629000

[Malkior7]

Ravi uses cry. Critical hit! It's super effective!

 

[Quiescent-Rose]

One of those prostitutes looks like Aoba from New Game

 

[shyevsa]

you are doing it again old man.
decide thing alone and not talking it trough.

 

[ninjadork]

@Meridis Do you know what burnout is, as I use it in this context?

As for the whole abortion thing, let's talk about this for a second:

Why Women Have Abortions:

Spoiler

The reasons they gave in 2004

25% Not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong

23% Can't afford a baby now

19% Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown

8% Don't want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems

7% Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young

4% Would interfere with education or career plans

4% Physical problem with my health

3% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus

<0.5% Was a victim of rape

<0.5% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion

<0.5% Parents want me to have an abortion

<0.5% Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant

6% Other

(Statistics taken from: Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives, by Lawrence B. Finer et al. published by the Guttmacher Institute, 2004 )

I have seen no evidence that suggests these percentages have changed enough to represent a drastic, permanent shift in the motivations for why people get abortions.

The Scientific, And By Extension Philosophical/Ethical, Argument Against Abortion

Spoiler

Synopsis: Abortion is inherently intolerable to a population that consistently believes in human rights (herein defined as a belief in the inherent rights to life and liberty of all people regardless of social status), because all current cutting-edge science declares the "my body, my choice" argument to be entirely false from start to finish, which raises serious questions about the actual purpose of abortion in societal and political circumstances.

Explanation: With meiosis and mitosis as the primary arguments, there is never a point in this process, from the moment an egg is first fertilized to the moment the child is born, where this is ever only "the mother's body" we're talking about here. If we were using a scientific basis for who can authorize abortions, then at the absolute minimum abortion would require a joint legally witnessed agreement between the mother and father.

We have had the science proving this for decades. Any legal movement towards a science based implementation of abortion-authorization has been shot down repeatedly and viciously by pro-abortion advocates, occasionally aided by pro-life advocates.

The closest thing to a consistently scientific argument in favor of abortion is circumstances in which either the child is already dead in the womb, so badly crippled that there is no conceivable way for said child to survive birth even with all available medical assistance, and/or circumstances in which it is likely that attempting birth will permanently injure the mother either by disease or physical trauma. As previously stated, even if all possible permutations of these three circumstances are counted and combined under one of these three umbrellas, these cases represent less than 10% of all abortions. Furthermore, while life of the mother is a circumstance in which compassion and all possible assistance should be rendered, it is unfortunately another variation of the following philosophy.

Side note:

Spoiler

I do not discuss rape in depth for the simple reason that a successful childbirth from rape is so rare as to be not statistically usable. Rape is such a horrendous and physically traumatic act that, the majority of the time, the child is entirely accidentally killed before birth as a side effect of injuries inflicted on the mother. Thus, I propose leaving rape as something that must be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

Spoiler

What of the other 90-ish percent? When stripped of the useless sophistry from both pro-life and pro-abortion advocates, abortion at its core is a variation of "might-makes-right" philosophy; the child is assumed to be automatically inferior in status to the mother, therefore the mother has the might and thus right to do anything she wishes with it. Going by the above statistics, 86% of all abortions are direct implementations of this philosophy. 27% of all abortions are literally done to acquire or preserve money; this may or may not be alloyed with concerns over the likely future of a child based on the individual mother in question. The might-makes-right philosophy is easily observable in four separate trends;

-The "my body, my choice" fallacy
-The consistent manipulation of terminology by pro-abortion advocates ("baby" becomes "fetus" (and "tumor" if they can prove severe health issues), the flip-flopping between whether or not a woman who seeks an abortion should be called a mother, Planned Parenthood marketing directives about which words to not use, etc). More importantly, their insistence that all others must abide by their terminology dictates or else be guilty of "selling out" at best.
-The constant pushing towards more abortion with less restrictions "for the health of the mother" at the same time that scientific advances are regularly reducing or eliminating the dangers of childbirth, increasing the circumstances and decreasing the age at which a child can be born healthy and viable, and pushing back the "soft line" at which it is provable that a child is a separate physical entity from the mother. 20 years ago the line given was "Safe, Legal, and Rare" with an emphasis on first-trimester only. Now, entire cities and states are pushing for legalization of partial/post birth abortion, frequently with government subsidies in support. And as a corollary to the preceding point, these laws are always primarily marketed as being "for the health of the mother" in defiance of all other factors and usually with little or no oversight included in the law of choice.
-The sale, especially organlegging, of fetal and immediately post-birth tissues and parts.

If we choose to believe in the inherent rights of all human beings as a core societal principle, then none of the current arguments in favor of abortion are acceptable. What that actually translates to in standing policy is a separate discussion, but it cannot remain at its current state or be expanded without abandoning the belief in inherent human rights.

Personal statement: I'm not interested in doing anything about abortions for real, immediate health issues. I don't see that as a fight worth having (yet). But if we're going to have any kind of cooperation on the issue of abortion, I am going to be absolutely adamant that we make clear distinctions between abortions of immediate necessity and abortions of convenience. In particular, I'm going to insist we stop this pathetic laziness where some folks insist that it's not possible to allow the former while denying the latter; I've had far more than enough of meat-shield arguments for one lifetime.

 

[firosahoge]

@Meridis

yeah, lets ignore the number that is done because the pregnancy is ectopic or the fetus isn't viable as well as the fact that nothing that makes a human more significant than any other animal or just a clump of cells hasn't formed yet.

Im not ignoring anything, I just dont want giga walls of text but sure, lets discuss. Abortion in the case where health of mother is in jeopardy, rape, or incest make up less than 2% of abortions, so lets leave those decisions to those families and talk about the 98% for now.

You said humans are equal to animals, yet we slaughter millions of chickens and cows and eat then daily... I dont think you really believe that.

Clump of cells? Nope. He or she is a developing baby. If our moms decided to destroy us in the womb we wouldnt be here right now. A baby has his or her unique DNA at conception, all they need is time. Calling a baby a clump of cells is an effort to dehumanize them to justify infanticide.

Lets also ignore the part of the bible that teaches you how and when to do abortions, showing that it isn't really a matter of being advanced.

Woah woah woah! I NEVER heard this argument before but this is an outright lie. Sacrificing babies to the false god Molech was a heinous and barbaric sin and was denounced at every mention. Ancient peoples heated up burning idols and burned their babies to death, this is a grievous sin.

Then we can ignore the fact that waiting until they can suffer throw them out in a country that has a massive childhood poverty and starvation problem and refuses to do anything about it.

Who are we to kill a baby in the womb because we think they might have a tough life? My best friend's single mom was a drug addict and he grew up in foster care, but he's now a successful married lawyer. America is a prosperous country with a long waiting list of people seeking to adopt babies. There are even many celebrities and successful people that were almost aborted like Oprah, Jack Nicholson, and much more. We should be protecting babies when they cant protect themselves, not killing them.

 

[beperov]

@ninjadork there's a little bit of science in your ideology

 

[BoatyMcBoatface]

@firosahoge @Meridis @ninjadork
Why are yall even arguing about fucking abortion of all thing in a comment section of manga chapter?

 

[firosahoge]

@BoatyMcBoatface it all started with a "why are babies in the brothel" question... I answered, because they don't kill their babies like we do in America

 

[Rebarry]

Jesus, can you guys take the abortion stuff to private messages. Nobody wants to go to a manga comment section and see a huge debate about something unrelated to the manga. Doesn't matter if it's tangentially related, the chapter wasn't about abortion. People just want to talk about the chapter.

 

[Seink]

Secret Weapon! Daughter Tears! Activate!
K.O.!!!!!
"Ok, I lost, I will do it..."

 

[miedziux]

Ravi used Cry.
It's super effective!

 

[Seink]

@firosahoge Actually killing babies(abortion) was common practice in brothels of the past, and it makes completely sense as pregnant women cant be used to make money. Most of those women were treated as slaves and forced to drink some abortion tea whenever they got pregnant, and in the odd chance the tea failed and the child was born, the child's future was pretty much sealed as property of the brothel. If they let every child be born, not only there would be a massive waste of money in child care but the prostitutes would pass more time giving birth than working XD

 

[ShinobuOshino]

Prostitutes are like zombies: if you get eaten by meet one you'll become one too.

No, seriously, why did he refuse? To me it just looks like he is being heavily prejudiced there.

It's not like they'll make her work while she is there as a guest and I doubt that they'll show her anything as that'd be meddling in an other person's family and they seem mature enough. Additionally you could just tell them afterward -while the kid is not there- that they have to make sure she doesn't learn anything, it shouldn't be that big of a problem. I also doubt that prostitutes enjoy traumatizing kids for fun -just because they are prostitutes- particularly when the parent is the one protecting them. I mean they have kids too, they may make them grow differently but that doesn't mean they are not able to respect his choices. Additionally for the greatest part of their journey it's just the two of them: spending five days with other girls of the same age will probably be good for the kid. And about the problem of her happening to see something, he can just buy one of those girls for five nights to look after his kid while the rest of the girls work, to make sure she doesn't meet anything he thinks is unsuitable for her.

 

[firosahoge]

@Seink that makes sense, pretty sad though.

 

[Meridis]

@ninjadork
In this case, no. Explain to me how burnout in the case of prostitution becomes a societal problem. As for the ethical argument in that article, it exists entirely on the premise that having a unique combination of dna inherently makes them a person. That is not true. If you have a head injury and your brain is destroyed, it doesn't matter if they keep your body alive, you are gone. In the same token, a fetus which hasn't developed the mental faculties of a human is not a human. In a similar token, someone who is mentally disabled and has the metal faculties of a child would not be a fully independent adult.

As for your feelings on convenience or necessary abortions, there are two issues. Convenience abortions are defined as anything that doesn't prevent an immediate death. If either of them would die soon after birth, it would still be considered convenience. Second, I only brought up necessary abortions because they where talking broadly about abortions without mentioning them. It doesn't matter either way because the assumption that it is an independent human at conception with it's own rights is both legally and factually wrong, making that argument irrelevant.

@firosahoge

You said humans are equal to animals, yet we slaughter millions of chickens and cows and eat then daily... I dont think you really believe that.

I didn't say that humans are equal to animals because that cellular tissue is not a human being. Just as you can't become someone else by tissue transplants, those cells don't constitute any of the things which make a human life. They are merely a supportive structure to which a human being can develop. It's like how someone who is brain dead already lost all of their characteristics as a person. Flesh alone does not make a person.

Clump of cells? Nope. He or she is a developing baby. If our moms decided to destroy us in the womb we wouldnt be here right now. A baby has his or her unique DNA at conception, all they need is time. Calling a baby a clump of cells is an effort to dehumanize them to justify infanticide.

No person is obligated to develop cells that could potentially be the foundation of a human. Again, it isn't actually human yet and DNA that hasn't yet even affected a personality is not a person.

Woah woah woah! I NEVER heard this argument before but this is an outright lie. Sacrificing babies to the false god Molech was a heinous and barbaric sin and was denounced at every mention. Ancient peoples heated up burning idols and burned their babies to death, this is a grievous sin.

It's in Numbers 5:11-31 The Test of the Unfaithful Wife. It says to give her bitter water so that she will miscarry. Again, though, your confusing a biologically independent child with fetal tissue.

Who are we to kill a baby in the womb because we think they might have a tough life? My best friend's single mom was a drug addict and he grew up in foster care, but he's now a successful married lawyer. America is a prosperous country with a long waiting list of people seeking to adopt babies. There are even many celebrities and successful people that were almost aborted like Oprah, Jack Nicholson, and much more. We should be protecting babies when they cant protect themselves, not killing them.

As a parent or a prospective parent, you ARE the one who has to decide if your willing to put the child through this. It is also irresponsible to disregard the concern and put it up to chance or some higher power. Further, America as a whole has wealth but it is not distributed. This is a problem to the point that, internationally, America is now considered to have regressed into being a developing nation. The UN has criticized the US for having sections that are equivalent to Third World countries. It is that a small number of people have had extreme and outrageous success. That small number is not the country as a whole and circumstances have gotten worse and worse for the majority.

 

[firosahoge]

@Meridis Apologies to those who don't want to see this debate. Personally though, I think it's productive to discuss hard topics instead of ignoring them, as long as everyone remains respectful.

I didn't say that humans are equal to animals because that cellular tissue is not a human being. Just as you can't become someone else by tissue transplants, those cells don't constitute any of the things which make a human life. They are merely a supportive structure to which a human being can develop. It's like how someone who is brain dead already lost all of their characteristics as a person. Flesh alone does not make a person.

No. It's a baby, not a clump of cells. All the baby needs is time and he or she will become a grown adult eventually just like you and me. Tissue transplants don't become humans with time. If you, as a "clump of cells", were aborted, you wouldn't be typing this right now. Why don't we take an extreme hypothetical situation and destroy all these "clumps of cells" for the next 100 years? The human race would go extinct because we're killing babies, our descendants. I think we've both said our piece on this point, no point repeating the same arguments over and over.

It's in Numbers 5:11-31 The Test of the Unfaithful Wife. It says to give her bitter water so that she will miscarry. Again, though, your confusing a biologically independent child with fetal tissue.

That's not talking about abortion, it's literally a test to see if a wife is unfaithful. It's something supernatural. More details about that common misconception here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html Edit: Fixed link

As a parent or a prospective parent, you ARE the one who has to decide if your willing to put the child through this. It is also irresponsible to disregard the concern and put it up to chance or some higher power. Further, America as a whole has wealth but it is not distributed. This is a problem to the point that, internationally, America is now considered to have regressed into being a developing nation. The UN has criticized the US for having sections that are equivalent to Third World countries. It is that a small number of people have had extreme and outrageous success. That small number is not the country as a whole and circumstances have gotten worse and worse for the majority.

So your solution to parents is to murder their baby if they don't want to "put their baby through this"? Whether you murder a 1 month baby in the womb or a 1 year old infant, we don't murder babies unless we give ourselves excuses like "only a clump of cells". If the baby grows up and says, "I wish my mom aborted me, I'll just commit suicide", let them make the decision. Who are we to make that decision for them before they get to have a say? Celine Dion, Cher, Jack Nicholson, Andrea Bocelli, The Game, Pope John Paul II, Nick Cannon, Marlin Stutzman USA Reprensative, Tim Tebow, Justin Bieber, Sean Lennon, Steve Jobs, and more were ALL almost aborted. And these are just celebrities, who knows how many people we know and love were almost aborted. Also, justifying murder just for economic prosperity? That's about as cruel as Hitler. As for why America is regressing? I blame rampant liberalism, turning away from God, etc, but there are a plethora of reasons people can come up with. Killing babies is not one of the solutions to the problem we should entertain though as fellow human beings.

Anyway, aside from the Numbers thing which I didn't know about and had to look up, we've said pretty much the same thing. So how about agree to disagree unless you can bring up something new? I don't want to keep repeating myself.

 

[Koyomiya]

LOL an abortion debate on an a manga comment section for an isekai

this is srs business

 

[tozne]

wtf is this comment section. chill

 

[kolotons]

Damn what a fine brothel. They have for all tastes )) (the pigtail one is especially great)

 

[Eliminateur]

yes daddy, help those nice ladies and get a good reward :3