Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 22, 2026, 10:57:49 pm »

"What if you missed something? What if someone drops something? What if you're out and about?"

You are arguing that it is better to initiate violence (abortion) than to not initiate violence if following the latter there is a possibility - not even a certainty! - of greater physical pain (death by swallowing battery). Thank you for implicitly answering my earlier question: your priority is minimizing physical pain, not minimizing initiated violence.

Applying the same argument, I suppose you would similarly turn on a painless poison gas to kill an already-born baby without their consent before they have time to perhaps swallow a battery.

"And you're ignoring the other examples I mentioned."

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/abortion-kindness/msg31991/#msg31991

Quote
None of which I would do (or have ever done in the past).

"Not to mention all the animals killed to procure their food and clothes (even if they're plant-based)."

Hence my opposition to conception (for both humans and non-humans). I do not deny that harvesting crops statistically leads to some accidental animal deaths, and hence I agree that we should aim to reduce the supply of crops needed by reducing the demand for crops. But are you arguing that it is better to deliberately kill X individuals without their permission than for Y(>X) individuals to risk accidental death?

"Birth is violent"

Say this to pronatalists, not to me (an antinatalist FFS!).

""Childcare" is violent"

Depends on the carer.

"Even just having to wake up is violent (note how often they cry upon waking)"

Whom you are blaming for this? Noisy people nearby? Or anyone who doesn't kill every sleeping baby they encounter?
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 20, 2026, 09:53:43 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 20, 2026, 05:10:31 pm
Or I could check the vicinity for dangerous objects and put them elsewhere before the baby arrives. Moron.

What if you missed something? What if someone drops something? What if you're out and about?

You're living in fairytale land.

And you're ignoring the other examples I mentioned. I could easily list a hundred more examples of violence often necessary for "childcare". Not to mention all the animals killed to procure their food and clothes (even if they're plant-based).

Quote
How?

I've just explained how, "illiterate".
Birth is violent
"Childcare" is violent
Even just having to wake up is violent (note how often they cry upon waking)
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 20, 2026, 05:10:31 pm »

"If you would not commit the violence of e.g. swiping a button battery out of a baby's mouth in order to prevent them dying an excruciating death, then you very clearly are not.
You are willing to leave them to a horrific fate just to keep your own hands clean."

Or I could check the vicinity for dangerous objects and put them elsewhere before the baby arrives. Moron.

""Wait for their instruction."
This requires life preservation, which requires "repeated acts of violence"."

How?
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 19, 2026, 09:45:10 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 19, 2026, 06:34:27 pm
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/abortion-kindness/msg31946/#msg31946

Relevance?

Quote
None of which I would do (or have ever done in the past).

I'm interested in preventing greater violence (which IS the path of least suffering, ultimately).

If you would not commit the violence of e.g. swiping a button battery out of a baby's mouth in order to prevent them dying an excruciating death, then you very clearly are not.

You are willing to leave them to a horrific fate just to keep your own hands clean.

Quote
Where do I support this? Please post an exact quote.

"Wait for their instruction."
This requires life preservation, which requires "repeated acts of violence". Your support is implicit, albeit temporal.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 19, 2026, 06:34:27 pm »

"preventing suffering and greater violence"

The path of least suffering and the path of least violence are rarely the same path. Which is your priority?

"If you were, then you'd be worried about the initiated violence of survival and birth, not just conception and death."

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/abortion-kindness/msg31946/#msg31946

"When you pin a baby down and force a diaper on them,
When you cram them into a carseat or force them into a jacket,
When you grab them from a dangerous ledge, stop them pulling a heavy piece of furniture onto themselves, or swipe a button battery out of their mouth,"

None of which I would do (or have ever done in the past). On the main site I explicitly state:

Quote
Any action without the child’s consent, or which overrides the child’s refusal, or which otherwise involves force, is a violent action.
...
Talking to a child who does not want to listen is violence. Confiscating a child’s possessions is violence. Forcefully interrupting a child’s activity is violence. Making the child go anywhere the child does not want to go, or making the child leave anywhere the child does not want to leave, is violence. Any form of imposition, any form of pressure, any decision made that disregards the child’s wishes is violence.

But you are both illiterate and hallucinatory.

"what you're supporting (repeated acts of violence for unrequested life preservation)."

Where do I support this? Please post an exact quote.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 18, 2026, 09:36:01 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 18, 2026, 05:20:56 pm
There is no other preventive measure. Abortion, a response to conception, is remedial by definition.

How dishonest. We're cleary talking about preventing suffering and greater violence, not preventing conception (although, abortion is the only reliable, widely legal way to prevent the individual themselves conceiving).

Quote
I did not bring up gambling.

My question wasn't "who brought up gambling?"

Quote
I am worried about initiated violence.

If you were, then you'd be worried about the initiated violence of survival and birth, not just conception and death.

Quote
Of course I would try my best to never use force, but instead only act in response to cues from them. I may not be flawless in this. But so long as the infant is not my offspring, it is not my fault for being an imperfect carer, as I am dealing with a problem that I did not create. If I were the infant, I would feel respected by any carers who did not conceive me but who are sincerely trying to figure out what I want from them, certainly more than I would feel respected by aborters who (just like conceivers, and just like tyrannical parents) think they know better than I do.

"who think they know better than I do"
This is the position you take every single time you use force.

When you pin a baby down and force a diaper on them,

When you cram them into a carseat or force them into a jacket,

When you grab them from a dangerous ledge, stop them pulling a heavy piece of furniture onto themselves, or swipe a button battery out of their mouth,

They might be screaming and trying frantically to escape. That's clear communication. But you do it anyway, because you think you know better than they do.

I sincerely wonder why you think it's ok to commit violence to preserve life, but not to create it?

Quote
Now you sound like every tyrannical parent justifying prohibiting their offspring from dating.

This would mean ongoing violence and emotional pain. Again, this is far more similar to what you're supporting (repeated acts of violence for unrequested life preservation).

Quote
Then why am I opposed to conception?

Because you're inconsistent.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 18, 2026, 05:20:56 pm »

"So we shouldn't bother with others, when that is no longer available?"

There is no other preventive measure. Abortion, a response to conception, is remedial by definition.

"I could ask you the same question."

I did not bring up gambling.

"Because you are the one worried about something (life) being "stolen" from the child."

I am worried about initiated violence.

"And are willing to let nature (and parents) force things on them so they might have a chance to gain."

You are again ignoring that I am opposed to conception.

"If you intend on keeping an infant in your care alive, you yourself would have to repeatedly force things on them. Bathing, changing, any required medical treatments, and birth itself."

Of course I would try my best to never use force, but instead only act in response to cues from them. I may not be flawless in this. But so long as the infant is not my offspring, it is not my fault for being an imperfect carer, as I am dealing with a problem that I did not create. If I were the infant, I would feel respected by any carers who did not conceive me but who are sincerely trying to figure out what I want from them, certainly more than I would feel respected by aborters who (just like conceivers, and just like tyrannical parents) think they know better than I do.

"Your choice is between 1 additional consent violation, and many.
Between 1 (if performed early) painless procedure, and many painful, distressing, or uncomfortable ones."

Now you sound like every tyrannical parent justifying prohibiting their offspring from dating.

"Your fellow traveller Christian Bethel said Aryanists hate life, but you seem to worship it!"

Then why am I opposed to conception?
Posted by: christianbethel
« on: January 18, 2026, 02:28:18 pm »

'Your fellow traveller Christian Bethel said Aryanists hate life, but you seem to worship it!'
Nope. You're just illiterate.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 17, 2026, 06:14:18 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 17, 2026, 05:16:10 pm
Preventing conception is the genuine preventive measure.

So we shouldn't bother with others, when that is no longer available?

Your insane arguments come off as desperation.

Quote
If it is a gamble either way, what are you complaining about?

I could ask you the same question.

Quote
Again you sound like every tyrannical parent arguing that not forcing their offspring to learn XYZ before they themselves ask to learn it is equivalent to stealing from them.

Interesting analogy.

Because you are the one worried about something (life) being "stolen" from the child.

And are willing to let nature (and parents) force things on them so they might have a chance to gain.

If you intend on keeping an infant in your care alive, you yourself would have to repeatedly force things on them. Bathing, changing, any required medical treatments, and birth itself.

Your choice is between 1 additional consent violation, and many.
Between 1 (if performed early) painless procedure, and many painful, distressing, or uncomfortable ones.
Your fellow traveller Christian Bethel said Aryanists hate life, but you seem to worship it!
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 17, 2026, 05:16:10 pm »

"what we're discussing is a preventative measure" (abortion)."

Preventing conception is the genuine preventive measure.

"I never denied that abortion would be a gamble. By forcing them out of the game, they might never "lose", but they also won't "win". You are denying that letting nature force them to stay in is a gamble."

If it is a gamble either way, what are you complaining about?

"While you "wait" for their command, they'll have to suffer repeated consent violations."

Again you sound like every tyrannical parent arguing that not forcing their offspring to learn XYZ before they themselves ask to learn it is equivalent to stealing from them.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 17, 2026, 03:17:13 am »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 16, 2026, 10:18:11 pm
You were the one who brought it up!

That their suffering can usually be temporarily relieved non-lethally is irrelevant because they still have to suffer in the first place and what we're discussing is a preventative measure (abortion). And "usually" is far from adequate.

Quote
That's what you would be doing by killing them without permission.

I never denied that abortion would be a gamble. By forcing them out of the game, they might never "lose", but they also won't "win".

You are denying that letting nature force them to stay in is a gamble.
While you "wait" for their command, they'll have to suffer repeated consent violations.
After already being forced into the game in the first place!
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 16, 2026, 10:18:11 pm »

"Irrelevant."

You were the one who brought it up!

"Gambling on someone else's behalf is still gambling."

That's what you would be doing by killing them without permission.

"Not an option for a baby who is literally still in the womb."

You are illiterate:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/abortion-kindness/msg31960/#msg31960

Quote
Wait for their instruction.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 16, 2026, 09:25:49 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 16, 2026, 08:35:08 pm
A crying baby can usually be relieved without killing them. (Also, I myself have never seen a baby crying prior to birth.)

Irrelevant.

Quote
I don't make a profit either way, therefore not a gamble.

Gambling on someone else's behalf is still gambling.

Quote
Each person decides for themselves.

Not an option for a baby who is literally still in the womb. Try again.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 16, 2026, 08:35:08 pm »

"most people understand a crying baby is usually distressed or uncomfortable and needs relief."

A crying baby can usually be relieved without killing them. (Also, I myself have never seen a baby crying prior to birth.)

"So, gamble on their suffering."

I don't make a profit either way, therefore not a gamble.

"Pick one:"

Each person decides for themselves.

"- A compassionate human decides, despite not being explicitly requested to"

You sound like every tyrannical parent justifying the violence they initiate towards their offspring.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 16, 2026, 05:49:59 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 16, 2026, 04:25:09 pm
You should debate with the person whose opinion you accuse me of valuing.

Debating with unempathetic people won't make them empathetic. Thankfully, most people understand a crying baby is usually distressed or uncomfortable and needs relief.

Quote
Wait for their instruction.

So, gamble on their suffering.

Quote
you should not get to decide how quickly it leaks into anyone else's room, except those who have explicitly requested you alone to decide for them.

Pick one:
- A compassionate human decides, despite not being explicitly requested to
- Nature decides, despite not being explicitly requested to