How did abortion come to be accepted in western society?

Whats better? A baby being a drain on the system and possibly becoming a criminal due to being born into a poor family
Or them not suffering?

>>1943308
Nice hypothetical, retard.

>>1943305
the person is growing INSIDE of a woman's body.. the woman is the one with an actual developed brain experiencing the effects of carrying a baby. fetuses aren't developed enough to be humans so it isn't murder, retard

>>1943305
Because of the ebin reasoning
>He's only at the early stage of his life so it's okay to murder him if it suits me

Exactly the same shit as "he's black so it's okay to enslave him" or "he's jewish so it's okay to gas him".
People never notice the scale of the horror when it's performed by the society they grew up with
Other civilizations and future ones will judge our behavior rightfully on the other hand.

>>1943308
This
Mass sterilization of poors fucking when?

>>1943313
Nice non argument, genetically mentally impaired.

>>1943314
>it isn't murder, retard

At what point do you consider a foetus life, retard?

When it already has developing vocal chords within the first several weeks? When it develops eyes? When it comes out of the womb?

Or is it "not murder" when it suits your life goals and pleasure?

Scum.

>>1943322
Your original argument is the epitome of a non-argument.

>Arguing on things that haven't happened

Kill yourself.

>>1943305
>How
Lol, you're acting as if it was a norm when the Romans, German Barbarians were aborting unwanted babies/rape babies left and right

>>1943305
The real argument here is what's life and what's not. Bioligical life is enough to say that someone/something is alive?

>>1943305

(((Soviet Union))) was the first modern country to legalize it

>>1943324
>on things that haven't happened

Except the majority of people who get abortions are either raped or can't afford to take care of a child?
Thats the argument
You fucking dumbass

If you're this butt hurt are you upset yours failed?

>people arguing against abortion and abortive contraception
>on Porn: The Website
wew lad

>>1943323
When it's actually able to survive outside of the womb is good enough for me.

>>1943314
>fetuses aren't developed enough to be humans so it isn't murder, retard

Utter bullshit
If it's a human fetus, it's human you dumbshit (just like if it's a dog's fetus, it's a dog).
Fetus is a stage of life, and human is a specie, not something you can arbitrarily decide based on your own criteria.

>>1943334

>wew almost had to make an argument there haha showed you

literally soft eugenics

the people on the too know what's up and what they're doing

the "muh body muh choice" crowd are just useful idiots for them

>Scientist on other planets

"We have discovered LIFE on Mars! We discovered a uni-cellular form of bacteria!"

>Scientist on a foetus

"It is okay to abort this! It is NOT LIFE! Even though it has taken billions of years of evolution, is already developing major humans features within the first few weeks and is has millions of cells and neurons, it is NOT LIFE! I PROMISE!"

File: 1473919430250s.jpg (4KB, 124x92px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 124x92px

>>1943305
First off the whole "life at conception' argument is false and invalid when really the "person" is just a lump of parasitic cells that are using the host body. That being said, until it is actually a discrete entity entirely away from the host body you can't really call it a person, therefore, it can't necessarily have rights.

>>1943336
I repeat, is biological life enough to call someone/something alive?
And there's no clear answer to this question

>>1943331
Again, you are making knowledge claims about the future based on current events which is retarded. There is no evidential reason to believe that the children will grow up bad, the parents could get jobs, the child could thrive with technology.

Your argument is based on a hypothetical and is therefore useless.

Now back up your claim about rape and poverty with a citation, thanks.

>>1943325
That's true and "abortion" back then was just leaving the thing to die in the woods, seems like society has progressed to a point where there isn't the unnecessary suffering of an actual human being.

>>1943338
I'm just saying that arguing for conservative or religious morals is kinda odd on a website like 4chan.

>>1943321
The middle and upper classes have hopped on the sterilization agenda. Contraceptives only work on forward thinking peoples and that implicitly creates a brain drain for the next generation. I can't believe this sold as empowerment when it only advantages the state and corporations by keeping women atomized from families and the home.

>>1943327
What is certain is that fetus and newborns have roughly the same level of consciousness so both should be murderable or neither.

>all these idiots itt arguing life vs. not life

It's a matter of personhood you dinguses.

>>1943334
>and abortive contraception

No one here is against contraception
Life starts at fertilization, so abortion is murder while condoms and pills arent

>>1943340
Nobody gives a shit about whether a foetus is "life". Grass stalks are "life", and yet you trample them whenever you want. Pigs are "life", and yet you eat them. Bugs are "life", and yet you squish them.

What matters is whether it's a "human".

>>1943359
>What matters is whether it's a "human".
A human person, that is. Personhood is probably even more important than it being human.

>>1943342
>That being said, until it is actually a discrete entity entirely away from the host body you can't really call it a person, therefore, it can't necessarily have rights.

That's just your epic creteria
Maybe a future society will say until it can feed itself it has no right, so it's okay to kill babies

>>1943356
Are you saying that defining personhood is easier?
Legally, your not a person until you get a birth certificate, yet fetuses are still indistinguishably individuals.

>>1943359
That is undefinable.

I ask you, would you feel easy about having an abortion with your wife/girlfriend?

Be serious, would you really? It's easy to say yes, but would you really?

>>1943352
Exactly.

>>1943364
No, of course it's not easy, it shouldn't be. But if my wife/girlfriend really wants one, it is ultimately her choice and not anyone else's.

>>1943359
>What matters is whether it's a "human".

Are you a literal retard who skipped biology class?
If it's a human fetus it's obviously human, you moron
What else could it be, a tiger?
Fetus aren't another specie, they're a a stage of life like embry, newborn, baby, kid, teen, adult...
A human fetus is human, just like a human baby is
You can argue on whether it's a person or not, but not on whether it's human
How can you expect to be taken seriously after that...

>>1943369
To be honest, I'd probably never feel the same way and leave her.

>>1943344
I don't see why the answer could be no, desu.
There's no clear answer to any ethical question.
Science doesn't provide 'answers,' it provides explanations.
Moral and ethical questions are inherently unscientific. If you know of a science of ethics* then please let me know
*that isn't formulated by a philosopher who, like Hegel, styles his work as a science in a pre-20th-century manner

>>1943364
>That is undefinable.
Why? What exactly is and isn't definable, and why?

>I ask you, would you feel easy about having an abortion with your wife/girlfriend?
Most people feel pretty terrible when they pay taxes or child support. How comfortable you feel shouldn't play a role.

>>1943374
Hurrdurr. Read before replying, next time: >>1943361

>>1943379
>How comfortable you feel shouldn't play a role.

All reason is based on human emotion and desire.

Prove me wrong, protip, you can't.

>>1943305
anti-natalism

>>1943377
You can only say that because it isn't your choice to make.

>>1943393
As are all faults in reasoning.

Just look at how much disgust and fear can misfire, e.g. when it comes to disgusting but nutritious food or boarding an airplane.

>>1943386
Yeah, another person corrected that retard too
Does it mean I shouldnt have as well?

>>1943305
Women want to have sex without any of the consequences. /thread

>>1943339
Only good post in this shitty thread.

>>1943402
Hm, you're right, but it doesn't mean I have to agree.

God, women are scum, lol!

>>1943402
Abortion shouldn't be allowed unless both parents agree
Of course the mother shouldn't be forced to raise the kid afterward if she doesn't want it, but she should be forced to birth it if the father wants it to live

File: 000055 --- 2016-11-11 04_18_56.png (6KB, 650x112px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 650x112px

>>1943414
That was obviously myself, anon. Now, stop being so hysterical.

Of corse you commies would support this bullsh**. Exodus 20:13: "You shall not murder". Crazy how so many people have strayed from Christianity. Sickening, actually. Lets see if you commies get your way with Trump and Pence in the exec branch...kek

>>1943393
>a universal creator who loves us unimaginably probably doesn't exist
>I shouldn't spend my time at university doing something I love just because it makes me happy.
>emotional growth is literally dependent on you coming to terms with the fact that you can't be fully satisfied and so dependent on you relying on pursuing reason in your decision making rather than the pursuit of comfort.

Those are just off the top of my head, and I'm drunk.

>>1943339
Are you saying that the pro-eugenics crowd of the 20th century backed down realising that contraception and abortion would be more useful?

If so that's quite interesting.

If abortion was illegal, I'd fully agree with fathers being forced to pay alimoney even for child they didn't want
But the fact a woman can kill the kid even if the father wants to raise it, while if the mother wants the kid and the father doesnt she can keep it AND get the money is just fucked up

>>1943428
It's much more crazy that you still believe the bible is factual.

>>1943378
Fetuses aren't conscious

>>1943437
Children of single mothers are more likely to be criminals and guess what demographic is a large abortion patron?

>>1943426
>>1943440
I can understand this, but ya'll have to take into account that it's the mother who has to push the fucker out of her vagina. all the father had to do was fuck her, so the mother should have more say in the matter.

>>1943437
I think you go look for those really interesting things Margaret Sanger said.

>>1943364
I would be okay with killing a fetus even if it were my own and even if it were undeniably "alive".

>>1943449
Better outlaw divorce then

Secular rhetoric.

We are living in the end of days, and the Antichrist walks the earth. Pity those that follow him, and also fear them because they are the majority.
>>1943308
>what's better
>proceeds to shit all over the keyboard with utilitarian rhetoric

>>1943454
Then alimony shouldn't be a thing
If women are the only ones to have rights about life and death of the kids, they should be the only ones to have duties too

>>1943459
Too bad divorce employs all the (((lawyers))). Divorce doesn't contribute to abortion as much as harlotry does.

>>1943460
Whose the AntiChrist?
I legitimately want to know who you are thinking of.

>>1943463
I think most people here would agree with that. It's certainly unequal in regards to distribution of responsibility.

>>1943470
George S

>>1943470
Can't say, Hillary is honestly a candidate though. So is any big figure that works by fear, has some positive and fashionable ideology that works against Christianity, and also has some connections to the occult.

Hillary however quoted scripture during her speech yesterday, and may have before, which makes me doubt it is her.

It could even be multiple people.

>>1943463
I disagree. If alimony were abolished, men would have no responsibility whatsoever for the pregnancies they cause, other than what they felt like taking on. Single motherhood would be the norm. Removing abortion as a possibility, or forcing women to get permission from the father doesn't give men any more responsibility, it just gives more to women, who would still have to push out and take care of the baby whether or not the father sticks around.

Fuck off facist Christians

>>1943480
To elaborate -- the Antichrist would be a big figure that one would never really suspect. There's too many of them to pinpoint and people like the Koch brothers and Rothschilds are too obvious and indirectly influential to suspect. Then again, the Antichrist could have moved from a cult of personality to a web of negative influence.

It's complex, and that's what is terrifying.

>>1943492
You don't know what Fascism is, fuck off.

>it's a /his/ doesn't know what it's talking about kind of thread

What a big surprise.

The fact is, if a woman really doesn't want a baby, they'll circumvent the entire healthcare system and get their baby-killing done in a backalley with a coathanger if they have to.

Legalizing abortion is exactly the same reasoning as methodone clinics: It's safer for aborting mothers to be within the healthcare system where they have access to services and good care, rather than see them dead or rendered infertile from a botched abortion.

>>1943491
>and take care of the baby whether or not the father sticks around.

Nope
If the woman doesn't want the kid, she'd only be forced to birth it and after that it'd become the responsability of the father who wanted it and his responsability only

>>1943499
>availability and legality of something has no effect on it's frequency
Come on.

>>1943480
>any big figure that works by fear, has some positive and fashionable ideology that works against Christianity, and also has some connections to the occult.

I'm afraid Trump is your man then.

Revelations does say that he would mislead Christians as well. Given Trumps awkward, and yet successful attempts to gain the evangelical vote, on top of his populist rise to power as the leader of the modern world power, he fits the bill.

>>1943499
>The fact is, if a woman really doesn't want a baby, they'll circumvent the entire healthcare system and get their baby-killing done in a backalley with a coathanger if they have to.

It's actually false
Very few women are brave enough to abort themselves (which can be very painful).
Before "safe" abortion was invented, most women who didn't want kids would just birth them and then kill/abandon them

>>1943504
How would it become the responsibility of the father? look at reality. Some women don't even know who the father of their child is. The "father" can be some guy who had a one night stand never saw the chick again. In these cases (which happen to be a lot of cases in which abortion becomes a serious option for the mother), the mother is the one who necessarily has to take responsibility for the child. There's just no realistic way to enforce a policy in which the father has to take on some form of responsibility for the child.

>>1943510
Trump is a suspect but he's also too demonized to be it. He also identifies as Christian, which is a disqualifier. It would have to be somebody completely secular, but with a weird spirituality around fashionable ideology. They would have to be extraordinarily popular, universally charming, and so on. But as I said, it could be multiple people now, or even multiple people working through media.

He would work in phases, with the destruction of Christianity first and then the slow death of humanity. This is a figure that is absolutely contrary to Christ but tries to appear like a modern Christ for secularism and whatever other means necessary.
>>1943512
Chemical abortion has existed for a few hundred years, if not longer.

File: 800px-Ernst_Haeckel_5.jpg (166KB, 800x1021px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 800x1021px

>>1943305
Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is the Human Soul Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Abort Primordial Clumps of Cells From The Womb Like Nigga Open Your Legs Haha

>>1943524
Are you dense?
The hypothesis was that abortion would only be forbidden if the father opposed it
It doesn't apply to unknown father pregnancy

>>1943331
>can't afford to take care of a child?
Condoms are cheap
Adoption is free

>>1943524
And abortions does not solve it. When motherhood becomes a female bodily elective, father HAS to become a social elective. Causalized abortion facilitates low investment couplings.

>>1943362
It literally isn't a baby though, it is a lump of cells, and until it can autonomously function on its own, without the need and/or necessity for some kind of "host" to feed it, it just cannot be a person and therefore cannot have rights that supersede the rights of the mother.

>>1943540
>becuz i sed so

>>1943540
Meanwhile, 22nd century argument about baby "rights"

>It literally isn't a kid though, it is a lump of cells, and until it can autonomously function on its own, without the need and/or necessity for some kind of "caretaker" to feed it, it just cannot be a person and therefore cannot have rights that supersede the rights of the mother to kill it if it suits her.

>>1943529
Was that the hypothesis? Or was it that if abortion was legal, alimony should be abolished, because that is what I was responding to.

But, to get back on topic, I still think that just because a father opposes it, it still is a decision that is ultimately made by the mother because it affects her most. If you allow the father to veto the decision, then the decision becomes ultimately the fathers, which is not fair to the mother given the level of investment she will necessarily have to put into the child's life. That was the point I was trying to get at.

>>1943534
The father doesn't HAVE to do anything. If your argument is that the father would have to follow some sort of moral imperative based on his involvement, then I've got some shitty news for you about human nature.

>>1943509
>Abortifacient advertising was highly effective in the United States, though apparently less so across the Atlantic. Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates in the United States suggest between 20% - 25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion.[93]

And this was when it was illegal!

>>1943512
Whether it's by a coathanger or by an interesting mix of industrial chemicals, plenty of women have preferred an attempted abortion to childbirth. Not the majority, but a significant minority.

>>1943550
23rd century argument about kid 'rights'
>It literally isn't a person though, it is a lump of cells, and until it can autonomously function on its own, without the need and/or necessity for some kind of "guardian" to provide for it, it just cannot be a person and therefore cannot have rights that supersede the rights of the mother to kill it if it suits her.

Humanity truly has declined; this is the exact same reasoning as Ancient civilizations. These same people, ironically, believe in infinite progress.
>>1943553
>human nature
Doesn't exist

>>1943563
>human nature doesn't exist
fine, I'll just say that humans tend to be self interested unless persuaded otherwise by their culture. Better?

>>1943569
Not at all.

Humans have been practicing literal infanticide for all of our evolutionary history
Why are people outraged humanity has developed enough that we can abort without having to actually murdering something alive and that has feelings?

>>1943572
can you explain your opposing viewpoint, or are you content with being a contrarian?

>>1943499
>Cmon /his/ before planned parenthood women would have to secretly murder a baby, No they get tax payers money to do it!

>>1943579
>is-ought

>>1943553
Thats what Shotguns weddings were there for. But no that's not for the current year.

>>1943579
>Humans have been practicing literal infanticide for all of our evolutionary history
Humans have been doing a lot of things for our history, do you really want to travel down that path?

>>1943586
Shotgun weddings are dependent on girls father knowing who knocked her up. Easy in small redneck towns but now so much anywhere else. Also, do shotgun weddings produce happy families where the kids grow up in good environments? probably not.

>>1943579
>newborns have feeling

Autists pls let me solve abortion for yall (cray cray christians and feminists need not apply)
8 month old fetus>>>basically a baby
2 month old fetus>>>lump of cells
You can """kill""" (pee out) the lump of cells, but not the baby. You just need to set an ""age"" limit. (ie. three months)
>But it would be arbitrary
Yea you need these pretty much for anything irl, you aspie, get over it (ie.age majority) All discussion about abortion should be about where to set this limit, which should be determined in turn as objectively as possible.

>>1943584
>logic of language

Kill yourself, buddy.

>>1943619
setting the third trimester as the point in time when the states have the ability to ban it or not is a good idea to me. That's why Roe v. Wade is so based.

>>1943640
"The state's legitimate interest of protecting women's health" part is bs though.

>>1943335
So 13? Women still have to fucking feed them. It's still dependent. You leave a 2 year old to live in the forest and it'll die 99.99% of the time.

Does that mean parents can murder dependent born offspring on a whim?

>>1943323
>When it already has developing vocal chords within the first several weeks? When it develops eyes?
No, what makes you think vocal chords or eyes be relevant? Because they make it superficially more humanlike and thus easier to "empathize" with (despite not having any real feelings)? I swear, anti-abortion fags have the biggest case of "muh feels" ever.

>>1943656
It allowed the supreme court to continue making legal decisions that were couched in moral ideas. Take the contradictory rulings in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) and Carhart v. Gonzalez (2007) for example. Both were supposedly based on the health of the mother, and yet the later case ruled in complete opposition to the former, even though both were supposedly based on the health of the mother. The real reason there were different rulings was because Alito (who was extremely conservative about privacy and abortion) replaced O'Connor when she retired.

>>1943499
>we need to subsidize women having free range to kill their offspring

Fuck you. I don't care when a thief gets their chest blown off by a shotgun robbing a place, why should I care about the death of callous women who kill their children?

>>1943635
It's not, it's the error in presuming what occurs is what should occur. Arguably the result of subconscious optimism.

>>1943663
I meant viability, or the ability to survive outside of the womb with assistance (like babies who are born early and can survive in certain conditions). Fetuses who couldn't survive if born at that moment are not viable.

>>1943678
intredasting
>(who was extremely conservative about privacy and abortion)
There should be some kind of filtering on political outliers in cases like these, just like when they drop the highest and lowest scores in subjective sports.

>>1943663
Trust me, 13-year-olds can't survive on their own.

>>1943693
And what makes newborns who'd die if abandoned by their parents suddenly so full of humanity that it deserves legal action against the parents.

If fetuses are worthless due to dependence then so are newborns and children who can't live on their own. Why not let parents just kill them whenever and for whatever reason...apparently humanity is determined by independence of an individual.

>>1943701
That already exists. Presidents do political litmus tests of every justice they nominate in order to see how they would rule on certain issues. The reason there are split views in the court is because half of the justices were nominated by conservative presidents and half were nominated by liberal presidents.

>>1943686
I understand the is-ought problem, buddy.

It's based on logic which was destroyed during the 20th century. His problem is now irrelevant.

Feminism. Played a part in making it legal, played a huge part in making it socially acceptable and rationalizing it as not murder so that women wouldn't feel bad about it.

>>1943709
Yeah, that makes sense. As you can see I'm no lawyer.

>>1943305
Just think of the fetus as an illegal immigrant to her body.

>>1943313
How is that hypothetical? You don't think there are real people who become criminals because they grew up in a shitty household with parents who didn't want or couldn't adequately care for them?

>>1943705
We're talking about different types of dependence here. One is dependence of children on their parents to feed them, clothe them, guide them through life, etc. and one is a physical dependence on the mothers body for existence. There have been many different ways posited to detirmine the beginning of life. Conception doesn't seem fair to the mother, and birth doesn't seem fair to the baby, so viability is a good middle ground that is at least based on science.

>>1943715
>destroyed in the 20th century
Only by re-interpreting it (poorly).

File: John Travolta.jpg (50KB, 635x854px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 635x854px

>>1943726
No, it was destroyed.

>>1943619
I mean, any non-retarded pro-lifer should be for facilitating abortions of first trimester mothers, in order to diminish later abortions when the fetus is actually sentient.

>>1943718
The rationalizing is what pisses me off.

Soldiers deal with being human killers. So should aborting women.

>>1943724
>food isn't a physical dependence

Wew

>>1943736
No it wasn't. 20th century philosophy is the biggest example of bad philosophy in history.

It's the same trash gone in the same direction based on the same Platonic garbage. You genuinely may as well say Aristotelian science was perfectly fine.

>>1943342

Where does life begin, if not at conception? Be honest - every other definition of the beginning of human life is totally arbitrary.

>>1943746
I agree, most of it was terrible, particularly logical positivism and French nonsense but there was one man who prevailed...

>>1943750
Linguistic philosophy is also garbage. Platonism but with language.

>>1943755
You mean philosophy of language and no, it isn't garbage, kill yourself!

>>1943742
The "rationalizing" consists of not being triggered by the word "human." Realistically, none of the things that make killing another man traumatic apply to fetuses. There is nothing to rationalize except the fact that some people call it murder.

>>1943748
>every other definition of the beginning of human life is totally arbitrary.
It's no more arbitrary than the age at which we consider people adults or the age of consent. Stop being an autist.

>>1943736
Based Travolta

>>1943745
That really does nothing to refute the core of my argument. Because I apparently need to be even more clear to reach your level of intellect, by physical dependence I mean must be physically attached to the mother to grow and continue to survive.

>>1943748

see:
>>1943724

>>1943724

Viability is a meme. Most newborns that are "viable" nevertheless require constant care and medical attention, especially close to the cutoff. If I developed a machine that could bring a fertilized egg to term, the period of viability would necessarily have to be considered the entire 9 months. Only conception has any rational footing for being the moment in which life begins.

>>1943756
Linguistic philosophy means philosophy of language.
Like epistemic philosophy means epistemology.

It certainly is garbage. You're garbage at it too. Suicide is a popular option these days.

>>1943693
>>1943693
>or the ability to survive outside of the womb with assistance (like babies who are born early and can survive in certain conditions)
That sounds rather dependent on current technology. What if we develop the ability to transfer an embryo/fetus to an artificial womb at any point in a pregnancy?

>>1943768

Viability is absolutely arbitrary, lol.

File: Hm, really makes you think.png (31KB, 1166x217px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1166x217px

>>1943773
Hm...

>>1943774
Then you don't need to abort.

You just go to a orphanage and they beam out your fetus and you leave.

>>1943760

Fine, but that has nothing to do with abortion. A lot of other things have arbitrary definitions, too. I'd be happy to sit here while you rattle them all of for me.

>>1943790

But the question is not about convenience, it's about whether life begins at conception or not. If in a world where this technology exists you think it preferable to have your fetus beamed out instead of carved out, then you've given yourself away.

>>1943798
>it's about whether life begins at conception or not.
What's all this talk about "life"? Who cares about life? Bacteria are alive. "It's alive" is not, generally speaking, a reason to care about something. So no, I'd the issue has nothing to do with when "life" "begins."

>>1943807
Human fetus are alive and part of the human specie (unlike bacteria, trees or cattle)

>>1943792
So are you saying age of consent laws aren't valid because they have a degree of arbitrariness? Because otherwise, "it's arbitrary" isn't an argument against denying someone rights before a certain age.

>>1943786
>wikipedia is a valid source

>>1943350
>odd to be a contrarian in a contrarian website

>>1943815
:O

>>1943739
This
Its a shame most people are against abortion for shitty religious reasons instead of actual empathy

>>1943807

Not just any life, human life! And it is obviously a reason to consider, else why place any value on viability at all? Life is a shorthand. If it wasn't, we may as well declare that sperm, ova, and skin cells are sacred as well. But the fertilized embryo is different from all of these, because it is its own unique human person.

>>1943810
>>1943821
What does that mean? They have human DNA? So what? What makes certain DNA sequences so inherently sacred?

>>1943499
There was this underground organization that did that before abortion was made legal

>>1943771
>>1943774
>>1943776
I realize that viability is totally based on our current medical technology, but I still believe that at least for the time being, that's a good cutoff point. Here's why:

1. again, I don't think that saying it's conception is fair to the mother, and birth isn't fair to the baby. I'm for finding some middle ground, or at least leaving it up to the states to do so.

2. lets say we did develop the tech for a fetus to survive right after conception. At that point in time, it could be a reasonable possibility that a mother could elect to do this and give the baby up for adoption without having to carry it for 9 months. After all, there is a market for surrogate mothers now, so it's reasonable to posit that there could be an adoption market like this in the future. The problem is that we don't know what it will be like in the future. When we decide life begins has to be based on what is going on now. And yes, that means that our decisions are going to be somewhat arbitrary, but that doesn't matter so much to me. What really matters is taking into account the considerations of both the mother and the fetus and, as difficult as it is, trying to weigh out the most reasonable answer.

>>1943790
Abortion is better than abandoning a kid.

>>1943813

Age of consent laws have literally no relevance to this discussion. You might as well have brought up the arbitrary street that the local pizza place doesn't deliver past.

>>1943798
I think it's been said viability is the cut off point. If future tech changes the point of viability, it changes the point of viability. Viability is based on viability.

Are you anti day-after pill too and aborting zygotes? Because that's after conception too, and it's just a mass of cells.

>>1943832
Better or not, the point is all that changes is the point of viability.

God bless Margaret Sanger desu.

>le life begins at conception
The sperm and the egg are both alive before the come into contact, there is no point at which life begins.

>>1943822

"Sacred" might not have been the best word to use, but that certain DNA sequence is essentially the beginning of a new, and completely individual, person. That's why I've argued that life begins at conception, not at viability or at birth or anywhere else.

You can argue that even human life is cheap and doesn't deserve any special protection, but not that the fertilized embryo is A. not really alive or B. not really its own person.

>>1943841
If every individual DNA sequence is valuable based on it's uniqueness, then you must be horrified every time you jack off and billions of sperm die in that sock under your bed. Or the billions of mine that just died on your moms back.

>>1943841
> but that certain DNA sequence is essentially the beginning of a new, and completely individual, person.
If by "beginning of" you mean "predecessor to"

>but not that the fertilized embryo is A. not really alive or B. not really its own person.
I can absolutely argue B. An embryo has no autonomy, no intelligence, no feeling. In every sense that matters, it is less personlike than your dog, all it has is muh DNA.

>>1943835

Given the argument I've presented, I would have to be against both of those. I think it's clear that I'm not arguing from a standpoint of practicality or convenience. But you have to admit, this is really interesting: if our squeamishness at aborting fetuses does change with the point of viability, within the limits of technology, then what does that say about our current situation? I think we would have to admit that we trample the rights of something that technically is its own person for understandable, but selfish reasons.

>>1943839
Neither sperm nor egg contain a complete unique set of DNA that constitutes an individual human separate from their parents. Comparisons of sperm to zygote will never not be completely retarded.

It speaks to the level of denial and depravity that goes into abortion rhetoric when people have to literally declare a human not human in order to rationalize their guilt away.

I'm not even against abortion, but calling a fetus not human is just pathetic and puts you on the exact same train of logic as most mass murderers.

>>1943848
>all it has is the literal code of genetic information defining a human
Utter disgust. You're more like a dog than a person.

File: stirner.jpg (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

This is a pretty spooky thread.

>>1943852
Viability proposes a system which attempts to balance consideration from both the perspective of the fetus and the perspective of the mother. It asks the question when are they clearly two separate and individual entities. The answer is at the point of viability.

It has nothing to do with squeamishness. The rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are intertwined and at odds with each other. Viability draws a line where this stops being the case.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately not understanding the point of viability, or if your views on abortion are just so dogmatically based around feelings and the sanctity of life.

>>1943843

Eggs and sperm are not really unique. My sperm is just what I use to fertilize your mom and make your baby brother, but he is neither your mother nor me.

>>1943848

No anon, I do mean beginning. "Predecessor" implies that life begins elsewhere down the road, to which I ask again, show me the cutoff where individual human life objectively begins that is not conception.

>>1943856
My toenail clippings also have all my DNA. Is that a person too? What if there's a cloning technology that can turn toenails into fetuses?

>>1943861
You are not your DNA though. By that definition, identical twins, who are conceived from the same egg and sperm, are the same.

File: doubt.jpg (30KB, 600x909px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x909px

>>1943853
>It speaks to the level of denial and depravity that goes into abortion rhetoric when people have to literally declare a human not human in order to rationalize their guilt away.
>I'm not even against abortion, but calling a fetus not human is just pathetic and puts you on the exact same train of logic as most mass murderers.
>I'm not even against abortion
Sure anon, I believe you.

>>1943861
The zygote, between the point of conception to the point of viability, infringes on the rights of the mother. Viability is simply the point where the fetus can be preserved in a live state, and separated from the mother so it stops infringing on the mother's rights. Viability has very little to do with where life begins. It has to do with the point where the fetus can be defined as a clearly separate and distinct entity not reliant on the mother.

>>1943860

Nowhere in my arguing have I taken the rights of the mother into account. You argue that the fetus is its own separate and individual entity at a point where it being such is least damaging, within a reasonable margin, to the mother. But I can only repeat myself, this is an absolutely arbitrary place to make the cutoff, as we have admitted ourselves - technology may advance to the point where, to use your words, both the rights of the mother and the fetus can be properly respected. But in admitting this you concede that a fetus ought to have rights before the point of viability.

I understand the "point" of viability, and I can even see benefits to the process of abortion, both from a feminist standpoint and from the standpoint of a member of society that enjoys less crime from unwanted kids who grew into shitty adults. But I have never been arguing the practicalities of abortion.

>>1943861
>"Predecessor" implies that life begins elsewhere down the road, to which I ask again, show me the cutoff where individual human life objectively begins that is not conception.
Stop. There's a difference between being human and being a person (i.e. having an personality, intelligence, etc.). Human life is not important as such, personhood is and it does not develop instantly at any one moment.

>>1943865
That person is you, you fucking retard. You reserve every right to see what happens to them because they're literally you.

Aside from that, do toenail clippings ever grow into a unique person? No, they are one part of a unique human. A fetus is literally a full inquest human in its entirety. Every single thing a human has develops from a fetus.

A sperm does not do this. An egg does not do this (usually). Your toenail clippings or whatever other inane comparison your disgusting delirious mind wants to bring up do not do this.

If some mad scientist manages to bring about toenail clippings that generate an entire human from themselves that is unique and separate from every other human on earth, then we'll talk.

>>1943868

Interesting reply, gadfly. But I'm not sure that changes much. All I need to do is specify that the embryos be unique to the mother and father, not to each other.

>>1943877
The rights issue of viability is that a fetus has no rights that can be held over the rights of the mother because it is a parasite. The fetus is not a separate entity until it can be made a separate entity, which is the point of viability. Up until that point it is a parasite reliant on the mother to survive and the rights of the mother to not support a parasite are held over the zygote's right to life.

If you want this in conservative terms, if a guy breaks into your house because he needs food to survive, you can still shoot him in defense of your property. His right to life does not trump your rights when he is infringing on them. It doesn't matter if it's just a loaf of bread. On the other hand, there's a limit, if he stops infringing on your rights, it's generally illegal to go hunt him down and shoot him.

The mother does not need the fetus. The fetus needs the mother. The fetus is infringing on the mother's rights. The mother's rights to have a parasite are held in higher regard than a fetus' right to life, because the fetus would be fucking dead anyways without the mother. Viability is the point where that stops being the case. The rights of the fetus are considered when the rights of both parties can be protected.

The argument of viability is predicated on the fact that the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of the fetus, not that the fetus has no entitlement to some form of rights.

Viability does not disregard rights, it simply does not mesh with your morality. The fact that you think viability has anything to do with things like squeamishness shows you have no understanding of why viability.

>>1943881
So who does an identical twin belong to?

>>1943878

You'd be hard-pressed to argue that newborn babies have intelligence or even personality, but they are still persons. It would be even harder to argue that fetuses at the point of viability have persons, yet you (or maybe another anon) define this as a point at which rights are suddenly gained.

No, the only definition of individual personhood is one that begins at the point of conception, where the entire blueprint for your eventual becoming is decided.

File: smug anime grill.jpg (26KB, 600x628px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x628px

>>1943881
>An egg does not do this (usually).
>christfag detected

>If some mad scientist manages to bring about toenail clippings that generate an entire human from themselves that is unique and separate from every other human on earth, then we'll talk.
>hurr what is cloning
He even mentioned it in his post.

>>1943870
Jesus christ, the level of pure brain death you display is a serious case to put forward towards you being not human.

We kill fully grown adult people all the time, if your malformed brain can't think of a single justification for abortion that doesn't require dehumanization, maybe you should be against abortion yourself because the only arguments you do have are all self evidently wrong.

The reality is that while fetuses are indisputably human, even while laboring under your delusions on what constitutes humanity, we still recognize that not all abortion is immediately justifiable. If you asked some lady we she was going to get an abortion and her response was "Oh I just like to get abortions" you'd think she was incredibly immoral even if you don't particularly care what happens to the fetus itself. We all understand at least subconsciously that some things are immoral whether they harm another 'person' or not.

Or you're unironically autistic. You could also be that.

>>1943891
Identical twins are not actually identical. But if you want to go there then I'd also go so far as to say that literal clones deserves their own rights as well.

>>1943894
>SEPARATE FROM ANY OTHER HUMAN ON EARTH
Gee what is cloning, you fucking retard?

And I wasn't making a hurdur jesus reference, I mean modern claims of eggs self fertilizing in women. I have no idea if the claims are true, but they're there so that's why I said usually, just in case.

>>1943895
I didn't say fetuses weren't human you big fat dummy dumb retard. You inferred that based on the same fallacies that anti-abortionists in this thread are using, which I why I don't believe you aren't one. It's also why I'm not going to argue with any of your points because you aren't capable of even a basic level of rational debate.

>>1943893
I'm the other anon.

>define this as a point at which rights are suddenly gained.
It's not the point that rights are gained. It's the point that the rights are protected because those rights can be preserved without infringing on the mother's rights. If rights are at odds with each other, we determine which rights are protected and which are not. In the case of the zygote before viability, it's the mother's, because the zygote's right can not be protected without infringing on the mother's rights, and it is a parasite.

>>1943902
>Gee what is cloning, you fucking retard?
Are you saying a clone isn't a separate human being?

>>1943910
>That person is you, you fucking retard. You reserve every right to see what happens to them because they're literally you.
According to at least one moralfag, yes.

>>1943890

I would advise you not to use that analogy. The fetus has no agency whatsoever.

You don't have to condescend. I understand why viability has come to be important when discussing this, but I still argue that it's arbitrary because it is entirely conditioned on our level of technology. That "squeamishness" you're deriding is a very real thing, and it comes from our desire to respect the rights of the fetus. Again, in your terms, we would feel squeamish about aborting past that point, because we would feel that the rights of a perfectly viable person are being violated.

You are clearly arguing law from a utilitarian standpoint, and I am arguing ethics from a biological standpoint. Since the range of viability can hypothetically be extended, even to the point where a fertilized embryo can survive entirely without the mother, I am trying to show you that your definition of person rests on very shaky ground. Because if you rest your whole argument there, then you necessarily must concede that, if technology were to get to such a point, that every fertilized embryo is a person and thus has the same right to care and nurture as a newborn does.

This is what I'm talking about when I say "squeamishness".

>>1943904

>>1943890
A fetus is not a parasite in any sense. In the most vague sense it is at least a symbiotic relationship with an upfront cost. It's sheer lunacy to call one of the most fundamental aspects of life a parasite.

>>1943903
Sure, you're just coming to the aid of posters who explicitly said the words "fetuses aren't human" verbatim.

And you aren't going to argue because you're incapable of it, you pathetic dickless faggot.

File: nighty night.png (13KB, 426x364px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 426x364px

>>1943939

Replying to myself because I'm going to bed, I enjoyed the discussion though. I'll stick around to read replies but I can't do any more than that.

>>1943939
You are projecting squeamishness where there is none. It's a simple judgement call of when the fetus' rights can be protected and when they can't at a single point in time. Rights are a matter of ethics, not utility. There is no shaky ground because the cutoff changes.

At any given moment, you simply ask the question "can the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus both be preserved?". If the answer is no, the mother's rights are held above the fetus' and the mother can get an abortion, because the fetus is a parasite infringing on the mother's rights. If at that point in time the technology exists, and you have a law compelling the mother to use the technology, then the rights of the fetus are protected.

It's really that simple, stop looking for time cut off points, and changes in technology. The point question being asked is if the mother doesn't want to carry the baby, at that point in time, "can the rights of the mother be protected without infringing on the rights of the fetus, or must the rights of the fetus be infringed to protect the rights of the mother?"

The fetus does not have equal rights to the mother. It is not the equal of the mother. It is a parasite. When there is a conflict of rights, the mother's rights are held above the fetus'. Viability is the point where the nature of the conflict of rights changes.

>>1943904
If the mothers right 100% override then those other rights can't be protected whatsoever until the baby is delivered. Pulling the zygote out still infringes on her rights to not have shit pulled out of her.

If want to say the mothers rights are the only thing that matter then just say it and be done with it, there's no arguing against opinion.

>>1943971
>Pulling the zygote out still infringes on her rights to not have shit pulled out of her.
Jesus Christ, do you even know what a right is and what consent is? Is sex illegal because rape is illegal? Is rape legal because sex is illegal? Jesus fucking Christ, take a fucking philosophy class on ethics that isn't sunday school bible morality.

>>1943982
Do you just have zero reading comprehension or are you all around stupid?

A person has very right to bodily autonomy and rejecting a medical procedure.

By your very own premise, if a woman's rights must always be considered over the fetus, there is nothing anyone else can do to preserve the rights of the fetus until birth, because the woman, once again by your very own premise, completely reserves the right to say "nah I'm just going to pull it out with a coat hanger" instead of whatever procedure you have in mind.

Any other argument you have for that is in instant opposition to bodily autonomy.

>>1944002
Jesus fucking Christ, you seem completely fucking clueless as to how rights and laws work. There's no debating with you. You live in your own fantasy word where words mean only what you think they mean.

give me some arguments for why abortion should be banned

>>1944005
What an amazing rebuttal you disgusting worthless subhuman. God you're so abysmally pathetic.

File: smug art pepe.jpg (70KB, 655x606px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 655x606px

>>1943955
>posters who explicitly said the words "fetuses aren't human" verbatim.
>ctrl+F "fetuses aren't human"
>1 match

>>1944009
>subhuman
I'm at least glad you can recognize that a state of subhumanity (fetuses) exist.

Should natural childbirth be banned for adding unnecessary risks of death or injury to both the mother and child?

We require that people wear seat belts in cars and helmets on bikes, why not also mandate a few basic medical assurances for childbirth?

>>1943305
As long as it isn't sentient, it isn't a person. Thus aborting him before the brain even start to develop shouldn't be a problem. The problem is: at what point does the embryo become sentient?

>>1944018
I'm recognizing your own argument, which is what I've been working with to contradict you.

Fetuses are somehow parasites despite absolutely not being parasites, and you are a parasite on the achievements and advances of a society that wholly disagrees with you.

Parasite
Subhuman

>>1944037
Several months after childbirth.

>>1943305
When the dying violinist argument got support.

>>1944043
>a society that wholly disagrees with you.
And yet abortion is legal and will remain legal while your opinion only grows more irrelevant.
:^)

>>1944043
They are parasites. Parasite is not restricted to the ecological definition.

>>1943893
>You'd be hard-pressed to argue that newborn babies have intelligence or even personality
Not really. Of course they have those things, although they're not very advanced. Also remember that we want to set the date beyond which it's no longer okay to kill a human BEFORE they develop personhood.

>No, the only definition of individual personhood is one that begins at the point of conception, where the entire blueprint for your eventual becoming is decided.
But it's just that, a blueprint. A blueprint isn't a building.

>>1943437
>>1943339
LMAO more like DYSgenics

I mean, if the point was eugenics they REALLY fucked that one up, hahaha

>>1944075

But anon, they develop personhood at conception.

>>1944199
How?

File: cohen_singlemomchart2-thumb-615x590-106252.png (122KB, 615x590px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 615x590px

>>1943339
>>1943417
>>1943437

Freakonomics is a shitty book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

>>1943449

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>1943470
I've heard a decent case for King Abdullah II of Jordan, guess we'll see what comes.

>>1944313
>King Abdullah II of Jordan
Literally what?

>>1944313
>I've heard a decent case for King Abdullah II of Jordan
Now this I want to hear, maybe even make a thread on it if you don't mind?

what's wrong with murdering little kids anyway?

>>1944328
They die.

>>1944314
>>1944315
It's been several years since I had these conversations and truthfully I've been trying to distance myself from thinking about it all. The really short version of it is apparently he will be the Mahdi of Islamic prophecy, descended from Muhammad's bloodline and allegedly Abdullah II is the specific generation that would produce the Mahdi. I remain skeptical but it's at least interesting I guess, would mean the AntiChrist once had a cameo on Star Trek Voyager of all things.

>>1944375
>would mean the AntiChrist once had a cameo on Star Trek Voyager of all things.
Maybe that's why Star Trek produces so many pedos

>>1944379
Well Roddenberry himself was a bit of an AntiChrist with pushing an anti-religion agenda throughout Trek.

>>1944384
Plenty of shows with anti-religion agendas, Star Trek is the only one universally beloved by pedos

File: timescape237.jpg (94KB, 694x530px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 694x530px

>>1944393
Could you explain the connection, I've never heard of Star Trek being linked to pedophilia.

>>1943305
Because you're full of it, your infographic is false, have a great day.

>>1943319
I tend to agree with the science: if it can survive and be viable outside of the body without assistance, it's a baby, if it's a lump of unthinking flesh that will lose its life without being connected to another living person, it's not a baby.

File: aatrek.png (794KB, 805x613px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 805x613px

>>1944398
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-ladowsky/pedophilia-and-star-trek_b_5857.html

Pic extremely related

>>1944358
Thanks, emiya

>>1943323
Most ancients did not consider the pre-born a person until it was fully out of the vagina. Some not until it had survived at least one week/month/year or so. There is really no consistent basis for 'when life begins' in the context you mean it. A fetus is not independent life, it cannot survive without the mother, therefore it is not its own entity.

Also, a fetus before 5-6 months or so has no consciousness. All life reacts to stimuli ("pain"), but that doesn't really mean much.

>>1944407
>huff post
>feminazi op-ed garbage

Yea no. The source of the claim from the original article mentioned later admitted it was an exaggeration, also lrn2corrolation&causation.

>>1943340
ooooh, nice strawman.

>>1943428
>he thinks he's on /pol/

Trump is not a Christian, you know.

>>1944422
Trekkie/Pedo detected

>>1944405
that isn't science you retard.

Science is
Is it diploid? yes.
Does it have a distinctly different genome from it's mother? yes.
Can two structures with distinctly different genomes be considered the same organism? no.
Is it the beginning of the human life cycle? yes
Is it a distinct, living, human organism? yes

life isn't scientifically defined in terms of arbitrary moral judgements like "can it survive by itself"


such a typically ignorant leftist humanities fag

>>1944454
Life isn't theologically defined in terms of arbitrary moral judgements like "can it survive by itself"

such a typically ignorant rightist sky-daddy fag

>>1943305
>muh denial of the discrepancy between reality and logic
And that's where populism grows.

And who is going to fed that someone else? And if it's her body, why not decriminalize prostitution?

>>1943358
>No one here is against contraception
>Life starts at fertilization, so abortion is murder while condoms and pills arent
Y YUO HAET CATHOLIKS?!!??!

>>1943305
By that logic, you can just throw the baby in the wilderness when its born

>>1943305
>How did abortion come to be accepted in western society?
What a fucking stupid question for a history board.

Here you fucking illiterate moronic faggots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

>The practice of abortion—the terminating of the life of a fetus—has been known since at least ancient times. Various methods have been used to perform an abortion, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.

>The practice of abortion—the terminating of the life of a fetus—has been known since at least ancient times.

>ancient times

So after doing some proper history, let's review OP's question:

>How did abortion come to be accepted in western society?

History tells us that you are a fucking moron.

Abortion has been accepted the whole world over since ancient times.

Now go fuck yourself.

>>1943314
So why if I kill a pregnant woman I get charged with two murders?

File: image.jpg (143KB, 750x1117px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 750x1117px

>>1943323
Lol the emoting. We're on the Internet.

Friend.

>>1943305
>Unthinking cells can be somebody else
>Unthinking anything can be somebody
>Humans are definer by genome alone
>The ability to think has no impact
>Inb4 muh soul!
Spooky as fuck.

>>1943340
It's not human life becaude being human requires more than having a human genome.
Are you defined by DNA or by your 'self'.

>>1943374
>Lol a braindead person being mantained by machines and a clumb of brainless cells that depend on a host are human!
Why are you so fucking retarded?
I get that you identify yourself with thoughtless beings but fuck off with this shit

>>1943305
>abortion is murder
>muh morals
Fuckin spooky

>>1944741
Can anybody answer this?

>>1943369
Honestly, I think that's a flawed reasoning. We have the capability to prevent conception through various means in today's society, and women are not being forced into relationships. I would prefer that there be a legal and binding contract that could be agreed to before conceiving a child so that its fate does not solely rest on the maternal side of the equation.

I say this as a man who had a gf who wanted a child, we conceived, and after one argument six months later, she decided to abort the child on a whim. If I would've considered that to be a possibility at the time, I would've never bothered with children. Entrusting a partnership with a legally binding agreement to carry a child to full term would've been far preferable, because even if she never wanted to see me or the child again, the child shouldn't suffer for our actions.

>>1944786
Figures.

>>1943305
Murder is murder

>>1944782
You're the retard if you think that human is defined by your ability to do this or that
Human is a biological specie
Human embryos are human and so are human mummies/rotting corpses
Just like a horse's embryo is a horse and so is a horse's dead body
Whether fetus are valuable human beings or not is debatable, but the fact they're humans isnt

Abortion is one of the many methods rich western countries use in allowing their people to shirk responsibility and live in complacency. The genealogy of pro-abortion lies in a mix between the progressive post-christian self-efficacy of morals and the industrial destruction of the patriarchal family-based system. As evident by history, responsibility shirked systems of complacency aren't built to last; I can't accurately predict what post-information age society will look like, but I can say it'll be radically different from its predecessor, and pro-abortion is one minute augury of our acceleration to that era.

>>1944741
>>1944786
In some jurisdictions, yes. Generally the baby has to be considered developed enough (close to delivery) to have been viable had it been bornat the time of homicide. Conviction is difficult, but it is on the books in some places.

>>1944798
>its fate does not solely rest on the maternal side of the equation.
But it's fate does. The woman carries it, the women delivers it. I hear you, but it will never happen. The

>>1944848
I kinda think you're both retards for having a silly disagreement over semantics.

"Human as a simple adjective" vs. "Human (being) as a concept of conscious sapient person"

Now kiss and make up.

>>1943739
this

>>1943305

It's not. It's abhorrent.

Yes, abortion is murder.
No, abortion should not be prohibited.

That edgy enough for you?

>>1945043
Source? On the baby needing to be developed enough. I was under the impression that we couldn't even agree on what was "developed enough" so wouldn't by default that make it mean conception?

>>1943363
You think he's talking about "legal" personhood? Why not just go outside and set up a literal straw man?

>>1943308
>A baby being a drain on the system

So let's kill all poor peoples babies then irrespective of whether they wanted it or not!

File: 2f3aa99f023e1eaa0f33c229c0d850b02237938d9e9209ca6aef342aba40b37a.png (158KB, 274x389px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 274x389px

>>1943308
>Or them not suffering
>literally having your limbs pulled off, one by one
>eventually the rest of your body is ripped in half

People like you are why I'm starting to give up on the west.

>>1943358
>No one here is against contraception
I am. It's unnatural and you see the west being destroyed because of it.

>>1944761
By that logic you're still not human since you haven't had a single thought in your worthless head.

>>1945274

Why don't you start your own Christian commune then with no abortion.

Oh wait that would include women, never mind

Because it's better to just let the plebs continue fucking everything like animals.

>>1943361
>Personhood is probably even more important than it being human.

that's never been objectively and clearly determined by anyone ever.

File: 4566df937c1772903d70e711a382ee2b57147ed73f989f0410da13eb964a6468.jpg (83KB, 509x395px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 509x395px

>>1945304
A lot of women in the west are against abortion and most women outside the west are against it.

I never said I'm a Christian, I just belief in basic human rights.

>>1944463
Not him.

But if a 1 year old kid cannot survive by himself then we should totally terminate his life

Please remember murder its not the same as homicide

>come to be
It not being accepted is more exception than a rule. Read the BAHBLE, you fucking retarded christfag.

>>1943305
They took one look at you and decided that such a tragedy should never have to happen again.

Who's going to take care of all these unwanted children when they're inevitably abandoned in the gutters, anyways?

>>1943305
When is it that a fetus becomes a person? I mean, it's not the same aborting a week old fetus than a 9 months-old soon to be born baby, but where do we draw the line? And who is in charge of determining that?
Also, shouldn't the biological father, assuming he is known and the conception of the unborn was consensual, have a word in the topic? Like, if he doesn't want to abort it, then shouldn't there be some sort of legal support on his behalf? What if he was against the mother keeping it and she did anyway? Should he be forced to pay child support?

File: 1444702944309.jpg (101KB, 399x388px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 399x388px

>>1943308
>utilitarianism
PLEASE

LEAVE

>>1946174
>When is it that a fetus becomes a person? I mean, it's not the same aborting a week old fetus than a 9 months-old soon to be born baby, but where do we draw the line? And who is in charge of determining that?

The only logical thing is to accept that fertilization is the moment the new human life is created and that abortion is wrong
Everything after that is developpement of the new human being, and using arbitrary criteria such as consciousness, ability to live outside of womb...etc is retarded.
One may end up deciding that end of breastfeeding, ability to walk or ability to walk are as good criteria as those and that newborns are fit for legal murder

>>1945464
Yeah, homicide can be an accident or self-defense
Abortions neither of those though, killing someone to make your own life easier is murder

>>1945382
Then do you want abortion to be legal despite it being morally wrong to you? If not then why not?

>>1946210
The mother is defending herself.

>>1946392
Against being forced to raise the kid she made?
By that logic killing your already born children is self-defense too
And so is killing someone you're in debt to (self-defense against debts)

Face it, abortion is your regular murder for convenience reason
It's no different from killing a love rival, killing someone you owe money to, killing someone who blackmails you...etc

File: 1478832859719.gif (112KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 500x280px

>>1943748
I mean it seems pretty obvious that if you don't take it to be a person until it's born, it is a person when it is born

>>1943305
Souls are a spook, and fetuses are not people. No, young babies aren't people either. I know, the moral repercussions of such an idea are so horrifying to you that you'd rather stick your head in the stand, but there's no running away from it.

>>1946409
>Against being forced to raise the kid she made?
Against being potentially life threatening during birth, causing hormonal imbalance, and stealing nutrients and oxygen from her blood. Abortion is only tolerated if there's no other option to get rid of the child without killing it. Self defense doesn't extend to debts and you can put a child in an orphanage.

>>1946444
Literally no one, not even hardcore abortionists, hold that view though
Good luck to get someone to abort your baby a few weeks before birth

>>1946465
>every childbirth is life-threatening

Yeah, nah

>>1943305
1 Pre-antibiotics and a bunch of other shit from 100 years ago, child birth was extremely dangerous. So there were more than valid health reasons.
2 While it's not officially stated as such, I think most people feel that having birth control fail is bad luck rather than a miracle from god or whatever, making abortion like a back up birth stopper.
3 Everywhere has had infanticide when resources were to scarce to raise babbies. Abortion is probs better than killing babby.
4 Genuine concerns over other health issues and quality of life concerns
5 Eugenics was quite popular a while back, you'd even get doctors in the US terminating pregnancies without permission etc.

I have no ethical concern with killing living sapient humans when it's expedient and practical to do so.

Why would a half-baked organism with no self-awareness give me pause?

Free wire coat hangers for everybody.

>>1946470
Neurologically speaking, a newborn baby isn't even as smart as a turkey.

They're just bundles of preprogrammed reactions; cry for attention, poop, consume nutrients, collate sensory data into coherent response/reward mechanisms.

You must learn sapience, it's quite strange.

>>1946655
Which is why the current stance of allowing abortion while outlawing murder of newborns is retarded

>>1946648
*teleports behind you*

>>1943305
Abortion is great in the US when you realize most niggers get them, who cares about immoral niggers aborting their filth, less niggers to worry about.

For healthy and moral white couples, there is no need to have abortions because they recognize what the ramifications of pre-marital sex (and, by extent, opening up the possibility of a child) are. They must be financially responsible and mature to raise the child. Many other detriments are associated with pre-marital sex, like STDs and the likelihood of divorce increasing. They would have sex to create life, not use their sexual organs for hedonistic purposes. They would birth life when they are ready and have done screenings to see if they are fit for one another. No sane couple would abort a child in that circumstance. Only other scenario I am pro-choice is is during rape and other sexual crimes.
But of course, white (and all other) couples engage in pre-marital sex all the time and birth children they are not ready to handle. They run away from the consequences of their actions by ruining the potential for life; from this age they are taught to be little princesses that will always have daddy (government) come help them in their time of need. The degenerates who keep up with this kind of mindset will only slow down at 30, when they realize they actually want a child now. But nobody wants to father a child with some used-up whore, so they become dog moms and bloggers for Huffington Post.
I used to say that we should let them keep the child so they can realize the consequences of their actions, but these idiots never learn, so that would just be a burden on the taxpayer and future couple (who gets mugged by the criminal offspring). It is a hopeless endeavour, they will stab themselves in the back and never learn to mend the wound, so I say let them be degenerates until they, themselves, come to the realization that their lifestyle is self-destructive.

>>1943305
The argument is that a zygote or an embryo aren't humans, they are living beings with the possibility of becoming humans. At early stages, it cannot even feel pain.

In all honesty, my only position is that the state has no business forbidding it, and that people who are against abortion should embrace sexual education and contraceptives instead of trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Though I still believe that the freedom of a thinking, feeling organism is more important than the freedom of a bunch of cells that have yet to become a thinking, feeling organism, I can understand humanitarian arguments against abortion and actually agree in great part with them. However, the fact that religious nuts (like many idiots on this thread) also advocate against abortion probably hurts the case more than anything anyone else does.

>>1943531
Medical bills for birthing are expensive yo

>>1943305

Twins only have one soul, because life begins at conception.

>>1943704
It depends on where they're brought up, but since 13 year olds from the deep south are like European 8 year olds, I guess you're right if you're somewhere in the Bible belt.

File: 1460250686760.jpg (70KB, 598x603px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 598x603px

Really now.

You and your spooks.

I mean if I was dictator, I'd have no problem putting down babies birthed by degenerates even after they turn 18.

Really.

The question you have to ask is not "Is abortion murder?" but rather "What's wrong with murder?"

>>1943305
I have 3 ideas about this.
1. Roe v Wade.
2. We can prove when the fetus does or doesn't have a working brain and is less animate than a door.
3. Abortion is much safer for the mother than it used to be.

>>1946917
>The argument is that a zygote or an embryo aren't humans, they are living beings with the possibility of becoming humans. At early stages, it cannot even feel pain.

And that argument is retarded, anyone with basic biology knowledge realizes it
Embryo is a stage of life, not a specie
A human embryo is human, just like a dog embryo is canine.

The term you're looking for is "a person", not "human"

>>1946204
How do you define "life"?

>>1946951
Fertilization is the moment the new human being is created and receives it's DNA
From now on, it will keep developping on its own and pass through all stages of life (zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, baby, kid, teen, adult, oldster) unlike killed by something external.

This for exemple doesn't apply to sperms (pointing it out because some retards go "hurr if abortion is murder then fapping is a genocide lol")

File: 1460251101053.png (73KB, 210x200px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 210x200px

>>1946968

If you want to make abortion illegal, you need to make sterilization free.

Hell, in fact, I would give checks to degenerates for getting vasectomies and tube tied.

Why don't we do that? Sterilize millions of people.

Otherwise their children will be running around murdering and stealing like they do now.

>>1946945
You know, one line is enough to correct nomenclature mistakes.

>>1946945
>And that argument is retarded, anyone with basic biology knowledge realizes it
Really? Do you even recognize that argument wasn't "basic biology knowledge" 100 years ago?
Insemination was discovered in 1876. That's how long we have known that sperm and eggs make a baby. I couldn't even find when we "discovered" the zygote or embryo, and it stands to reason we knew it generally at that time but not exactly until later, perhaps the 1980's.
Your whole argument against is just technical semantics and wordplay, not about the underlying biology. The anon you're replying to stated facts, you're talking about definitions.

File: 1460264358159.jpg (38KB, 265x302px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 265x302px

Again... Is no one taking up my argument?

You can make abortion illegal when you give the option of 300 million people free sterilization.

Sounds like a good deal no?

Or is life too expensive for you?

>>1946968
So you're saying "life is defined as a series of stages, and anything that exists as one of these stages has life".

If that is your definition of life, then yes, abortion of any kind would be murder. I can't argue against it because it's your definition.

But your definition is pretty bad because it's limited to only "new human being".
For example, what about self-replicating organisms? Do they have life? By your definition, they don't have life.

>>1946984
>Really? Do you even recognize that argument wasn't "basic biology knowledge" 100 years ago?
>Insemination was discovered in 1876. That's how long we have known that sperm and eggs make a baby. I couldn't even find when we "discovered" the zygote or embryo, and it stands to reason we knew it generally at that time but not exactly until later, perhaps the 1980's.

Your point being?
We didn't know Earth revolved around the Sun until the 17th century, so I guess it's not the case after all

>>1947008
>But your definition is pretty bad because it's limited to only "new human being".
>For example, what about self-replicating organisms? Do they have life? By your definition, they don't have life.

The abortion debate is about human life though
No one cares about the death of non-humans, we eat cows and walk on ants

>>1947005
Sterilization is a permanent solution for something one would want to avoid only temporarily.

An analogy (probably weak but whatever) would be someone committing suicide instead of dealing with sadness.
Or another might be a pill that gives you great knowledge about something, but you can never learn anything else again.


>>1947013
>Your point being?

Well, a big part was in literally the next line of that post. Anyway, the knowledge of zygotes and insemination isn't basic knowledge. That idea is literally younger than Statistics (as a field of math) or chemical/biological warfare.

So that argument is not retarded because:
1. It's pretty fucking new relative to philosophy or observations about childbirth and pregnancy.
2. It's a fact that zygotes and embryos that don't have brains or even nerves to feel pain.

An unborn fetus is not a person, that's why your age starts when you are born. In fact, I'll even argue that babies under 1 aren't people. A being must be self aware and babies under one year of age are unable to do that.

>>1943305
Does /his/ even have moderators? OP, this thread has nothing to do with this board. Please take it somewhere else.

>>1947085
Hating on humanities much?

>>1943550
That's honestly where we are headed to

Development of a "person" begins when one starts learning a way of communication.

There have been studies that show that a human without a way of communication will act like any regular animal without a way of communication.

>>1946945
>using the word species as if it's magic

Literally the only reason our species is worth anything is the intellect and consciousness we possess. Zygotes have neither. Next you'll be telling me there is a reason to keep microcephalic children "alive".