Ad homenim isn't a fallacy either tbh

Haven't we seen this same thread before?

Anyways, I still stand by the claim that all arguments in favor of abortion at any stage can be used to justify euthanizing newborns and infants.

I'll take a premature death over growing up in a shitty poor household with a single baby mother any day of the week.

That's not your choice to make though; abortion completely removes all agency from the individual fetus -- even to later take their own life if they choose -- and aren't you all about consent? If being conceived was the greatest offense you can imagine, wouldn't the preclusion of any further consent on your part be a similarly heinous offense?

That's not your choice to make though; abortion completely removes all agency from the individual fetus -- even to later take their own life if they choose -- and aren't you all about consent? If being conceived was the greatest offense you can imagine, wouldn't the preclusion of any further consent on your part be a similarly heinous offense?

No, I'd say it's the moral equivalent of putting somebody back to sleep after accidentally waking them up. You're merely fixing the problem that you just caused.

As a fetus, you can't consent to anything--neither birth nor your conception. Given this reasonable antecedent, my position has always been that it's not up to us to decide whether an unborn child wants to be conceived or not. That's not something we can just assume. It also cannot be assumed that the unborn don't want to be conceived, and this is where a lot of people have trouble with my philosophy, because they don't fully understand the nature of the position.

Contrary to what the average person may believe, anti-natalists make no philosophical assumptions on the opinions of the unborn--because to assume anything would be to impose our will, which would contradict the philosophy itself. We do not assume that the unborn wish not to be conceived. If I had ten kids, I can be reasonably certain that each and every one of them would all appreciate having been born. This doesn't actually mean anything, though, because as I just said, the point is not to assume what the child would want at all. It is not up to you, and the choice to not have children is not the same thing as assuming none want to be born. I hope you understand that, because it'll save us a lot of time discussing that boring crap.

The unborn is the state of literal nonexistence; conception is the imposition of existence, or the crime.

Abortion is the apology. It can (crudely) be described as a violation of consent, but it's as much a violation of consent as, say, knocking over an antique at a museum and sheepishly putting it back into place, even though you're technically not even supposed to touch anything. The point is, the vase looks a great deal better on the pedestal than it does on the floor (and that's where it's supposed to be anyway), so you can probably afford to place it back at the cost of some dignity.

Would it have been better to not be so clumsy in the first place? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean you can't clean up the mess to the best of your ability.

abortion completely removes all agency from the individual fetus -- even to later take their own life if they choose

I take umbrage with this line, because it rather blithely glosses over the idea that suicide is 1). only governmentally-sanctioned in a select few small European countries, and 2). assuming it were legal, it would likely be only available for adults considered mentally healthy enough. Especially in the West--we're not just going to allow little 8-year-olds to kill themselves.

So you live 18 long years--your life fucking sucks, and you've been through nothing but shit, yet you've developed a long series of intimate relationships with your friends and family. Now, even though you hate life enough to kill yourself, you feel emotionally chained to these third parties who should, in all fairness, be totally irrelevant in your own personal decision to end your own life--but you nonetheless cannot do it because of them. Because you know they'd all be crushed emotionally, and you don't want them to be affected that way by your sweet release.

There's also another problem. Having the right to make the personal decision to off yourself would be nice thing and all, but it doesn't undo the original sin: having been born in the first place. You can arrest a murderer, but you can't bring his victim back to life. Likewise, you can kill yourself, but you can't undo your birth. There's still a moral crime being committed there that's not being accounted for--because it can't be accounted for. It can only be avoided.

I don't oppose the death penalty, and I think the only person here who's vehemently opposed to it is Flee.

Oh I guarantee if they did what I say here violent crime would drop. It is my belief that if you take a life, yours no longer matters. A life for a life. I think I read there are 180,000 people in US prisons for murder. That's a whole lot, but you know what? I would have absolutely no problem if everyone of them was executed tomorrow. Killing nearly 200,000 people sounds awful. But it's retribution for all the lives they took.