Murder

>>512773
I'd say that most people don't care,

I personally don't give two shits about any wars or casualties (as long as I can't see them to be fair).

I'd also say most people probably feel that the ends justify the means, and that is all the justification they need.

We all have a great deal of empathy, but some are better at ignoring it then others.

Its not and everybody knows it not so they have to invent justifications when needed

>>512773

>Is it ever appropriate to kill someone outside of self defense?


Sure, if it benefits a stupid woman who got knocked up. And most western society agrees with me.

>>512811
>le abortion is murder

Yes the fetis may be alive, but it isn't a human being, as long as the abortion occurs before 24 weeks (which is the legal requirement) the brain is not developed to a stage where independent thought can occur, you're effectively just killing cells, the fetus is far from having a concept of self determination.

Yet you would still find killing an animal alright despite most animals having far more developed brains than an early stage fetus

I'm not saying abortion is something people should just go for, but at the same time it's totally different from murder

I assume you'd too be opposed to euthenasia on humans suffering from locked in syndromes?

>>512974

>
Yes the fetis may be alive, but it isn't a human being, as long as the abortion occurs before 24 weeks (which is the legal requirement) the brain is not developed to a stage where independent thought can occur, you're effectively just killing cells, the fetus is far from having a concept of self determination.

So, for the record, if I went up to a pregnant woman, before the 24 weeks, kicked her in the stomach a few times,, and caused a miscarraige, what I did should just be simple assault?

Because, I would point out, that feticide by anyone other than the mother is punished harshly, at near-murder levels, pretty much everywhere in the Western World.

>>512982
The Fetus is effectively the property of the mother at that point of life, an abortion doesn't infringe on the fetus' choice of living or dying, since it is unable to make any such choice, whilst an assault on a pregnant mother is infringing on her choice to have a child or not, also its not like the assaulter is counting how many weeks old the fetus is here

What's with the western world bogeyman anyway?
The United Kingdom (especially Northern Ireland), Ireland, Poland, Finland, and Iceland all have restrictions placed on abortion limiting it based on conditions

File: image.jpg (132KB, 960x700px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 960x700px

>>512982
>How about I do the worse case senerio, huh? What the answer then Mr.knowitall?
Yes you fucking retard, because if you kill a child someone was going to have you committed feticide.
Even if she was planning to abort it, you wouldnt be able to know if she would have or not and she could have changed her mind in the future so its still feticide.

>>512974
>fetis

wot

>>513047
I'm using a shitty tablet to type with a borked touch screen

File: image.jpg (35KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 460x276px

>>513055
>borked

>>513025

>The Fetus is effectively the property of the mother at that point of life,

So, the right for a mother to abort a fetus and not some stranger is grounded in the mother's property rights and not a sense that the fetus is alive enough to murder? Why then is there a near murder penalty for feticide? Surely, it would be a civil matter.

>What's with the western world bogeyman anyway?

I assume, perhaps wrongly, that people consider the practices of the western world to be admirable and worthy of emulation, as opposed to say, how they treat things in Sub-Saharan Africa.

>>513043

But why is there a difference between abortion and feticide at all? You can't say that one is basically murder and the other one isn't without implicitly allowing the notion that it's actually all right for the mother to murder the unborn child, but nobody else is.

If the Fetus isn't alive or human enough to murder, then it shouldn't matter who kills it.

>>513673
>implicitly allowing the notion that it's actually all right for the mother to murder the unborn child
It is
Because it is a part of her body.

>>513703
>steal gold
>eat it

ITS PART OF MY BODY

>>513673
Are you autistic, anon? And I ask this seriously. One of the signs is not being able to comprehend context.

No there is no end difference between feticide and abortion. The end result is the same. The fetus was terminated.

That however changes massively with context in the same way manslaughter, first degree murder, and self defense all massively differ from each other despite the end product being the same thing; a person is dead.

If a mother chooses to end a pregnancy, it's their choice.

>>513799
>creating a baby is the same as stealing something

You're a fucking moron.

>>512974
In a sense it is murder your killing a developing person doesn't matter if they maybe cells but in time it will become a person like say I travel back in time and I some how give your mother a abortion with knowing you would've developed into the person you are today I just killed you , and then I will have to face time charges on the erasing of a person on the space time continuum level by the space time law officials

File: 1442708123966.gif (716KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 512x512px

>>513799
>Missing the point so bad you don't make sense
Actually its more akin to someone selling their own kidney stones because at least they fucking gestate it you retard.
No one stole anything except for maybe seed, something akin to gravel in commonality and waste.

>>513673
Its like the difference between putting down your dog and your neighbor shooting it
A fetus is not sentient until it develops further

>>513826

>That however changes massively with context in the same way manslaughter, first degree murder, and self defense all massively differ from each other despite the end product being the same thing; a person is dead.

But every single one of those differences is based on the state of mind of the person committing the act of killing (and for self-defense, beyond killing)

The difference between feticide and abortion is another one entirely, it's based completely around who is committing the act, not the mens rea involved in committing the act.

If you wanted to extend that same principle to killing of those actually born, we are talking literally about a kind of law in which whether or not an act is murder is dependent on who you are, a reversion to Hammurabi's code or something.

>If a mother chooses to end a pregnancy, it's their choice.

And if that's her choice, it's her choice. But to say that, and then say that someone else choosing to end her pregnancy is akin to murder is intellectually dishonest, since we don't allow mothers to kill their children generally. The fetus cannot be non-alive/human for one person and alive/human for another, because it's the same goddamn fetus.

>>513885

>Its like the difference between putting down your dog and your neighbor shooting it

So, an issue of property law? Consistent with that would be the notion that the mother owns the child. Do you really want to go there?

>A fetus is not sentient until it develops further

Completely unrelated to the property rights, if they exist, of the fetus.

If the fetus is not sentient, and further, that non-sentience means that it's stripped of the sorts of protections that you would normally give human beings, than my deciding to terminate a random woman's pregnancy is a civil violation against her, her property, her body. It's not akin to murder, because who have I murdered?

>>513025
>an abortion doesn't infringe on the fetus' choice of living or dying, since it is unable to make any such choice

Is killing a 3 month old baby ok because it can't survive on its own ?

>>513893
>The fetus cannot be non-alive/human for one person and alive/human for another, because it's the same goddamn fetus.
In this case its more like a decision on whether or not the person want to make it a person or not, not if the person is killing a person or not.
Abortion is a form of birth control, saying that abortion is murder is comparable to saying taking the pill is murder.
It isn't, the fact that it happens later down the line doesn't matter.

File: 1450646512186.gif (1MB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 625x626px

>>513903
I can tell which anon you are, so I ask you to go back to /pol/
Not because of you position, >>513901 this anon is giving a valid argument
Its because your acting like a /pol/ack, and we don't like to argue with someone who acts like that.
>>>/pol/

>>513917

>In this case its more like a decision on whether or not the person want to make it a person or not, not if the person is killing a person or not.

Then why do we punish the wrongful theft of that choice in a manner akin to murder? Surely, feticide then is a crime against the mother, not the unborn child, and one that merely steals a small portion of her right to choose what happens to her body; it's a form of assault and battery, a misdemeanor.


I'm sorry if I'm not saying this clearly; I'm not even sure I'm against abortion: what I am against is this bizarre double standard that aborting a fetus is fine for the mother and only for the mother, but the very same actions committed by another is considered at the very least murder-lite.

>>513930
This >>513903 is my first comment in this thread. Wtf did I do ? How was my question not legitimate ? Again, if say a 1 month old has no self-determination ability and is entirely dependant on other humans to survive, how is its status different from a fetus ?

>>513946
I mistook you for this anon>>513799

>>513969
Anyway, address my point please.

>>513974
because it is a clump of cells, not a baby with nerves and a brain
Killing someones dog is a crime.

>>513985

Vandalism is also a crime, despite nothing even remotely alive being destroyed.


Not all crimes are equal.

>>513931
Because abortions is a form of birth control, and it was up to the mother to decide if she would keep it or not.
To make that decision for her is to kill a potential person.

File: bish-whet.jpg (17KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x300px

>>513985
>because it is a clump of cells

Somehow a human being, even adult, is more than just a clump of cells.

>>513992

>To make that decision for her is to kill a potential person

It's not any more or less killing of a potential person than the mother making that decision herself.

Under the logic you seem to be displaying, making that decision for her is a crime against the mother, not against the "potential person". The potential personness of the fetus shouldn't even enter into it. It's logically indistinguishable from her throwing her china vase on the floor versus someone else destroying it.

>>514000
>>513985

Anyway, I don't the "yet to be developped human being" arguement. By that logic, isn't an actual developped and functional human being an adult human being that can reproduce and has stopped growing ? Wouldn't that make children be in the same box as fetuses and just as killable as a "potential" human being ?

>>514004
>It's not any more or less killing of a potential person than the mother making that decision herself.
Thats the point.
Its the mothers decision to make whether or not the potential person becomes a person.
To make the choice for her without her consent is to kill said potential person.
It is no ones choice to make except hers to choose whether or not the potential person lives or dies because she is the one who brought it up in the first place.
Basically, if you create a robot with sentience, to break it halfway through and to burn the blueprints would be murder.

File: 1450637491180.jpg (225KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 700x700px

How the hell did this thread turn into a discussion on the morality of abortion?

>>512773
Yes. I think its fantastic and completely justified if by killing somebody, I gained immense economic benefits.

>>513901
Uh, anon.

Children ARE legal property of their parents.

>>514054

>To make the choice for her without her consent is to kill said potential person.

Her making the choice on her own also kills said potential person. Ergo, the potential personness has no bearing on drawing a distinction between abortion and feticide.

>It is no ones choice to make except hers to choose whether or not the potential person lives or dies because she is the one who brought it up in the first place.

And if someone infringes upon that choice, how have they committed an act in any way comparable to murder? They've committed a crime against the WOMAN, and feticide ought to be judged by standards similar to other crimes against people's integrity, like assault. It should not be judged by standards akin to murder, because to do so would be claiming that the crime was committed against the fetus, which has a right to life.

Unless you want to go so far as to claim that the mother's rights to bodily choice extend so far that she can knowingly and willingly commit murder to protect them, you have a logical inconsistency here.

>Basically, if you create a robot with sentience, to break it halfway through and to burn the blueprints would be murder.

I wouldn't think so. Definition of murder in every code of law I'm aware of has to do with person-ness, not with sentience or sapience. It's no more or less murder to kill someone who is mentally retarded to the point of essentially being an animal than it is to do the same to the mentally healthy.

>>514078

Their parents can buy and sell them? Destroy them at a whim? Chop them up into pieces and hand said pieces out to their friends? News to me.

>>514064

It's not really that far a jump to make when OP is asking about is it ever appropriate to kill someone.

File: 1443767383858.gif (1MB, 394x297px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 394x297px

>>514085
>And if someone infringes upon that choice, how have they committed an act in any way comparable to murder?
Because they commit a crime against a potential human being. A potential citizen without the consent of the creator.
>Definition of murder in every code of law I'm aware of has to do with person-ness, not with sentience or sapience.
You missed the point entirely.
If the person in question was intending to create a human being, to kill it halfway through its creation without consent would to murder said being.

>>513043
So you're killing a human in the womb is only murder if the mom says it is?

File: image.jpg (121KB, 600x990px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 600x990px

>humans are only human when I want them to be
Why do democrats keep saying this?

>>514140

>Because they commit a crime against a potential human being. A potential citizen without the consent of the creator.

But they haven't committed a crime against a potential human being. If the destruction of that said potential human was murder, than the mother wouldn't be allowed to commit abortion, because mothers don't generally have the right to murder their offspring.

>If the person in question was intending to create a human being, to kill it halfway through its creation without consent would to murder said being.

That is completely wrong. Consent is not a defense to murder. Motherhood is not a defense to murder. If you view the fetus as alive enough, human enough to be murdered, then what right does the mother have to end that process?

>>514188
>Consent is not a defense to murder.
Yes it does.
Thats why when someone requests to be euthanize the person who does it wont go to jail.
And the mother has the right to determine whether or not the fetus will develop because it is her property and a part of her. To do so without her consent is to kill the potential person.
When there is no person yet to be born to defend itself the gestater of said potential person is the sole available consent to it person-hood.

>>514235

>Thats why when someone requests to be euthanize the person who does it wont go to jail.

Uh, yeah they do. AFAIK, the only countries that are exceptions are the Netherlands and Belgium.

>And the mother has the right to determine whether or not the fetus will develop because it is her property and a part of her. To do so without her consent is to kill the potential person.

These are two completely separate issues. I don't know why you have trouble grasping this concept.

And furthermore, the notion of children being property of their parents, or just the mother, is something that isn't accepted in any civilized country I'm aware of. If the fetus is a potential person, the mother cannot own it, because you can't own people, or even potential people. And if the fetus is not a potential person, whom have you killed?

>When there is no person yet to be born to defend itself the gestater of said potential person is the sole available consent to it person-hood.

Literally what? At that point, why draw the distinction at the level of fetus? Every time you kill a woman, you've committed genocide, on behalf of any unborn children she might or might not have had that you've now prevented.

>>514235
Person is a buzz word

Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens

The human in the womb does not consent to its death

Would a mother have a right to leave a child in a crib and let it starve to death because she is not required to care for it?

She has a right to her body and whether or not she picks the baby up and feeds it?

No this is illegal

A one year old cannot defend itself does the mother still have the right to kill it?

>>514293
>Uh, yeah they do.
Is that why people in america are allowed to decide on whether or not to pull the plug on their brain dead grandfather?
>is something that isn't accepted in any civilized country I'm aware of.
It is tho. Children are technically the legal "property" of the parent, which is why it is illegal to abandon it.
>At that point, why draw the distinction at the level of fetus?
Now you're grasping for straws man.
Because if you are that far in, you are likely to want the child.
If you require surgery to remove the fetus instead of standard birth control then something must have gone wrong or you are really skeptical about being a parent.

>>514301
No because it has cognitive ability

>>514364
A man who has passed out from drinking to much alcohol has no cognitive abilitie

Can we kill him?

>>514371
>has no cognitive ability
Yes he does.
otherwise he'd be brain dead.

File: image.jpg (111KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 2000x2000px

>>514364
Does a one day old have cognitive ability? Can that be aborted in a very late term abortion?

>>514361

>Is that why people in america are allowed to decide on whether or not to pull the plug on their brain dead grandfather?

They aren't. They're allowed to decide whether or not to provide resuscitation (sp?), but they are not allowed to actively hasten the death process. Kevorkian went to prison when he tried. DNR's are simply the family or whomever the guardian is declining to provide certain medical treatment.

>It is tho. Children are technically the legal "property" of the parent, which is why it is illegal to abandon it.

Guardianship is not property. And if they were, it would be legal to abandon your child, you can certainly abandon your couch or your deck of cards. You can't abandon a child because the parents have duties towards the best interest of the child, which is the reversal of how property bonds work.

>Because if you are that far in, you are likely to want the child.
>If you require surgery to remove the fetus instead of standard birth control then something must have gone wrong or you are really skeptical about being a parent.

What does the parent's wants have to do with anything? You've drifted quite far away from the original point, namely that the differing treatment of abortion vs feticide implies a dishonest standard of whether or not the fetus is alive. Either it is, and abortion shouldn't be allowed at all, or it isn't, and feticide isn't that big of a deal.

>>514387
>Does a one day old have cognitive ability
Yes

>>512773
>Is it ever appropriate to kill someone outside of self defense?
Yes because you might die if you dont.
>Are people who kill knowledgable of the fact that who they kill are human beings with lives and aspirations?
Emotional bullshit, we are just animated matter.
>Why do we still war if the people in charge of doing so are aware of the fact they they are sending people to end people at the risk of death?
The military were always the drones that are meant to kill and die for the defense of a nation.

>>514378
>cognitive ability
>The ability of the brain to process, retrieve, and store information. >Impairment of these brain functions is common in patients with dementia, drug intoxication, or head injury.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cognitive+ability

By definition
A man who is passed out drunk has no cognitive ability

If cognitive ability is the benchmark of whether or not we can kill someone hen we can kill the drunk
Why are you in favor of killing the drunk?

>>514394
Does a human 5 days before being born have cognitive ability?

>>514411
No

>>514411
In the sense that they have thoughts that go past their brain stem, yes.

What this means is anyone's guess.

>>514417
Would you give me your convoluted definition of cognitive ability please?

File: 1449104144672.gif (995KB, 245x184px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 245x184px

>>514406
>arguing over semantics
Do you really have nothing better to do?
>>514390
I've been talking to you for a while but maybe you are thinking of a different anon.
But otherwise, how would you say I drifted and where?
> They aren't.
My mistake
>Guardianship is not property.
I meant guardianship, again my mistake.
>What does the parent's wants have to do with anything?
Consent like here >>514235
>When there is no person yet to be born to defend itself the gestater of said potential person is the sole available consent to it person-hood.

File: 1446085756456.jpg (49KB, 930x585px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 930x585px

>>514395
>Tips*

>>514442
>use cognitive ability as a benchmark for "aliveness"
>get btfo in a hypothetical question
>t-t-that's just semantics
So you admit that your "cognitive ability" qualification is bullshit?

Because if not, I'm going to follow you around with a hammer at the next party you go to

>>514406
Temporarily Impaired cognitive ability isn't the same as no cognitive ability. Your premise is wrong.

>>514439
Babies are all instinct until they are at least 1 year old.

File: 1449528467433.gif (549KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 250x188px

>>514469
I mean functionality of your brain.
People with Anencephaly are still technically fucking people until they die and inevitable death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K

But on looser terms
Until you are brain dead you are alive.
Go ahead and throw your hammer at me.

>>514497
>People with Anencephaly
are not people as there is no "YOU" if you are missing your cerebral hemispheres.

>>514502
Define you

>>514505
consiousness

>>514520
Define Consciousness

>>514487
The human in the womb's cognitive ability is only temporarily impaired by a lack of development

Given enough time it will have cognitive ability

Just as a drunk man will gain cognitive ability with time

If we are not allowed to wait for the human in the womb why are we allowed to wait for the human with the rotten liver?

>>514490
So I can kill babies as long as they are only a few days old?

>>514522
Matter having perception of reality.

>>514442

>Consent like here

But why can ANYONE give consent? Especially if the mother is in a guardianship like position vis a vis her child, unborn or other, she shouldn't have the right to agree to termination: guardianship is, at least in theory, exercised for the best interest of the ward, not the guardian. I don't think it's in the best interest of the fetus to be terminated.

>>514529
a worm is conscious then, sense it perceives reality and reacts to it.
Hell, a Virus is conscious then by those standards

>>514528
You can kill babies just know that the human nurturing instinct will make people want to torture you for doing that.

>>514542
Virus is not consious it doesnt perceive reality at all.

An animal is consious since it perceives reality obviously.

>>514543
We are not talking about ability
You realize that

You have no moral problem with smashing baby heads?

>>514497
>drunk's brain
>functioning

A human in the women's brain is still functioning

They learn

They hear their mother's and father's voice
They remember their voices

They learn

And you switch it off when you kill it

>>514539
> I don't think it's in the best interest of the fetus to be terminated.
It is for those conducting stem cell research
and it is in the best interest of the mother if she feels she isn't equipped enough to care for the child.
>But why can ANYONE give consent?
If you were a drunk collage girl, unaware of the fact that she was raped, and impregnate, would you get rid of the rape baby?
By your standards you would say you wouldn't, but unless you were aware of it beforehand (and you weren't) you wouldn't be able to prevent it and would only discover it when it would be to late for the pill. So what do you do?
Get an abortion.
And if you keep it, you would have a ruined school life and would have to work.
Abortion is just a birth control.
but say you do want to keep it
Say you look forward to being a mother.
Is it right for the rapist (or anyone else) to come up and kill the baby?
If so, why?
Why would it be nothing more than property damage for your child to die.
I know I'm appealing to emotions right now, but that seems to be the answer you want.

>>514594
What?
We are talking about early, clump of stem cells abortions here.
not late term near complete child abortion, which is illegal.

>>514613
>we should end a life to save a life
lol
If the mother is not equipped to care for the child the mother should drop the baby off outside of a fire station

Adoption is an option
New born babies are "in demand" in the adopting world

Their are waitlists

It's the 14 yearolds no one wants

>>514583
Of course I have moral problems I just told why.

>>514526
It's not temporarily impaired in the womb. It flat out doesn't exist yet. It will eventually develop, sure, at which point it becomes illegal for an abortion to be done. But prior to that it doesn't exist.

Again, your example simply doesn't work. A more appropriate example would be in the case of a person being brain dead and being kept alive on life support and whether or not their guardian has the moral and legal right to take them off life support.

>>514550
so a worm has more consciousness than a drunk guy?
ok

>>514637
No its fucking impossible for an invertebrate to have a better perception of reality than a human.

>>513837
You would achieve the same effect of errassing him from existance by secretly giving his mother birth control or giving his father a vasectomy but no one considers birth control or vasectomies murder.

File: 1439435806677.gif (2MB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x283px

>>514628
and go through the birthing process?
Go through 8 months of dysfunction?
Have a ruined social and school life?
To just drop off a baby that will cause you to go to jail?

>>514625
You have not responded to the fact that the medical dictionary's definition of cognitive ability allows for you to kill drunks

A human in the womb has no cognitive ability
Therefore we can kill it
A drunk has no cognitive ability
Therefore we can kill it

>>514646
What if it's an anencephalic and one of those really smart octopi?

>>514680
I meant normal humans.

>>514671
World would be a better place with less drunks tbqh

>>514646
but a child with Anencephaly has no consciousness?

>>514671
A drunk still has brain impulses that travel outside the brain stem.

A baby, before the third trimester, generally doesn't have any brainwaves at all, and when it first develops brainwaves, those don't go farther than the brain stem for a while.

File: image.jpg (366KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 500x498px

>>514666
So you're telling me the "discomfort" of the birthing process is a greater hindrance to the mother then the death of the child is a hindrance to the child?
Are you fucking a idiot?


All 50 states have laws that allow you to drop a newborn off at a fire station with no questions asked

>>514691
>>514691
So are brain impulses the benchmark for life or cognitive ability like you said before?

>>514613

>It is for those conducting stem cell research

The fetus isn't conducting stem cell research.

>and it is in the best interest of the mother if she feels she isn't equipped enough to care for the child.

Who is the guardian, not the ward.

If we accept the notion that the mother's right to make decisions on behalf of the fetus is a sort of guardianship, neither of those demands are valid; she's putting the interests of others, her own or the scientific community's, over the interests of the fetus.

>By your standards you would say you wouldn't, but unless you were aware of it beforehand (and you weren't) you wouldn't be able to prevent it and would only discover it when it would be to late for the pill. So what do you do?

I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I have not meant to advocate any position.

I'm only trying to point out that you really only have two positions vis a vis the fetus.

Either it's "Human", human enough that it can have an assertable right to life, or it isn't.


If it is, the mother shouldn't have any particular right to terminate the pregnancy. No amount of parental right or guardianship gives you that kind of license in any comparable case.


If it isn't, than feticide shouldn't be that big of a deal, since your crime has been an infringement of the woman's choice, not the ending of a life..

I'm simply trying to illustrate the hypocrisy of such a position, given that it's enshrined in law in a lot of present day countries.

>Abortion is just a birth control.

It's a birth control that relies upon destroying what is already present instead of preventing its formation. You may as well say that not saving a drowning person is murder.

>>514629
Your moral problem with smashing baby heads with a hammer is that other people won't like it?

Not the fact that you're smashing a baby head with a hammer?

>>514671
No once again you don't seem to understand the difference between impaired and nonexistent.

A person with impaired cognitive ability can still breathe and move on their own. They may have a difficult time but their brain still functions, albeit not efficiently.

A fetus has no cognitive ability whatsoever. It cannot live without the mother. It cannot think and for a good while has no brain. By the time it can begin to process sensory information, it is already illegal for an abortion to be done and the child is legally alive. Before that however, they are not.

>>514701
Animal life, we dont understand how the fuck plant senses work.
>>514713
Anon I already stated my human nurturing instinct would give me an urge to torture if you smashed a baby on the head.

>>514692
It is still a clump of cells m80, you arnt putting a hammer to a babies face.
Sorry you feel bad for the germs in your colon.

>>514735
You're a clump of cells m80

Comparing a Homo sapiens to bacteria is a false equivalency

>>514729
>mfw materialists think they can be moral near me

If we disabled your instincts would it be moral for me to kill babies?

>>514097
No, but under US Law they are the property of their parents. They still have some rights, but their parents have control over their actions.

>>514759
In terms of complexity it isn't.
A jellyfish is more complex than a fetus at this stage
I am a clump of cells, but I am far more complex than a jellyfish

>>514766
Define morality

>>514766
No it would still be immoral but I would be incapable of caring.

>>514772

Guardianship != property.

The rights are nothing alike.

In fact, you can be named guardian over an adult (usually an incompetent one), and it in no way implies that you own them.

Show me a single bit of caselaw that likens parental decisionmaking over children to that of property rights.

What makes a thing "appropriate?"

A person is only beholden to human society for their actions. The objectives and priorities of society change constantly. Yes, murder is traditionally one of the biggest crimes out there because it's one of the most damaging to the function of society if unchecked, but if you're willing to disregard or evade the judgement of society, the only limiting factors on murder are your physical ability to carry it out, and your personal value assessment of that person's life.

>>514882
So why do you not kill?

>>514910
because the act of killing another person can traumatize you if your brain decides to troll you by making you never forget it AND YOU NEVER WILL BECAUSE KILLING STUFF GIVES YOU A SERIOUS PRIMAL THRILL. Enjoy seeing those intestines being ripped apart faggot over and over until you think of yourself as piece of shit and turn yourself in. Meanwhile a psychopath has no guilt so they just jerk off to the memories instead.

>>514924
And not because you feel empathy for the person you kill?
Not judging, just asking

>>514934
Guilt is a side effect of empathy.

>>514910

It seems another anon picked up the conversation for me.

I don't kill because I'll be imprisoned for an inconveniently long time if I'm caught.

>>515150
>I don't kill because I'll be imprisoned for an inconveniently long time if I'm caught.
Basically this.

>>515431
That's saying that laws are useless if you can't find any reason to abide them but the penalty if you break them.

File: 1446416229531.jpg (144KB, 693x718px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 693x718px

>>514539
>I don't think it's in the best interest of the fetus to be terminated

But what if that child would be born into a life of suffering and destitution? Unable to be fed, uncared for ignored, abused both emotionally and physically throughout its life, in this case would it not be better for the child to never develop nor be born, than to be born into a lifetime of pain and suffering with no end.

Abortion is a perfectly legitimate option in the child is to be born into a terrible socio-ecomomic position, or the health of both the mother and child is at serious risk.

The only counterpoint is that adoption is still an option instead giving the child to parents who can't have children of their own, the only issue being in some areas adoption waiting lists are so long the child will still spend years in the poor conditions of an orphanage or with its original mother if no spaces are available

>>514301
This is nonsense. The child could also die in the womb without the intervention of the mother, but noone would investigate if it's her fault. Sometimes the law needs double standards because we can not generalize everything

>>512974
>>512982
>>513025
human life is only worth what we arbitrarily decide it is worth. the fetus doesn't magically turn from a bunch of cells into a human being at any point. it is a slow and gradual process, and trying to pinpoint the exact moment is a vain effort. if we follow this logic, it follows that all human life is worthless if we can convince ourselves that it is. do not fall prey to the comforting lies that many people over the centuries have. all human life is human life. take responsibility for your actions. if you must get an abortion, do so. but don't try to rationalize it. rationalizations are those without the strength to follow their principles

>>514773
it's complexity that determines the "value" of a human being? does that mean a dolphin is more valuable than a baby child? they are certainly more intelligent than them. they're capable of emotions, self-control and ethical treatment of their peers. they might even save a human being from danger. does that not make their lives worthy?

you're dealing in arbitrarities and acting like it's science. if you're going to be a puppet, you should at least try to see the strings controlling you. face the facts: there is nothing truly concrete that separates human death from animal death, or human death from the death of a fetus. anything else is merely a comforting lie; a diversion that is made to trick our sense our empathy.

>>512773
Why dont you just kill someone and find out for yourself

>>516644

But that's exactly what laws are.

Laws defines those actions which society has deemed should be met with a penalty, and also delineates those penalties.

>>514773
By this logic it is far more moral to kill a child than it is an old man. If you were to stand a man who killed a child and a man who killed an old man next to one another, you could say the old man was more complex therefore more important so killing the old man was a greater crime.

This is me totally blowing it out of proportion of course, I know there are limits to things, but I simply don't like the idea of killing any form of human life on the basis that they are unwanted. Hearing the arguments for it, other than things like rape or deformity, tend to belittle the human experience down to strictly biological. It is making up excuses to stop a life from coming to be.

>>518182

>tend to belittle the human experience down to strictly biological

And?

>>513930
>/pol/

Fuck you. Not him, but I don't go on /pol/ and neither do I share their beliefs, but I stand by abortion being murder.

>>518233
Strictly biological is meaningless.

>>518182
>other than rape

How does being being born out of rape make a human's life of lesser value? Why should be abortions due to rape considered acceptable while the ones due to other reasons a murder?

>>512773
Killing someone isn't wrong.

Murder is.

Which is a distinction the plebs who are anti-abortion in this thread can't handle.

>>518294

And?

>>518308

Why is murder wrong? Because the law says it is?

File: 1359245724320.jpg (119KB, 950x665px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 950x665px

>>518323
That's a pretty shit way to look at things, that is what.

>>518329
That, and because it is unethical to take someone's life for no reason.

>>518307
I don't like abortion in general, but I can at least tell why someone would feel so hurt by a rape that they wouldn't want to go through childbirth because of it. I'd far prefer that the child be put up for adoption if they really don't want it but I see it as at least an arguable point. I disagree but I can see it as human reasoning, while saying "it is as complex as a jellyfish so no worries" is detaching from the realm of ethical reasoning and going into sperg reasoning.

>>518331

Just because it depresses you doesn't mean it's wrong.

>>518340

Well, what if you have an unlawful reason to take someone's life?

>>518420
>Well, what if you have an unlawful reason to take someone's life?

Abortion is only unlawful after 21 weeks(in my country), and while strictly speaking it is killing, since it thing you terminate is human, it does not constitute murder.

Murder is the unlawful and unethical killing of a person, and a pre-21 week embryo is not a person, either biologically or legally.

>>512773
>Is it ever appropriate to kill someone outside of self defense?
If a man kills another man who raped his daughter, I would personally deem it warranted.
>inb4 le mgtow

>>518432

Oh, I didn't realize that I picked up a conversation about abortion. My bad. I'm not the person you started out talking to.

Point of curiosity, how do you personally distinguish unlawful from unethical?

>>512792
>I'd also say most people probably feel that the ends justify the means

deontologists btfo

>>518483
>Point of curiosity, how do you personally distinguish unlawful from unethical?

I distinguish it by some kind of personal consequentialism.

A society that could commit wanton murder at will would not be congenial to the idea that we should try to minimize harm.

An example could for example be the war on drugs; in that case I think the government is being unethical, because using violence against someone for doing actions that does not harm anyone other than themselves, causes more problems then they are willing to admit.

>Are people who kill knowledgeable of the fact that who they kill are human beings with lives and aspirations?

Aside from the seriously mentally ill, yes, they are aware. It's just not that big of a deal to them. Even murderous psychopaths/sociopaths (more accurately, murderous people with APD) are aware of the personhood of those they kill, unless they have some other mental abnormality.

>>513901
The law has to respect that some people treat unborn life as if it was alive and the law reflects this.

>see thread title
>expect cool discussion about the morality behind taking another life
>thread is just retards arguing whether abortion counts as murder

For fuck's sake

>>518488
It's pretty much accepted that barely anyone practices deontology even if they think they believe it

>>512773
What would make murder wrong?

>>519945
What even is right or wrong?

>>519975
Well I suppose OP asked "appropriate" so I should have said that instead. But you're right, the question is mostly what is appropriate. I feel like there is little point in discussing this as it will likely turn into arguing about words or people saying that a culture's beliefs are right. OP has to answer for themself.

>>520043
I mean means justifiable.

>>512773
It's not a sin to kill /pol/fags.

>>514680
Then the anencephalic has a lesser consciousness than that octopus.

>>520061
Well here's how I could justify killing, humans have no inherent value. There you go.

Only if it's Jypsies

>>520062
Muh edge.

>>518165
The point is that the previous anon can't find any reason why society has or would have deemed should be met with penalty. Laws are supposed to lead to a greater good for society. If you can't see why then the laws are useless.

>>520962

Laws are not there to lead a society to a greater good.

Laws exist to ensure that a society remains stable, and they're very useful in that regard. There are penalties for being caught breaking laws because those who establish and maintain those laws have deemed that breaking them is damaging to the integrity of society.

>>520990
>being caught breaking laws because those who establish and maintain those laws have deemed that breaking them is damaging to the integrity of society.

Not him, but so then, a law is simply the opinion of a group of people with guns that breaking them is damaging to the integrity of society?

Seems like that's what you're saying to me.

>>520997

That's precisely what I'm saying. That's what laws are.

>>521001
Yes, but you seem to apply some kind of objective quality to it.

What if the people with guns who determine that something is damaging to the integrity of society are wrong?

>>521004

Then that law is ineffective and may contribute to the long-term deterioration of that society.

Is practicality a valid argument?

In the UK at least, abortion was legalised because of the fact that women were having unsafe backstreet abortions

>>521012
Indeed, but do you think the people who create laws often recognize that they have committed an error?

I don't.

>>521021

Neither do I

>>521024
Right, but in what sense can you say that laws are enacted simply because of the stability of a country?

There can be endless motivations for specific laws, given the relative randomness of the people who make them.

>>521035

Give an example of a law that does not derive motivation for its enforcement from the belief that it will maintain a stable society.

>>521040
There are plenty of ridiculous laws on offer m8.

Just look at the different laws in several American states that outlaw all manner of pointless things, such as kissing a woman in public if you have a moustache etc.

Now one can argue that they aren't true laws since they aren't being enforced, but they are still codified laws, and they are pointless.

>>521058

They were made either as a joke or because those activities went counter to the sensibilities of the time. Publicly flouting the "moral structure" of a society is still illegal in pretty much every country on some issues, such as Russia's ban on the positive discussion of homosexuality around minors. This is because the people who made the laws think that these activities threaten the stability of their society.

>>521071
Fair enough. I'll accept that.

Still doesn't make it any less retarded though.