Intact fetal cadavers

An anti abortion organization, posing as a fetal tissue buyer, gets planned parenthood to agree to arrange for twenty week babies to be born alive, and then supplied to the buyer.

At which point you are doubtless thinking “How mature is twenty weeks? Are they conscious?”

Here is a video of an unborn boy masturbating at fifteen weeks. (At 6:30 into the video) If he can beat himself off, he is conscious. (From fifteen weeks to birth, there is a male hormone surge, to ensure that little boys are born looking conspicuously different from little girls. During this hormonal surge, unborn and newly born males are apt to beat themselves off)

Of course, really it makes no moral difference whether the baby is killed one minute before birth or one minute after birth, and whether the still living but abandoned child is sold for profit. The profit just reminds us of what we are allowing people to do.

If children are not valuable, except as their parents value them, if they can be disposed of at whim, there is no moral basis to force men to provide child support, any more than they should provide cat support for cat ladies.

If children are inherently valuable, if allowing them to be killed brutalizes us all, because a society that can dispose of unwanted babies can dispose of unwanted pensioners, political troublemakers, etc, then women have no right to abort, still less to abort without paternal permission, and no right to behave in ways that deprive children of fathers.

It would seem that children have zero value except their mothers value them. And if their father values them, but their mother does not, they still have zero value. But, if their mother values them, they have infinite value – except that they can be denied their biological fathers.

So we go from infinite valuation of human life, to treating children as disposable garbage, accordingly as convenient for women, and inconvenient for men.

41 Responses to “Intact fetal cadavers”

  1. Mackus says:

    If logic worked on left, then Florida guy who tricked his “oops im pregnant” girlfriend into taking abortifacient, would either got off scot free, or abortifacient would got banned as dangerous murder weapons (abortifacients kill more people in US than guns…). He was sentenced to fourteen years, and abortifacient remain legal in US.

    They charged him not with murder, but with product tampering and conspiracy to commit mail fraud (At least they understood problem with sentencing someone for killing fetus….).
    Now you know what will happen to you if you remove label in clothing store 🙂

    Moral inconsistence is criticized by left only when doing so serves the left.
    Left would scream “hypocrite” at a man who is proud and consistent anti-progressive, because they literally do not understand the word has any other meaning than “thing i scream at those i dont like”

    • peppermint says:

      > man inserts pen0r into vagoo

      > is surprised that babby is formed

      > throws bitch fit and forces abortion

      > goes to the cesspool that drains the degeneracy of society

      > men’s rights activist QQ’s about it on an alt right blog in 2015

      > I’m replying

      6/10

      • Erik says:

        4/10 mediocre trolling. please go and stay go.

      • Mackus says:

        Leftist outrage was in that case was due to guy killing baby when mother wanted it to live. If she killed it herself, she would be celebrated as proud independent woman.
        It was Schroedinger fetus, its status as innocent baby vs clump of parasitic cells was undetermined until she decided whether to keep or abort it.
        According to left, when father exercises power over his child, its monstrous, when mother does its, its heroic.
        In order to be consistent, left would either have to demand to ban all abortion, praise the guy for being independent, or admit that gender equality is codeword for destroying families at expense of children.

        • peppermint says:

          So, do you want men to be able to infanticide their babies, but not the babies of other men? In most species, when a man gives a woman some sperm, it’s hers to use as she sees fit, though bedbugs men do their best to ensure she doesn’t swallow it.

          Your position is degenerate and utterly retarded. Please refrain from reproducing.

          Meanwhile, we were having a discussion of how to incentivize fatherhood behavior. This includes, beyond economics, social roles and social norms, not the least since social norms that include infanticide can force fatherhood too, as seen in zebras. Confucius say, shotgun wedding is case of wife or death.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            Mackus said:

            It was Schroedinger fetus, its status as innocent baby vs clump of parasitic cells was undetermined until she decided whether to keep or abort it. According to left, when father exercises power over his child, its monstrous, when mother does its, its heroic.

            Peppermint said:

            Your position is degenerate and utterly retarded. Please refrain from reproducing.

            Peppermint is a white knight…
            Peppermint is a cuck.

          • peppermint says:

            By the way, in his case, Uncle Sam isn’t acting as a pimp, but as a proper uncle

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >So, do you want men to be able to infanticide their babies, but not the babies of other men?
            Isn’t that how it worked in ancient Rome and ancient Greece? I’m pretty sure that the first people to stop infanticide were those cucktians you keep bashing.

        • peppermint says:

          However, men should have the right to demand an abortion if they find out their sex partner was a jew, since men should not be cucked into raising demihuman garbage

          • peppermint says:

            I think that if you knock a girl up,you (1) marry her if it is permitted under die nĂĽrnberger geĹżetze (2) face punishment for raſſenschande if not. I don’t think this undermines paternal authority, except to steal daughters from feckless parents and put them under the authority of a man who chose to do the marriage act anyway.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >men should have the right to demand an abortion if they find out their sex partner was a jew
            I lol’d

        • Mackus says:

          >>So, do you want men to be able to infanticide their babies, but not the babies of other men?
          No, I want fathers to have authority over their children, and husbands to infanticide babies their wives had with other men, and then give their wives public lashes as punishment. Please stop being idiot.
          If progressives wanted to be consistent, they’d had to allow men to kill their babies, like they allow women to kill their babies. Or they should drop pretense or gender equality. They just don’t want to be consistent.

          >> In most species, when a man gives a woman some sperm, it’s hers to use as she sees fit
          Most species will not hook fathers on child support, and mammal males will often murder offspring of females they did not recently had sex with.

          If man was forced to marry woman he made pregnant, but was given power over her (including right to punish her), all is good.
          But since he wasn’t offered power over woman, only servitude, its no surprise at all that he wanted to kill the baby.
          Florida feticide case did not happen in perfect world of patriarchy, where law exists to punish evil cad who seduced innocently naive virgin. They were both fornicating.

          Until husband authority is restored by law, I will not support any slut who wants child support or marriage from a guy because she was too dumb to use pill.

          • Lars Grobian says:

            They are consistent. The good they seek to maximize is convenience and good feelings for themselves.

            They’re not consistent Greek philosophers, or consistent Muslims, or consistent libertarians. They’re consistent progs.

            They’re up-front about it, too. They will *tell* you that their definition of “racism” only applies to people they hate. They will *tell* you that men don’t have rights. They will *tell* you that all their standards are double standards.

  2. peppermint says:

    children have zero value except as assigned by their mother, and maybe their father, if present

    Problem: government tells women that they should value things other than children and tells men to give shekels to pay for women caring about stuff

    Solution (cucktian): government tells women that they should value children and tells men to give shekels to prevent them from killing their own children

    Solution (alt right): government stops telling White women to value things other than children, but commands women carrying non-White children to abort or give birth in some other country

  3. Lars Grobian says:

    A woman’s property rights in her children (and in any men she chooses to regard as their fathers) are of infinite importance. The property itself has no rights anybody is bound to respect.

    If you prevent somebody from junking his car, you’re doing him as much violence as if you junked his car against his will. It belongs to him. Hands off.

    By female logic, that only applies if a man interferes with his wife’s disposal of his car. But you get the drift.

    • Erik says:

      Yes, that would be the case covered under “If children are not valuable, except as their parents value them…”

      Then there’s no grounds for demanding I maintain someone else’s property, let alone grounds for intervening in how I raise mine.

  4. Alrenous says:

    You didn’t mention it.

    If a man will sell you an intact 20-week baby, alive or dead, he will sell you an intact 20-year old, alive or dead. It doesn’t matter if using former-baby parts is rational or not.

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Yes, even the holidays emphasise that life begins at conception since the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary is when it is considered the occasion when the Lord Jesus Christ was conceived. In fact, the holiday is celebrated exactly nine months before Christmas Day on the calendar, nine months being the estimated time for human gestation…

    A.J.P.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      >life begins at conception
      Is a sperm, before it meets the egg, alive? Is an unfertilized egg alive?

      Life doesn’t have a clear point of “beginning”. A newborn is more human than a 20 week-old fetus, who is more human than a newly fertilized egg.

      Anybody who declares that there is a precise point where life begins is probably either

      1) Trying to claim early abortion isn’t “killing a human” or
      2) Trying to claim early abortion is equivalent to murder

      Neither of which is accurate.

      • jim says:

        Life does not have any clear point of beginning:

        It is pretty obvious that killing a fifteen week old fetus, a four month old fetus, is killing a person, is a similar act to killing me. If you doubt it, check the video of babies in the womb doing cute stuff, linked to in the article.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          >is killing a person
          “Person” is a loaded and ambiguous term. Lots of people think their pets are persons. Lots of people dehumanize some groups they don’t like, and regard them as non-persons.

          >is a similar act to killing me
          Not really. You have a job, friends, wife, et cetera. The 15 week old fetus has nothing. It’s really easy to create a 15 week old fetus. Nearly all of the parental investment comes later.

          It’s only a similar action, because the fetus looks somewhat like you. But the fetus is not valued by anyone. The female body artificially induces a lot of abortions (usually earlier than 15 weeks), in order to kill fetuses that aren’t as healthy as possible. Nobody mourns those 10 week or 6 week abortions. Half the time, they don’t even know about the pregnancy.

          >doing cute stuff
          Monkeys are also cute, and quasi-human.

          • jim says:

            >is a similar act to killing me

            Not really. You have a job, friends, wife, et cetera. The 15 week old fetus has nothing.

            It has a father. Should not the father have equal authority over its life? And if a father can be stuck with support, while the mother can always ditch it, should not the father have a great deal more authority over its life?

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >It has a father.
            All children have genetic fathers. Some children have fathers who want to invest in their lives. And those children rarely get aborted, even today.

            >if a father can be stuck with support
            Historically, fathers have not been stuck with support, if paternity is uncertain. The modern approach is dysfunctional.

            >should not the father have a great deal more authority over its life?
            The mother is the natural owner of the child, because she invests more than the father. However, if somebody owns the mother, through marriage or slavery, then the abortion decision should be given to the mother’s owner.

            In general, civilized societies have a high rate of marriage. But it’s never 100%.

            • jim says:

              Some children have fathers who want to invest in their lives. And those children rarely get aborted, even today.

              Bullshit.

              If women needed to get paternal permission, there would be far fewer abortions.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >If women needed to get paternal permission, there would be far fewer abortions
            Because some men might not give permission for the abortion. Not because those same men want to invest in the child.

            • jim says:

              Women abort for the same reason they contracept, to keep their options open, because they hope that Jeremy Meeks will send them a booty call. Men don’t want their girls to keep their options open. Hypergamy means always planning to trade up to better quality semen.

              If men had their way, girls would settle down and start having kids at eighteen rather than thirty.

              And proof of this is what happens in places where men do get their way.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            R.N.G.,

            At what point does the woman start investing in the child, investing in her own actions?

            Can you bring yourself to tell a woman to do anything?

            A.J.P.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >If men had their way
            You’re mixing our discussion with other issues.

            We were talking about abortion, and whether the fetus is valued. You’re talking about Patriarchy. Under our current system, aborted fetus’ are usually not valued. Under Patriarchy, aborted fetus’ are usually not valued.

            Under Patriarchy, there would be fewer unvalued fetus’, but that’s not because the philosophical nature of the fetus has changed. It’s because paternity would be certain, and the man could have a successful relationship with his wife/girlfriend.

            And criminalizing abortion would not do very much to reinstate Patriarchy. You might end up with more chaste women, but you’d also end up with more single mothers.

            • jim says:

              >If men had their way

              You’re mixing our discussion with other issues.

              We were talking about abortion, and whether the fetus is valued. You’re talking about Patriarchy. Under our current system, aborted fetus’ are usually not valued. Under Patriarchy, aborted fetus’ are usually not valued.

              Valued by whom? Fetus not valued by the woman because she hopes for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks, and a baby might be an obstacle. But her boyfriend, who wants her to stop waiting for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks and settle down, usually values the fetus.

              We have late marriage and late childbearing because of female desire, not male desire. When men get their way, women marry early and have children early.

          • Henk says:

            A father who doesn’t want to invest in his offspring (and doesn’t have to care about the state’s policies on the matter) is the most likely to object to an abortion.

            It’s almost trivial to see why. Without expected parental investment, a child is pure genetic win. A noninvesting parent never has any incentive to abort. There is no opportunitiy cost. Only an investing parent would consider abortion.

            Now consider the opposite case of a high investment dad. When considering going all in on his offspring, wouldn’t he very much prefer a mother who is also totally committed? I’m sure he would. But that’s not matching the profile of the woman who considers abortion.

            The most rational anwer that high investment dad would have for the woman wishing for an abortion is, “Yes! Go ahead! Farewell!”

            • jim says:

              I’m sure he would. But that’s not matching the profile of the woman who considers abortion.

              You seem to be considering the case where we have paternal consent required for abortion, but our other laws are unchanged.

              That would be inconsistent, since laws allowing women to ditch the fathers of their children also assume the worthlessness of children, and also deny the paternal authority of men.

              With our current laws, it is usually the father that opposes abortion – because if he persuades the mother to refrain from aborting, that would indicate she was all in.

              With laws that protected children that were valued either by their father or their mother, it would also be the father that opposes abortion, because he would be less worried whether the mother was all in or not.

              In a consistent system where a man could be forced to provide child support, a mother could be forced to be a wife and mother, forced to provide a father for her child, and a child could not be executed except both father and mother agreed.

              Also, in a consistent system, we either ban abortion after fifteen weeks or earlier, or allow parents to execute their dependent children.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >her boyfriend … usually values the fetus
            How often can he establish paternity? And if she has the child, he won’t be able to have a successful relationship with her. She’ll still be waiting for a booty call from Meeks, even after she gives birth.

  6. Jim, totally correct. The women have all the power and that’s why our politics are fucking crazy.

  7. viking says:

    its aliberal thing to make an impossible situation impetus for another law

  8. […] brings us Intact fetal cadavers. He’s not pro-life exactly, but he’s predictably […]

  9. […] Intact fetal cadavers. Related: 95% of women feel good about murdering their babies. Related: Planned Parenthood video number 5. […]

  10. Jaro says:

    “If children are inherently valuable, if allowing them to be killed brutalizes us all, because a society that can dispose of unwanted babies can dispose of unwanted pensioners, political troublemakers, etc”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#/media/File:Abortion_Laws.svg

    this must be the reason why the red and orange countries of the world are the most peaceful, humane and law abiding.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      this must be the reason why the red and orange countries of the world are the most peaceful, humane and law abiding.

      Sarcasm? That’s a novel approach, friend.

  11. […] “Threaten to shut down the government” means “pass a budget forcing taxpayers to fund every single thing on the left wing wish list except funding for a particular corporation that sells baby meat.” […]

Leave a Reply