thomasjiooo
Platinum
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2026
- Posts
- 1,100
- Reputation
- 1,125
0 RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTATION
Sorry for the bad format I don’t know how to use this site on my phone.
Men always get blamed for over representation in rape and how men start war
This thread isn’t about proving rape and war are good or acceptable it’s about showing that women aren’t morally superior due to their underrepresentation in these actions and that they are actually worse than men in general and that you shouldn’t be cucked into guilt
The argument against abortion is at the end
Recently a woman by the name of Lindsay Clancey murdered her 3 children due to “postpartum psychosis” she premeditated the whole thing and sent her husband to the store to kill them, obviously the unempathetic women jumped straight to trying to justify it, blaming the man and saying the woman was justified or whatever due to how hard it is post partum
If u actually use your brain , u will realise that strong hormones don’t excuse crimes, or else rape would be ok
The people who hate rape the most also view sex as the most casual which is inconsistent because it takes away from how wrong rape is, if it’s deeply emotional it’s deeply wrong because ur taking something of value, if it’s causal it’s the equivalent of forcing somebody to play bowling with you, which is also a reason body count is important to some, if u think it’s not casual then u wouldn’t want somebody that thinks it’s casual and sleeps around, so don’t let them guilt trip u by saying its casual because that goes against their own logic about rape
And any smart person would recognise that women would be worse than men, they would cause more war, more rape, more deaths, they just don’t have to power to due so, hence abortion, a sneaky easy way to kill vulnerable children legally, proving they aren’t empathetic and moral as they say they are, just biologically weaker and incapable of flashy dominant crimes
Approximately 2.3 billion children have died due to abortion, that’s 4x the amount of people that have died due to war, not to fucking mention war is sometimes consensual (both parties want to fight) whereas abortion is always one sided and the child doesn’t get a say.
Argument against abortion:
There are many ways to argue against abortion
Common shit arguments for abortion
“You’re a Man you don’t have a say cuz u can’t get pregnant”
Genetic fallacy + ad hominem, targeting the source and not the argument, I can’t own slaves or be a slave yet I can have an opinion on slavery and say it’s wrong
“Its a parasite”, parasites aren’t the same species as the host, nor can they give to the host, the fetus gives white blood cells, T cells, stem cells to the mother.
“It’s not a human/ it’s not alive”
Retard, human life begins at conception according to 96% of 5000?biologists asked around the world by SA Jacobs. A fetus is only a developmental stage of a species, this one being human.
“Clump of cells”
Blah blah blah we are all a clump of cells just more developed, all life is cells lmao
“bodily autonomy”
Bodily autonomy isn’t absolute we don’t use our bodies to harm people, we can’t deny a newborn food and care because we can do whatever we want with our body, u would have to sustain the newborn with breastfeeding in the same way you would have to sustain a fetus, again u can pose a newborn is unconscious and the woman has to breastfeed for 9 months until it’s conscious, analogous with brain activity and responsibility of the mother in a pregnancy.
“violinist analogy”/“kidney analogy”
A popular analogy pro choice foids use to show that we don’t have to keep somebody alive using our body, they pose that u are forced to sustain somebody with your life/donate your kidney to somebody, however this isn’t analogous at all because we don’t have a parental obligation to strangers, as parents we are obligated to care for our children, not present in strangers so shit argument, and regardless if you are forced to use your body to sustain a violinist for 9 months, against their will, it would still be wrong to kill them because we have lesser obligation to our community. Same way somebody being kidnapped and thrown into my house doesn’t mean I can kill them for trespassing.
”birth certificate/ death certificate”
Retard fuck u
Murdering somebody without a birth certificate is still murder, it’s still immoral (legality doesn’t fucking matter)
“it’s legal therefore okay” dumb fallacy argument, slavery was legal, yet it wasn’t moral, retard argument
“You can freeze a fetus not a baby”
My grandma would die falling down the stairs but I wouldn’t therefore she’s not a human and I am, we can survive different conditions based on our development
Appeal to abused examples
“Rape/child rape/mothers life”
If you can’t justify the 99% without mentioning extreme cases then it’s a shit position to defend, if it’s a right u could Easily prove it with 99%, regardless it’s a bad argument
According to many ob-gyns abortion (killing and removing) is never medically necessary over just removing using c section, laparoscopy, laparotomy, induction of labour etc”
0.4% of cases are rape so it’s not very valid to bring up, you can give and exception and they still have to justify the 99.6% of consensual cases where the mother is healthy, regardless killing your child because of how it was conceived is still wrong and this argument of being raped Justifying killing your child would apply to newborns, why is the rapist getting prison and the innocent child getting a death penalty for something they didn’t commit.
Child rape abortions are valid as they will likely die, and would be considered self defense
How to make your own argument:
A: pose a hypothetical about a pregnant woman who wants to keep the baby, is it alright for her to binge drink alcohol? The most common answer is no, due to causing long term negative effects, aka impairing the future of the child
Premise 1: the act of impairing the future of the fetus is wrong
Premise 2: the act of completely depriving a future is worse than impairing
Conclusion: depriving a fetus of its future is immoral
B: you could challenge their view on personhood.
1. Viability (ability to survive outside the womb)
This is a bullshit argument due to the fact that the womb is its natural environment, nobody survives outside its natural environment, we can’t survive at the bottom of the ocean because it’s not our natural environment, that doesn’t mean we aren’t valuable.
Not to mention viability changes based on where you are due to the medical differences, if you’re in America it might survive outside the womb, if you’re in Africa it might not due to what services are available, so clearly an absurd argument.
All it says is they are vulnerable, which just makes the death worse
Not a valid criteria
2. Consciousness:
A newborn baby in a coma who hasn’t reached consciousness yet is obviously still valuable, another bullshit argument.
If they change it to “capacity for consciousness”, aka the necessary brain parts to have consciousness, u can pose the child doesn’t have those parts yet as a newborn, its not common but it’s possible.
The consciousness of a newborn is also so invaluable, all it does is shit and piss and scream, these aren’t valuable human experiences, animals also have consciousness, so what’s the difference, a future like ours, if a newborn was to stay at the same consciousness its whole life it wouldn’t be valuable, we agree that its future of rationality and development is what’s important, a fetus has these, meaning it’s valuable.
Not a valid criteria
3.”not fully developed”
We don’t fully develop until about 25
Not a valid criteria
4.”pain”
Children with CIPA can’t feel pain yet it’s still wrong to kill them, not a valid criteria
WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS:
1. Species (human) (human experiences, consciousness(human consciousness being seen as more valuable that animals because we are made in the image of God/for atheists: we are rational, smart, moral etc))
2.future/flourishment: hence why coma patients are valuable despite no consciousness, hence why somebody dying in a few minutes isn’t that valuable compared to a newborn even though they have a higher state of consciousness. Humans have an internal right to development, life and flourishment
You can use these for misogyny if it’s your will just to make women seem like less of victims in society
These are a few off the top of my head, present any arguments u have heard of argue against my position.
@iblamexyz lmk opinion and tag anyone who would read this
Sorry for the bad format I don’t know how to use this site on my phone.
Men always get blamed for over representation in rape and how men start war
This thread isn’t about proving rape and war are good or acceptable it’s about showing that women aren’t morally superior due to their underrepresentation in these actions and that they are actually worse than men in general and that you shouldn’t be cucked into guilt
The argument against abortion is at the end
Recently a woman by the name of Lindsay Clancey murdered her 3 children due to “postpartum psychosis” she premeditated the whole thing and sent her husband to the store to kill them, obviously the unempathetic women jumped straight to trying to justify it, blaming the man and saying the woman was justified or whatever due to how hard it is post partum
If u actually use your brain , u will realise that strong hormones don’t excuse crimes, or else rape would be ok
The people who hate rape the most also view sex as the most casual which is inconsistent because it takes away from how wrong rape is, if it’s deeply emotional it’s deeply wrong because ur taking something of value, if it’s causal it’s the equivalent of forcing somebody to play bowling with you, which is also a reason body count is important to some, if u think it’s not casual then u wouldn’t want somebody that thinks it’s casual and sleeps around, so don’t let them guilt trip u by saying its casual because that goes against their own logic about rape
And any smart person would recognise that women would be worse than men, they would cause more war, more rape, more deaths, they just don’t have to power to due so, hence abortion, a sneaky easy way to kill vulnerable children legally, proving they aren’t empathetic and moral as they say they are, just biologically weaker and incapable of flashy dominant crimes
Approximately 2.3 billion children have died due to abortion, that’s 4x the amount of people that have died due to war, not to fucking mention war is sometimes consensual (both parties want to fight) whereas abortion is always one sided and the child doesn’t get a say.
Argument against abortion:
There are many ways to argue against abortion
Common shit arguments for abortion
“You’re a Man you don’t have a say cuz u can’t get pregnant”
Genetic fallacy + ad hominem, targeting the source and not the argument, I can’t own slaves or be a slave yet I can have an opinion on slavery and say it’s wrong
“Its a parasite”, parasites aren’t the same species as the host, nor can they give to the host, the fetus gives white blood cells, T cells, stem cells to the mother.
“It’s not a human/ it’s not alive”
Retard, human life begins at conception according to 96% of 5000?biologists asked around the world by SA Jacobs. A fetus is only a developmental stage of a species, this one being human.
“Clump of cells”
Blah blah blah we are all a clump of cells just more developed, all life is cells lmao
“bodily autonomy”
Bodily autonomy isn’t absolute we don’t use our bodies to harm people, we can’t deny a newborn food and care because we can do whatever we want with our body, u would have to sustain the newborn with breastfeeding in the same way you would have to sustain a fetus, again u can pose a newborn is unconscious and the woman has to breastfeed for 9 months until it’s conscious, analogous with brain activity and responsibility of the mother in a pregnancy.
“violinist analogy”/“kidney analogy”
A popular analogy pro choice foids use to show that we don’t have to keep somebody alive using our body, they pose that u are forced to sustain somebody with your life/donate your kidney to somebody, however this isn’t analogous at all because we don’t have a parental obligation to strangers, as parents we are obligated to care for our children, not present in strangers so shit argument, and regardless if you are forced to use your body to sustain a violinist for 9 months, against their will, it would still be wrong to kill them because we have lesser obligation to our community. Same way somebody being kidnapped and thrown into my house doesn’t mean I can kill them for trespassing.
”birth certificate/ death certificate”
Retard fuck u
Murdering somebody without a birth certificate is still murder, it’s still immoral (legality doesn’t fucking matter)
“it’s legal therefore okay” dumb fallacy argument, slavery was legal, yet it wasn’t moral, retard argument
“You can freeze a fetus not a baby”
My grandma would die falling down the stairs but I wouldn’t therefore she’s not a human and I am, we can survive different conditions based on our development
Appeal to abused examples
“Rape/child rape/mothers life”
If you can’t justify the 99% without mentioning extreme cases then it’s a shit position to defend, if it’s a right u could Easily prove it with 99%, regardless it’s a bad argument
According to many ob-gyns abortion (killing and removing) is never medically necessary over just removing using c section, laparoscopy, laparotomy, induction of labour etc”
0.4% of cases are rape so it’s not very valid to bring up, you can give and exception and they still have to justify the 99.6% of consensual cases where the mother is healthy, regardless killing your child because of how it was conceived is still wrong and this argument of being raped Justifying killing your child would apply to newborns, why is the rapist getting prison and the innocent child getting a death penalty for something they didn’t commit.
Child rape abortions are valid as they will likely die, and would be considered self defense
How to make your own argument:
A: pose a hypothetical about a pregnant woman who wants to keep the baby, is it alright for her to binge drink alcohol? The most common answer is no, due to causing long term negative effects, aka impairing the future of the child
Premise 1: the act of impairing the future of the fetus is wrong
Premise 2: the act of completely depriving a future is worse than impairing
Conclusion: depriving a fetus of its future is immoral
B: you could challenge their view on personhood.
1. Viability (ability to survive outside the womb)
This is a bullshit argument due to the fact that the womb is its natural environment, nobody survives outside its natural environment, we can’t survive at the bottom of the ocean because it’s not our natural environment, that doesn’t mean we aren’t valuable.
Not to mention viability changes based on where you are due to the medical differences, if you’re in America it might survive outside the womb, if you’re in Africa it might not due to what services are available, so clearly an absurd argument.
All it says is they are vulnerable, which just makes the death worse
Not a valid criteria
2. Consciousness:
A newborn baby in a coma who hasn’t reached consciousness yet is obviously still valuable, another bullshit argument.
If they change it to “capacity for consciousness”, aka the necessary brain parts to have consciousness, u can pose the child doesn’t have those parts yet as a newborn, its not common but it’s possible.
The consciousness of a newborn is also so invaluable, all it does is shit and piss and scream, these aren’t valuable human experiences, animals also have consciousness, so what’s the difference, a future like ours, if a newborn was to stay at the same consciousness its whole life it wouldn’t be valuable, we agree that its future of rationality and development is what’s important, a fetus has these, meaning it’s valuable.
Not a valid criteria
3.”not fully developed”
We don’t fully develop until about 25
Not a valid criteria
4.”pain”
Children with CIPA can’t feel pain yet it’s still wrong to kill them, not a valid criteria
WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS:
1. Species (human) (human experiences, consciousness(human consciousness being seen as more valuable that animals because we are made in the image of God/for atheists: we are rational, smart, moral etc))
2.future/flourishment: hence why coma patients are valuable despite no consciousness, hence why somebody dying in a few minutes isn’t that valuable compared to a newborn even though they have a higher state of consciousness. Humans have an internal right to development, life and flourishment
You can use these for misogyny if it’s your will just to make women seem like less of victims in society
These are a few off the top of my head, present any arguments u have heard of argue against my position.
@iblamexyz lmk opinion and tag anyone who would read this
Last edited:
