the government where I am has.
An unfit parent can be one or more of the following:
single
poor
have been in foster care
have relatives with mental illness/addiction despite the mother not having any problems
Aboriginal

Take the last point into consideration. My government believes native women are unfit mothers. If they were all to be given forced abortions, instead of having their kid taken away for no reason which is what's going on right now, we now have the problem the government is breeding out the Aboriginals again still.
By being pro-abortion in this sense, you are supporting genocide.
My body, my choice: I understand that.
Forcing a woman who doesn't want an abortion to have an abortion: that's cruel.

All of those examples, save for maybe the aboriginals (they should have the opportunity to demonstrate their value) make perfect sense. If you can't support your child, you shouldn't have one.

Bear in mind that I'm in favor of a lot of government investment in infrastructure which, by its nature, means a lot of jobs, and I also want to pay the people that work these jobs well.

However, this welfare state s**t needs to stop. We have real problems to resolve, and the only people who deserve shekels in this case are people that actually advance things. So let's have a breakdown of what happens when an unfit mother has a child because she's too stubborn to get a ******** abortion, and was too dumb to use birth control in the first place.

We are left with three options, and I'm going to tell you the consequences of each of them. We can:
1) Finance these kids' food, education, and so on until they are of age through taxation, or a similar mechanism like increased insurance premiums where you're legally obligated to buy it. The consequences of this is that there is no longer any motivation to select a suitable male to breed with, since it's provided for anyway. It also burdens the rest of the population, as millions of working people -- the ones that build society and make it what it is -- now are held to parental account, albeit indirectly, for children that aren't theirs. This is the mass disenfranchisement of male reproductive imperatives; they are socially obligated to support children that aren't their own. Cue mass refusal to marry, cue resignation into NEET-ism, and in spending more time playing video games or jerking off to porn. Men might not be entitled to sexual or romantic opportunity from women, but on the other hand, women are not entitled to productive conduct from men. And yes, women do need that conduct; history has shown it. And yes, these policies actively disincentivize productive conduct.

2) Tell these women that they have made their bed with this new child and they can sink or swim. This is considerably crueler than the first one, because many of these women will be reduced to outright prostitution to support their offspring, and many of these children will die of starvation. Those that don't are likely to be uneducated, illiterate, and disenfranchised even worse than the men I described above. The consequences of this are a fundamental breakdown of social order, as food riots erupt and a generation of imbecilic malcontents grow up unprepared to take over the operation of their civilization after their parents grow old and senile.

3) Mass infanticide of children we can't support. The consequences of this are armed revolution, simply put.

So when you tell me that your reproductive apparatus is sacrosanct, you tell me that at worst my child will be actively killed if I'm poor at the time my wife gives birth to it (I own a gun--bad move) and at best that I exist to finance the children of some t**t too stupid and incompetent to keep her legs closed, or, failing that, use birth control, or take advantage of government-funded abortion. Yes, it's her poor decision making that I have to correct, now. But no, God forbid we restrict which poor choices she is allowed to make in the first place. Another bad move, because it incentivizes outright hedonism on my part, and that means seeking pleasure -- not production. If you want me to produce for the next generation, I'm going to have to be in on the gene pool, plain and simple.

Can you imagine the distress a woman would go through being forced to kill her baby?

So it's a baby now? I've been told for years that it isn't a baby, merely a fetus.

My rebuttal to this is: you want to allow mothers to kill their babies at all?

That's up for debate.
If you did that to a mother who wanted to keep the baby, that would destroy her emotional.
It's one thing for a sound woman to make a decision on her own to abort the baby, because her body her choice.
That's physical and emotional abuse to force a woman to go through that.

Quite frankly, I don't care. Fact of the matter is, your reproductive apparatus shouldn't be held in some kind of especially sacrosanct esteem. The world doesn't revolve around any one person and their bullshit. Just as you do not exist to produce my children, I do not exist to finance your children.

Not to mention, the fact that I had to sign up for the selective service, where I was subject to conscription at any time at the sole discretion of the brass, makes me a little bit less sympathetic to the plight of some hypothetical woman who is obligated to undergo a safe medical procedure that would prevent me from having to spend the next 20-25 years of my life in tax bondage to her spawn, in the form of some combination of food stamps, day care, public education, college grants, and the list goes on. Quite frankly, ******** that noise -- the kind of taxation required to finance that s**t is obnoxious, and I should not be obligated to finance everyone else's bad reproductive decisions.

I am not your living utility. I do not exist to serve you, or your reproductive choices.

So if we can't have forced abortion because MUH BODDEE, then we can't have everyone else taking respsonibility for the consequences of the choices you make with MUH BODDEEE, and we are only left with the middle option of: sink or swim.

That means no more food stamps, no more WIC, no more compulsory health insurance that covers your birth control pills, no more Title IX de facto quotas.

Your body, your choice, your problem. Sink or swim, lady.

Please and thank you.