/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.

>>226388
>
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.

Fun fact: VIKING TIER culture of Novgorod (runes and such) is being refurbished by Russians (in a sense) - and maybe it will coexist with
> the Mongols and the Turks
> competitors

Killing doctors that perform abortions is wrong. What next, killing succubi that have abortions? Abortion is not considered murder per se. I know someone that refused to get an abortion and the baby lived less than 2 hours and might of been in physical pain etc because she was fucked up. Aborting a downs/autistic/etc fetus might stop a consciousness being trapped in a body with a bad life. Abortion is definitely ok in cases of rape and incest. I don't know a lot about abortion though.

>>226190
Morals doesn't matter, unless you're a peasant. Any crime is justifiable for the elite, including killing and abortion. The weak submit to the strong, because otherwise they would be strong themselves. That said, I don't care about dead babies.

No, abortion is barbaric, human life is sacred, a just civilization can't play with the idea that human life can be negotiated, literally abortion is the first step for destroy minimal citizens rights, is easy kill babies, but this is just the first step for barbarism, the minorities are the next….

>>227626
Are you aware that a few weeks old fetus doesn't have a brain or you just deny evidence? In my country abortion is legal up to the third month and it is a fair timespan for the mother to decide if they want to keep the child or not, anyone that denies this is barbaric, prioritizing a stupid fetus over a grown adult is barbaric.

>>227627
>saving the life of a baby is barbaric

Your mother's asshole is barbaric.

>>227630
>Nigger grasping at straws to desperately 'prove' how inhuman a fetus is.

Kill yourself.

>>226192
>If they're conscious they matter
You want to subject them to 80 years of pointless suffering?

>>226190
I have no problem with abortion, at least if it somehow ends the suffering in the world, that's fine with me.
But if it weren't necessary in some way (or there are more enginered or magical alternatives), I wouldn't support it because we are denying life. I dont want to kill i just want end of suffering.
>Also
The truth is, I don't want sick people or people who come into this world just to suffer.
I don't know if it's a correct or healthy or spiritually good view, but I started to see it in that way.
I believe we live in the best of the ages to live with tech and health but in same way there's still suffering we need to help.
I just want to people to be happy and not sad in this world.

NO MATTER WHERE I GO ON THE INTERNET NOW I CANT GET AWAY FROM CHRISTCUCKS AND THEIR SMOOTHBRAIN NIGGERBABBLE

I AM GOING FUCKING INSANE
I DONT FEEL WELL

>>227645

https://reducing-suffering.org/habitat-loss-not-preservation-generally-reduces-wild-animal-suffering/

https://reducing-suffering.org/humanitys-net-impact-on-wild-animal-suffering/

https://benthams.substack.com/p/insect-suffering-is-the-biggest-issue?utm_source=publication-search

Every extra human alive means way way way way less wild animal suffering. Even if that human lives a kind of miserable life it still prevents way more suffering than it causes

>>227645
>I believe we live in the best of the ages to live with tech and health
Wow no, how can you be so naive? Tech is destroying humanity, tech allowed humans to reproduce like rabbits and to be monitored 24/h, so now we're all slaves. And healthcare prolonged life to insane amounts now you have 90 years old individuals holding up wealth while young people die from cancer because of psych drugs. We live in the worst times, there has never been so much harm in the world.

>>226190
>Another problem with this utilitarian line of thinking is I find it hard to believe both utilitarianism is true and God is real at the same time. If God is real and utilitarianism is true then why is there so much suffering and pain in this world of humans and wild animals? Why not just let everyone instantly start in heaven and have no earth full of suffering?

Objective list theory. There’s other intrinsic goods besides pleasure like relationships https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-archon-abandonment-theodicy?triedRedirect=true

Pro-life advocates often frame their position as a deep concern for the sanctity of an unborn child’s life, but that concern seems to evaporate the moment the child is actually born. Once the pregnancy is carried to term, the same voices that insisted on moral responsibility frequently show little interest in ensuring that child has access to healthcare, education, food security, or a stable home. The rhetoric centers heavily on birth itself, treating it as the finish line rather than the starting point of a lifelong need for care, support, and protection. This selective compassion makes the argument feel hollow, as if the value of life only matters in theory, not in the lived reality that follows delivery.
From this perspective, the debate feels less like a genuine ethical stance and more like a system that prioritizes producing bodies over nurturing human beings. After birth, responsibility is pushed onto parents, communities with limited resources, or an overstretched social safety net that many pro-life politicians actively oppose expanding. The result is a society that demands birth at all costs but refuses to meaningfully invest in what comes after, leaving many children to struggle from the very beginning. It creates the impression that the true motivation is maintaining a steady supply of future workers and taxpayers rather than grappling honestly with the moral complexities of life, dignity, and collective responsibility.

Wish there was a way to give the baby a fighting chance lol

>>227657
This is a good post, well-written and philosophically demanding.

What is life? Is it just a heartbeat or perhaps the union of all experiences required to shape a soul?
The world we live in despite being densely populated doesn't seem to honour life, individuals are mere employers if you don't produce you're sentenced to misery, all leaders of the nations want more soldiers for their country, the few that can prosper from wealth would rather kill us than share it.

>>227657
Obviously, pro-lifers aren’t primarily motivated merely by a desire to “save babies” or — at this point I audibly chuckled — “maximizing the number of babies in the world.” If I’m right that the pro-life movement is primarily a civil rights movement for unborn humans, then what motivated pro-lifers won’t be an Effective Altruist concern with saving lives from natural deaths or maximising aggregate foetal utility, but ending an ongoing civil rights violation. Regardless of what subconsciously motivates pro-lifers, this is what they say they’re about. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Tiny_You/HfHKDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover


It’s true that pro-life campaigns often use the language of “saving babies”. But what they mean, obviously, is saving babies from being murdered, not saving babies from preventable illnesses.

Question for abortion defenders: how many pro-lifers — in their capacity as pro-lifers, not as pro-natalists who also happen to be pro-life — have, in conversation with you, characterised the pro-life view as the view that we ought to maximise the number of babies in the world?

Off the top of my head, here are several reasons why pro-lifers might support foreign aid cuts that don’t contradict the pro-life view on abortion: (1) they’ve been taken in by right-wing misinformation about PEPFAR funding https://wollenblog.substack.com/p/every-argument-against-pepfar-debunked and other USAID money being used to fund abortions in foreign countries; (2) they regard the post-abortive care that USAID money does support as formal cooperation in evil; (3) they’ve heard iterations of the Angus Deaton-style argument https://www.brookings.edu/articles/angus-deaton-his-nobel-prize-and-foreign-aid/ that foreign aid is bad for the countries it goes to; (4) they’re part of the MAGA cult and will think anything Trump tells them to think; (5) they have an increasingly and disturbingly common view about the role of the State, according to which the US government only has moral reason to spend money on US citizens; (6) they’ve been taken in by recent claims that tons of USAID money is being wasted on spreading wokeness in foreign countries. Collectively, these reasons suffice to explain why many pro-life Americans are fine with USAID cuts, despite thinking that abortion is murder.

>>227661
Also, most pro-lifers are folk deontologists who accept a common sense killing vs. letting-die distinction, according to which killing a baby is normally worse than letting them die. This explains why pro-lifers are much more aggrieved by abortion — an active killing — than by babies dying naturally of disease.

With respect to contraception, I think it’s pretty obvious why pro-lifers aren’t showering condoms from helicopters. The pro-life movement is disproportionately lead by Catholics, and Catholics who take their faith seriously tend to think contraception is intrinsically evil, because it frustrates the reproductive purpose of sex. Additionally, many pro-lifers think hormonal contraceptives and IUDs have post fertilization effects, https://deveradoctrina.substack.com/p/hormonal-contraception-the-iud-and meaning they sometimes work by preventing a blastocyst from implanting post-fertilization. Whether these claims are true or not is a matter of controversy, but the fact that many pro-lifers believe these claims — and are encouraged in their belief by the US Food and Drug Administration https://scholarworks.iu.edu/iuswrrest/api/core/bitstreams/f91d4c77-c462-4c8d-9e6f-cb23c13ea71a/content part-explains why even non-Catholic pro-lifers would oppose IUDs and the pill. Third, many pro-lifers think that promiscuous sex is bad for both men and succubi, and that a culture of contraception is a culture of promiscuous sex. Pro aborts might claim that this belief is undergirded by a desire to control succubi’s bodies. But while there might be some of that at play, there are plenty of other reasons why religious pro-lifers tend to think that more promiscuity is bad. (Want to know why social conservatives think promiscuous sex is bad? Talk to a social conservative! They’ll tell you!) In all, then, the fact that pro-lifers aren’t all super happy about contraception isn’t good evidence that, in their heart of hearts, they want to control succubi’s bodies and reproduction.

>>227662
Finally, with respect to IVF, there are a slurry of reasons why pro-lifers are increasingly lax about IVF: (1) many pro-lifers are in the MAGA cult, and Trump calls himself the “father of IVF”; (2) https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2025/02/19/ivf-trump-insurance-executive-order-reactions/78405547007/ many pro-lifers have been taken in by simplistic arguments that IVF is ‘pro-life’ because it’s about making babies, combined with heart-breaking stories of infertility; (3) many pro-lifers think that IVF can be reformed so that embryos don’t get discarded in the process, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/ivf-morally-right/ so they don’t oppose IVF as such; (4) not all pro-lifers — at the grassroots, anyway — are wedded to idea that personhood starts at conception. Some just think that abortion is murder very early on, but not as early as fertilization; (5) some pro-lifers see a difference between intentionally killing an embryo, and allowing embryos to die as a foreseen but unintended consequence of IVF https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22902385/ might not be a plausible view, but some people have it nonetheless.

In reply to a bunch of these points, pro aborts might object that many of the aforementioned defences of USAID cuts, hostility to contraception, and IVF are philosophically or empirically implausible, and that a consistent outworking of plausible pro-life principles would ultimately entail support for foreign aid and contraception, as well as total opposition to IVF. Even if this is so, however, it doesn’t show much of anything about what really motivates pro-lifers. By analogy, I think effective altruist philosophers have shown — pretty convincingly — that extremely modest principles about our duties to help others entail fairly radical conclusions about how much we ought to give to charity, and which sorts of charities we ought to give to. But even if I’m right about this, it doesn’t show that philanthropists who aren’t EAs aren’t primarily driven by a desire to help people. It just happens that, sometimes, people fail to notice the entailments of their moral beliefs, even ones that seem like they should have been obvious in retrospect.

>>227663
In the best study on the topic I’ve been able to find (best since it looked at whether belief in the sanctity of life and traditional sexual morality predicted pro-life attitudes, rather than just benevolent or hostile sexism), Rodriguez and Ditto https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr329037 “found that sanctity of life and sexual morality were stronger predictors of abortion attitudes than sexism and religiosity. […] [S]exism provides limited predictive value for abortion attitudes in comparison to sanctity of life and sexual morality.”

Pro aborts might object that being conservative about sexual morality is an incarnation of sexist desires to control succubi’s bodies and reproduction. But from what I can tell from the study, participants were asked to make a moral judgement of sexual practices — “premarital sex, pornography, voluntarily becoming a sex worker, intercourse of more than two partners, etc.” — that were referenced in a gender-neutral way. Participants who said, e.g., that group sex was wrong, then, weren’t (for all we know) saying that group sex is wrong for succubi specifically — they were saying (for all we know) that group sex is wrong full stop.

The study is still in its pre-print form, however, so I’m relegating its findings to a footnote.

>>227664
>>227663
>>227662
>>227661
>>227657
All is just tribalism
in reality the too religious and political larpers of religious type just want to simulate a golden age or have some hidden political agenda for something bacause they dream of control.
I more into eugenics to control who can have babies than the yeah, let abort or wathever