Why is abortion okay? Ive never thought about myself being a

If you abort it before it has any thoughts of the ability to feel, then there's no effective difference between an abortion and wearing a condom, or pulling out, or just any random moment you're not having sex. Are all those things also wrong?

It's not. Unless you think killing live babies is ok.

its not a child, its a clump of cells without the ability to think or feel that is not self aware in any way, yes it has the potential to become human but that does not make it human

anyway if you've already made up your mind on this I doubt there's much we can say, just wait until you have a pregnancy scare then you'll understand

>>17401506
Problem with you pro-abortion people is that you don't understand how important these future lives are. Some of them could've been important people, to their families or to the world even. This nihilistic point of view you have of a child's life is completely repulsive. Now 15 year olds have sex without condoms and completely whore themselves to the highest bidder without any self-respect because "science!" can save them. Thanks Bill Nye.

>>17401506
I dont know i think it is kinda different. In my pathology class we learned sperm was just basically mobile bits of dna. The sperm itself isnt actually developing into a person.

It's a killing that society has some desire to condone. It should be an option when the mother's life is endangered, but abortions to avoid the consequences of your actions doesn't sit right with me.

>>17401516
I disagree, the potential to become human makes it human. The human conscience is one of the greatest gifts to this world. Using it to delete some of these future minds is travesty. Pregnancy scares don't happen when you have self-respect.

>>17401506
>there's no effective difference between an abortion and wearing a condom, pulling out

Objectively wrong

You wear a condom to never let semen get in. An abortion is getting rid of a fetus that is already there

>>17401516
>but that does not make it human

Is is not called a human fetus? That would make it human, fren

>>17401521
True. Spermatozoids are NOT human lives.

I am fine with abortion, because the people I want to have their children aborted have that option (victims of rape, victims of incest, liberals, etc.).

>>17401500
>Now 15 year olds have sex without condoms and completely whore themselves to the highest bidder without any self-respect because "science!" can save them. Thanks Bill Nye.
Its conservatives like you that make me afraid to be considered one.

>>17401516
I really dont think i could ever go through with it. Why is putting it up for adoption such a tough decision? Instead of dragging a fetus out of your fucking vagina. I couldnt live with myself.

>>17401540
nice meme

>>17401548
Ain't no meme son, it's why I am pro abortion.

>>17401546
>>17401518
Shit haha. Replied to myself. Irony

I honestly don't see what's wrong with it, I got my friend pregnant a couple months ago and she had it sucked out of her and we both went about our lives business as usual, it's one of those things that's really not as big of a deal as people hype it up to be, just removing some unwanted cells.

>>17401506
>before it has any thoughts of the ability to feel

Is killing someone in a coma justified?

Because we've reached a point in society where we can decide that now maybe isn't the right time to bring a child into the world. Protection isn't 100% certain, and you can't expect everyone to just never have sex unless they want kids right then and there.

It's just ultimately better for society that people who aren't in a position to have children have the option to abort.

>>17401500
"Okay" is up to interpretation
We have enough children without parents in the world right now. We don't need any more that if the parents don't take, adoption agencies will sit on for years.

I think abortion is okay. I'm fine with it because a fetus cannot comprehend what pain caused by abortion is, let alone feel it at that stage. Anyone that says "Well then don't have sex if you don't want a kid" is just using a cop out response.

>>17401559
Not the one you were replying to, but If they're never going to come out of it, then yes.

>>17401564
>"Well then don't have sex if you don't want a kid" is just using a cop out response.

Isn't that a logical response though? If you can't pay off for kids, wear protection/use birth control

>>17401565
Alright, let's say they'll come out of it in, say, 9 months, tops.

>>17401561
You didnt read my inb4. Why are you saying abortion is the only way to prevent babies? Do you not know condoms and other measures exist?

>>17401565
But lets say they are. You know this person is perfectly healthy but is just in a coma for 9 months. You kill them because "oh they wouldnt like it out here anyway :/"

>>17401571
Those measures are not 100%. Condoms break, people still get pregnant on birth control, some people are just careless and don't/forget to use it. The fact is, without abortion, you're going to have a lot more unwanted pregnancies, dumpster babies and children growing up in broken homes because they were never wanted in the first place.

Nobody likes abortions, but it's a last solution.

even if your an atheist its not natural to terminate a pregnancy. hormones are already imbalanced by food and water which makes it hard to even have a pregnancy. theres a certain % of women who wont be able to have kids if they have an abortion. there are pagan cultures in the old world who also understood that children were the future of their society and they had to be properly nurtured/trained and given a chance to succeed. if you dont have kids or try to empower your progeny then you basically dont care about the survival of your family or species. some old tribes would actually give you capital punishment for killing your young or babies because of this

>>17401559
yes

>>17401567
This man tells the truth

>>17401582
>What is adoption
If scum just found someone to adopt the baby it'd be no trouble, hell they may even get a nice payday for birthing the cute 'lad.

I'd adopt if someone had an extra kid who needed a home today.

>>17401557
here's your (you)

>>17401582
I just think the act itself is murderous and savage. It shows us how backwards we became where we literally fetuses out of a womb. I dont really think justifications for the act itself holds up which is why I put the inb4.

Maybe i am set in anti abortion ideals already... ugh.

>>17401582
>Those measures are not 100%

But isn't it like 99.9%?

>>17401591
>its not natural to terminate a pregnancy
its not natural to wear clothing or live in cities, its not natural to eat cooked food or shit in a toilet, its not natural to give birth in a hospital

this argument is incredibly stupid, and to top it all off miscarriages do naturally occur so terminating a pregnancy is actually natural

>>17401582
the answer to this is that people should be educated on the consequences of sex in general. if a man wanted to marry or have sex with a women they expected them to take responsibillity. this was part of giving a maidenhead and shit like that. the sex itself implied committment to having a family and taking care of them. people dont think now adays in terms of like "dont have sex if you dont want kids" they instead get taught to 'experiment' and follow their feelings and then wonder why they end up in a fucked up situation? people who keep the kids realize fast the magnitude of what they're doing. people dont normally ask themselves before sex, "is this person somebody i want to be the mother/father of my children?" if people thought about this they might not put themselves in these situations

File: 1469482208656.jpg (32KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x333px

>>17401506
>or just any random moment you're not having sex
That's when I knew the post was bait.

>>17401600
as I said, just wait until you have a pregnancy scare and then you'll understand

bonus points if you're about to break up with an extremely toxic gf then she tells you she's pregnant

>>17401518
If that's the motivation behind being against abortion, then there are WAY better ways in which to direct your energy. Poor children who will grow up without realizing their potential, children in war torn countries who will die as a result of their country of origin, kids in North Korea and other countries who will essentially be slaves their entire lives. These are children who could impact the future, who's lives will be wasted. Give to charities to help these kids, give your time and effort to these causes. Not to forcing victims of rape, of failed birth control, or young teenagers too stupid to know otherwise to carry unwanted babies to term. How much of a shot at life do you think babies like those would be getting, anyways?

>>17401609
you're a virgin aren't you?

Other people like sex and want to have lots of it with many different partners, not live up to some dusty old ideal of "maidenhead". Sorry anon but you're pretty drastically outvoted here.

>>17401607
It is actually natural to wear clothing and eat cooked food.
>miscarriages are natural
Miscarriages are not on purpose. They do not involve sticking a hook up a womans womb to forcefully remove a fetus

>>17401530
So, do you consider sperm or eggs to be potential human life? Am I commiting the same "atrocity" as abortion if I masturbate? What about if I'm wasting potential human life by NOT having sex?

>>17401518
>Problem with you pro-abortion people is that you don't understand how important these future lives are. Some of them could've been important people, to their families or to the world even
No, the problem with you stupid people is that you're stupid. You don't understand logic or causality. The nearly infinite tree-breach diagram that is the universe.

Consider this. At this very moment, you COULD be having unprotected sex and getting pregnant/getting a girl pregnant (whichever you are). That potential child you could have conceived at this moment may have been destined to grow up to be a scientist and discover the cure for cancer. But you didn't have sex and conceive a child in this moment. And now that potential child can no longer exist.
Human reproduction is a very randomized event. Every unthinkably tiny factor that is constantly changing from moment to moment drastically changes what a potential child will be like. If when your father had thrust 1 extra time when you were being conceived, or your mother was lying at a sightly different position, a different sperm cell would have fertilized you, you'd have gotten a different set of genetics and you would be a completely different person. 2 people matched together are not always guaranteed to have the exact same child no matter when they conceive it. You are just one of the trillions of potential humans that could have resulted from your parents reproducing, you just by countless random factors wound up being the one that became a reality.

And that's JUST from 2 people having sex at 1 particular point in time. At every given moment, you theoretically COULD be conceiving a child. And that child might potentially do something amazing. Does that mean it's morally wrong of you to not conceive a kid right now? No. Because there's no way to know which of the nigh-infinite branches our actions will take the universe down. Therefore there's no logical merit to your argument.

>>17401612
Im a girl so itll be a little hard to get another girl preggos.
>adoption exists

>>17401518
>how important those future lives are
It's so weird that anti-abortion people are like "but that unfeeling clump of cells could have been allowed to grow into a feeling human baby, who then becomes the next Einstein!". no. If the parents aren't ready, and certainly many are not due to their mental state or finances or maybe they were raped- what "Einstein" are you expecting from a child born into bad poor circumstances and whose parents are unable to completely care for?

Statistically, it's highly unlikely. You know whose more likely to be the next Einstein? The kid born to a mother who has reached a more stable point in life, perhaps due to the fact that she had the freedom in younger age to abort some cells that could've developed and really set back her life

Also hypocritical: a lot of anti-abortion conservatives who want to bring all that "life" into the world, and then provides precisely shit for the born children, because omg welfare leeches

>>17401559
>before

Has this theoretical person always been in a coma?

>>17401518
In 99% f the cases where abortion might even remotely come up as a consideration society, mankind, the parents and the unborn offspring would be much better off if it gets aborted anyway.

>>17401623
if its natural to wear clothing and eat cooked food then why don't animals do it?

just because something is natural doesn't inherently mean its good, an appeal to nature isn't a real argument

>>17401620
>Sorry anon but you're pretty drastically outvoted here.
Except no one took a vote? That's not how the advice board works.

>>17401631
Your ENTIRE argument just supports the fact that human life is precious. If it's so randomised, then every person is truly unique and special

How does this justify abortion????????????

>>17401632
yes it does, however
>destroying your body and having your internal organs compressed for 9 months
>giving up muh baby which is a neverending source of bawwww

and what of babies with some kind of severe birth defect?

>>17401602
Condoms are like 95%, and birth control is 99%. Even if they were 99.9%, that means 1 in every 1000 acts of sex would result in potential pregnancy.

>>17401636
No, this person with their coma magically came into existence because of a heterosexual couple having intercourse.

>>17401500
You realise that's a fucking 23 week old foetus, right? And that anyone who sits around with a bun in the oven for 23 fucking weeks most likely wanted to have it, right? And that sometimes shit goes very, very wrong with pregnancy and causes the foetus to die and require extraction, or cause the foetus to be terminated before it can slowly die and take the mother with it? And that the procedure in the OP image is actually a result of the pro-life movement banning intact extraction procedures that allow these people to mourn their dead children? That because of pro-lifers, these bereived mothers are robbed of the only chance they'd ever have to hold their dearly wanted babies and mourn their loss?
Do you also realise that all the roadblocks being placed against people trying to get abortions mean the foetus is forced to grow for weeks and weeks longer than it needs to? That the pro-life movement howls about late term abortions while systematically causing late term abortions?

The majority of people receiving this procedure are would-be loving mothers, and the only reason they have to have their child ripped into tiny pieces is because of pro-lifers. And now pro lifers have the fucking balls to use images of a barbaric procedure they enacted and use it as an example of why abortion is bad.

>>17401640
I was saying your backwards and sex negative views are outvoted by the vast majority of society that has not channeled their sour grapes virgin rage into a hatred of sex as you have.

>>17401650
>Condoms are like 95%, and birth control is 99%. Even if they were 99.9%, that means 1 in every 1000 acts of sex would result in potential pregnancy.
So we're at the point of literally pulling stats out of our asses. Great thread. So much advice.

>>17401500
>if its natural to wear clothing and eat cooked food then why don't animals do it?
The same reason they dont have thumbs and are covered in fur.
>making an appeal to nature isnt a good argument
Exactly.

>>17401620
its literally true. it doesnt matter what you think. people dont try to rob banks because they will end up in jail or killed. because people devalued sexual relationship and what it actually means they end up having 'unwanted pregnancies.' its why people waited to get married to have sex. not all but some primitive cultures did this too. if people want to have sex liberally then they should be aware and ready to deal with the consequences of it. everybody probably knows a few people who have multiple baby's mothers or fathers and how dysfunctional that can be on kids and families. people cry about 'accidents' but dont understand their actions have direct consequences sometimes? thats just ignorance and it doesnt excuse you for anything. you would still have to man up and do the right thing. old timers just did this out of respect for their manhood. they knew if they got the girl pregnant they had to do the right thing. the good thing about birth control/condoms is that people who really dont understand this at least might get a chance to realize what they're doing.

>>17401632
>Im a girl so itll be a little hard to get another girl preggos.
I see you've never read Moon over June

>>17401657
>I was saying your backwards and sex negative views are outvoted by the vast majority of society
I haven't posted any of my views on sex though? I'm not the same person you were responding to. Think more. Type less.

>>17401659
>>17401639
Fucking replied to myself again.
>if its natural to wear clothing and eat cooked food then why don't animals do it?
The same reason they dont have thumbs and are covered in fur.
>making an appeal to nature isnt a good argument
Exactly.

>>17401567
But you seem to be confusing the fact that even when using birth control, pregnancy can result. It's not "oh, I won't use birth control, I'll just get abortions instead", it's "oh shit, I'm going to have a child I can't take care of and tried to prevent, I have no other option". Not to mention victims of rape, or women who would die if they had a baby would justifiably want abortions.

>>17401518
>Some of them could've been important people
Some of them could have been terrorists.

What if Hitler had been aborted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw

>>17401521
>>17401532
You people are letting emotions and semantics come before logic.

The hard facts are that you're intentionally taking some course of action to make it so a potential human doesn't come into existence.
If you get the abortion, a potential person won't exist.
If you wear a condom, a potential person won't exist.
If you aren't having sex RIGHT NOW, a potential person won't exist.

The end result is all ultimately the same. It doesn't matter which step of the chain you cut, it all ultimately falls off and the end result ceases. There is no real logical difference whether it's a sperm you blocked with a condom, or a fetus you aborted with a pick. You're letting your emotions give you a bias just because the fetus is further along the chain and looks more like a person, but if you look at it from a purely logical perspective it doesn't matter.

>>17401663
dude, you really need to get laid

Men honestly should have 0 say on the topic of abortions until they've built themselves wombs that the fetus can be transferred to and they sign off on taking full responsibility for their progeny.

>>17401674
>>>/kitchen/

>>17401645
not the anon you replied to, but I quiz you (and all the "precious cells" people) this- what if you didn't abort the thing and the baby became Hitler?

Ever thought of that?

Any of you ever thought of that?

>>17401647
Legitimate question. Would you be able to tell if a baby is a mutant when you decide to abort?
>>giving up my baby is sad
But killing it isnt?

>>17401658
It literally takes about 20 seconds to google those stats, and I did just remember them off the top of my head. And the condom percent is 98%, I'm so sorry I offended you by being 3% off on a statistic.

>>17401668
>pregnancy can result
Yes, but it's so rare, it's almost not even worth mentioning. And, can the child not be given up for adoption or anything?

>rape
Last time I checked this accounts for like 2% of abortions, around that ballpark.

>health issues w/ mother or fetus
okay, abortion is okay then imo, but also uncommon

>>17401500
you dont know what its like to be a unwanted child.

>>17401670
Thank you.

>>17401678
What if it became not-Hitler?

>>17401500
So what kind of advice do you need

There are people who will pay you $ to have a baby and let them adopt it, like $1000s and raise the baby for you and you can decide if you even want to interact with it at all. planned parenthood wont tell you this and would rather make money off you by selling you an abortion. why not just find foster parents and get paid instead?

>>17401670
>If you wear a condom, a potential person won't exist.
>If you aren't having sex RIGHT NOW, a potential person won't exist.

I don' think you understand what you are even saying right now

Wearing a condom and not having sex is preventing a fetus from ever forming

An abortion is getting rid if a fetus that is ALREADY there, that physically exists

Do you understand basic biology?

>>17401682
Not the person you were talking to but
Most babies don't get adopted, they get bumped around in foster care

If you asked me to choose between
1. Getting rid of a clump of cells with no capacity to think or feel, and then properly taking care of a REAL baby when I'm ready
As opposed to
2. Suffering 9 months with loads of side effects, and then giving up a real baby, with the real possibility of this human being getting damaged by the underfunded foster care system

I'll definitely choose 1, it's like if I asked you to choose between throwing away your inanimate lamp or hitting a real toddler on the head.

Food for thought from Bill Nye the science guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPrw0NYkMg

>>17401682
in many cases yes, lots of severe birth defects and conditions like downs syndrome or Tay-Sachs disease can be detected in the womb.

You'll have to excuse me if I seem a bit overly glib on the subject, but I work in EMS and have spent a significant amount of time at a few nursing facilities for children with severe birth defects. Many of them are so mentally impaired that they can barely even be said to be alive, many have tracheotomies so cannot speak even if they have the capacity for it though they most likely do not, many are clearly in extreme pain but are unable to vocalize this, many will die before even reaching physiological adulthood, though even the ones that are teenagers have stunted growth and are badly malformed. I look at children like this and just ask myself what was the point of this life, this is someone who would have been better off never having existed.

It isn't very pleasant to think about, sorry.

>>17401705

Different anon, but the result is the same, a human being is being prevented from being born.

>>17401670
If you get an abortion the person that is now developing cannot exist.
If you wear a condom a bit of DNA that will not begin to develop into a person because it was in a condom doesnt exist.

>>17401640
I think he means more as a general rule in most modern societies. It tends to be older people who have an anti-abortion view, and as time goes on people of this opinion will dwindle.

>>17401705
I quiz you- bottles don't think or feel. Bottles exist. Do you throw away bottles (you monster)? Let's say i carve the glass bottle into a vague blob shape that is almost baby-like if you squint. Then is throwing that away illegal?

Aborting in later trimesters is still illegal. Do you even know basic law?

>>17401559
My mistake I left an important part of my post out.

What I meant to say was

>If you abort it before it has any thoughts of the ability to feel (and before anyone develops any emotional attachment to it) there there's no effective difference...


A person is a coma is different because other people have likely developed an attachment to them. But if you get an abortion and nobody who might care ever even knew you were pregnant, and never finds out about the abortion either, then nobody cares and it doesn't matter.

The old saying "what you don't know can't hurt you" might be dismissed by a lot of people, but it has a lot of much deeper philosophical implications than most people ever realize.

>>17401596
There are plenty of kids like that now. Here in America we have a major adoption issue. Too many kids and not enough people who want to take them in.

In the end if you don't want an abortion then don't have one. Simple as that. Not a woman? Oh well.

>>17401613
They won't die because of their country of origin you fucking shit wad. They'll die because their parents were too weak to realize having kids wasn't the best idea, so in turn the baby will be as weak-minded. Natural selection, friend. I won't help them. I care about my country, and I don't want it polluted with idiocy and sexual degeneracy, which in turn leads to a corrupt youth. A corrupt future. Anyways, why would I direct my energy towards something that doesn't affect me at all? I don't give a fuck about other countries. They pretty much have the same exact situation we're in. Why have sex and therefore children when you know you can't fucking take care of them? When you know you'll be giving them a horrible life?

And when you say teenagers "too stupid" to know otherwise, then why are they so stupid? Can't they be educated about sex? Having children and how incredibly sacred it all is?

Your little guilt trip won't work on me friendo, I don't give a fuck about poor little african kids. Sure they're wasted potential, but they were birthed in a world where they couldn't be cared for. They should have the resources to do so, but instead of working to get them, they fornicate like rabbits and claim "the white man is oppressing them" when we're literally ready to kiss their ass, suck their dick and present our assholes wide open for them with our charities and shit.

>>17401725
>revealing your powerlevel
>>>/pol/

>>17401624
Both of them combined are potential human life. Because, as I was thought by fucking middle school, their combination makes a little baby in the mama's tummy. Christ, you reddit assholes give me headaches.

>>17401713
>>17401705
It's always so sad when you try your hardest to break down and explain something piece by piece, in as simple of words as you can, but it just bounces straight off someones head and they repeat the exact same thing they already said without a single thing you said managing to make even the tiniest dent in their thick skulls.

>>17401721
Gotta agree with this anon, and our society is quite built on that premise- quite incidentally, that's the reason necrophilia is illegal. If you think about it, a dead person is rendered an inanimate object, but the reason you can't "hurt" it is more for the sake of their loved ones and their memory of that person, their attachment to said memories.

>>17401710
Its fine im going to train to be an army medic. Ill see blown off limbs pretty soon.
Right now im only really focusing on healthy babies. I totally understand aborting if it will affect the mothers health or the baby comes out completely fucked up and unable to live a healthy life.
>>17401706
LOTS of people are willing to adopt babies. Just not older kids.
>>17401700
>help me understand why abortion is ok

>>17401731
ever consider that from their perspective you're doing the exact same thing?

>>17401712
But the way in which it's performed is not

There's prevention and extraction. It's not the same. Preventing what does not exist VS what already exists and has the ability to grow.

You're comparing a fetus to sperm

>>17401717
>compares bottles to a fetus

Yeah, great analogy, but not an argument

And I never mentioned late abortions once

File: wallylsdlaaaarge.jpg (74KB, 621x349px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 621x349px

>>17401731
Wow. You could not be more hypocritical.

File: Screen shot 2015-10-01 at 12.44.05 AM.png (470KB, 612x710px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 612x710px

>>17401500

It's whatever you make it out to be. Do you feel like it's okay? Not okay? Whichever way you feel, you're right.

I wish I could help you understand. I'm just apathetic towards the human race 90% of the time, so I couldn't care less either way.

>>17401500
If you were going to have a child and found out thru testing the child you were carrying was going to suffer would you keep it? Like finding out it had Downs or it was going to be mentally retarded. Would you keep it of you were raped and in almost every state your rapist or his family could try to have custody? What if you did everything right. Was on the pill or the shot and he wore a condom and you can't afford it? I'm okay with people choosing to terminate pregnancies because at the end of the day it isn't my life and I shouldn't have a say in it.

>>17401694

See >>17401706

>>17401747
Sooo you see a guy getting stabbed on the street but whatevs it isnt your life. You're just gonna walk right past him.

>>17401734
alright, I'll try to help you understand why I think its ok, bear in mind that this is just my opinion and you're certainly free to have your own

I don't think abortion is really a good thing or something to be taken lightly but I think its important that (as Bill Clinton put it) its safe affordable and rare. People have sex, people are stupid, its an unfortunate reality. If abortion is illegal people are still going to seek out abortions but will get them from less than qualified individuals in less than safe conditions.

I think its best to acknowledge the reality of abortion and do our best to improve sex education to make it as rare as possible. But we do know that even when used judiciously birth control can fail. Personally I don't think people should have to throw their lives away to raise a kid they don't want because of a mistake.

Again that's my opinion, its gonna happen whether its legal or illegal so we might as well do our best to make it legal and safe but try to minimize it. Prohibition is not the solution.

>>17401737
>But the way in which it's performed is not
So what? Genuinely, what's the impact of that difference?
A red cup is different from a blue cup, but they'll both work the same.

>>17401737
But SHOULD every thing with the capacity to "grow", be allowed to "grow"? The world is overpopulated as is, if I told you that in a weeks time, every toothbrush in the world will suddenly turn into babies- are you just going to let it happen and make the current living human beings suffer this population influx? Right now, the toothbrush has no capacity to think or feel- its newfound magic potential has precisely zero impact on that fact. So I would throw it away, in this analogy of cell clumps being toothbrushes

A better question is why you care so little about the welfare of the current unsustainably growing human population, so much so that you won't throw away some inanimate toothbrushes

>>17401755
>interfering with a fucking stabbing
No one does that, anon. No one is obligated to do that. You call the police and get out of there.

>>17401631
I never said I didn't understand that concept. And nice argument there friendo. I liek the part where you literally called me "stupid" because I have a different opinion than you. Typical self-centered "superior mind" redditor. I know I could be conceiving a child as we speak, but I'm not. I'm not because of my current financial situation, I'm just not ready to invest in this. Simple concept of human self-conscience and will. I chose not to. But some are too dumb to do so. What happens then is that they fertilize an egg, which in turn creates a future human life. FROM THAT POINT ON, the "future human bs" comes into play. If that couple decide to abort the baby, then they're murderers. They simply killed a human because of lack of responsibility.

Have you ever talked to a pregnant woman? They know that the little baby inside of them is alive, and they instinctively protect and care for it, unless they're truly retarded. These women have never seen the being that grows within them, but they adore it. If that's not proof that fetuses are worth saving, I don't know what is.

>>17401755
Yeah for the most part. I'm not getting stabbed. Even if I do help there is a chance the family of the victim will be upset at me and sue. I'll call the cops.

You want to get an abortion? I would ask if you thought about it and if you need anything like help or information but at the end of the day not my body.

>>17401733
Reminds me of that Tumblr post somewhere, about our society giving the individual the right to their own body, above all else. You don't have to give organs to people, like kidneys or marrow, even if it'd save their life. You don't have to give vital organs like your heart even if you're DEAD. They're still yours, it was your choice when you were alive. But yet we won't give women the right to choose whether they host another human inside them for 9 months, they just have to do that. You should be allowed to do WHATEVER you want to your own body.

>>17401756
Well thank you. I think the make it legal to make it safer cause people will do it anyway is a pretty strong argument. It, however, doesnt make the act any better. Just safer.
Again
>adoption.

>>17401765
Exactly. Speaking out against abortion is calling the cops in this situation. Congratulations you played yourself.

>>17401634
Of course they would grow into something shitty in those circumstances. I never implied that all wasted fetuses are "baby Einsteins". Also, your second little argument about the statistical way an Einstein could be birthed, having many sexual partners and abortions statistically lower the chance of success in a relationship.

Link proving my point:http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NMP-BeforeIDoReport-Final.pdf

Also, just saying, aren't we all unfeeling clumps of cells?

>>17401637
Sadly, this is true. With better education, though it might not be.

>>17401757
>a red cup is different from a blue cup
Yeah, based on color and nothing more. They are essentially the same

>what the difference
You're essentially killing something that already is a living organism, whereas with wearing a condom you are not killing anything. Does a fetus not have any right to live?

>>17401759
>overpopulated
It's also old as fuck and fertility rates are dropping.

>toothbrush argument
I don't even know where you got that analogy. It always comes down to comparing fetuses to inanimate objects

>>17401766
You can't just decide for all us anons here, what is "human". No matter what scripture presumably tells you, egg + sperm = thing that has yet to possess the typical characteristics of a human or even an animal. It needs more time to develop such traits. For now, at this immediate point after fertilization, it can't think or feel or do anything- you may be able to make a case for it, philosophically, as "life" but only as very basic bacteria-level "life" we kill every day.

There are women who see this cell clump (should it not have grown further) to just be that- and therefore they do not regret their abortions. If it's really so enotionally distressing, it wouldn't be the case that abortions are becoming increasingly popular. And don't give me that "because doctors pressurize them so much" crap- it paints a reductive and patronizing view of women. If it's really so emotionally distressing a task, there's the Internet and the ability to band together in real life as well, they would've banded together to warn more women to not do so. But that's not how the social tides are going. I have no doubt that some women regret it, but most don't, at least according to actual studies and not just your confirmation bias, but if you wish only to rely on anecdotes, I was completely fine, as is another anon who posted in this thread about it

>>17401779
yeah I agree, I do wish more women would go forward with adoption instead of abortion but I can understand why they wouldn't want to considering the innumerable things that can go wrong with a pregnancy, the extreme strain it puts on the body, the fact that after having a kid your body never really goes back to the way it was, and the biggest one: the majority of women who pledge their baby for adoption end up backing out of it after the birth because giving up your baby is almost impossible thanks to maternal instinct.

>>17401657
Having a different opinion than you does not mean we're backwards, self-centered piece of shit. You're living proof that the United States were a failure of a country.

>>17401637
>99% f the cases

>let me pull this stat out of nowhere

>>17401791
there's nothing wrong with sex anon, fetishizing maidenhood is creepy

>>17401787
It always come down to how you are unable to see the similarities. Even ANTs have more thought processes than fetuses you can legally abort, you are deliberate trying to group the early "fetuses" you can abort, with the later nearly-human ones that you can't abort. It's deliberate obstinance in the face of fact, because face it, the kind of cells you can abort, are even less of a life than the insects you kill every day, maybe even the bacteria you kill every day

>>17401787
>Yeah, based on color and nothing more. They are essentially the same
From my view, using a condom and terminating a fertilised egg are essentially the same. I'm asking you to explain the difference.

>Does a fetus not have any right to live?
No. It's not a human yet. Does a living human have no right to control their own body?

>>17401725
Lol, how is that any better than forcing some poor 15 year old girl who's parents have disowned her because she's pregnant to have a child? The kid is going to be fucked, and that's not going to improve your country.

>Why have sex and therefore children when you know you can't fucking take care of them? When you know you'll be giving them a horrible life?

>And when you say teenagers "too stupid" to know otherwise, then why are they so stupid? Can't they be educated about sex? Having children and how incredibly sacred it all is?

I completely agree with this. You shouldn't have UNPROTECTED sex, if you don't want a kid. And kids SHOULD be taught about sex and pregnancy, to prevent abortions before they happen. This is what Planned Parenthood aims to do.

But if I'm having PROTECTED sex with my girlfriend/wife, and it fails, why should I be forced to take care of a kid, that I was actively trying to prevent in the first place? I was taking all reasonable preventative measures. Also, victims of rape, and women who's pregnancy would kill them require abortions.

No one LIKES abortions. No one. No one wants one. It is a last resort that should be used accordingly, but should be LEGAL TO USE IF NEEDED.

>>17401669
>Haha, look at this! You can't possibly disagree with what I'm saying! Here's a video with easy to understand animations so you can understand that me = good and you = bad!

The intelligence of the baby (and therefore its future) is entirely dependent on the parenting. There are more chances of having criminal babies with an uneducated populace, which is the USA's situation. Most of its population is fucking retarded.

File: stuff the idiots im arguing with will probably still not understand.png (8KB, 858x262px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 858x262px

>>17401742
>>17401735
>>17401705
>>17401713
OK clearly I still haven't made it simple enough for any of you to get. I'll try even harder and start incorporating pictures.

Look at the 3 possible chains of events. In both the situation where a condom is used, and the situation where an abortion is used, a baby is not born.

In both of these situations, the couple does not want a baby to be born, so they use an unnatural method created by science to have sex without reaching the end result of a baby being born.

There is ZERO logical difference between the 2 methods.
The fetus would have become a baby but the abortion stopped it.
The sperm would have become a fetus, which would have become a baby, but the condom stopped it.

Both chains were stopped prematurely using technology. There is no difference.

I'm guessing your only responses will be
>DUDE BUT THE BABY THO UR SO DUM OMG
Once again showing that nothing I say, no matter how much I try to simplify it for you, will get through your thick skulls and emotional bias.

File: molymeme.jpg (4KB, 301x167px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 301x167px

>>17401671
nice argument there, bucko

>>17401805
read the whole thread before you start replying to random posts virgin

File: ohshitnigga.png (6KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 224x225px

>>17401674
That is the dumbest opinion I've ever seen on this board. Go back to your women's studies classes and to polluting this already putrid society with your "intelligence", sweetheart. Let's not forget the trigger warning.

>>17401800
>The intelligence of the baby (and therefore its future) is entirely dependent on the parenting.
...Yes, anon. Exactly.
You know who tend to make good parents? People who actually intended to be parents. You know who tend to not make good parents? People sentenced to pregnancy against their will. People who run over crowded foster homes. People who pack their homes with foster kids for government benefits.

>Most of its population is fucking retarded.
And retarded populations tend to have more unintended pregnancies.

There's more than one reason all the bees are dying.

>>17401678
HItler was a brilliant man you uneducated swine. I like the fact that your argument implies that everyone has the same opinion as yours.

>>17401804
To help you understand the idiocy somewhat, I think OP is arguing that fetus = baby, which is absolutely retarded of a generalization, but comes from him insisting that say, a 8 month old thinking, feeling almost-human fetus, is somehow the same as that basic bitch unfeeling inanimate clump at the very start of fertilization. Of which we all know you can abort the latter but not the former.

And if he's going to insist on that utterly illogical lumping-together, it's like him arguing 1+1=3 and there's nothing we can do about that

>>17401779
I'm anti abortion but this argument is dumb, adoption isn't the answer. How many kids have you adopted anon?

There are so many who bounce around foster care

Think about 4chan generally, even a guy dating a single mom gets called a cuck, I cannot imagine some of you guys adopting "jamal"'s kid

>>17401804
Please read a 9th grade biology book about sperm. Its not the same as a fetus; thus, the methods of which they are discarded are not the same.

>>17401797
Not that anon, but your cup analogy works if you mean like "you abort a black baby, you abort a white baby"
It doesn't work with how you're trying to use it

>>17401796
>less than insects and bacteria

No, just given a couple of weeks, organs will develop and the heart will beat. Just given a couple more weeks, organ systems will come into play. More complex than a bacteria or an ant. This is the problem, you're equating a human life to an insect or an amoebic organism when is has the ability to be as complex as you or me.

>>17401797
>the same
And from my view, they are different, and I just explained the difference

>it's not human yet
Then why is it called a human fetus?

>own body
It's not the woman's body. It's a separate body that's developing

>>17401819

He's not saying it's the same as a foetus, he's saying both methods prevent a baby from being born. Very clearly.

>>17401813
If you're going to be /pol/ about this, replace "hitler" with "a person who eventually converts to Judaism" or something. You can't blame people for going off the majority opinion for a quicker way to make a point, it's like getting offended by someone's post about how we all like junk food

>>17401813
true, but he was also a mass murderer

Do I need to remind you that mass murder is bad?

>>17401727
Fuck off with your "counter-culture alt-right movement". I have no power level. I'm a person like all of you fucks. I hate the fact tht /pol/ thinks itself so superior than all others. They may be more intelligent or more adamant about their views than others but they're certainy not superior because of it.

>>17401809
Im a bio major but thanks anyway babe.

>>17401812
>People sentenced to pregnancy against their will

But did they have sex against their will? That is the question, my friend.

>>17401829
lurk more newfag

>>17401822

The fuck are you talking about, weirdo?
It's barely even an analogy. I'm saying the difference in cup colour has no impact on the function, just like the difference between a condom and an abotions have no impact of the resulting avoided birth. I'm illustrating my view that the difference is purely superficial.

>>17401766
You don't need to say you don't understand the concept because you demonstrate that you don't with your posts.

You're just like a simple minded animal that only thinks about the world in the most basic, intimidate and obvious ways. You're completely and utterly incapable of thinking in abstract ways, of wrapping your mind around complex theories, hypothetical scenarios, and long chains of cause and event.
>Simple concept of human self-conscience and will
And boy I don't even want to deal with the headache and waste of time that would be trying to explain determinism to you.

>>17401823
>And from my view, they are different, and I just explained the difference
Yeah, you explained that one cup is red and the other is blue. That's a difference, it's not an important difference.

>It's not the woman's body. It's a separate body that's developing
Oh yes, I forgot that pregnancy has no impact whatsoever on the woman's body!

I think the country I live in does it well.

You apply for an abortion. They evaluate you many times, you make a case for why you shouldn't have it

If you get through, it's free and safe

If not, tough shit

I'm a woman, and 19, and I used to agree with abortion, but 99% of the time it's college kids who were too lazy to wear a condom. I just feel like if you wanna be lazy/dumb you shouldn't be able to kill a baby just for your convenience, like this is honestly why no one has any sense of responsibility

>>17401823
"Almost 90% of UK abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. During this time there is no scientific doubt that the developing fetus is incapable of any form of conscious awareness. The fetal brain does not begin to develop until 3-4 weeks into the pregnancy, at which point it is little more than a hollow tube"

Maybe you can make an argument against abortions in the 12-24 weeks period, which are currently legal but rare in the UK, but that's it

If it helps, simple animals, insects or whatever, have fully formed brains for functions like eating and mating

>>17401819
I'm guessing 9th grade also happens to be the furthest you made it in education if you're so damn incapable of even realizing the point I'm trying to make to begin with.

OP here. Holy shit im done. Both sides are equally retarded. Believe it or not but I still dont think dragging a fucking fetus out of a womans womb is right. But if it makes any of you pro abortion people feel any better I do feel legalization of it can make it safer for women. Not that it justifies it in the first place.

>>17401823

>It's not the woman's body. It's a separate body that's developing

USING HER BODY. You're essentially saying that if a random POTENTIAL person requires her body to live, she's required to give it to him/her. That's like forcing her to give blood, or donate bone marrow, or do any number of physically demanding or debilitating things for another person just because they might need them down the road, who may or may not exist in the future. There's a reason we don't enforce insane stuff like that, and the same logic should be applied to female pregnancy rights.

When does abortion become unethical though?

Basically everyone agrees 23 weeks like OP's picture is wrong

Most people agree that like 5 weeks is fine

So what day, hour, minute becomes the cut off?

Choosing the cut off date is just semantics. How can it be fine one day and not the next?

>>17401789
I'm not deciding for anybody. I'm stating facts. It's EARLY life. It can't live on its own, but it is LIFE. We are all emotion-less cell clumps, if you really think about it. Morality is a by-product of our conscience, our sense of what hurts or what potentially WOULD hurt us and what won't or doesn't. So, if we go about killing somebody for no reason with a big ol' knife, wouldn't it be just killing an emotionless cell clump? I mean, come on. Literally everything in this universe is either an emotionless cell clump or an atom clump.

I've seen my mother cry multiple times after aborting 2 fetuses. I must agree with the fact that she has made horrible decisions. She is dumb. But to see her in that state ruined me. Yes, most women are probably all happy and shiny after abortion, but they aren't, trust me.

>>17401832

Possibly.
Even if they didn't, maybe their contraceptives were defective. Maybe they weren't responsibly educated by the school system. Maybe they come from broken family situations leaving them prone to reckless behaviour.
Should victims of a bad contraceptive company be sentenced to pregnancy? Should people who make terrible decisions because they come from broken homes be raising a baby?

Furthermore, a child is not a punishment. You cannot sentence someone to go through pregnancy as punishment, you cannot sentence someone to raising a child as punishment - and even if the birth parents don't have to raise the child, SOMEONE has to, always.
Someone who gets injured by doing something stupid can go to hospital and get treated, the fact that it was their own fault doesn't leave them stranded with the consequences.

File: 1467058781017.png (55KB, 320x251px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 320x251px

>>17401851
Yeah yeah no one cares who you are anymore

OP here again. I think this whole situation is pathetic. Thanks /adv/ I've learned to just never share my opinion irl or
>shit show

>>17401794
Oh yes, you must certainly be superior. You and your anonimity. There's no way we can prove that you have sex or not, so your little meme works. Good job, you must be superior after all.
Also, (You).

>>17401866
Blame the school system? Everyone knows sex can result in pregnancy
Blame their family? Again, they still knew it was a risk
You can't just blame people's stupid shit on institutions haha this isn't sociology 101

>>17401868
I know. :/.... just thought y'all would like to know...

>>17401791
People like you are trying to force their "opinion" on others, by making abortion illegal. If you don't want an abortion? Don't get one! That's fine. Convince women you know to not get them either, I don't care. But you have zero right to deny one to anyone who wants or needs one.

It's like an Amish person trying to get laws in place to get rid of modern cancer treatments, because his opinions don't allow him to use those treatments. And when people who would suffer from this object, him saying "you don't respect my opinion, you're ruining this country'.

>>17401876
fuck off and die

>>17401873
Have you ever had sex, anon?

If you don't answer, you'll become a female and us liberals will force you to abort your first baby :)

>>17401841
>Yeah, you explained that one cup is red and the other is blue

No, I explained that one is killing and one is not.

If I jack off, am I killing anything? No. Am I preventing a potential child from being born? Yes. Is a sperm a human though? No

Stop with the false continuums

>also moving goalposts
You said it's the same body. I explicitly stated that it isn't (it's not). Now you're talking about how it affects her body? How does that prove your first point or is related?

And nobody is forcing the woman to have sex. Not one.

>>17401859
>equating donating consensual sex and abortion to forcefully taking bone marrow and blood

>random person
It's not really random. She had sex. The fetus is there. Don't know how this is like the scenario you played out. It's mostly voluntary

>>17401799
As another anon said here, "Abortions are like 2% rape victims" so if I must trust the dude, I'd say it's mostly used for irresponsible sexaul activities.

As for your "15 year old girl pregnant little situation", she has other resources. She can go get help with a therapist or something for the psychological issues that'll come with all this, but for the baby, I never said that abortion should be completely illegal, although I might've accidentally implied it. It certainly should be used in extreme cases such as this or others where the life of the mother is in danger. sorry for being real rude, it's just that I'm tired of seeing idiots rant about things they saw on reddit.

>>17401842
>I'm a woman, and 19, and I used to agree with abortion, but 99% of the time it's college kids who were too lazy to wear a condom. I just feel like if you wanna be lazy/dumb you shouldn't be able to kill a baby just for your convenience, like this is honestly why no one has any sense of responsibility

Ok, let's say abortion gets banned, these kids now all have to wear condoms.
So, what, now the small percentage for whom contraception was ineffective through no fault of their own are shit out of luck? People who get raped are shit out of luck? People dealing with potentially dangerous foetal abnormalities are shit out of luck? These people deserve to be extraordinarily punished simply because it's frustrating for you to see lazy college kids ridiculously waste their time, comfort and possibly money on abortions instead of taking a few seconds to use a condom?

>>17401866
See: >>17401843
I can understand the controversy over 23 weeks fetuses- that they might have feelings, which would be not ok. I know I have feelings and all living humans do, which is why murder is not ok. But your blatant disregard for scientific fact is not ok, you fail to understand that it's not a whole, feeling, thinking almost-baby that just magically appears immediately after fertilization. Actually no- you fail to even try to understand

>>17401808
ok boss
I will stop shitposting

>>17401885
People like you are trying to force their "opinion" on others, by making murder illegal. If you don't want to kill anyone? Don't do it! That's fine. Convince people you know to not kill either, I don't care. But you have zero right to deny killing someone to anyone who wants or needs to.

It's like someone trying to get laws in place to get rid of murder, because his opinions don't allow him to kill someone. And when people who would suffer from this object, him saying "killing people is fundamentally wrong, you're ruining this country".

>>17401886
Who hurt you anon? You sound really bitter. I hope your day gets better.

I'm uneasy with abortion, but fully support it being legal. I see no concrete alternative. Bringing unwanted children in the world is not desirable for the world population - that's already too high. It's not desirable for a society itself, because the women undergoing abortions are typically poor, have an immigrant/minority background, come from broken and/or abusive homes... aka people who are already struggling and will most likely deliver more kids from an unstable background. Not being able to afford a child is also one of the most cited reasons for abortion. And while ethically it's of course very complicated, I do think bodily integrity should rank quite highly. If it is not legal to force someone to donate some tissue to save someone's life, why would it be legal to force them to carry a pregnancy to full term then be a parent for 18+ years, when the pregnancy is more likely to kill them than a simple tissue donation as well? Even the beginnings of a child should have more right than other parts of the body, but saying that the rights of the baby outweigh the rights of the mother legally makes her into a vessel. That's quite something.

And of course, people should just use proper protection but even that can fail. The pill doesn't protect 100%. With improper use (which is already achieved by not taking it every single day at exactly the same time) it's not even 99%.
Obviously there should be more focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies and very diligent, thorough and repeated sex education. But unwanted pregnancies will always be an issue to some extent.

>>17401674
>>17401674
Okay, well because that isn't physically possible at the moment, what would you suggest as a reasonable alternative?

I'm pro-choice, by the way.

>>17401812
OP of that reply here, with better education we'd have a smarter population, therefore no "unintended" irresponsible pregnancies.

>>17401901
It's not banned
You go and get evaluated and if you were raped, or any of those other things you get a free and safe abortion
But you can't just go along and be like "waaaaa I had drunk sex take it away"

>>17401875
>Blame the school system? Everyone knows sex can result in pregnancy
>Blame their family? Again, they still knew it was a risk
Holy shit, educate yourself you pampered mongoloid, learn a thing or two about the real world before presuming to take control of peoples' bodies, finances and futures.

And see the rest of the post.

>>17401826
oy vey

>>17401737
You're drawing the line at fetus
Anon is drawing the line at baby. You think a fetus' rights are as important as a baby's and obviously does not.

>>17401817
Okay, but are you anti-abortion for other people? Like. You can be pro-choice, as in women should have the right to choose if they want one or not, and at the same time not want one yourself.

>>17401897
>You said it's the same body.
No I didn't, you just have the reading comprehension of a foetus.

>And nobody is forcing the woman to have sex. Not one.
Great news everybody, rape is over!

>>17401825
Agreed, but I've seen that opinion three times now and I'm tired of answering to it, so I shitposted. Sorry mister, I won't do it again.

>>17401922
I'm jewish

>>17401837
stop spouting memes at me and debate for fuck's sakes
another reason why I hate this board
why do I still go on it someone help me

http://www.strawpoll.me/10853116

Guys, remember, abortion effects you too. Do you really want to be stuck paying child support for the rest of your life?

File: Zdzisław-Beksiński-Dark-eyes.jpg (234KB, 953x768px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 953x768px

>>17401500
They design those graphics to be as visceral as possible, to discourage women from getting abortions. While abortions are becoming legal in increasing parts of the world, the legislation that the "right" (people who don't think this should be societally accepted, potentially like yourself) has managed to pass requires this "education" to exacerbate the patient's sense of loss, and change her mind.

The child isn't conscious, and hasn't existed metaphysically speaking. If that's difficult to grasp, then the only characteristic of life it fills is that it has cells, and that it grows. A violent picture of a baby dying is going to sway anyone, but it has no logical basis. You might as well be depicting condoms as smothering tiny white babies because an early fetus is just another piece of material in the mother's body.

If you're bothered by abortions then that's totally valid (and the woman's decision either way is totally valid). But it's not really ok that they spread this kind of propaganda and start mind-games in a lot of sub-optimal parents, force them to bring an unfavorable life into the world, and (very often) lower their own quality of life by a considerable amount.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3MKSqUTr-A

This whole story arc revolves around that fallacy. Diane knows what her pragmatism tells her, but her client's mv messes with her emotions. Her bf knows he can't argue with her logic but he's trying really hard to keep her soothed and resolute.

File: mindlesssheepcomeonits2016.jpg (65KB, 557x711px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 557x711px

>>17401839
ok sorry

>>17401919
It's a hypothetical, dumbshit.

>>17401896
the fuck are you even talking about what

>>17401933
lurk the fuck more

>>17401909
thanks for doing the arguing for me anon, I'm tired <3

>>17401897
>is a sperm a human though? No.
But a fetus isn't either. That's literally the point.

Also it is not always voluntary. She could be raped, the man could have lied about using proper protection, etc. You can take all the precautions and still have it happen, just as you can take all the necessary precautions driving, or boating, but shit can still happen.

"people know they're taking a risk by driving, so we should just ban seatbelts and airbags, so when an accident happens they REALLY suffer the consequences"

>>17401926
>No I didn't

>"does a living human have no right to control their own body"
A fetus isn't their body. And as I already said multiple times, they can control it by using condoms and birth control and not getting fucked by Tyrone on Friday night. And I can respond easily with "Does a fetus not have a right to live?" to that statement

>rape is over
This accounts for like 1% of abortions. When it comes to abortion, it essentially mainly consensual

>>17401932
kek nice bait my dude

>>17401958
>>"does a living human have no right to control their own body"
>A fetus isn't their body.
Yeah. The persons own body is their own body. How can you be this retarded...?

>>17401958
>nd I can respond easily with "Does a fetus not have a right to live?" to that statement
You already did you fucking moron. Ones right to their own body is what I RESPONDED with.

>>17401861
Ethically, a woman should have a right to her body at all times, and should theoretically be able to abort the fetus/baby at any time.

But that isn't reasonable. The current cut-off is just that, a "reasonable" date at which you lose the right to your body, because you had the chance to exercise your right for a reasonable period of time before.

Pure ethics can lead to poor practical applications, and I think that really applies to this topic. This is just a balance between the rights of the woman, and the rights of the potential child, because it's a unique scenario.

>>17401967
And the fetus body isn't her body, dipshit. It's 2 separate entities Why should she have control over a body that isn't hers to the point where she can voluntarily kill it, but voluntarily NOT HAVE IT most of the time. Does a fetus not have a right to its own body, too?

>>17401975
>The current cut-off is just that, a "reasonable" date at which you lose the right to your body
Not so reasonable when the system forces you to jump through hoops specifically designed to stall your abortion until you pass the cutoff.
In principle, I agree, but in practice shit's all fucked up depending where you live.

>>17401909
Abortion, before the cut-off week, is not murder. Before that point it is no different than a tumour, a group of cells that live off the host. People get absorbed twins removed, that fall in to the exact same category. That is entirely legal.

You worded your version of my words very poorly, and are actually arguing FOR me, in your attempt to turn it around. But I think I get the point you're attempting to make. It still isn't a very good one.

When removing a tumour is labelled as murder, I'll agree that removing a fetus is murder too. Until then, there's no doubt that it is NOT murder.

>>17401506
WRONG. if you murder a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 counts of murder, not 1.5 or 1

if a woman has an abortion 6 months into pregnancy it's a "choice". I'm really not a right winger on anything but this shit alone is a fucked up and disturbing choice and it kinda makes me angry to see women dancing in the streets about its legality (unless of course of rape or incest I suppose)

nice try though

>>17401949
That's what pro-choice means. Forced abortions on both men and women of all ages. Our choice to make you have an abortion. No babies for you.

>>17401987
Okay, if it isn't a part of her, it's it's own separate entity, she can just remove it. Then it can do its own thing and she can do hers. Everyone is happy. :^)

File: 1469127200850.jpg (23KB, 240x251px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 240x251px

This thread

>>17402003
No I wasn't calling abortion murder
I considered replacing the words with rape or theft
It's just - certain things are wrong and some people think they're right but that doesn't matter because we don't live in an entirely anarchist society

>>17402006
Very good point

>>17402011
Say for some hypothetical reason someone needed you to look after their hand
And after 9 months of you just carrying it around everywhere it could be reattached to them and it would be really nice
And you volunteered to look after their disattached hand
But then a few weeks in you're like ehh nah I'll just throw it away and cut it up and destroy it because I can't be fucked
And you can do that
But you shouldn't
Because you put yourself in this position and someone is depending on you and you're fucking it up
So while it isn't your hand, it's still someone's hand and it's still important

>>17402027
I agree, opinions should't change what's wrong or right. But we also don't live in a society where you can force someone to do something with their own body. That isn't an opinion, that's legally what the law is.

And if you want to argue that "well, the fetus's body is its own", then fair enough, the fetus should just be removed to exist by itself, and the mother can exist by herself.

>>17402011
>The fetus depends on the mother for support. Therefore, the woman and fetus are basically one body. The fetus is her body essnetially . She has rights over her own body and the fetus has no rights over its own body

>>17402006
>WRONG. if you murder a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 counts of murder, not 1.5 or 1
Typically in those situations they were planning on keeping it. In some cases ot isn't (these are typically reserved for homemade abortion methods, beating the baby out or pushing down steps gone wrong)

>>17402034
>hand example
I couldn't agree more with your example. You committed to that, you should follow through.

HOWEVER - you should not be legally required to follow through. It should be a decision you make yourself. Pro-choice.

In addition, it'd be more accurate to also say "you might have woken up after a night of drinking, and someone had sewed this hand to you", or "you did everything you could to stop this hand from being sewed to you, you did not want this hand, but it was sewed to you anyways, even though you took precautions to stop it from happening". It wouldn't make sense if it was legally required that you kept the hand, then.

Also the fact that a baby carries lifelong implications upon having it. The hand example is helpful but not totally accurate.

>>17402043
Exactly. It's either:

1) They're one body, so she has the right to remove it if she wants.

2) They're separate bodies, and she is under no obligation to keep another "human" inside her. She can remove it.

There's no way to argue that the fetus has any right to be inside her. It's her choice, in any argument.

>>17402039
That's like sending a small child to live on it's own though, and we all know that's illegal

I think abortion is totally killing a person.

I just don't care. Hundreds of thousands people die every day anyways, and fetuses are the least important people of all.

>>17402054
Now you're just being silly. It's entirely legal to give children up for adoption.

If the fetus has a right to its own body, and the woman has a right to her own body, and even if the fetus wants to be inside of her, her right to her own body over-rules the fetuses. I can't legally be inside of someone if they don't want me there. So she takes it out, and gives it up for adoption, if it lives. Happy?

>>17402049
Yeah but it's just shit
No matter what, I wouldn't have the hand removed. It's someone's hand, fuck not having a hand
But I understand that shouldn't be a legal obligation
So my main problem with abortion is that for it to be provided I would have to be indirectly paying for other people to get one, and I really disagree with that

If Abortion is murder, because even though the fetus isn't technically alive, it has the potential for life, then so is sex without procreation.

Fuck heads.

>>17402045
So I just don't understand how a woman performing an abortion on herself is suddenly a crime. It's like uncle sam wants to profit off the murder of unborn children or you have to keep it

make it legal or make illegal under any circumstances

>>17402066
I was more or less referencing a case in the 90 where a guy was found guilty of murder for helping his girl get rid of the baby by beating it out of her. That happens more often than people think

>>17402064
You're indirectly paying for murder all the time. Do you not understand Taxes?

You think war, prisons, and police are free?

If your problem with abortion is that it is murder, and that you are paying for it indirectly, you should also have problem with the hundreds of actually alive Syrian children that we killed, their parents that we killed, and rest assured some of them were pregnant.

If you're ok with paying for all that, why the fuck can't you let a 16 year old girl who was raped by her father abort the god damn fetus?

>>17402064
Well, that's just how taxes work. If I don't want some new government building being build on Indian burial grounds for moral reasons? Tough, I don't get to make those decisions.

We can't deny people some certain medical treatment because we don't want our taxes to go towards it. That's how the American system works, but for healthcare as a whole. And everyone knows how well that works.

Think of it as 100% your taxes going to something you do like, like plumbing, or roads. All my taxes can go towards abortions to make up for yours.

>>17402076
It' also illegal to abort a fetus without going to a Clinic, idiot.

>inb4 parents do the right thing putting it out of its misery cuz the world sux

So, basically, let's just ignore the a completely valid point, and argument, because if we didn't, yours would fall apart?

Seems accurate.

>inb4 arl lyf iz preshus carl

>>17402076
well right that's a weird method but it's technically illegal even if you use a coat hanger, or "accidentally" fall down the stairs by your own doing. Is it a crime to stick a coat hanger up your vagina? no. is it a crime to fall down the stairs? no. but if it results in the termination of a pregnancy it's illegal.

>>17402063
>her right to her own body over-rules the fetuses

How did you come to that conclusion?

And I don't know why you're saying "she can just remove it, if it lives adoption"

Removing = Killing. Killing means taking away every right that the fetus had and not respecting its rights in the first place.

>>17402087
>valid point

>>world sux

For you

>>17401620
okay but its been discussed before that birth control is not 100% effective so what about this argument from the male perspective?

if a woman wants to abort a child a man has no say. if a woman wants to keep the child the man has no say and is financially obligated to help pay for the child for the next 18 years

are all guys supposed to abstain from sex because this could happen? what if your girl doesn't want an abortion?

>>17402080
People do not understand that the purpose of legal abortion is dealing with the reality of illegal abortion, and do not understand to what extent the underground economy behind illegal abortion influences the healthcare and tax system as a whole.

>>17402104
>what if your girl doesn't want an abortion?
then you move to the Philippines and change your name

>>17401500
I tried thinking answering this question and the opposite: "Why isn't abortion okay?" and it's really hard if you look at both the baby and the mother as people. I basically went in circles in my head and came to the conclusions that 1.)I'm not a woman nor have I ever dedicated myself to doing something for 9 months so I don't have big credentials on the debate either way. 2.) It's an issue that's so morally complicated that I'd much rather let other people handle it.

Though I slightly lean toward pro-choice more, abortions already happen every hour of the day and they're happening less(12% less since 2010) according to the statistics so it's definitely not a willynilly thing like people try to make it seem. I put slightly before lean because holy shit there's a lot stuff that makes it all complicated.

>>17401669
Hitler being aborted would objectively have a negative effect on the world.

A lot of technology we have wouldn't had happened otherwise.

Look, a fetus is not a living thing. If it was, you would be able to "birth" it at any time and have it grow to term outside the womb.

In fact, the cutoff dates are incredibly generous in that respect - many extremely premature babies simply die despite being considered "alive" - the more premature the higher the mortality rate. At a certain cutoff, there is no chance of survival at all.

So lets drop all this "living being" crap for fetuses - they clearly are not viable life in that state. Therefore it is not murder.

You can argue all you want about the mothers responsibility, bla bla bla, but if the fetus can't survive on it's own, the mother has no obligation to carry it. If, someday, we develop the ability to create fetuses that can develop on their own, great, killing one would be murder, but that isn't the world we live in right now.

>>17401546
>Cases where keeping the pregnancy might afftect mother's health or life
>Cases where keeping the pregnancy might affect mother's mental health or lead to suicude

>>17401518
>Problem with you pro-abortion people is that you don't understand how important these future lives are

Oh fuck off. How many truly great people are around today? The odds of giving birth to someone who will move the world is negligible. It's just every parents wet dream. Your wife's son was not going to cure cancer.

Plus, we're on the slippery slope to overpopulation as it is.

>>17402095
So the fetus has the right to leech off of the woman, to use her body for its own purposes? No human has the "right" to another humans body. No exceptions.

Of course, this is all assuming that were considering g the fetus to be its own entity, and not merely part of the woman's body.

>>17401500
It makes me sick that we live in a society where this is okay, that you can ride enough stranger's cocks until you get pregnant with a human, then go and get it removed like it's a pimple or some shit.

Absolutely disgusting.

The idea behind it is that an ultimate human right is bodily autonomy, meaning you get to choose what's on or in your body to the best of your ability. An unwanted pregnancy, regardless of how it happened (rape, incest, torn condom, idiocy, etc.) violates your agency over your own body if you're not permitted to terminate it. A lot of people don't get it, but some places have reached a compromise that I think is decent; you can have an abortion up until viability. By the time a fetus is viable, you've had plenty of time to make a choice.

To help understand bodily autonomy as it relates to law, a common example is organ donation. You cannot be forced to donate your organs, even if you're dead. Pregnancy is temporary, but you're loaning use of your organs and resources to another lifeform, as well as putting your own health at risk.

Personally, I think abortion is sad, but ultimately a necessity for a lot of people.

Hope this helps you understand the argument a little better, beyond the typical "it's just a clump of cells."

>>17401500

We have gone through an abortion my girlfriend and I and it wasn't what you'd call a pleasant or easy decision. In the end having the child was out of the question, neither her nor I had any desire for children and it wasn't worth the pregnancy and birth to deliver a child we didn't have he facilities or money to keep. Adoption would have been an option, an abortion was a much quicker and better long-term solution.

There's no other way to approach it, it's a logical sensible decision and while it's not one I'm proud of, neither of us feel like we'd taken a life. The important thing was that we had discussed this eventuality before and were both ready for the consequences of unprotected sex.

>>17403107
>>17403122

These two posts should be able to convince any reasonable person that abortion is a necessary, but hard, choice for women and couples to have.

>>17403251
Not really.
One was a guy that took the easy way out and the other can be debunked because the fetus is another body.
I haven't read the whole thread but i failed to see any logical arguments from both parties.

>>17403294
>the fetus is another body
That has exactly nothing to do with the bodily autonomy argument, considering the body of the fetus is inside the body of a woman. Your critical thinking skills are very poor if you think that changes anything.

>>17401513
i think it's ok
no need for a lot more humans on this planet
death penalty and abortion has my 100% support

>>17401518
two things: 1) abortion is not fun it's pretty traumatic to the mother and dangerous. only a retard can think anyone does it for fun.
2) no there is no difference between wearing a condom, pulling out or aborting the result of sex in the grand scheme of things.

>>17401569
Bad analogy. A fetus doesn't have past memories, friends and relatives, or otherwise a past life.

>>17401730
The semen in my testicles and the eggs in my gf's ovaries are also potential human life; by wearing a condom I'm actively preventing them from coming together to eventually become a human life, just like when my gf gets an abortion she's actively preventing their combination from becoming a human life.

An embryo is also not a human life on its own yet; it has to be combined with a shit ton of material until it finally develops into a baby.

You're drawing an arbitrary distinction between an embryo and any other object that might become a human eventually through combination with other objects.

TL;DR: your logic is wrong and sperm and fetus are just on different points of the "not human yet" to "now human" scale, both being not human yet.

>>17402064
>No matter what, I wouldn't have the hand removed.
That's your, wait for it... choice!

This is the funny thing about this issue, you can totally be pro-choice while being anti-abortion.
I mean, I don't believe drug laws are effective, but that doesn't mean I'll see a crack whore and think "it's whatever makes her happy, shitlord." Obviously in an ideal world, she wouldn't be doing that kind of thing at all, but it's not an ideal world. All we can do is encourage responsible decisions and try to minimise damage. You can't actually control what people will do.

>>17401655
So the "person" doesn't have any past memories, friends, relatives, or even any cognitive skills, or ANYTHING else that actually makes them a full adult person?

>>17403307
>having something insede me means i have all control i want over that thing
No. Just. No.

>>17401656
>>17401656
>>17401656
>>17401656

This post needs a medal.
With citations, it would be... well it would be way too good for 4chan.

File: Your Opinion.jpg (27KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x300px

The idea that life begins at conception is an opinion, not a scientific fact. Certainly viable, sentient life does not.

Just like an acorn is not the same as an oak tree, a zygote is not the same thing as a baby.

Since when life begins is a philosophy, not answerable by science, let the woman decide.

>>17403385
...why the fuck not? "no, just no" is not an argument. If I have an absorbed twin living inside me, I have every right to have it removed. It's no different.

>>17403385
Yes, actually. You're not legally required to donate your organs, even for temporary use, so that another might live. Especially since pregnancy carries considerable risks to the mother. It's arguably immoral to force someone to serve as life support for someone else, especially if it can do that person harm.

A woman also retains her right to engage in reckless behaviors that might harm the fetus, if she chooses. Some women smoke, drink, do drugs, or drive like morons during pregnancy.

Now the interesting thing about bodily integrity is that some laws we have do violate the concept. They don't get as much attention as reproductive rights issues, though.

>>17402095
>How did you come to that conclusion?
How do you come to the opposite, that the fetus over-rules her rights?
At the end of the day, someone is going to get screwed here.

>Removing = Killing. Killing means taking away every right that the fetus had and not respecting its rights in the first place.
If a suicidal friend comes to my door saying they can't be alone tonight, I'm not legally obligated to let them into my home, even if I believe it means they'll die. It's a harsh world, but that's reality. You can morally disagree with the decision, but you can't take away someone's rights by forcing them to care for someone else's. Sometimes people die.

>>17403411
>Now the interesting thing about bodily integrity is that some laws we have do violate the concept. They don't get as much attention as reproductive rights issues, though.
Like what?

>>17403423
Laws prohibiting the use of certain substances, for one. Some would argue that a consenting adult should be able to use whatever drugs they want. I'm on the fence about the issue, because I don't want to see an increase in overdoses or drug-related injuries. But it goes against the idea that you should ultimately control your own body.

Some people think that seatbelt laws violate bodily integrity because they're being coerced into putting something on their body that they don't want. That's so incredibly minor, though.

>>17401500

this image is some drastic abortion made late. Early abortion is just taking some pills and the fetus is aborted like a menstruation - some bleeding maybe more than usual but nothing like the pic in OP.

File: (you).gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>17401500
>abortion
>a child

>>17401500
The only other alternative is two retards taking care of the poor lad, which would probably make him emotionally unstable and unable to form proper relationships. If you think foster care is any better than topkek m8. He's better off dying than having a shitty life and hating himself for it.

I realize this is weak bait, but I'm going to respond anyways, because I have nothing better to do.

First of all, if you judge things solely in terms of good and evil you're a narcissistic idiot. There is no objective good or evil, there is only morality and that's obviously subjective, it's different for each society and even for the people in that society. And when you claim someone shouldn't do something just because it infringes your moral code you're assuming your morality has an objective value. Which it doesn't. Your morality is irrelevant in these matters to anyone but you.

>a child
Fetuses are not children. Fetuses become sentient 18-25 weeks after the fertilization, that's after the abortion time window. So you're not killing a sentient being.To put this into perspective most animals and plants are sentient. A fly is sentient, for instance. An "abortable" fetus is not.

>but it has the potential to be human so it's important
If we were in a situation where our numbers were very small and our existence was threatened by this fact then yes, that would be a good argument. But it's not, in fact it's the other way around. Human population is growing at an alarming rate.

Now, you may think that every human life is important, or sacred and fetuses are sacred just because they will become humans in time. If you feel this way you're free to never abort a baby. But you aren't free to tell others that they shouldn't abort. You can't take someones freedom of choice based on your opinion. And this is what pro-life people can't accept. And this is why I consider all of them narcissistic assholes.

>>17401609
My mother still took the pill after marriage because my parents didn't want more than one kid, retard, it's not like getting married = no more sex or getting married = lots of unwanted offspring you don't care for

people who get married have the same problem as people who have one night stands (as safe sex that doesn't lead to babies), maybe even more, because married couples need sex to keep the marriage from ending up in divorce and don't need more offspring than they care for

>>17401500
>Why is abortion okay?

My grandma had 33 abortions.
Grandpa thought sex was his marital right and didn't take no for an answer.
Grandpa didn't care for condoms and the pill was not yet available due to religious bullshit.
After the first two kids, grandma realized if she kept giving birth everytime she got pregnant her kids would have inherited nothing because there would have been too many people to divide the property with and they couldn't have even afforded to feed them all. So grandma did the smart, rational, morally good thing and protected her existing children by aborting the rest, who would only have been competition for resources.
That is why abortion is okay.

>>17401561
>you can't expect everyone to just never have sex unless they want kids right then and there.

Yes I fucking can. Humanity has been able to keep abstinent until able to raise a child for all of history up until fucking 50 years ago. Fucking hedonistic subhumans. Abort yourself

>>17401564
>a fetus cannot comprehend what pain caused by abortion is, let alone feel it at that stage

There is not possible way for you to know that. As far as I know, science has not yet gifted us with the ability to read minds and feelings

>>17403611
You need sex to keep a married couple together. Should married couples just have sex that one time for a kid and then divorce? I thought you people knew single parenthood is shit for the kid.

>>17403611
Where the hell do you get that idea? Abortion has been a thing for much, much longer than fifty years. It's ancient practice.

>>17403624
I was talking about birth control, retard

>>17403615
Science has gifted us with the knowledge of where pain comes from, though, and most fetuses don't develop what they need in order to feel pain until around 23-25 weeks, if I remember correctly.

>>17403623
>You need sex to keep a married couple together

No you fucking don't, ever hear of menopause or erectile dysfunction? Don't recall massive divorce numbers prior to the invention of Viagra

>>>17403611
>Humanity has been able to keep abstinent until able to raise a child for all of history

Except for the billions of married couples who had to abandon kids to die because they couldn't afford them or didn't want more than they already had I guess and had no means to control their fertility

Google exposure of babies since the roman times to the invention of the pill

>>17401500
If you're a poor negro who'd be unable to provide the child with necessary assistance and would raise a ward of the state, costing you the taxpayer his bill of his entire life, from public hospital, to public school, to juvie, to prison, to grave.

You pay. So yeah, fuck these useless kids, the reason america is more prosperous today is abortions.

>>17403629
And I was talking about your "lol abstinence, sex for fun is new" argument, you quadruple-retard. We have a long, rich history of fucking for fun and avoiding consequences.

How about changing Planned Parenthood's name to Women's Health and expanding contraception funding to prevent the possibility of abortions in the future?

Also how about 'Pro-Lifers' support the abolishment of the death penalty, gun control, and prevention of wars? At least go all in with pro life.

>>17403646
>Also how about 'Pro-Lifers' support the abolishment of the death penalty, gun control, and prevention of wars? At least go all in with pro life.

If you fuck up after having been given life, that's your own problem. If you can't defend your own life, life is meaningless.

>>17403631
>No you fucking don't, ever hear of menopause or erectile dysfunction?
Menopause comes with the onset of old age, so by the end of your life when you're used to your partner, erectile dysfunction has always been a cause for divorce (infertility in the man = invalid marriage)

>Don't recall massive divorce numbers prior to the invention of Viagra
Sure because the church liked to keep people oppressed... don't recall it was happy productive marriages that didn't end up with abused/neglected children and spouses that ignored each other/didn't cheat on each other/didn't abuse each other
don't recall child mortality being so massively low before the invention of the pill

>>17403651
>If you can't defend your own life
But you're not letting women defend their own lives here.

>>17403615
It scares me that some people are this ignorant.

>>17403643
That wasn't my argument you massive fuckwit. Have sex for fun all you want with modern birth control. But you know the consequences of its failure, so don't be suprised if you fucking create life and don't murder innocent fucking children.

Sex for fun has ALWAYS been viewed as immoral and hedonistic

>>17403660
What twisted logic gives you this conclusion?

>>17403661
Know something I don't?

>>17403668
>Sex for fun has ALWAYS been viewed as immoral and hedonistic
False. Sex for fun has always been as good for the mind and for the soul and for the loving couple in a relationship by good, rational people in loving relationships. It was always seen as "immoral and hedonistic" by church people ie bitter permavirgins nobody wants.

>>17403678
>by church people
AKA all of Western Civilization up until like 30 years ago

>>17403522
Holy shit dude.

>>17403673
The fact you want women's lives to be ruined by having burdens they don't want? Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for returning to killing unwanted babies by throwing them to the dogs as we did in the past. It was only the 90s when we still had all those dead babies abandoned in the trash because the mothers had been denied abortions.

>>17403611
>Yes I fucking can. Humanity has been able to keep abstinent until able to raise a child for all of history up until fucking 50 years ago.
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>17403684
Nigger please, western civilization was made by people who didn't give a fuck about the church.

>>17403692
>having burdens they don't want

Nobody who has sex is unaware that it makes babies. Nobody who skydives is unaware that the parachute might not open.

If the risk is too high, don't fucking do the deed. If a baby is found dead in the street, fucking execute its mother

>>17403615
>There is not possible way for you to know that.
There's no possible way for you to know that celery isn't in unspeakable pain every time you chew, that doesn't mean you should be barred from eating it just in case.
We don't know what a fetus feels, we do know what what the fully developed human forced to carry it feels.

>>17403673
This >>17403630 basically. And the fact that you could figure that out with a fast google search. Fetuses cannot feel pain before theyre 18 weeks old. That's something every specialist agrees on. It's unclear the exact age when they start feeling pain, some doctors say it's at 20 week, some say it's after but before 18 weeks we KNOW that they don't feel pain.

>>17403706
>Equating human children to food

>>17403661
Same. It's depressing to realize how many dumb, debunked ideas people will defend to death because they're too stupid, arrogant, or lazy to employ critical thought (or because ~feels~).

>>17403702
>Nobody who has sex is unaware that it makes babies
Safe sex doesn't make babies. Unless someone has an accident, but then again abortion is the best and most responsible way to correct that accident, rather putting out a burden on the collective with an unwanted kid.

>If the risk is too high, don't fucking do the deed
My grandma would have very much liked that, but grandpa was of a different idea. Maybe teach husbands not to rape their wives?

>>17403711

Life is life, anon.

>>17403709
>Fetuses cannot feel pain before theyre 18 weeks old
>Objective science can (dis)prove subjective experience

lrn2philosophy


>>17403714
>Maybe teach husbands not to rape their wives?
Your grandmother should've had your grandfather arrested, if your story is true.
>PROTIP
It's not

>>17403720
If you equate humans to celery then you should be sterilized or euthanized

>>17403711
I'm a cannibalist from the Asmat tribe and I find your comment insensitive against my culture and unbearably racist.

>>17403729
That's fine, stay on your fucking uncivilized island and keep your beliefs there. This is the West and our society is founded largely upon laws rooted in Catholic morality

>>17403725
>Your grandmother should've had your grandfather arrested
Arrested? For what? He was merely exercising his god-given conjugal rights like a good christian. Things like respecting a woman's desire and lack thereof or family planning or birth control are an invention of the devil known as feminism, no good christian man cares for that.

>>17403736
>implying I am Christian

Nah, rape is bad bro. But denying sex should be grounds for divorce.

>>17403668
>Humanity has been able to keep abstinent until able to raise a child for all of history up until fucking 50 years ago. Fucking hedonistic subhumans. Abort yourself

No mention of birth control here. So, since it's a thread about abortion, abortion is mentioned in the next post.

>>17403629
Here you claim you were talking about BC, which again, you never mentioned or even alluded to.

>>17403668
Now you're changing your argument again, from "practice abstinence" to "don't practice abstinence, just don't hurt my feefees."

I don't think you're smart enough to even comprehend your own posts. That's really sad. Your mother should've aborted you, you're clearly defective. You call everyone else retarded, but I don't think you're convincing anyone.

>>17403740
different anon but holy shit ur dum

>>17403735
>Catholic morality

Raping your wife and denying her the means to control how many offspring she has hence making her, your family and your kids poorer?

>>17403742
You have no reading comprehension.

>>17403611
>up until fucking 50 years ago
Meaning hormonal birth control you uneducated mongoloid. Abortion has been going on in uncivilized parts of the world for all time and it has always been evil

>inb4 moral relativity
No

>>17403702
If a skydiver's parachute doesn't open, he still has the right to fix the resulting injuries (if he doesn't die). He doesn't have to just lie there with shattered ribs and think, "I did this, I better just accept it."

Pretty much any other mistake you make, you have the right to rectify to the best of your ability.

>>17403740
So you want the divorce rates to get even higher then they are now? Again I thought 4chan was against single parenthood.

>>17403725
>every philosophy enthusiast
Yes you fucking retard, "science" can determine that a being cannot feel pain when it doesn't have any pain detectors formed yet. You think those feelings are just magical and can't be explained? Jesus Christ, how stupid are you?

Here, educate yourself on the subject before humiliating yourself even further : http://www.mydr.com.au/pain/pain-and-how-you-sense-it

>>17401624
Yes masturbation is genocide.

>>17403756
Either I missed a post, or Anon isn't making a consistent, coherent argument.

>>17403756
And again, you fucking dunce, they did NOT remain abstinent, rendering your argument- wait for it- so fucking retarded that it was disqualified for the Special Olympics.

>>17403756
>Abortion has been going on in uncivilized parts of the world for all time and it has always been evil

Abortion was already seen as right and just in all ancient civilizations and a better less shameful alternative than letting the child be born, because that meant death for both mother and child by ostracization if it was out of wedlock death for the child by abandonment if it was in a wedlock and the child wasn't particularly wanted.

>>17402266
We're not on the slippery slope, we've already slid off of it.

Fuck, look at California's 300 million populace. THANKS OBAMA!

>>17403780
>seen as right and just
...Really? Different anon, but source?

>>17403766
The other anon assumed I was referring to abortion when I said "50 years ago" in my first post.

>>17401624
Sperm do not create humans on their own. Unfertilized eggs don't either.

>>17403760
Neurologists still have problems defining consciousness let alone locating it. Can't even prove it's fucking generated by the brain last I checked

>>17403780
>[citation needed. exclude sparta and everything east of greece and west of spain]

>>17403759
At this point I think 9/10 people should be sterilized. Nazis did mostly everything right except lose.

>>17403795
>>17403794
>Aristotle, in his treatise on government Politics (350 BCE), condemns infanticide as a means of population control. He preferred abortion in such cases, with the restriction "[that it] must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive"

>In English law, abortion did not become illegal until 1803. English folk practice before and after that time held that fetal life was not present until quickening. "Women who took drugs before that time would describe their actions as 'restoring the menses' or 'bringing on a period'." Abortifacients used by women in England in the 19th century (not necessarily safe or effective) included diachylon, savin, ergot of rye, pennyroyal, nutmeg, rue, squills, and hiera picra.

Just a quick wikipedia copypasta off the top of my head, and I'm sure there's more in-depth stuff on the web.

>>17403814
>the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive"

The core of my argument is that there is no way to define this line

>>17403823
Except people have already defined this line? That's why there's a time window limit for abortions.

>>17403828
>people have already defined this line?

Arbitrarily so, in my reckoning. There is no way to know when something becomes conscious because consciousness has not been adequately defined to begin with, much less localized in the brain.

>>17401500
I don't think it's wrong but it does seem very macabre
The idea of pulling a corpse out myself makes my head spin

>>17403835
Not so arbitrarily as the limit is based and defined on science.
There's no consciouness without a brain, the day an empty skull starts talking on its own is the day you can say humans don't need a functioning brain to be conscious.

>>17403843
Is the line drawn at the first appearance of a neuron then? If so, you win. Otherwise, I still take issue because there are plenty of instances of people losing a majority of their brain with little to no loss of functionality

>>17403795
>Neurologists still have problems defining consciousness let alone locating it. Can't even prove it's fucking generated by the brain last I checked

That's completely false. Consciousness is controlled by the front lobe of your brain which uses information gathered from all your body through nerves. You continue to amaze me in your ignorance.
https://teddybrain.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/a-brief-review-on-consciousness-from-medical-interest/

>>17403417
>How do you come to the opposite, that the fetus over-rules her rights?

In my mind, the basic right to live overrides her right to body, especially when considering the fact that she most likely could have decided to not have it in the first place

>suicidal friend
You're not legally obligated to have unprotected sex, too. That was a choice. They got pregnant. Shouldn't they take responsibility for their actions?

>>17403842
It's better than leaving it in. When a woman miscarries if the dead fetus isn't expelled it becomes extremely dangerous for the woman.

>>17403847
>some guys fucking wordpress

Into the trash it goes

>>17402997
>fetus has the right to leech off of the woman
But it never chose to leech of the woman in the first. It's there BECAUSE of her, don't you understand? It just is, and depends on the mother for growth. She didn't need to have the kid if she just had protected sex

>part of woman's body
It's not though. The biology of the fetus and mother are intertwined, but it does not make the fetus her body

>>17403846
>Is the line drawn at the first appearance of a neuron then?
See >>17403847.

>people losing a majority of their brain with little to no loss of functionality
>wheelchair-bound human-shaped vegetables that can only shit and piss on their own and need assistance 24/7 from another person to be fed and cleaned lest they die and become a bacteria bomb
>people with their brain so damaged they're in a coma they literally depend on machines to live
>functional

>>17403855
>But it never chose to leech of the woman
Well if you claim that consciounes starts with the inception of life, as you do, then yes it did, it consciouly chose to leech another person's body. Unless you're now changing your claim to they're not conscious, but then if they're not conscious there's no moral reason not to get rid of them. Pick one dude.

>It's not though
The uterus it attaches itself to is indeed part of her body and not part of the fetus'. When the uterus is too thin, and the woman can make her uterus lining too thin on puporse, the fertilized egg cannot attach and it gets flushed out like every other egg. The egg has no right to attach itself to the woman's body without her permission.

>>17401516
It's a distinct human the moment it obtains its own unique individual set of DNA.

I think abortion can be okay, but please don't make abortion advocates look bad by spouting off delusional bullshit that humans aren't humans because you say so.

>>17403879
>literally a clump of cells
>human

I think it's a distinct human when it has at least the appearance of one and that's when the fetus can survive inside an incubator outside the mother's body. Before that it's just a lump of cells not developed enough to be called human.

>>17403852
Read the references then, you stupid monkey. It's not like you're talking out of your ass without providing any source now, is it? The only reason I didn't give an academic study is because no one here has the patience to read it(or the willingness to buy it) . But yeah, you'll find a reason to dismiss any information that doesn't cater to your idiotic ideology because accepting that you're an ignorant retard is unpleasant.

>>17403885
Yes, a clump of cells with distinct individual human DNA, thus a distinct individual human.
It's "developed enough" to be called a human the moment its DNA is developed.

Like I said, I'm not attacking abortion, I think abortion is ok for the same reason you do, it's a clump of cells, but it's still a human clump of cells that are genetically distinct from either parent, and thus a distinct human, no matter what you delusionally believe.

Are you just afraid your position on abortion will suddenly fall apart if you concede that its a human?

>>17403870
>Well if you claim that consciounes starts with the inception of life
I never said that. I clearly stated that it does not have a choice just because it just is i.e no consciousness

>not conscious there's no moral reason not to get rid of them.
And why is that? Consciousness is irrelevant. It's a living organism that can grow that never even had to be there in the first place. That's all that matters. A man in a coma severely lacks consciousness, that does not mean it's okay to kill him. A lack of consciousness does not make it right.

>>17403902
The cessation of brain activity explicitly makes it ok to kill someone in a number of places, including within the US.

>>17403900
Distinct DNA does not a developed human make. It is still a clump of cells and not a human. Unless you can't see the visual distinction between a formless glob and fully formed human baby.

>It's "developed enough" to be called a human the moment its DNA is developed
I disagree. It is developed enough for personhood the moment it can survive in some way outside the mother's body.

>it's still a human clump of cells that are genetically distinct from either parent, and thus a distinct human
Being genetically distinct is irrelevant here, a distinct clump of cells is no big deal. A fully formed distinct human baby now that is different, as I said, that is fully formed and can be rightfully considered human. The work in progress is not the finished work.

>Are you just afraid your position on abortion will suddenly fall apart if you concede that its a human?
No, why? Even killing fully formed humans can be legal.

>>17403915
>The cessation of brain activity explicitly makes it ok to kill someone

Yes, but being brain dead essentially means 'legally dead'. That person is basically gone and the brain is fucked

A fetus is at the opposite end of the spectrum i.e life. It can grow and develop a brain and become conscious. It is just erased before that even happens

>>17403902
>It's a living organism that can grow
So do tumoral cells. End the tumor genocide now.

>>17403941
>That person is basically gone and the brain is fucked
Whoa now, that's a prediction and not a certainty. Many plugs have been pulled on people who still had a slim chance to recover someday.

>It can grow and develop a brain and become conscious. It is just erased before that even happens
Indeed as that is the humane thing to do when the mother doesn't want it as to do it later would make it suffer and to not do it all would make both the child and the mother suffer unfairly, and it would drop further burden on society. Abortion prevents poverty, crime, depression and degeration of mental health, abuse and neglect.

FYI crime rates dropped as abortion rates soared.

>>17403957
>Many plugs have been pulled on people who still had a slim chance to recover someday.

A brain dead person is dead. You're confusing vegetative state and brain death

>make it suffer
WHOA NOW, hold on there. That's a prediction not a certainty. Plenty of kids have risen out of poverty and done great things and became successful. They are able to enjoy life, which you want to be taken away

>abortion reduces crime poverty, depression, deg of health, neglect
[citation needed]

>>17403522
To be honest your grandpa was a fucking dick though. I mean, sounds like he was literally, and I mean literally, a rapist. Marital rape used to be legal after all.

>hurr durr feminism is cancer
Imagine the life of that woman. Just fucking imagine it.

>>17403986
>You're confusing vegetative state and brain death
And you're unaware that people have been in an apparent state of brain death only to recover later, apparently.

>Plenty of kids have risen out of poverty and done great things and became successful. They are able to enjoy life, which you want to be taken away
Statistically a very small minority, if you want a more comprehensive picture just look at Venezuela and other south american countries where abortion is illegal. For every football star with a sob story there's a few hundred abandoned kids on the street living off drugs and prostitution and being a general plague on the rest of the population, to the point nobody cares if the police kills a a slum kid or two during a raid. Also you are forgetting about the mother and the consequences it has on HER life, which she wouldn't be able to enjoy as much if she had the huge burden of a kid she doesn't want. Unless you don't care for women's lives but only care for potential abstract life, despite the fact a woman is a fully formed human whose rights should be respected and whose existence has real, concrete impact on reality, whereas potential life by definition does not exist yet and therefore has no bearing to reality at all. Do you enjoy making women suffer for no reason? I'm pretty sure that makes you evil.

>citation needed
http://www.nber.org/papers/w8004

Also
>Women who had abortions suffered significantly less physical violence in the years following the abortion than those who carried the baby to term.

>"Terminating an unwanted pregnancy may allow women to avoid physical violence from the man involved in the pregnancy," the researchers said in the paper, "while having a baby from an unwanted pregnancy appears to result in sustained physical violence over time."

>Women who receive abortions, mostly, they feel relief and that they made the right decision.

>>17404018
But wait there's more!

>For the past four years, researchers from the San Francisco-based Advancing New Standards in Public Health have followed the lives of nearly 1,000 women who have sought abortions in clinics across the country, interviewing them about their physical and mental health, their careers and finances, their relationships and social lives, and their feelings toward abortion—one of the first studies of its kind. Most of the women in the study secured the abortion they sought (and 97 percent did not regret it), but 182 of them were turned away because their pregnancies had advanced past the gestational limit in their state. Ninety percent of those women carried the pregnancy to term and began raising the kid—a pro-lifer’s dream.

>And how were these women doing one year later? Annalee Newitz of io9 spoke with the researchers about their study (which is still ongoing). They found that a year after the event, the women who were turned away from an abortion were more likely to rely on government assistance, more likely to be living beneath the poverty line, and less likely to have a full-time job than the women in the study who had obtained abortions. They also registered more anxiety a week after they were denied an abortion and reported more stress a year out.

>Happy home lives also failed to materialize. The women who were turned away were more than twice as likely to be a victim of domestic violence as those who were able to abort. The researchers found that “a year after being denied an abortion, 7 percent reported an incident of domestic violence in the last six months,” compared to 3 percent of the women who received abortions. The researchers concluded that this “wasn't because the turnaways were more likely to get into abusive relationships,” but that “getting abortions allowed women to get out of such relationships more easily.”

File: assfuck.gif (39KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x300px

As a hard gay, it truly satisfies me to see the anti-abortion idiot in this thread get a rough, thorough ass fuck.

>>17404018
Pretty sure a person who satisfies all conditions for brain death is pretty much dead, but okay.

>do you enjoy making women suffer for no reason? That makes you evil
And do you enjoy the killing of unborn children? That would also make you evil. And I never forced the woman to have illegitimate sex. It was her choice. Not mine. Hers

>muh crime rates
You can tie drops and rises in crime due to a number of reason, one being a lack of education. Maybe we should focus on reforming our education system rather than just terminating children? Just a thought.

>Donohue and Levitt made a number of miscalculations right at the beginning, Lott and Whitley point out. Though abortion was indeed legalized in New York, California, Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington prior to the 1973 Roe decision, there were also a sizeable number of abortions being performed in other states where abortion was legal for the life or "health" of the mother before 1973. Indeed, several of these states had abortion rates as high or higher than those states where abortion was legalized.

>Donohue and Levitt also failed to adequately disaggregate (separate out) those crime statistics by the age, race, or sex of the offender. In failing to do so, Donahue and Levitt are in danger of mistakenly attributing reductions in crime to the impact of abortion among generations that were too old to havew been aborted in a particular year.

>On average, however, the early- legalizing states experienced consistently higher homicide rates in nearly every year between 1976 and 1998.

>the decline in homicide actually began among generations born before Roe.

>>17404102
>Lott and Whitley simply assert that their analysis shows there are "many factors that reduce murder rates, but the legalization of abortion is not one of them. Of the over six thousand regressions that we estimated here, only one regression implied even a small reduction in the murder rate.

All the other estimates implied significant if very small to modest increases in the murder rates: legalising abortion would increase murder rates by around 0.5 to 7 percent

http://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/2001/NRL06/randylaura.html

I'll also add that maybe abortion is the reason why these women are constantly having illegitimate sex in the first place, because they know they have a backup plan. Being pregnant is not even a big deal anymore since the fetus can simply by terminated. If it was taken more seriously, women would naturally seek out birth control and ensure safe sex, or just have less sex

>>17404102
>the killing of unborn children
Fetuses aren't children.

>>17404102
>And do you enjoy the killing of unborn children?
It's not so much the killing of unborn children that I enjoy as much knowing a woman's life is better off with the abortion than without.

>And I never forced the woman to have illegitimate sex
>illegitimate
What? Are you calling sex within marriage and long term relationships illegitimate now?

>in 2015, almost 70% of those ending a pregnancy were stated as being married or with a partner, compared with 48% in 2005

That's the figure for the UK, can't find one for the US. Still, are you seriously calling sex within marriage (common law or not) "illegitimate" when it's perhaps then only kind of sex that's been as legitimate by all sects of society throughout history?

>You can tie drops and rises in crime due to a number of reason, one being a lack of education
And the other being allowing abortion, which has been shown to have significant positive impact on women's lives and relations to society. Your copypasta does not deny the significant contribution abortion had in reducing crime. In fact,

>A 2007 study by Jessica Reyes at Amherst College stated: "This implies that, between 1992 and 2002, the phase-out of lead from gasoline was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime. Sensitivity testing confirms the strength of these results. Results for murder are not robust if New York and the District of Columbia are included, but suggest a substantial elasticity as well. No significant effects are found for property crime. The effect of legalized abortion reported by Donohue and Levitt (2001) is largely unaffected, so that abortion accounts for a 29% decline in violent crime (elasticity 0.23), and similar declines in murder and property crime. Overall, the phase-out of lead and the legalization of abortion appear to have been responsible for significant reductions in violent crime rates.

>>17404112
>I'll also add that maybe abortion is the reason why these women are constantly having illegitimate sex in the first place
Illegitimate sex like a husband fucking his wife?

>If it was taken more seriously, women would naturally seek out birth control and ensure safe sex, or just have less sex
Women do seek out birth control and safe sex, but unfortunately sometimes that can fail too. It's rare, happens to 1 out of a million, but it's not that 1's fault it happened. Also often times the choice is not up to the woman, see my grandpa who thought fucking his wife was his god-given right and birth control was unnatural and for whores, therefore forcing my grandma to have 33 abortions to avoid falling into abject poverty. But yeah she was totally having illegitimate sex, it's her fault she constantly had to please her husband like society expects a good wife should do yet at the same time just suffer the consequences of his decisions because birth control is for whores. And yeah she could totally just have had less sex when his husband didn't accept no for an answer and just forced her as it was his right to. And yeah couples in love should just have less sex, married or engaged or in a long term relationship alike, despite the fact that deteriorates the relationship and leads to cheating, conflict and falling apart in the best of cases, though it can have direr consequences especially if there are children (actual, real, born children) involved. It's not like sexual attraction and a good healthy sex life is one of the foundations of a loving relationship between two people... except it is.

>>17404160
>>in 2015, almost 70% of those ending a pregnancy were stated as being married or with a partner, compared with 48% in 2005

Pretty sure these are stats for the UK only, not the US or the rest of the world.

>my copypasta is valid, yours is not
k.
And correlation does not mean causation. Abortion reducing crime is still controversial, as I've already shown you and the stats cannot be fully trusted. You can tie crime and other faults in society with other factors (education, demographics, economic conditions, law enforcement, etc, etc)

>good for society
And millions of taxpayer money funding abortion is not good. Giving a person an escape from responsibility is bad. Devaluing life is bad for society

File: 1243508823869.png (52KB, 249x238px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 249x238px

Hey anti-abort anon, why don't you just fucking give up, it's 2016 you know. We've kinda come to understand that women are human beings as well on the meanwhile. Do you need some catching on?