“Those poor girls who made bad choices may now be criminalized if they have an abortion.”
Good. Killing your own child should be a crime.
“a gross amount of time and resources will be spent on arguing against and preventing something that is not, and never was, a real problem, but another time wasting fantasy construct in the addled brains of religious people.”
Murder is a problem for normal humans. It is only narcissistic spiteful mutants like you who are ok with it.
No response, posts link.
Well played sir 
Naw, you’re good, Humz. i ain’t mad atcha. Technically, I’m from team “why are we all getting pregnant by accident or raped in the first place”, so i struggle with being forced to handle a problem (needing abortions) that shouldn’t be one.
You know what i mean. A ‘throw your hands up’ thing where it’s so stupid that we are even still having this problem on an epidemic scale in 2025.
It used to be that only monkeys and cavemen gathered in large groups and performed wanton sex acts often resulting in accidental pregnancies.
When you make abortions and contraceptives a lifestyle, so as to eliminate natural restrictions to human promiscuity - particularly female promiscuity - you are cultivating attitudes that diminish your ability to compete with other societies.
Eroding your human resources.
We can include all sexual practices that do not multiply but degenerate a population.
Ethics were meant to discipline individuals to collective interests.
Though individualism is a noble state, we cannot ignore the fact that it reduces a group’s cohesion, particularly a group with no shared racial, ehtnic or cultural identity.
I frown on sexual promiscuity as well for both men and women. I am a serial monogamist in that I believe that is the model of relationships that has worked for thousands of years. If we let sexual promiscuity flourish we weaken our society, culture, and nation.
Sexual degeneracy is a symptom of a civilization’s imminent end.
Monogamy was a technique that integrated males into a system, converting them from disruptive factors to concerned investors.
On that we agree.
There was a case here where a mentally ill drug addict of a woman had a severe neurological disorder where every time she would get pregnant giving birth to a child through sexual promiscuity she would give birth to severely disabled children with the most painful severe case of debilitating disease. Upon getting pregnant the eighth time the state was forced to intervene and sterilized her. I think in these rare emergency cases forced sterilization is a good thing, but only in severely rare cases deserving it.
My problem is with the Margaret Sangers of the world who believe poor people shouldn’t reproduce or have families of their own where only the very wealthy educated should have the ability in having families, that kind of thinking is very problematic.
I think if a woman has her kids taken away, or she surrenders them (including abortion)… you don’t wait that many kids to sterilize. Especially if she’s done time for abuse. Same with men.
If the girl is under the age of consent, that’s like criminalizing the slave instead of the master.
If they do own the lifeform inside them, then they have the right to destroy their property (I also think people have a right to kill themselves).
If the don’t own the life-forms inside them, they still have the right to remove it from them (as non-destructively as possible)
If the state wants the use of my property, it should pay me for it. Moreover, it should pay me a price I would accept in exchange for the use of my property.
For illustration (not a real or practicable solution but an illustration), imagine a reverse Dutch auction where women seeking abortions will be paid not to abort. The amount they will be paid slowly increases until someone accepts at that price. In that case, each woman who accepts has decided that for her, the use of her body for the state’s purposes for 9 months is worth the price offered.
Literally everyone who ever got an abortion would also prefer this.
I’d prefer they tell the truth, but otherwise I think this would be cool. The state should invest more in technologies that allow fetuses to be safely removed and brought to term in the event a mother wants to terminate the pregnancy.
I’ve never understood this line of thought, it doesn’t seem morally consistent. If it’s OK to terminate those pregnancies, why not others?
The phrase “medical building” is meant to evoke some sense of urgency and importance, like they are interfering with critical medical treatments.
Odds are, 0% of the women at the building had an “abortion emergency” like a life or death situation where the baby had to be aborted. If their actions did actually result in some life or death situation like that, then I agree it should be a felony.
There’s also the element of conspiracy, which requires an explicit agreement between the perpetrators and a specific intent to commit a criminal act.
A bit of a nitpick here but I feel it is a limitation of the English language. The word conspiracy implies something done in secret, to me at least. There should be a different word to differentiate between conspiracies and alliances done in the open.
I agree that doing this to an emergency room would be more urgent, but I’m not sure that’s the standard elsewhere. Compare with stealing a bunch of money by hacking into a bank: effectively zero implication for life or death, but definitely a felony.
I think it’s significant that this is a medical building even if it’s exclusively providing non-emergency care. Medical settings are inherently sensitive; throughout the law they’re treated differently, and not only because of life and death (e.g. medical information is covered one of the few federal privacy laws).
Imagine someone blockading the door to your home for two hours, physically preventing you from entering. That feels like a pretty extreme violation, right? Would that be a felony? I would think so, and I see a medical context as creating a similar violation.
And again, they did use physical force to blockade the clinic. When a crime involves the use of force, it always implicated life and death.
One question to consider is whether someone would have been justified in using violence against them to prevent what they were doing. If someone is blockading my home, I would be justified in using violence to remove the blockade. But I’m less sure in this case.
It doesn’t need to be public, just explicit, the conspirators actually have to agree between each other to participate in the criminal act. So a secret agreement still creates a conspiracy, it just might be hard to prove without one of the co-conspirators betraying the others.
I don’t think the agreement has to be in words, but I’m a bit rusty. I think a wink and a tilt of the head might be enough if it clearly communicates an intent to work together to commit a crime. And I expect the line is blurry as applied to mob violence.
All ethical rules prohibiting and limiting human behaviors are meant to preserve and enhance group cohesion and collective fitness, relative to other groups.
Just as organisms suffer the stress of natural selection, so too do groups, tribes, nations.
Every member is a cell in a larger organization.
That bit about monogamy. Yes, but it wasn’t as conspiratorial as you think until the industrial revolution.
It had normally developed out of alpha males being overstocked with options (so many hotties to hit), so there were hotties wandering around the camp lookin all sexy with hairy legs and pinecombs in their hair for middle and lower males to attend to.
Following this development, the next thing to happen was a division of labor and a new capacity to produce surplus goods. The best way to utilize this opportunity is to arrange your society and classes into such a way that the people are most efficient at maintaining its operations. The single private property managing family unit is the best way to do this.
Next, the higher classes use this model to pass on their inheritance to guarantee their children don’t have to become working class… and the working class produces a steady supply of next generation wage slaves via this stable single family unit.
I will now take your questions.
I don’t see it like that at all, the family unit has everything to do with child rearing, something that is more stable when a mother and father are both involved in a child’s life.
Also, as a man for the sake of sexual convenience, I can barely handle one woman in my life, it’s simply insanity to add more than one woman in my life, that’s the kind of constant mental stress or anxiety as a man I don’t really need. In that way monogamy just makes logical sense, one woman is hard enough to contend with, more than one woman of a polygamous society a man just becomes a sucker for self punishment.
“I can understand a rape victim having an abortion” (my edit)
You wouldn’t believe it, but this sentiment is almost coming from a hatred of men in a way you wouldn’t think.
A ‘rape baby’ is thought of as a parasite put into the body of a girl by a detestable freak. Here, the baby conveniently becomes merely a symbolic transgression and is no longer a human being. Easily disposed of. They are killing the idea of the alien creature invading the body of innocent young girl. It’s the girl that matters and the continuation of the belief that rape is a much more horrible thing than it really is (its been doctored over the years to sound worse that it is… this is an indirect effect of sex being criminalized and branded perverted and evil by christianity. Everything sexual becomes bloated and frightening)
This also shows that much of people’s interpretation of this problem betrays a strange and distorted view of human unity. They think a genetic bond between parent and child is something special (it is not) and, in believing this nonsense, they devalue the rape babies.
The woman accepted the price and so did the man upon the act of consensual sex with one another, the act itself was the exchange.
On rape I think abortion has to do with consensuality and revenge. “You raped me against my will impregnating me thus I am going to kill your offspring out of defiance to you.”
Still, in some religious cultures even if a woman is raped they still keep the child viewing all life as being sacred even if it came in existence through the act of rape itself. I suppose it revolves around what people believe or value.
"You raped me against my will impregnating me thus I am going to kill your offspring out of defiance to you.”
Oh shit wow i didn’t even think of that. Excellent insight! Happens all the time.