My girlfriend (4 years) is a new lawyer and just got a job at

>>18576857
try being excited for her you mongoloid. A.) there's nothing wrong with abortion
B.) Even if there were something "wrong" with it she's still doing something with her career, what are you doing?
side note to b, nothing in this world is "wrong" as the idea of something being right or wrong is a social construct.

>>18576867
Everything is wrong with abortion. It's literally murder of a helpless child.

>>18576857
>i haven't done research on something i could easily just think about myself
>i need other opinions because i have none

Come on man do you love her or do you only like her if she plays by your rules.

>>18576867
>nothing in this world is "wrong" as the idea of something being right or wrong is a social construct.
See, that's the type of mentality that I claim is likely evil, and wouldn't want a partner that thinks that

>>18576867
If nothing in the world is "wrong", why are you criticizing OP for not being sufficiently excited? on what do you base this criticism? Please try to respond without calling me a mongoloid in the first line.

ITT: arguing about abortion.

Anon,
You've clearly told her about your misgivings. That's good. Talk to her about it. Maybe argue with her about it. But be happy she's got a job.
Lawyers catch shit for being morally mercurial, but in this country (any one with discussions on abortion), everyone deserves/gets a fair shake. Everyone gets someone educated to argue their case. She's a lawyer. If you have a problem with her doing stuff you might find objectionable, you may want to tell her to change her career.

TLDR separate her and her job from a larger social issue. Talk to her about it, maybe argue. Be supportive.

>>18576883
Unless you have a major in the health field or philosophy, you're in no position to criticize it that hardly.

Abortion is very debatable and the public opinion on it is so mixed that we could as well call it a 50/50 split.

OP law is full of gray areas morally, and I speak for myself since my gf of almost a decade is also a lawyer and a ton of my friends are too. If you're uncomfortable with that, you'll probably have a ton of problems with her because of her career. End of the day it's a fucking job with a paycheck in the end of the month, and one that you can totally disagree with whatever your employer is doing and still get paid.

Let go. It's a job. Congratulate her on my behalf if you won't.

>>18576911
>if you love your children, you support them if they beat someone up

>>18576857
nothing wrong with having your own opinion, and you don't have to support her if you don't like it
and suppose that wrong and right are simply social constructs, even, or especially then, abortion is pretty far on the "wrong" scale imho, so there's that, in caseyou were also looking for affirmation

>>18576857
Rip your bandaid off now, abortion isn't evil, society is for making you even think abortion is.

>>18576883
Ahahahaha

Where's the post card from Jesus camp? You ignorant cunt you :)

>>18576915
Not that anon but I am thankful for people like you. By the time your kind of people are done thinking g about superstition and morality; we've already won

>>18576930
That's actually some pretty decent advice. I'm not OP, but it was solid

>>18576941
God, go back to r/atheism

>>18576857
Abortions are a necessary "evil". The problem isn't with what your gf is doing, but with your whole retarded society that sees everything in black and white and thinks compromising is the same as losing. Sometimes ending a pregnancy through an abortion is the least fucked up possibility. The reason why you even need "abortions advocacy" is because you've got zealots who see nothing wrong with killing doctors who often enough save one or sometimes two lives, but in the process of doing so have to end one other before it could begin.

Outlawing abortions doesn't make them go away it. It only makes it so only outlaws get abortions, and so that everyone who needs one is an outlaw. And that's fucking retarded. Best way to cut down on the number of abortions is to teach children to use birth control, not be fucking retards, and keep abortions legal and safe for those who need them, and also provide those who go through one with counseling, because that shit can be traumatising.

Abortions aren't a good thing, but they are sometimes a necessary thing, unless you get a thrill out of women dying in childbirth or from a miscarriage, or being permanently crippled, or having to give birth to the child of the man who raped them.

tl;dr abortions aren't good or evil, but they are sometimes necessary, and your gf is doing god's work helping her fellows in your fucked up society.

>>18576955
Actually, "children" is probably the wrong word. "Young teenagers" would work better.

>>18576867
stupid comment

>>18576941
You've won what?

>>18576867
>nothing in this world is "wrong" as the idea of something being right or wrong is a social construct.
Everything that sustains your existence is a social construct.

>>18576928
>>18576930
>>18576955
Thank you for thoughtful response

>>18576857

Do some research.

Then make an informed decision.

Then disregard that decision and be happy for your girl.

File: 1501505773600.gif (2MB, 308x214px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 308x214px

>>18576857

Gr8 B8

8/10 m8

>>18576867
>>18577048

go back to /badadv/

>>18576857

Look OP, you are perfectly within reason to be uncomfortable being in a relationship with someone who is going to join an organization the sole purpose of which is to promote a political and ideological agenda. Especially if they are so dedicated to it that they can't understand any dissent (like some of the people in this thread), they probably aren't a very fair minded person.

>>18576930

> Unless you have a degree, your facts aren't facts.

Abort yourself, cancer.

File: 1401735275636.gif (629KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 500x250px

>>18577114

>Especially if they are so dedicated to it that they can't understand any dissent (like some of the people in this thread), they probably aren't a very fair minded person.

OP didn't state that he attempted to engage her in any fair minded debate. He simply said his gut said "evil" so, on that basis, in lieu of any actual research or tangible knowledge, he decided he wasn't going to support her.

He didn't offer any dissent, he put his foot down on a topic he knows nothing about and refused to entertain supporting her based on an uneducated gut feeling. You can try to paint her as the bad guy all you want but if you ask why someone won't support you in something and they just cross their arms and say "Because" its not an unfair assessment to say that person is either intellectually unwilling or incapable of having a productive conversation.

In addition, I think its disingenuous to claim that two people have to share the exact same political and ideological agenda in order to support each other in their endeavors. The issue is not as black and white as people try to make it. I agree that they need to have a serious talk together to work through their disagreements but I don't agree with your characterization of the situation.

Look, OP. There's nothing wrong with women having the choice to abort.

But a woman being pro-choice is a red flag that she's not emotionally prepared to be a loyal partner or a caring mother.

>>18577147

Choosing not to move forward with something because of a lack of information is a very mature way to deal with a complex situation.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who disagrees with you (not anyone in particular, this is a hypothetical person). If you fully believed your significant other was assisting child murder, would you stay in a relationship with that person? Should you just work it out and settle your disagreements?

No, that would not be a healthy relationship. On some things I would agree with you, but this idea of just working through your disagreements only goes so far until two people are truly incompatible. I never claimed that

> two people have to share the exact same political and ideological agenda...

Is OP's girlfriend evil? No, probably not. I give her the complete benefit of the doubt that she does not view what she's doing as assisting child murder, because if she did then she would be truly evil. Is she unreasonable? You're right, I don't know if she is and I didn't say I did, I just hoped to prepare OP to have to confront a possible reality.

If it turns out that OP and his girl have critical differences of opinion on certain matters, it would be best if they went their separate ways. I've certainly dealt with this before, and I tried exactly what you're promoting. Lo and behold, we were together longer than we should have been.

>>18577114
The bottom line of this debate is when life starts. So unless you have breaking news for the scientific community, which I highly doubt if you don't have a degree related to it, your "literal" self proclaimed facts are nothing more than you shaking your head in denial saying "because I said so"

>>18577204

> the bottom line of this debate is when life starts

That's not how everyone views it. You do not get to define the bottom line.

> the scientific community

The scientific community has not come to consensus on when personhood begins. Some say it begins with fertilization, some say at first heartbeat, some say other things.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood#Biological_markers

You look like an asshole when you act like you know so much.

File: CnyJ2NR.jpg (26KB, 435x435px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 435x435px

>>18577195

I mean, that's just baseless conjecture, but whatever.

>>18576857
Honestly OP, if you and I swapped places I'd leave the girl. Defending such a morally repugnant practice isn't something I would want to be connected to at all, and I wouldn't want a woman who is part of that being the mother of my children.
>>18576930
>Unless you have a major in the health field or philosophy, you're in no position to criticize it that hardly.
I have bachelor's in biology and philosophy and I'm currently in medical school.
It is fully murder of an innocent human being from any reasoned moral point of view based upon objective scientific understanding of what constitutes human life.

>>18577200

>Choosing not to move forward with something because of a lack of information is a very mature way to deal with a complex situation.

Ok, you can try to spin it any way you want but there is no justification you can possibly come up with that will convince anyone with a half a brain stem that making uneducated decisions is a mature way to deal with a situation. That's just top-tier mental gymnastic. Choosing to remain uninformed on a topic before you make a decision about it is not mature, its ignorant. Seriously man, you seem to be a well worded enough so I'm having a hard time believing you're dull enough to actually believe what you just said.

>If you fully believed your significant other was assisting child murder, would you stay in a relationship with that person? Should you just work it out and settle your disagreements?

Firstly, you're equivocating physically murdering a child with a procedure that terminates premature fetuses. Again, I feel like you're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid thinking fairly about this topic. You're more interested in being right than you are being logical.

You and I both know that a lot of people are in disagreement about when life starts so simply characterizing it as "child murder" is a giant mischaracterization, especially when by OP's own admission, he doesn't really know anything about abortion. How can you possibly justify OP characterizing abortion as "child murder" when he doesn't even know what he's talking about?

Like I said before, despite your valiant attempt there is no logical hurdle you can jump over to legitimately make the argument that making decisions on topics you're willfully ignorant about is a mature or logical way to handle situations.

File: 1396213949635.gif (2MB, 272x210px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 272x210px

>>18577227

>It is fully murder of an innocent human being from any reasoned moral point of view based upon objective scientific understanding of what constitutes human life.

You're well within your rights to have your opinion but to claim that objective science supports your claim that abortion is equivalent to murder is a giant stretch. There are more than a few million of people who disagree with you so characterizing them all as morally repugnant murders is just baseless rhetoric, at best.

Be careful not to blur the lines between your opinion and objective science. If you're actually in the medical field then you know damn well that a lot of people are in disagreement on the moral and scientific implications of abortions. Pretending like its black and white issue is a gross mischaracterization of the entire argument for the sole purpose of protecting your opinion from critique.

>>18576930
>Unless you have a major in the health field or philosophy, you're in no position to criticize it that hardly
appeal to authority/filtering the viewpoints of others based on arbitrary criteria. 1/10 argument.

>Abortion is very debatable and the public opinion on it is so mixed that we could as well call it a 50/50 split.
stating obvious fact for no discernible reason other than to attempt to sow doubt

>you can totally disagree with whatever your employer is doing and still get paid.
literally selling yourself out and throwing your morals aside for money, disgusting and weak

>>18576948
>That's actually some pretty decent advice. I'm not OP, but it was solid
If that's not a samefag, then that's embarrassing for that poster

>>18576931
never reproduce if you think your child beating up another means you should stop loving them.

>>18576932
>Rip your bandaid off now, abortion isn't evil, society is for making you even think abortion is.
sooo edgy, way to tell all the sheeple man, people just need to WAKE UP, you know??

idiot.

>>18576938
I'm agnostic and I fully agree with the guy you responded to. It is by all scientific definitions a distinct human life that you end. But people like you ignore science when it's inconvenient, even though you probably yell "SCIENCE!!!" like a total faggot at bar trivia.

>>18577254
I don't, I mean that just because you love someone, doesn't mean you have to tolerate, accept and support everything they do

>>18577236

> making uneducated decisions

See, we've obviously got some sort of disconnect here. I'm saying OP is recoiling from a decision because of a lack of information, you say he's diving in head first. You are essentially saying that I am saying the opposite of what I'm saying, so either you're trolling and this is bait or you're reading very inaccurate things into my argument.

>You're equivocating

NO, I did not argue that abortion was murder. You are definitely reading things into my arguments that aren't there. I said

> Put yourself in the shoes of someone who disagrees with you

As in, consider being someone who genuinely believed that abortion is murder, which is very different from saying that such a thing is objectively true. I'm not inclined to write an essay to explain simple arguments to you so I suggest you go and reread what I've said more carefully, otherwise you won't be responding to what I've actually said and no discussion can be had.

>>18577256

kek

>>18576955
not a bad post. I agree that abortions aren't inherently "evil", per se, but when used in certain a certain manner they are.

If a woman is pregnant with an ectopic pregnancy that is dangerous for both baby and mom, that's a reasonable case to get an abortion.

If you're 25 with a college degree and a good job and got knocked up by some guy you met on tinder, when you could care for and raise your child because you have the career and the means to do so, but simply choose to kill your child out of complete selfishness... that approaches evil in my book.

>>18577259
do you avoid stepping on ants? spiders? do you catch and release mice instead of killing them? what about the billions of bacteria that you kill every day? a fetus is no different.

>>18577252

>stating obvious fact for no discernible reason other than to attempt to sow doubt

I'm not the person you're replying too but pointing out the flaws in your argument isn't an exercise in futility. If you're trying to oversimplify the abortion argument as "people who love child murder vs. people who are against child murder" then highlighting up the obvious fact that the world as a whole doesn't view it that way is a legitimate tactic.

Sowing doubt is the foundation of debate. Its the foundation of our justice system. Without sowing doubt then anyone could just walk up and claim that their view of reality is the most objective one and no one would be able to imply otherwise.

>literally selling yourself out and throwing your morals aside for money, disgusting and weak

Implying that anyone who doesn't share your identical moral worldview is disgusting and weak. Its strange how you started from a relatively hardline of logical analysis and then just completely gave that up on your last point and claimed arbitrary moral superiority as validation for your views.

>>18577269
Not the same anon, but that arguement is stupid and will only become viable when mice and other animals get the ability to transform into humans

>>18577267

Oh, and let's pay for it out of someone else's pocket too.

>>18577271
mice are objectively more intelligent and aware than a fetus.

>>18577269
I do not actually believe that you believe this

>>18577283
and have far less potential than one

File: 1409172833931.gif (494KB, 500x259px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 500x259px

>>18577262

>I'm saying OP is recoiling from a decision because of a lack of information, you say he's diving in head first.

Yes, claiming that he isn't going to support his girlfriend is diving head first. He didn't recoil and refuse to take a position, he made a decision having absolutely no knowledge of the topic he was taking a position on.

That is literally the definition of making an uneducated decision. Telling someone "I don't support you because I disagree with you on a topic" is not recoiling from a decision, it is the decision. I don't understand why you're having a hard time understanding that.

>As in, consider being someone who genuinely believed that abortion is murder, which is very different from saying that such a thing is objectively true.

What you genuinely believe is irrelevant if you base that decision on a "gut feeling" and not actual science or evidence. The problem with this situation is that OP is trying to characterize his girlfriend as upset that he doesn't support abortion like he does when in all reality she could just as easily be upset because, while she has obviously done research and become familiar on the topic in order to defend it as a lawyer, OP is attempting to claim moral superiority over her without knowing what he's talking about. The fact that they disagree is irrelevant, whats relevant is OP's admitted ignorance of the topic he has taken a moral position on and your confusing claim that not knowing what the fuck you're talking about is the mature way to handle complex situations.

>I'm not inclined to write an essay to explain simple arguments to you

Oh good, because I hardly think you're capable of that.

>>18576857
think of this you Fucks
a couple finds out there baby is going to be retarded or be born with a disease that makes it blind and deaf
do you abort it? or do you keep it alive and watch it struggle through life because you want to feel a bit of validation from your peers
and this is coming from someone who is about is Right wing as it gets

>>18577287
says who? nobody that isn't a moron assigns values to lives as "potential"

>>18577283

A mouse is more aware and responsive to subtle stimuli than you asleep.

>>18577290

True, what if that baby grows up to become a mass murderer? Could assigned potential take that into account? I'm sure there are a lot of dead people who would of loved to have their murderers replaced with mice.

>>18577290
>says who?
pointless question, because everyone will tell you this
>nobody that isn't a moron assigns values to lives as "potential"
nobody should be valueing life at all, but since you went there in the first place, I am just adjusting the scale to something that makes sense

File: 1500102164516.jpg (17KB, 352x239px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 352x239px

>>18576857

OP, I'm going to try one more time because I never wanted to have an argument on abortion, that's not what this thread should be about. This thread is about whether or not a relationship can function on top of possible differences of opinion over critical issues. At the end of the day, it is very important that you educate yourself and make your own decision regardless of her influence. If you agree with her easily, great. If you do not, then do not cede ground to appease her. You will become a beta cuck very quickly (and I don't use the terms lightly). It is very possible for relationships to end over things like this as they should. Disagreements over such heavy issues can lead to very toxic relationships. I've been in one such relationship myself and for too long I told myself it was possible to overlook our differences, but it only creates unnecessary pain. It might be worth trying to tough it out but I'm just saying don't lie to yourself like I did and stand next to someone who you don't feel like you can honestly support. It'll just hurt the both of you. Be honest, be strong, be a free thinker.

>>18577290
future value cannot be predicted and assessed in the present because...?

File: qQQ94Q6.jpg (42KB, 492x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 492x500px

This thread.

Perfection.

>>18576857
OP, trust your intuition here. Humans have great intuition, but we often try to fight our intuition with "reason" and "logic". Reason and logic are both fantastic things, the most amazing things the human mind is capable of, but unfortunately our minds are far from perfect, and sometimes conclusions that seem logical and reasonable are far from it. We often make decisions emotionally then half-ass some reasoning why it makes sense to make ourselves feel better. Women do that with abortion constantly. Society tells women that they have to be okay with abortion, they press it as the *main* women's issue, and if you are against abortion, then you're against your fellow woman! That's the emotion. They then try to backfill reason:

>"oh, it's just a ball of cells"
>"it's not even human life!"
>"it's MY body so I should be able to choose!"

These things seem reasonable on the surface, but are vastly misinformed in ways that two semesters of biology in undergrad can blow away utterly.

>"oh, it's just a ball of cells"
It's actually a super complex, highly organized protobody with distinct tissues and human physiology. For instance: http://www.wikilectures.eu/index.php/Development_of_the_Spinal_Cord This is THREE weeks in, around the time women first notice they are pregnant for the first time.

>"it's not even human life!"
This one always gets me. By any scientific definition, it is a human life. It is a genetically distinct organism that undergoes metabolism and produces waste. It is life by any definition of life. Any how could anyone argue that it's not human? It is of the human genome, it is executing the same genes the mother is, producing the same proteins, building the same types of cells and tissues. It is human through-and-through.

>"it's MY body so I should be able to choose!"
Except that the embryo is a distinct body, entirely separate from the mother's. The mother doesn't own its body any more than a mother owns a 5 year old child's body. (1/2)

>>18576857
>>18577305
(2/2)

I'm not a religious person, never have been, but abortion is the termination of a human life, plain and simple. As a father, it is disgusting to me.

There are times when abortions make sense, namely when they are medically necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother. No one should be forced by the state to commit suicide under no circumstance.

However, if a woman is in her 20s, out of college, and making decent money, abortion is a morally indefensible position that women abuse readily. Some of them tell you they feel guilty afterwards, but I guess not guilty enough to have not gone through with it, eh?

It just depends on which kinds of cases your gf is defending, but in general, she could go into soo many other kinds of law that make way more sense. She's teetering towards extremism and living her life around a political issue. I personally wouldn't want to be involved with someone like that ever. What kind of mother would she make? She'd probably just kill your kid.

>>18577305
Do you keep ticks alive instead of killing them?

>>18576857

It all boils down to "do you believe humans have souls"?

If no, then people are just "meat machines" and there is nothing sacred about human life. In fact, shouldn't that make "might make right" and some sorts of morality become pointless? Shouldn't endless hedonism be the function of life? Doesn't that make charity a sham?

If yes, then when does a soul begin in a human "vessel"? Does one soul have aright to take away the existence of another "soul"?

>>18577319
>muh parasite fallacy
Does a parasite continue your genes? Is your body programmed to nurture and produce parasites?

Internally formed offspring is not and has never been medically or scientifically classified as a parasite, as a parasite is something completely different. It's an idiotic argument, but thanks for making it so we can clear that up.

>>18577324
why can you guys believe in souls and heaven and god without being made fun of but I can't be a wizard?

>>18577305

>Humans have great intuition, but we often try to fight our intuition with "reason" and "logic"

Kek. Yeah. Goddamn reason and logic always getting in the way. If only we could exist without it.

>Society tells women that they have to be okay with abortion

False, society tells women that you don't get to force other people to have children because of your views. If you aren't okay with abortion you're more than welcome not to get one.

>>18577326
par·a·site
'per??sit/
noun
noun: parasite; plural noun: parasites

an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

>>18577305

>Except that the embryo is a distinct body, entirely separate from the mother's. The mother doesn't own its body any more than a mother owns a 5 year old child's body.

That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

>By any scientific definition, it is a human life.

That couldn't be more untrue. There are several different scientific definitions.

>>18577332
>HURRR how do i into google
"One reason most biologists wouldn't characterize a fetus as a parasite is that a parasite and its host are typically from different species. The parasite improves the prospects for the survival of its species by taking resources from its host, while at the same time reducing the prospects for the survival of the host species."

A parasite reduces a species' ability to survive and reproduce by boosting its own ability to survive and reproduce. If the offspring is of the same species, then killing it is reducing your own ability to reproduce. It is the biological definition of lunacy.

File: download.jpg (32KB, 420x465px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 420x465px

>>18577288

>>18577336
>That couldn't be more untrue. There are several different scientific definitions.
Please share one reputable and academically accepted definition of life under which a human embryo does not fit.

>>18577319
I really hope that you're a vegan

>>18577348
Why would I be a vegan? I don't think a fetus should be considered a human being until it's one year old and out of the womb. I also don't think abortion should ever be illegal.

>>18577358
because you're equating a human life to an animal's

>>18577358
Your demonstrated logical abilities show me how you've arrived at such a gem of a thought. How sure a buffoon is of himself.

>>18577371
t. first semester philosophy student
>>18577366
and you think we're not animals? the only difference is that we can speak english and have thumbs.

>>18577374
>t. first semester philosophy student

Says the guy spewing literal edgy freshman garbage like
>and you think we're not animals? the only difference is that we can speak english and have thumbs.

hahaha pottery

p.s. of course we're animals, moron, and many other animals can communicate via oral sounds as well. killing your own offspring, no matter what kind of animal you are, is sick. I don't think any animal in the entirety of Earth life kills their own offspring besides humans.

>>18577374
let's say we just are some sort of higher animal, there is no reason not to value your own race/species over any other
the survival of your own species (offspring in certain cases) is always the highest priority for an animal, there isn't a single reason to value another race me or equally to your own

>>18577382
>I don't think any animal in the entirety of Earth kills their own offspring
step your bait game up man

>>18577384
but that offspring isn't necessary at the current point in the human stage and it isn't guaranteed to contribute in any meaningful way. the offspring also isn't guaranteed to have a decent life where it can realize its full potential depending on the circumstances of the mother.

>>18577384
On one hand, you argue human beings are higher animals. On the other hand, you imply human beings should support the survival of their own species. Are we higher animals able to rise above our instincts or not?

>>18577398
Based on these criteria, we need to start rounding up children and run them through the matrix of whether they will contribute successfully or if they'll have a decent life and kill the ones who fail.

Hell, let's extend that to everyone. Got cancer? KILLED. Lost a few limbs in a car crash? KILLED. Hell, I don't think your life is going to go so well from here on out anon, may as well kill you, too!

>critical theory is literally intended to undermine the core of human civilization

>>18577415
I agree with your entire post, I couldn't have said all of that better myself.

>>18577415
>Based on these criteria, we need to start rounding up children and run them through the matrix of whether they will contribute successfully or if they'll have a decent life and kill the ones who fail.

>Hell, let's extend that to everyone. Got cancer? KILLED. Lost a few limbs in a car crash? KILLED. Hell, I don't think your life is going to go so well from here on out anon, may as well kill you, too!

Believe it or not there are people who think this way

>>18577259
So what are the scientific definitions of a distinct human life? Just wondering.

>>18577525
I think this is a decent summary:
>Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.
>To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria.

That is the generic properties of life.

A "distinct" life is usually taken to mean one of differing DNA. It gets fuzzy though, as chimerism is a thing. But, simplifying it, a baby's cellular DNA and the mother's cellular DNA are distinct. Also, the baby's cells are never in direct contact with the mother's general body tissue (except the placenta) or blood. They are isolated and fed through a barrier (the placenta). The mother's body walls the baby off and contains it in its own isolated space, simply for her own protection. The growth of a baby is quite violent and forceful. Babies are made to take as much as they can get, so the mother's body and the baby have a little battle going on. It's all very interesting, but essentially, they compete against one another in a sense, and the mother's body even shit-tests babies and rejects weak embryos via miscarriage, though this is obviously not the only cause of miscarriage...

And finally, it's human because its DNA is human. What else could it possibly be considered?

So,
>distinct
>human
>life

>>18576857
My real concern would be that her big proud career move is working for an advocacy group.

Sounds like working for some advocacy group isn't exactly the big bucks and the nature of it might impact her future career if future employers have deep rooted opinions on that subject.

>>18576915
I'm ultimately pro abortion but I agree anon, I am really fucking scared by a lot of the justifications people have for it

>>18576867
>nothing in this world is "wrong" as the idea of something being right or wrong is a social construct.
This is a ridiculous argument, you can use that to justify literally anything

>>18577578
and you can say "that's wrong" to demonize anything.

>>18577434
In some ways, I respect that. I mean, their position is morally abhorrent and indefensible, but at least it's logically consistent. They think it's okay to kill babies in the womb, so it's okay to kill anyone based on the same criteria. At least it's fair, in the strict sense of the word.

People who are pro-abortion, but also pro-social justice, pro-welfare, and/or pro-socialism are incredibly logically inconsistent. Their world view makes little sense at all, though their pro-human life (post birth) beliefs are commendable (even if the political beliefs that stem from it are naive and myopic).

>>18577331
> society tells women that you don't get to force other people to have children because of your views.
>society tells women that sex can be treated casually with no consequences (except to the unborn)

>>18577578

I kinda decided on my answer on this a long time ago and I don't mean to derail too much but since its semi-on topic and I have been forever curious about this...

how can you objectively prove morality? "morality" is a human(oid)/conscious/social being kind of thing, and we're asking to prove something that is, factually, out of our realm to know 100% or not. Something beyond humans, or something older than us. And which one makes more sense mathematically / considering occam's razor, when compared to there being [nothing] in regards to universal morality?

I'm going the atheist route on this since I 100% understand why theists don't believe this, but for sceptics... god probably doesn't exist, but suddenly there is probably the existence of some universal law of morality between humans, social beings, or whatever?

That makes... no sense. Why would nature be okay existing with something (imo) that is entirely based on mortal, socializing being's, you know, something anthropomorphized like the idea of something needing to be "created", or for something outside of material reality to, for some reason, choose human morality, or more specifically, Western 21st century morality, namely from the urban and suburban areas, to exist and judge our actions? That's uh.. a stretch, man. I honestly don't get it. Karma ain't a thing.

>>18577650
Nietzsche, though an atheist and existentialist, was against nihilism for a reason. Namely, it is pointless and self-destructive. Are human morals actually absolute in some grandeur fabric-of-the-universe kind of way? No, I wouldn't say so, but what I would say is that you will live a better life and you will make the lives of those around you better if you conquer that thought and rise above it and live as if morals were absolute. In a way, that makes an absolute morality more true than reality. You can live your life as if morals don't exist and nothing matters, but what do you gain from that? If that is where you land, then there's really no reason to live life at all, as Camus points out.

> muh pro-choice , muh body my choice
Yeah well I could go drink and drive and claim my body my choice since after all it is

>>18577697
I'm on your side of the isle, but that's a weak argument, friend

>>18577708
I honestly don't give a fuck if you get an abortion or not just don't go full retard with your reasoning just say why your doing it , itt: I don't want a kid
Don't go on some rant about much body or all that bs

>>18576857
This anon is right
>>18577305

You feel it wrong because it is; it is literally a genocide of innoportunity, where someone can end a life if they deem it "inconvenient." Religious or not, it is literally the end of someone's future by man's hands, it's not like that fetus ISN'T going to grow up into you or I.

You need to let your girlfriend know that either her practice with abortion law ends or your relationship ends; you may love her, but there's plenty of women who won't afford you to discard your morality. Do what's right by you, for your sake and maybe even hers.

heres a thing
you decide if you want this female as your pair or not, if yes then youll make compromises, yes it might be one sided

women can and will replace you if you judge them too much

you can still believe whatever you want, just dont be too loud about it

>>18578050
Anyone can and will replace you if you judge them too much. That's what you do to judgemental cunts: You cut them out of your life.

Jesus Christ, stop pretending women have this magic power to dictate all relationships.

>>18576883
And yet, sometimes it's necessary. My wife had to get an abortion because our dying child was causing her body to shut down. It was a shitty choice, but I'd make it again in a heart beat, because it was the right choice. So please, feel free to take all your black-and-white absolutes, and shove them up your ass.

I really hate these threads. I'm "pro choice" generally but I feel like a lot of these people seem to get excited over the idea of abortion. Most reasonable people try to encourage practices to prevent the need for an abortion to begin with rather than try to equate a fetus to a parasite.