/wiz/ - Wizardry

It depends on the race of the babies they're aborting.

>>226191
I disagree.
I think race and even species is irrelevant.
If they're conscious they matter

The fetus doesn't develop a brain until several weeks after conception, so abortion is not different than practicing an appendectomy.

If pro-lifers cared about children they wouldn't support right-wing extremists who cut welfare.

>>226190
the real problem is they arent aborting enough.
there is way too many brown people, way too many jeets and way too many niggers. most of this scum doesnt even want to raise children or give them a good life.
not aborting them is the real crime, a crime thats committed against everyone else. letting these pests expand exponentially is not gonna reduce suffering or improve things for anyone.
imo there should be some sort of licensing system where you have to pay 10000 dollars to make a parenting test, if you pass you are allowed to bring children to the world.
if you fail or the pregnancy is illegal the child is aborted and the roastie and the man responsible are chemically castrated and forced into work camps for decades.

>>226199
>the real problem is they arent aborting enough.

>not aborting them is the real crime

As a person who grep up fatherless AND has to deal with the consequences of my mom growing up fatherless herself… I won't disagree with you; thus, disagreeing with the consensus human life costs more than any material goodies.

>>226190
Christcucks are obnoxious and you people belong on a cross.

>>226198
>the pre born aren't conscious and abortion isn't immoral until the 2nd or third trimester

Nope.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zkH3vrevU9o

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brKhhZlUoOc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VIwWhdvrYRE

The earliest case for which I believe the precautionary principle should hold was around 43-45 days. Which comes out to be 6.1-6.4 weeks.

The fetal brain begins to develop around 3-5 weeks gestation. So I am okay with abortions prior to that timeframe.

It's hard to say what the levels of sentience equate to at each week. But I wouldn't not assume this is a miniscule amount of sentience. Many EEG brain patterns observed in fetal brains as early as 6.1-6.4 weeks ( high voltage
slow waves with superimposed fast activity) are comparable to mature birds, mature frogs, mature rabbits and the mature marmot. We can even observe sleep spindles in the fetal brain this early.

Does this prove the same degree of sentience? No. Does this give us reason to take the precautionary principle with respect to this degree of sentience? Yes

https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWMVqkRuj4

>>226203
99% of people are too retarded to entertain any such factual points of consideration (like when sentience begins), for the vast masses this is purely a religious matter or lack thereof.

Practically nobody views this from the perspective and benefit of the fetus itself. Everyone is hung up on religious scripture or personal feelings on the matter and that will never change because as I said, most people are retarded.

It's not a black-and-white matter with a yes or no answer. The ethics greatly depend on the age of the creature living inside someone else.

Like someone said above, up until a certain point it's not even an autonomous creature, it's a clump of cells. But that's no longer the case at 4-5 months when it has a brain and can detect sounds and light stimuli from the outside world.

>>226203
Can you link sources for these claims that aren't just youtube videos?
>>226263
>99% of people are too retarded to entertain any such factual points of consideration (like when sentience begins), for the vast masses this is purely a religious matter or lack thereof
It's partly because they're retarded but also because they don't actually care in the first place.

>>226265
That is also correct. Most people alive don't know anyone who had an abortion or anyone in their inner circle who was affected by it in any way.
It's always been a fringe phenomena and alway will be.

For example even the US had less than a million abortions in 2023 and some of those were statistically twins or higher. The US population size in its' entirety is 340 million.
So less than 0,3% of the population is concerned by it.

We're an antinatalist site boyo. Abortion is moral because it prevents the baby from suffering in the future.

considering most aborted babies are inferior races, no. Without abortion we would have even MORE worthless mutt nigger babies with single moms littering the streets

>>226190
I don't really give a shit if someone terminates their unborn child or not. If anything I'd agree with the others here that this planet is too crowded as it is and continuing to increase the population is just gonna fuck things more quickly and more badly. So I want people (especially in countries with high birthrates like those in Africa or Asia) to abort more, if anything. Developed countries are on a good trend with population decline.

Dunno about 'botionists…



…but that's why I refused to have the slightest chance to become a "stork"*



* 'tis a jargon

>>226276
>We're an antinatalist site
I wish.
Some anons here are even Christian, lmao..
It's a very heterogeneous imageboard.

>>226190
>Is killing abortionists morally justified?
Who is this normalfag poster?

New debate: is killing pro-lifers morally justified?

>>226366
Only if they want to overturn law and oppress others, so I would say dangerous fascists like Charlie Kirk can be killed for the sake of everyone else. Same with islamists.

>>226372
"Instead of encouraging people to make the world a better place, or protecting the vulnerable with the best of my ability, let's murder unborn children, encourage the whores who do, and conveniently overlook that these same murderers are the ones who made the world shitty in the first place!"

Incredible logic. Fuck off back to reddit.

>>226372
A completely nonsensical analogy. It's like a math equation that makes sense on paper, but catastrophically implodes in real life.

Instead of condemning the adults who engage in rampant prostitution and betrayal against each other and the children, in your infinite wisdom and incredible bravery, you promote the murder of the most helpless and weak of all people: unborn babies. Absolutely evil.

>>226373
>>226375
Death people can't experience shitty lives so you're doing them a favor by killing them

>>226376
>Death people can't experience shitty lives so you're doing them a favor by killing them

Remember that when you're arguing with an anti-natalist online, it's almost always going to be some deformed malnourished brown favela mutant with no grasp of any language. Don't get too riled up.

>>226376
good point

>>226378
Black-Or-White, False Cause, ad hominem, composition/division, anecdotal and genetic by my measure.

It is an entirely rational position to not want one's resources taken by someone else, especially when the taker does so as a consequence of their voluntary lifestyle choice. There is a coherent case to be made that children do not count as individuals until they can feed and protect themselves - instead acting for all purposes as a 'feature' of their parents or caregivers. In every European nation and most of their former colonies this is state subsidised, i.e. paid for through taxes on men who receive no net benefit.

Provision of abortion treatments provides an option to people who may act on it for their own benefit.
The *only* variable which is not yet determined is if there is a net benefit to a community that filters out the obvious loss makers compared to exploiting said loss makers to crowd out other communities. Historically the answer to that was in favor of the crowders, but with automatic weapons and trait selective abortion that may not be valid any more. Cultures that thought otherwise were fought and bred out of existence and their subjugator's influence is still in place. If the context has shifted through applied science to the point it's maladaptive then the culture will need to shift as well.

So to the OP, who's morals?

The culture that killed and/or bred out their competitors? If you're east or central European this is the Mongols and the Turks. If you're Western European this would be the Vikings. If you're American you yourself are the invader and breeder's spawn back to the 3rd generation easily. If you're Japanese then your ancestors answer for the Ainu. India is an example of outbreeding the invader.

The culture that was never invaded and achieved population control and trait selection through other means? Iceland with its regulated avoidance of inbreeding comes to mind. Arguably the caste system in India which provides a steady supply of exploitable disposables, and preserves the quality as a feature of culture.

The culture that has such historical economic dysfunction that it needs constant influx of native born and foreign workers to survive? (All of Europe and colonies)

If you're asking for where the moral value is determined, I suggest you have not been paying attention to the demands of your surrounding culture.

If you're seeking some outside culture force to make the value judgement for you, there's a name for that.

>>226388
Breeders do actually benefit childless men like me. A nation doesn't have future workers and taxpayers without someone giving birth to them.
They also make social security/pension payments once I'm old solely for my benefit, they're only guessing and hoping they'll be beneficiaries in 40-50 years.

Circumventing the problem by importing third world people still means someone somewhere has to give birth to them first, since you can't spawn new humans out of nowhere.

Would you write on this board if your parents didn't breed?

>>226390
If you're a NEET and a net loss to the system, then what you're effectively doing is promoting and perpetuating your own dysfunction without even having the "benefit" of reproducing. If you're a net gain to the system then you're advocating inefficiency and your own disadvantage.

Norway and Denmark are the only Yurp nations running an actual sustainable budget surplus - with Norway being an (important) outlier because they managed to manage their oil resources exploitation by private/foreign interests. Every other wealthy nation is endebting the current and future population primarily to pay for net losses. Even importing wealthy skilled foreigners is a bad idea because any wealthy foreigner of means will have an accountant on payroll somewhere to never be subject to more tax than benefit they receive.

Denmark is especially noteworthy because they had active eugenics laws into the late 60s and are *still* reaping the benefits.

Social Security/Pension payments is nationally variable; In my case my contribution has already outweighed any benefit I would get from it unless I some how live until 110. That's based solely on a projection of stable interest and the value of receipts - it takes no consideration of *opportunity costs*. I'd have a larger or even a third side business if I could afford the home - and work space - an extra $900/month that has been burnt up over the last 10 years of my life by the state social programs and interest payments made to fund them.

The problem is that most modernised economies are built on the assumption of cheap and disposable labor *somewhere*. The rent seekers propped up and fortified by this arrangement will seek to perpetuate it at the expense of everyone else - and call it privatised social security and pension contributions. They will then, if and when the system stumbles a little, borrow from the future to pay off their gambling debts as they have done at least 4 times in the last 20 years. This is the reality of techno-feudalism.

And the only solution to feudalism is the cull - as happened with the black death. If labor is *scarce* then it's value *goes up* and there is both greater incentive to adopt truly efficient and modern practices, active drive to dispose of bullshit jobs that accomplish nothing of lasting value, and greater opportunities available to the skilled worker to apply his skills and resources. Otherwise he just leaves to find somewhere that has a better return for his efforts - if the state he lives in hasn't hamstrung his ability to do so.

Pro-natalism induces and supports feudalism - with better marketing in the modern era.