Incels can't do anything but seethe with impotent rage while empowered women do what they want. It's hilarious. Women won.

>>81499336 (OP)
>Women won by voting for a brown future
Huh?

>>81499336 (OP)
marie antoinette won, then she lost
charlotte corday won, then she lost
louis capet won, then he lost
THE REVOLUTION IS COMING
TOTAL FOID DEATH

>>81499336 (OP)
You've gotta love the human's creativity to make things more fucked up than they already are. I would not be able to imagine a fetish like this existing.

>>81499394
Losers do anything to make a niche community where they will find acceptance for being a failure. That's obviously abnormal behaviour and if it teaches anything it teaches to disregard and treat those people like the dirt that they are.

>>81499336 (OP)
This is not okay. I'm a feminist. But this is too much. She's on same level as men who want to kill women and kids.

>>81499336 (OP)
Why would a foid getting aborted bother me?

>>81500981
>this is too much
Why?

Either abortion is an issue, or it's not. Malice shouldn't make a difference. This is the same dissonance feminists show when they whine about sex-selective abortion.

>>81499336 (OP)
A fetus past 20 weeks (22 in this case) already has the "hardware" for consciousness to arise, because the thalamic radiations connect to the prefrontal cortex. So at this point you're murdering a human. And not any human, your child that you're supposed to be a guardian of. America is fucking insane with their lax abortion laws. Shit like this isn't at all prevalent in Europe.

>>81500994
>Why?
"go to hell brat".

>>81501012
Would it have been better to allow it to be born to such a mother? I'm not sure. I think it's better to allow abortions even this late, because this future baby would've been born to a mother who hates it. Kids tend to feel this stuff even at an early age and it tends to fuck them up for life. Of course, the better way would be to make adoptions a lot easier than they are so women who don't want to be mothers can give away the kid right after it's born. There are plenty of couples who can't concieve and might consider adoption if it was less of a hassle.

>>81501012
Doesn't matter. It means nothing. We kill conscious creatures daily. By that I mean brown people in other countries.

Fake morality arising from bias.

>>81501056
>Would it have been better to allow it to be born to such a mother?
Of course. You wouldn't advocate murdering kids who are already born with bad mother, would you? Once the fetus is worthy of ethical consideration, because of best evidence pointing to it's capacity for conscious experience, effectively becoming a human, then it doesn't matter whether it's still inside the mother or outside. It's murder to kill it in both cases. And not just murder, but with the added weight that you're killing a child who's your dependent.

>>81501079
>We kill conscious creatures daily. By that I mean brown people in other countries.
Who's "we"? Speak for yourself. And just because murder happens doesn't mean that it's okay.

>>81501040
So what? It has no moral value, so why does telling it to go to hell matter? Killing it doesn't matter, but this is too much for you?

If you're against abortion, just say so.

>>81501090
>You wouldn't advocate murdering kids who are already born with bad mother, would you?
Not murdering, but taking them away and giving them to an adult who actually wants to give them a good childhood, sure.
>then it doesn't matter whether it's still inside the mother or outside.
Yes it does, because at 22 months, it still very much depends on the host organism for survival. As far as I'm concerned, the host organism gets to decide, especially considering how damaging pregnancy tends to be on women.

>>81501131
>at 22 months, it still very much depends on the host organism for survival.
At 22 weeks it actually has a chance to survive; the best outcome for the mother would be a delivery anyway.

> the host organism gets to decide, especially considering how damaging pregnancy tends to be on women
But the host organism caused the fetus to be where it is. This is like saying if you force someone to attack you at gunpoint, you're justified in shooting them because it's "self-defense", even though you made them do it.

>>81499336 (OP)
I'm not pro-life, but I do feel pretty fucked up when I see shit like this

>>81499336 (OP)
it's crazy to me how 4chan is considered an extreme website when reddit (to this day) has subreddits that are far more vile than anything I've ever seen on this website since coming here in 2013

I guess doing le heckin' racism counts for a lot with normie cattle or something

>>81501174
That's cognitive dissonance.

>>81501161
>the best outcome for the mother would be a delivery anyway.
Still, she didn't want the kid. As a man who also doesn't like the little shits, I understand why she wouldn't want to birth it, especially since birth also means a c-section or a ruined pussy in her case.
>But the host organism caused the fetus to be where it is.
Probably through mistake and not through will. It would be very stupid of her to get pregnant just to ruin her body and abort it at 22 weeks. But still, within her rights.

>>81501185
I wouldn't say I'm pro-choice either. I think that people should stop having unprotected sex so that the question of abortion loses all relevance.

>>81501131
>Not murdering, but taking them away and giving them to an adult who actually wants to give them a good childhood, sure.
Then why not advocate for the same in the case of a child who's not yet born? Seems inconsistent. But let's see where you draw the delineating factors.
>Yes it does, because at 22 months, it still very much depends on the host organism for survival.
If depending for survival is the delineating factor, then you necessarily should also support the right for women to murder their newborns. Those depend on their parents for survival as well. Plus there were fetuses born as early as 21-weeks old.
>As far as I'm concerned, the host organism gets to decide, especially considering how damaging pregnancy tends to be on women.
Pregnancy generally doesn't damage the mother's organism. It can have complications, but with modern medicine those are very fringe cases.

>>81499393
Charlotte Corday avenged her father's murder knowing full well what her fate would be. I don't know what goes on in your incel mind to put her in this list as some sort of female pariah

>>81501200
Or at least have sex without vaginal penetration. You can do a lot of stuff in bed that's pleasurable and doesn't involve a risk of pregnancy. Unfortunately, most people are idiots and would never think of this.

>>81501012
Yeah but they have lived in total darkness so far. They don't know life, and can't fear death.

>>81501227
So if a baby is born in a dark room, you would be fine with having it killed immediately after?

>>81501183
Abortion isn't vile. 4chan has cp floating around

>>81501104
What did you have for breakfast, anon?

Face it. Morality is subjective. If we decide abortion is moral, then it is. If your argument is about consciousness, then becomes a vegan and an anti-war advocate, you flaming hypocrite. You don't give a shit about babies or conscious creatures, though. You don't even care about abortion. This is just a game to you. Which is fair, not everyone can be expected to care about every contentious topic.

I'll admit my own opinion on abortion is quite loose. I don't think it matters either way, but I think that any abortion beyond the 4th month is dubious.

Tl;dr This is not as serious as you think it is. Your arguments is suspicious.

>>81501196
>especially since birth also means a c-section or a ruined pussy in her case.
It has to come out somehow, shit for brains.

>Probably through mistake and not through will.
Did she trip and fall on a guy's dick?

Unless she had no concept of what sex was, or was raped, it is her consensual and deliberate actions that led the fetus to be where it was. There is no rational way to argue she has the right to kill it unless you argue the fetus has no moral worth.

>>81501238
>a baby is born
That answers your question. If they're no longer attached to somebody else's body, they're on their own, they are a birthed individual now with full rights.
These rights don't supersede the bodily autonomy of mothers.

>>81501200
Stop fence-sitting and pick a position, anon. It sounds like you are pro-life, or you wouldn't give a shit about a fetus.

>>81501223
Literally just wear a condom
>condoms don't feel good/break
Then use a birth control pill or an IUD
>Hormones/pain
Not an issue for most women, and if it is, you can still wear a condom
>what if they don't work
Plan B
>What if NOTHING works
Then maybe you can have an abortion as a last resort, but don't fuckin celebrate it. It's traumatizing, not joyful.

>>81501215
>Then why not advocate for the same in the case of a child who's not yet born?
Already said that I'd want adoption to become a lot easier.
>Those depend on their parents for survival as well.
But not in the sense that they have to be carried inside the mother's womb. If given food and shelter, they can survive within the Earth's atmosphere.
>Pregnancy generally doesn't damage the mother's organism.
Then why do all mothers at my workplace complain about health issues that began right after delivery? Stuff like deteriorating vision, loss of ability to concentrate and high blood pressure. One of them has now had high blood pressure for 9 years after not having this problem before giving birth. Apparently some mothers' teeth start to fall off and they drop pee when they laugh for the rest of their lives.

>>81501251
>the act of birth gives someone moral value and rights!
Er... Why? They're still entirely dependent on the mother. If a mother went out and partied and refused to feed her neonate and it died, would that be an issue?

>>81501265
My position is that I totally don't care and women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they do care when it doesn't matter at all

>>81501291
>I totally don't care
>but I do feel pretty fucked up when I see shit like this

>>81501217
who the fuck do you think charlotte corday was, the counter-revolutionary whore who killed marat was NOT an avenger of her father's "murder"

>>81501244
>Face it. Morality is subjective
So what. I can still have a sense of ethics that guides my actions in the world. Just because it's specific to me doesn't make it any less important to me.
>you flaming hypocrite
You don't know anything about me. So stop making assumptions and stick to the topic of the discussion. Even if I was the biggest hypocrite in the world, it doesn't matter who's presenting an argument, but the argument itself. "Hitler had a dog" isn't a compelling counterargument.

>>81500981
Maybe she was raped and this is only revenge she can get. You as woman should know better.

>>81501251
>That answers your question. If they're no longer attached to somebody else's body, they're on their own
Now you're changing the argument. Originally it was about the time that the organism had outside of the womb, but now it looks like you completely abandoned that line of reasoning. Am I to understand that you conceded on that point? But to tackle your new argument, you're wrong, a baby right after being born is still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord. Do you think it's okay to smash the baby's head against the wall as long as the umbilical cord is still intact?

>>81501244
>Morality is subjective. If we decide abortion is moral, then it is.
The rules of classical logic are not subjective.

If we decide something to be moral that directly contradicts the rest of our morality, our morality becomes inconsistent and illogical and thus can be criticized objectively.

>>81499336 (OP)
Foids are satanic demons that deserve all their suffering

>>81501279
>Already said that I'd want adoption to become a lot easier.
That's completely tangential. I fail to see how adoption accessibility should have any sway on whether it's okay to murder a child or not.
>But not in the sense that they have to be carried inside the mother's womb.
Third trimester children can survive outside of the womb. Am I to understand that you don't support abortion in the third trimester? You can induce the birth early. Hell, a fetus as young as 21-weeks has survived. Which makes it so that the killing is unjustified, making it again a murder.
>Then why do all mothers at my workplace complain about health issues that began right after delivery?
Is this a studied phenomenon? It's possible that a woman feels under the weather for some time afterwards, but feeling under the weather because of performing guardianship duties for your offspring doesn't give you the right to murder them instead. I'm not convinced of the prevalence of serious complications on the basis of anecdotal evidence. I could just as easily tell you that I know so many mothers who are doing great health-wise, and that your sample is biased and unrepresentative, and you'd be none the wiser.

>>81499336 (OP)
>foid aborted
Fucking based lol.
Kill all women

>>81500981
This is the end result of feminist ideology. You bear responsibility for this and hopefully you will be killed like that poor baby was.

>>81501451
Parous women outlive nulliparous women, on average.

Not that this has any bearing on your argument - I wouldn't even go down this route, it's just a tangent.

>>81501239
hardly, ive been here 12 years and have not come across any of that, the pic in OP is vile as fuck, abortion in of itself is one thing but to plan it as some sort of weird fetish and to write that on your stomach? fucking weird.

>>81501282
>>the act of birth gives someone moral value and rights!
It disconnects them permanently from the agency of another person's life. Now, they are a singular being. So yes, giving birth makes them people. There are no such thing as unborn rights.

>>81499336 (OP)
idc about abortion but this girl is mentally ill, she should be sterilized and kept in an asylum.

>>81501359
>a baby right after being born is still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord
A cord meant to be torn. The vitality of the baby no longer depends on the mother's body. It was never about time outside the uterus. It was about getting out of the uterus at all

>>81501517
>have not come across any of that
Then you weren't around for that long or never lurked on /b/.
The only reason this place is moderated is because of cp. Before the safe internet act from 2008, cp was posted regularly on b like loli is today

>>81501310
She wasn't a counter revolutionary at all, her father was killed under Marat's order, she avenged him. You're reading too much into it.

>>81502364
no he fucking wasn't, she was a piece of girondin filth who opposed the execution of the king, opposed the jacobins, opposed war with the other despotic regimes of europe, and basically every aspect of the revolution. she's the classic example of a counter-revolutionary liberal who wanted some kind of constitutional monarchy where everyone bowed to a king.

>>81502494
>no he fucking wasn't
Yes he was. She was literally avenging her father

>>81501395
Classical logic does not apply to philosophical concepts like morality. Moral paradoxes are evidence of this. All we can do is argue for different points of view. Anyone that tries to argue for an objective stance on philosophy is playing a dangerous game. Also, using past judgments to decide what is moral is circular.

Maybe you disagree. Picture this: a doctor concludes that a mother is likely to die during pregnancy, but her safety is nearly guaranteed with an abortion. Is it right to kill the baby to save the mother?

>>81502578
What race is the baby

>>81502578
>Is it right to kill the baby to save the mother?
Nope

>>81500951
Yet you faggots don't. Instead you instantly try to join us because it's not in your purview

>>81499336 (OP)
Fucking based! I am so tired how people act like we gotta treat abortions with reverance to apease the freaks who would have a child die giving birth to her incest rape baby.

>>81502331
>A cord meant to be torn.
I don't know why you're introducing the idea of purpose to naturally occurring phenomena. Purpose requires intention behind the creation, and I reject that idea as an atheist. We may observe that a mechanism enables another mechanism but to say that there's purposeful design behind it, that's getting into theology.
>The vitality of the baby no longer depends on the mother's body.
Babies still depend of their parents' bodies performing actions to keep them alive and raising them until they're 18. They're effectively enslaved. Why is it any different whether the child is in the woman or not? If a born baby was put back into the woman, in a way that poses no danger to the woman's life or health, and in a way that enables the baby to be taken out without harm to the baby, would you now be allowed to kill it instead? Seems like a massive "loophole" to just genocide unwanted young children.
>It was never about time outside the uterus. It was about getting out of the uterus at all
Let me remind you what was originally said (>>81501227):
>Yeah but they have lived in total darkness so far. They don't know life, and can't fear death.
The original point put forth the idea that whether or not a life is worthy of moral consideration is contingent on the experiences gathered outside the womb, so it was in fact about the time spent outside of the womb, so don't try to retcon what was said. But that's a charitable reading, if you in fact meant literally that living in darkness, not being afraid of death, or not knowing life (whatever that means if we don't accept it as meaning "experiences gathered outside of the womb") is sufficient to have someone killed, then that also applies to many people who were born, making you effectively in support of genociding them, if you want to be consistent.

>>81502578
>Classical logic does not apply to philosophical concepts like morality.
Yes, it absolutely does; what do you think analytic philosophy is? Where do you think the classical logic even stemmed from? Why did Aristotle bother?
>Also, using past judgments to decide what is moral is circular.
Nothing to do with what I've said. I'm pointing out incongruences.
>Picture this: a doctor concludes that a mother is likely to die during pregnancy, but her safety is nearly guaranteed with an abortion. Is it right to kill the baby to save the mother?
I'll flesh out your argument. The baby is healthy, above 32 weeks of gestation, and is equally likely to survive as the mother would be in the counter procedure - this would never happen for a number of reasons, but let's go with it.

Aborting the child would not be justified under my ethical framework for the same reason forcibly harvesting your organs to save 3 other people wouldn't. What type of doctor do you really want - someone who would literally throw you under a bus to save 2 other people, or someone with consistent ethics?

>>81502594
Alright then. What if the baby is guaranteed to be non-viable? It won't live more than a minute after birth because it has one lung and a facial deformity that makes breathing impossible.

My point is that if it was possible to have an objective answer, then it would be infinitely complex. I don't think that it is impossible to make a good argument against abortion, but I believe that an objective answer does not exist.

>>81500981
Why not? It's just a clump of cells, even your body tries to kill it if it has a Y chromosome lmao

>>81502706
>Babies still depend of their parents' bodies performing actions to keep them alive
Any adult can keep a baby alive with a bottle of cow's milk even. Doesn't have to be the mother. You are going beyond the point. Before birth, the baby is literally a little parasite that completely depends on the mother's body to survive. The unborn baby is not their own self, they can't breathe yet. Their life is tethered to another being. Everything changes after birth

>>81500981
The fact that you default to thinking about men in the context of murdering women and kids says everything about you. Women do be like that.

>>81502706
>Why is it any different whether the child is in the woman or not?
Because they can breathe on their own and are no longer attached to another person's body

>>81502830
JANNNIEEEEESSSS GET THIS SHIT OFF MY BOARD NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW

>>81502706
>a born baby was put back into the woman
Literally impossible. Are we arguing over impossible scenarios now?

>>81502855
So does the mother then have a duty to the child or society to disincentivizing abuse or what

>>81502856
That's footage from an educational video about abortion, it doesn't break any rules or US law. What's the big deal?

>>81502788
>I don't think that it is impossible to make a good argument against abortion, but I believe that an objective answer does not exist.
You're projecting your own inability to be consistent onto others.

It's pretty simple. If fetuses are alive and are considered moral agents, and we agree that homicide needs to be justified, you must now justify killing the fetus.

Killing a person to save someone else isn't justified outside of defense. If we indulged in this line of thinking, it would necessarily lead to the redistribution of organs and all sorts of outcomes most people would agree are not desirable.

We are making a clear exception to our moral norms to make women feel better about abortion - it is inconsistent, it is illogical. Abortion is not defense unless the mother was raped because they caused the pregnancy to happen. There is no justification under non-aggression ethics - it is murder. If I put a gun to your mother's head and tell you to punch me, it isn't self-defense if I shoot you, that would be stupid. It's the same causal chain for a pregnancy.

>>81502837
>the baby is literally a little parasite
Except it's the same species as the host, which makes it young, not a parasite, and even if it were, parous women outlive nulliparous women, so it would be a symbiote and the relationship would be mutualist, not parasitic.
>it's dependent on another human being
So what? Plenty of patients fit this bill, we don't kill them.

>>81502869
What would you feel like if you skipped breakfast this morning, anon?

>>81502706
>The original point put forth the idea that whether or not a life is worthy of moral consideration is contingent on the experiences gathered outside the womb
The main experience being getting outside the womb. Doesn't matter if you put the newborn baby in a sensory deprivation chamber for its whole life. If baby got out, baby gets rights. That's how it is in practice. Unborn babies don't get documents or registration until after birth. It's birth certificate, not conception certificate.
What matters is getting out of the womb

>>81502886
Hunger. Your point?

>>81502725
Morality as a philosophical concept cannot be objective. You can remain objective within your own ethical framework and I'll remain objective in mine. When they conflict on an issue, it calls your whole "objective answer" into question.

I don't even think you are wrong. I think you are too confident in your answer.

>>81502893
>Unborn babies don't get documents or registration until after birth
They receive healthcare in the womb - how do you think we document their cardiotocography, intrauterine growth, scans, conditions, etc?

>>81502871
She can give up her child willingly, lawfully. That's how the foster care system works. Somehow, someone will be responsible for the child's wellbeing, even if it's left to the state. Regardless, it doesn't have to be her duty if she doesn't want to. She can't kill the baby that already got outside of her though.

>>81502886
What are you talking about, I had breakfast this morning

>>81502917
>They receive healthcare in the womb
No, the mother does. Abortion is also health care by the way.

>>81502930
>She can't kill the baby that already got outside of her though.
Why though

>>81502916
>Morality as a philosophical concept cannot be objective.
Not what I'm arguing and I've explained this several times so I'm just going to assume you're retarded.

I'll try one more strategy: What is a truth table, anon? How is it that I can plug my premises and conclusions into a truth table, if objective logic cannot be applied to philosophy? I don't the morality to be objectively correct, I need it to be CONSISTENT.

>>81502939
Because now the baby is contemplated by the same right that guarded the pregnant mother: bodily autonomy

>>81502917
But they only get a name and a registration after birth. Implicitly, the state enforces the unspoken rule: baby only counts when baby gets out

>>81502948
Does the mother have any personal obligation here or is the respect of autonomy upheld by the state

>>81502877
>the same species as the host
Still a little parasite depending on someone else's body.

>>81502877
>parous women outlive nulliparous women
Nigga just dismissed the high maternal mortality rate of child bearing before modern medicine

>>81502936
>No, the mother does.
The fetus does too. Not sure why you're arguing obstetrics with me, you're a medically illiterate nigger who had no idea what an external cephalic version was before mentioned it and you googled it and realized you're a fucking retard because we perform a ton of interventions on infants pre-labor. Membranes ruptured preterm? The steroids aren't for you, they're for the baby. Tocolysis? Yeah, that's also for the baby.

>Abortion is also health care by the way.
Depends on who you ask. Hippocrates certainly didn't agree; he felt strongly enough to forbid it in his Oath.

>>81502877
>Plenty of patients fit this bill
None of which are fully encapsulated inside another person's body. If they were, it would go straight to the chopping bl

>>81502963
Depends on local legislation. In my country, bodily autonomy is sovereign. The mother has no obligation to bear the child, let alone raise them

>>81502961
>the state
I don't give a fuck about the state. There are millions of undocumented niggers living in the country, are they not real?

>>81502991
>Nigga just dismissed the high maternal mortality rate of child bearing before modern medicine
Oh, I fucking love this - go on then, you giant retard, tell me, what was that "high maternal mortality rate"?

Arguing obstetrics with me isn't going to get you far.

>>81503009
>None of which are fully encapsulated inside another person's body.
Who cares? If you put them there, that's your problem; you have no moral justification to harm them.

>>81502998
The fetus only receives "healthcare" to attest to the health hazards and viability of the pregnancy. It revolves around the woman, not the fetus. That's why pregnancies that pose a risk to the mother's life can be terminated in nearly every country.
That's why abortion is also health care. The fetus matters less than the carrier

Based foid, stopping the cycle by killing a foid before it's even birthed.

>>81503060
>The fetus only receives "healthcare" to attest to the health hazards and viability of the pregnancy. It revolves around the woman, not the fetus.
Incorrect.

You only suck cocks because you're a nigger faggot. If we're just going to make bullshit up, what's the point of discussing this?

>>81503049
>If you put them there, that's your problem
And abortion is how we solve that u problem. There are even some ancient abortive teas, mother nature thought of everything.
>No moral justification
Bodily autonomy is the moral justification. The body of the one already born comes first before the body of the unborn

>>81502980
People on welfare are parasites depending on someone's else body/work, can we kill them too ? We should, by that logic.

>>81503084
>Incorrect
Correct. We do all the prenatal consultations to make sure the pregnancy is going well, and if it isn't, the fetus goes straight to the bin, and the mother gets to live. This is the order of priorities. Mother before fetus. Not the other way around.

>>81502837
>Any adult can keep a baby alive with a bottle of cow's milk even. Doesn't have to be the mother.
Sure. But we're still enslaving the mother and the father to be responsible for the child being fed. I would argue if it's only possible for you to do the ethically correct thing, it doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to do it, if anything it puts pressure on you to do it. We wouldn't accept this in any other sort of scenario. If only you had the ability to push a button to save person, in what world would the fact that only you can press it absolve you of the responsibility for not pressing it? But this all of course hinges on the assumption that the action is an ethically necessary one.
>Before birth, the baby is literally a little parasite that completely depends on the mother's body to survive.
Not once it's viable. And it can be viable as early as the 21st week. Are you against elective abortion past that point? Let's say that the woman's life is not in danger and the fetus doesn't have a deformity making it brain-dead.
>The unborn baby is not their own self, they can't breathe yet.
If a person is on a ventilator, does it make it okay to murder them?
>Their life is tethered to another being.
Yes, another being, but not a random being, a being that imbued with an ethical obligation of taking care of the child by the virtue of being their guardian. The same obligation that makes it ethically necessary for that being to be enslaved to taking care of the child until they reach adulthood. I don't know why women should be granted a special privileged to just kill their dependent instead. Of course this all hinges on the idea that the fetus is already worthy of ethical consideration, ergo a human.
>Everything changes after birth
I fail to see the ethically significant delineating factor. Sure, the two situations aren't the same, but not in an ethically meaningful way.

>>81503027
>don't give a fuck about the state
You should. You will respond to them, not to me or to any absent god. The state only recognizes the life of the birthed people. Unknowingly, they're speaking the quiet part out loud. You only matter if you're born. Fetus don't have rights. Mothers do.

>>81503085
>There are even some ancient abortive teas, mother nature thought of everything.
Mother nature also gave me atropine, which would abort you.
>Bodily autonomy is the moral justification.
You are violating their bodily autonomy. You caused them to exist, and you forced them to be in your body, so even granting your witchy nonsense rhetoric, your argument is still retarded.

>>81502855
So if a baby is born and put on a ventilator before the umbilical cord is cut, would it make it okay to kill it? What if I go to a hospital and sew my hand onto a patient on life support. Is it okay for me to kill them?

>>81503027
>Before modern medicine, maternal mortality rates were 0.5 percent
You might want to add that number to each single pregnancy before claiming that nulliparous women live less. They certainly didn't live less than the thousands of women who died giving birth throughout history

>>81502869
If you're doing a c-section, then I fail to see what would be so hard about putting the baby down for a second.

>>81503102
If people on welfare somehow crawl inside your body and tether their flesh into yours, you have my permission to kill them.

>>81503105
>We do all the prenatal consultations to make sure the pregnancy is going well, and if it isn't, the fetus goes straight to the bin.
What is tocolysis, anon, and why do we do it? Why do we use antenatal steroids?

Also, who is 'we'? You have no idea what you're talking about. You wouldn't know which end of a curette to use.

>>81502549
>Corday sent the following farewell letter to her father which was intercepted and read during the trial, the letter helping to establish that Marat's murder was premeditated:
foids are not sending their best

>>81503130
>atropine
For abortion? Nigga the fuck is this, are you trying to revert abradyarrhythmia? Where's the misoprostol for Christ's sake

>>81503164
>Before modern medicine, maternal mortality rates were a whopping 0.5 percent
Kek.

You really thought you had me, didn't you? Be honest - you thought it was like 50% or some stupid shit.

Listen, you're an idiot, and that number is factored in already in the present day for developing countries, where nulliparous women only take over in life expectancy when compared to a parity >5.

Again, I really don't know why you think you're the guy to argue this. It would be like me arguing with Ranjeet about his SpaceX rocket design.

>>81503241
No, for murder (in minecraft), I thought that was clear.

>>81503202
>Why do we use antenatal steroids?
Little premature baby's lungs aren't ready yet, so bring the corticosteroid. Pulmonary aplasia.
But this is for a mother who wants their baby. We're talking about abortions here. The health care central point is the mother and her wishes. If she didn't want that fetus, it's deletus

>>81502877
How is the redistribution of organs not desirable? Can you seriously say that an "undesirable outcome" can be part of your "grand, objective critique" without noticing how ridiculously subjective all of this is? Your ethics are built on subjectivity. You even clarify that you operate under "moral norms", as though your ethical framework is the only way to analyze the morality of abortion. What if our moral norms are full of it? (Personally, I believe they are).

The truth is that our morality is never translated into policy. Our laws are a twisted burlesque of the ethics you tout. This hyperfixation on abortion bothers me, as even a fool can see through our charade of a justice system. Surely we can focus on less contentious, more damning examples of inconsistency in our laws, right?

Again, I don't disagree with you. Yet, certainty is foolish.

>>81502830
Dude that is making me hungry.

>>81503247
That's 50 women in every 10.000 births. you don't think that's much because it's not your shinny ass on the line. Nulliparous women didn't face those odds.

>>81503284
Good, glad ChatGPT could clear that up for you. As you can see, we treat unborn children. I'll take your concession.

>>81503302
>it's subjective!
For the nth time, I'm not arguing against this. I have really tried, you are simply not getting it, have a good evening.

>>81503181
You're a shit-for-brains swine, I dont need your "permission" for anything, and by the way, who gives "rights" to living beings is the state, if they give them to a fetus, then they have them. I hope scum like you, get the right to rot in jail, hopefully, you get "aborted" in there, and your remains used as manure/fertilizer, I see no other use for you.

>>81503318
>That's 50 women in every 10.000 births. you don't think that's much because it's not your shinny ass on the line. Nulliparous women didn't face those odds.
Yet they still don't live as long. It's almost as though pregnancy is a physiological function of the human body.

>>81503247
I'm the perfect guy to argue about this dude, I love obstetrics. I've delivered 6 babies in my clerkship. The act of birth is something beautiful when the woman wants it. I'd never force a woman to go through that unwillingly, It's torture. Have you ever witnessed a vaginal birth before, in person?

>>81502893
>If baby got out, baby gets rights.
My point is that there's no good ethical reason for this to be the standard. What matters to me is the human consciousness. Once the best medical evidence points to it possibly being present within a fetus, that's the point at which I believe it should be considered as a human with rights. And the earliest point for that is when the "hardware" is in place, which is when the thalamic radiations connect to the prefrontal cortex, which happens the earliest at the 20th week of gestation for a healthy pregnancy. After that the mother has the ethical obligation to take care of the child, effectively enslaving her and her husband to taking care of them (or the people who take over the guardianship role afterwards) until the kid is an adult, as long as it doesn't place an undue burden on her, so if the pregnancy has the potential to kill her and it's impossible to remove the child without killing it, it should be okay to abort it, but the child's death should be treated as the death of any other human being. And if a woman aborts a healthy kid just because, she and the people responsible should be tried for murder.
>That's how it is in practice.
People were also genocided countless times throughout human history in practice. Just because something happens doesn't mean that it's okay.
>Unborn babies don't get documents or registration until after birth.
So if a born person doesn't have documents or registration, is it okay to kill them?
>It's birth certificate, not conception certificate.
If a person doesn't have a birth certificate, is it okay to kill them? Also I fail to see what conception has to do with anything. I don't believe a fetus that's not capable of having a conscious experience is worthy of moral consideration. Can be aborted for any reason as far as I'm concerned.
>What matters is getting out of the womb
Again, I haven't been presented with a good reason why. What values does this stem from? It's a mystery to me.

>>81503320
Wanted children*. Your arrogance is so amusing. People who feel the need to be arrogant anonymously are the best. I don't need chatgpt, it's two doses of betamethasone one week apart. The only cycle I loved more than obstetrics was anesthesiology, but I couldn't live without seeing my mothers giving birth

>>81503351
Like sex. And yet you can live without it. Women can too

>>81502944
It isn't consistent. Now explain why we shouldn't redistribute organs. Make it objective, please. Otherwise, you only have a subjective answer -- "not that there's anything wrong with that."

>>81503342
>if they give them to a fetus
That depends on the law of the land. Sorry I live in a country who values the lives of mothers too much to force them to go through unwanted pregnancies

>>81503352
>I'm the perfect guy to argue about this dude, I love obstetrics. I've delivered 6 babies in my clerkship
Yet you thought the pre-obstetric maternal death rate was high? Need to up your anki game, or whatever you stupid fucks use now.
>Have you ever witnessed a vaginal birth before, in person?
Dozens, and I've done more c-sections than you've had hot dinners.

>>81503361
>My point is that there's no good ethical reason for this to be the standard
Yes there is. Bodily autonomy.
I bet you wouldn't like anyone telling you what yo do with your body for the next 9 months. You are already born. A fetus isn't. So you come first.

>>81503381
>I'm a medical student/doctor, I just didn't know about antenatal fetal care!
Get real, anon.

>>81503339
I'm sorry, stranger. I've tried explaining that I agree with you. My point of contention is merely your level of confidence in your answer. For what it is worth, I will try to argue for more consistency in our laws to match the ethics that that they are meant to uphold.

Have a good day.

>>81503397
Do you not know what the difference between subjective and consistent is?

>>81503422
>Done c sections
Done or participated in? You mean you are a full blown obstetrician? Damn man, you're practically a surgeon and you spend your Sunday shitposting on the incel board? What a grim fate. If I ever visited this place after getting my license I'm killing myself

>>81503478
No, I'm doing my fellowship. I also did core surgical training years ago overseas.

bit fucked up when you think about it, scrambling up a living thing inside of you, damn some women are walking cemeteries, can a pussy be haunted? grim though, the idea of having a scrambled up person inside of me then sucked out or whatever, gah

>>81503490
What's a fellowship like over there, is it like a medical residence? Are you training to become a full licensed gynecologist/obstetrician?

>>81503471
We were arguing past each other, but that's old news.

>>81503490
Also, you should be studying for the coming hysterectomies and you're here arguing with incels about abortion? What a shithead you are, aren't you ashamed? I hope you're joking about being an obstetrician, imagine an incel obstetrician who spends his scarce free time on the incel board? Literally you supposedly work 120 hours a week, and you're still shitposting here?
I'd kill myself immediately

>>81503538
You can do a fellowship after your residency. It's similar; shit pay, shit hours, do not recommend.
>Are you training to become a full licensed gynecologist/obstetrician?
Nah, I'm family med. I can make $300 an hour doing an obstetrics shift as a fellow with no on-call requirements. There is basically no point doing this unless you have prior surgical experience, though.

>>81503631
I'm not an obstetrician, if it makes you feel better.

>>81503431
>Yes there is. Bodily autonomy.
I think there are things like even freedom to not be a slave that are suspended when it comes to raising children until they are adults. I think if carrying a healthy child (so already worthy of moral consideration past the 20th week) doesn't impose an undue burden on the mother (risk of death or serious injury), she has an ethical obligation to carry it to term as the guardian of the child and as the only guardian that can to do it at that time (similarly if the father is home alone with the kids and the kids are hungry, he'd be the one ethically obligated to feed the kids as the only person that can do it). Otherwise it's a bit weird to me, that it's okay to suspend the fundamental liberal rights you have in service of raising your kid after birth, but not before the birth, when the thing that makes the child worthy of ethical consideration happens before birth, as I explained earlier.
>I bet you wouldn't like anyone telling you what yo do with your body for the next 9 months.
When I have a kid, I'm enslaved to it for 18 years. Toiling away providing for it. Raising it, feeding it, clothing it, etc. I don't see having to carry it to term from 20th week onward for a few weeks until delivery as a burden that's somehow greater than that to the point that special privileges have to be granted to the mother.

>>81503634
So your residency is family med? And with this fellowship, you are allowed to work as an obstetrician without requiring a residency? Why exactly are you doing this?

>>81503652
But you're still a physician, nearly a trained surgeon, training to be an obstetrician?
Not gonna lie, I always use the day I'll get my license as a deadline to leave this god forsaken shithole and never come back. I have far too much to study and a lot of work to do and money to make to ever waste time in this bin again.
If I catch myself wasting time here after being an actual physician just like you, I'm eating a bullet. It's a shame. Aren't you ashamed? I'd be.

>>81503663
>raising children
They have to be born first silly. There will be no children to raise if you abort them

>>81503663
>When I have a kid
Lmao poor incel, so hopeful

>>81503746
>you are allowed to work as an obstetrician without requiring a residency?
You're allowed to do whatever your hospital privileges say you can do. If you only do FM > OB, most hospitals won't take you, you just don't clock enough surgeries in most programs. If you have prior surgical experience, like an RCS membership and extensive training records, you'll have more options.
>Why exactly are you doing this?
It's chill for the money and I enjoy the work. As for FM, I'm an IMG. FM was just easier to get into.

>>81503791
You can use the term "taking care of the child" instead of "raising". It doesn't change my argument.

>>81503775
>It's a shame. Aren't you ashamed? I'd be.
I've been posting here for 15, Christ nearly 20 years now. /fit/ got me interested in medicine in the first place. I genuinely wouldn't have thought about it otherwise.

>>81503857
>RCS membership
How does that work? Is it like a residency for surgery? Or is it less than a residency? Are you a surgeon in practice? So with that, you were able to get into the obstetrician fellowship? Didn't you like working as a regular FM?
Sorry for all the questions, it just sounds so fragmented compared to how it works in my country. So hospitals will let you work doing surgeries in practice even without a surgical residency?
In my country, you finish med school, you apply for one of the five big areas of residency (family medicine, clinical, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology) and you just run with it.

>>81503914
Nigga you're a physician. A surgeon. You can get bitches with that card alone. You can make money, you have shit to study. Stop scaring me, you're blackpilling me so hard now. If I can't leave this place after becoming a physician than what will I do? Shitpost forever? This addiction is terrible for my mental health, shitposting is like a drug for me, I want to quit so bad but can't.
What's keeping you here at all? The world is yours to conquer. You could be getting fucked in the ass by some nurse chad right now, instead you're here

>>81503949
>How does RCS membership work
You apply once you complete core surgical training in the UK; it's well-recognized internationally.
>So hospitals will let you work doing surgeries in practice even without a surgical residency?
Yes, albeit with a limited scope of practice. Usually elective c-sections and outpatient clinics. I won't be doing gyne; ideally, I shouldn't be doing emergency work but shit happens.
>Didn't you like working as a regular FM?
I enjoy FM more than I thought I would, but the pay is shit and I like the hospital environment. I'll have the best of both worlds - no on-calls, fewer emergencies, and I can scrap surgery and do FM when my knees pile in.
>it just sounds so fragmented compared to how it works in my country
I'm an IMG, so it's more fucked than usual. I did 5 years of postgraduate training/work before moving. Usually, you pick a residency and stick with it; it's fairly straightforward.

Any idea what direction you're going in, or too early to tell?

>>81504161
>complete core surgical training in the UK
Was that part of your med school or some post graduation thing you did after finishing?

>>81504237
That's residency, basically. UK residency is:
>2 years foundation
>core training for whatever you're doing - acute care, surgery, internal medicine, GP/FM
>specialist training for surgeons and hospital physicians

>>81504161
Loved obstetrics but every obstetrician I've ever met advised me against the career. Not paid as much as other areas, emergency like routine, unpredictable time for labours, highest rate of lawsuits, sleepless nights, all things that impact quality of life. I love watching women giving birth, I feel it's very emotional and even spiritual, but the main problem is that obstetrics/gynecology is one thing, there's no doing one without the other, and I have absolute 0 interest in vaginas and all the gyneco part.
I fell in love hard with anesthesiology. I loved giving spinal anesthesia, I absolutely love to intubate patients, it's my favorite thing in the whole medicine world I've known, but it's the hardest residency to get inside: the highest competition, the highest grade. As you can see by me shitposting on a sunday instead of studying, sometimes I doubt I'm hardcore enough to pass the admissional test. It's one standardized test for the whole country, and it will take 2/3 years of unrelenting dedication to pass.
Still that's what I want in the bottom of my heart. Wish me luck.

>>81499336 (OP)
Killing a human being is not cool

>>81504293
So residency there lasts more than 4 years? Damn bitch. That's a lot. It's very prestigious too, being UK and everything. I'm from the third world I'm sure my diploma would be a joke compared to yours. I bet you're a pretty smart fella if you made it there.
So you're a surgeon basically? Like do you carry the surgeon title or is there some additional bureaucracy to complete for that? Here after you finish the residency, you automatically gain the national title of that particular specialty.
Look sorry about being rude to you earlier. We clearly diverge on our views regarding the whole fetus genocide thing, but let me tell you something
You can be fucking bitches left and right by your status alone.

>>81504327
>the main problem is that obstetrics/gynecology is one thing, there's no doing one without the other, and I have absolute 0 interest in vaginas and all the gyneco part.
Just do what I did. Only gyne you'll see is the usual primary care slop, i.e., stop using soap on your labia and have some emollient.

Good luck with anesthetics. If you don't get it first time around, hopefully you can locum in something fun. Gonna head to bed, night.

>>81504383
>Like do you carry the surgeon title
We actually drop our titles in bongland. I was a 'Mr' for a while.