I had an abortion Am I even entitled to happiness anymore?

File: 13329117_1167322813307410_1255083078_n.jpg (28KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 480x480px

>>2193733
Sure.

Of course you are.

If you're a Christian, you'd want to ask forgiveness though

File: taistelukisse.jpg (78KB, 636x571px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 636x571px

Were you entitled to happiness in the worst place?

Either way no dude
sry

>>2193733
You murdered a child. You need to deal with that on you own.

>>2193761
Murder is a legal term usually. Killed would be more accurate since it probably wasnt an illigal killing.

>>2193761
Female bodies "murder children" all the time, often without the woman even knowing. It's no big deal until the fetus has brain function.

>>2193733
Not unless you're repentant about it.

File: KaleidoscopicBrilliantKudu.webm (362KB, 286x400px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 286x400px

>>2193733
Lord knows Im finna smash

>>2193733
rot in hell murderer

>>2193733
humanities was a mistake

>>2193733
Only the naive are entitled to happiness and even then actually obtaining happiness is a crapshoot

>>2193774
which is at 6 weeks

>>2193766
>let's not protect the life of this person under the law because its convenient to be allowed to kill them

>>2194227
> person

>>2194236
>a human with brain function isnt a person

>>2193733
Lel you killed your own baby, what kind of sick person are you? You're going to hell.

>>2193733
What are you worried about? You just shed a clump of cells, essentially the same as taking a shit.

>>2193733

No, unless you or your spawn was a nigger then you did the community a great service.

>>2194361
y-yeah sure

e-exactly the same

>>2193761
is an horse a child?

Entitled by whom? Take responsibility for yourself.

>>2194248
not necessarily, no

>>2194667
it self-evidently is

>>2194655
Ironic, seeing how they failed to take responsibility for the failure to their duty of taking care of their dependents

>>2193733
you know the rules

tits or gtfo

>>2193733
Should probably kill yourself just to be safe.

>>2193733
>entitled to happiness
wew, nice meme.

>>2194701
>self-evidently
wew, good argument.

>>2193733
Lol haunted pussy.

>>2194715
>wew, good argument
this is not an argument

all knowledge is predicated on faith

we all put our faith in axioms in order to live, this requires us to have faith that each other is reasonable

abortion is killing a living thinking human being that you are responsible for bringing into this world and have a duty to take care of

abortion is wrong

>>2193733
Don't listen to all these virgins on this site. It is YOUR BODY, not theirs. If you weren't ready to have a baby, abortion is always a perfectly reasonable course of action. Don't sweat it.

>>2194732
>this is not an argument
Okay. But most of the western world and its laws disagree with you at this point, so if you don't have an argument your views are just going to die out.

>abortion is killing a living thinking human being
>thinking
proof it

>>2194739
>>2194749
kek

>>2193733
Killed a baby.

If you're a nigger, you probably just saved the world one more murderer. You could save the world another and off yourself, too.

You received medical treatment to remove a parasite from your body, an unwanted one that will steal nutrients from you.

It's fine.

File: 1483033368280.jpg (238KB, 1420x2135px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1420x2135px

>>2193733
No

>>2193733

You were never "entitled" to happiness, happiness is something you make for yourself. If you're happy you're happy. If you're not happy and you desire happiness, then change up your life. If all else fails, talk to someone (who may or may not be a therapist) about your problems.

>>2193733
>Am I even entitled to happiness anymore?

You clearly do not belong on /his/ if you think in those terms

>>2194739
>>2194749
Nailed it

>>2193733
I'll be looking down on you from Heaven

>>2194739
>>2194749
I need confirmation this isn't a samefag otherwise 10/10

>>2194756
the first brain waves/brain stem develops at 6 weeks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_nervous_system_in_humans#Neurulation
>In the fifth week, the alar plate of the prosencephalon expands to form the cerebral hemispheres (the telencephalon). The basal plate becomes the diencephalon.
The diencephalon, mesencephalon and rhombencephalon constitute the brain stem of the embryo. It continues to flex at the mesencephalon. The rhombencephalon folds posteriorly, which causes its alar plate to flare and form the fourth ventricle of the brain. The pons and the cerebellum form in the upper part of the rhombencephalon, whilst the medulla oblongata forms in the lower part.

also

>But most of the western world and its laws disagree with you at this point
I think you're very mistaken at this point. I'd like to see a western country where you may get an abortion at any point in time during pregnancy. Obviously most of the western world agrees there is some point during pregnancy whereafter a child has rights

>>2193733
Repent faithfully and yes

>>2194820
>>In the fifth week, the alar plate of the prosencephalon expands to form the cerebral hemispheres (the telencephalon). The basal plate becomes the diencephalon.
>The diencephalon, mesencephalon and rhombencephalon constitute the brain stem of the embryo. It continues to flex at the mesencephalon. The rhombencephalon folds posteriorly, which causes its alar plate to flare and form the fourth ventricle of the brain. The pons and the cerebellum form in the upper part of the rhombencephalon, whilst the medulla oblongata forms in the lower part.
That doesn't mean it can think.

>I'd like to see a western country where you may get an abortion at any point in time during pregnancy. Obviously most of the western world agrees there is some point during pregnancy whereafter a child has rights
You're right, I'm assuming OP's abortion was legal.

File: EZPZ.jpg (45KB, 580x705px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 580x705px

>>2193733

>>2195793
This.

>>2194248
Children aren't even fully self aware until around 4 y/o, yo

>>2193733
As long as you repent and learn from this then yes.
Go to confession.

>>2195793
Who cares???
I think we have bigger problems than someone with a body never coming into the world to become a person with a contextual understanding of the world.
Like all those people that have a contextual understanding of the world.
I applaud anyone who has the common sense not to bring another person into a world that cannot provide for them/does not want them.
If you are going to fuck and make babies you better be prepared to raise a decent human bean because everyone else is going to have to deal with them.
I see the posters on this sight and I feel we would be better off if 95% of them went towards stem cell research instead.

>>2195793
Oh alright then. Perhaps instead of getting an abortion, a doctor could just remove the fetuses from the womans body then.

Reminder if you are against abortion and not vegetarian you are a fucking hypocrite.

>>2195942
>Who cares?
Us
>Someone with a body never coming into the world
They already here dawg
>Become a person
They is one dawg
>I don't like you therefore kill others
kek

>>2195972
Yeah, they are just stupid. They value human life above other forms of life.
They like to picture fetuses as what they could become(a sentient being capable of symbolic self-conscious thought) and not what they are( a blank slate that has no contextual understanding of the world, self and abbrain incapable of symbolic thought)
Can't be a hypocrite if you are niave.

>>2195997
>Humans need to become valuable
lol

>>2196008
If they aren't valuable why do you shit your pants everytime a pre-born one dies?

>>2195972

I don't eat babies.

You are stupid, humans evolved eating meat.

>>2194227
Abortion is immoral, unethical, and abhorrent. But it isn't illegal, and thus can't accurately be called murder. Someone that says abortion isn't murder is right, but that doesn't mean they are pro-choice.

CRITICAL THINKING

>>2193733
Good job dude, we got plenty of people as it is.

>>2196028
They point he is making is that their is no moral difference between killing a fetus and killing a non-human animal.
Because fetuses are not self aware or capable of symbolic thought, they do not possess the qualities that make humans unique from other animals.
So if you claim that killing a fetus is wrong, you would be a hypocrite to condone the killing off other animals.
Or you just don't know wtf you are talking about and are ascribing qualities to human fetuses that human fetuses simply do not possess.
desu humans aren't very special anyways.

Parents should be able to abort the little parasites up to age 18, tbqh.

Abortion is only acceptable if:
- fetus is retarded
- mother's life is endangered due to fetus inside
- fetus is product out of incest or rape

Abortion is inacceptable if:
- Whoops forgot to use protection! Silly me hahaha x

>>2196223
abortion is acceptable and encouraged under all circumstances
her body = her choice, christcuck

Depends on how old was the fetus. How old was the fetus?

>>2195804
Are you advocating for the killing of 4 y/o children to be legal or are you just being a pseud?

I've made the distinction of first brain function as the appropriate point in time to recognize personhood as it is the polar opposite of brain death

>>2196159
>>2195997
Do you as well wish to be able to kill 4 year olds?

>>2196101
Please pseud. The axiom you hold to be self-evident is legal positivism. I do not hold legal positivism to be self-evident. There exists a natural law before any man-made legal institution.

>>2196239
Terrible argument

Do mothers have a duty to care for their 5 year old? Can the government force the mother to use her body to labor to earn a wage to support the biological needs of food and shelter of the 5 year old?

You are not logically consistent. Mothers take on a duty of caring for their dependent when they choose to engage in consensual sex.

>>2196563
>kill
How can you kill something that's not even alive?

>>2196586
Please, I'm not going to humor a conversation with you if you insist on being so unreasonably anti-science.

Enroll in Biology 101 immediately to learn what a living organism is.

>>2195972
Killing sentient life != killing nonsentient life

>>2196596
If it doesn't pay taxes, then it's not alive.

File: gnostic cosmos.gif (12KB, 500x288px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x288px

>>2193733

Life in this universe isn't an inherently good thing, but death dosen't exist. You did literally nothing wrong.

>>2196563
All those replies were to the same person bub.
No, I don't believe that children should be killed after birth. While they are not fully self aware they still have a contextual understanding of the world around them, once exposed to the world outside the mothers womb they have achieved person hood, late term abortion is even wrong under non-life threatening circumstances.
Once the baby has interacted with the world around them, and is able to perceive that interaction in an interpretative manner (non-iconic as opposed to the womb) then they are not only alive but they have lived, and that is when personhood begins on a real level, you can't take away something that isn't there.
A brain with nothing inside it, doesn't count as a mind, a machine without a ghost is just a machine. If you think it does then you must also believe in the immorality of killing other iconically conscious organisms such as plants and prokaryotes.
Don't use psued as a discrediting insult, that's just dumb.

File: 1473106616405.png (653KB, 1161x719px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 1161x719px

>>2196648
hmm

>>2196689
>doesn't understand biosemiotics
>is arguing the definition of life to a philosopher of biology
>uses a meme to argue
>thinks he is the one on the left
>ethnocentrically thinks the ones on the right have no justification for their beliefs
Lol, better luck next time buddy.

>>2196715
I'm not even the guy you were arguing with, though.
You oughta calm down, tbqh. Maybe go dance under the moonlight or something, pseud.

File: image.jpg (21KB, 264x334px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 264x334px

>>2196787
It's daytime and moonlight is reflected sunlight.
I don't even have mushrooms.
DONT TELL ME TO CALM DOWN

>>2196807
dumb pseud poster

File: image.jpg (5KB, 182x277px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 182x277px

>>2196818
No u

>>2196648
So what is your standard for personhood?

I don't think you have one. I think you have picked a convenient arbitrary point in time to disallow abortion

>presumption of existing entitlement to anything
this is why roasties are shit and a waste of time.

>>2196715
>philosopher of biology
>ethnocentrically thinks the ones on the right have no justification for their beliefs

woah.... ive never seen memes this spicy before

>>2196959
>>2196961
>>2196965
you can stop pseuding anytime now

File: NOTANARGUMENT.png (325KB, 476x536px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 476x536px

>>2196983

>>2196990
is that the pseud who tells teenage audience to cut contact with their parents if they're not libertarian enough?

>>2197001
his audience*

>>2193761
OP murdered thousands of children when he came on the ground. Sperm is actually tiny babies, and religious scholars agree.

>>2196959
Personhood comes from knowingly experiencing life, from knowingly experiencing other people.
The embryo is alive but is only interpreting indexical signs from its genome for most of its devolpment.
Knowingly experiencing the world around us only begins late in devolpment, and knowingly experiencing the mothers womb isn't experiencing much. You have to experiencing interaction with other people in order to experiencing being a person.
So personhood begins when you exit the womb and experience life has a person.
Being alive doesn't make you a human, life is a comparatively simple thing, bacteria are alive, plants are alive, but the do not know anything.
Do you have qualms about killing plants and bacteria for your own convince?
If so become a Jain.
How is it wrong to take away a life that hasnt experienced being alive?
How can something that hasn't experienced humanity be a person?
It can't be, fetuses are protohumans.

File: Abortion.png (94KB, 500x630px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x630px

>>2195793

>>2196608
>Not knowing the meaning of sentient

>>2193733
>I had an abortion
You did nothing wrong. Abortions are a good thing.

>>2197193
>Personhood comes from knowingly experiencing life, from knowingly experiencing other people.

Why is this what personhood is? Because you hold this to be axiomatic?

You can't just ordain this to be the definition without reasoning.

Here's my axiom: Abortion is irrevocably wrong.

And I will do everything in my power to prevent all women from having abortions.

>>2197228
You're mentally ill.

>>2197193
Personhood is a red herring. There is no reason to think that there is anything above and beyond being a biological human that makes us murderable. The only reason it ever achieved meme status is because it helps pro-choicers feel good about the kind of death they support.

End The Personhood Meme

>>2197258
Yeah lifers are like flys
They eat shit and bother people.
>ignoring the detailed propositional logic as to why you have to experience being a human to be a human
>cognitivedissonance.jpg
Can a computer without Adobe flash use adobe flash?
No.
You have to download flash first
Like a computer must know a program in order to use it
A brain must know humanity in order to be a human.

>>2197284
Your definition of what it means to experience being human is arbitrary. There's no detailed logic. You just impose an arbitrary premise of which you hold to be self-evident. Well it's not self-evident that your definition of what it means to be a person is actually what it means to be a person. There's no reasoning behind your premise. Only faith in axioms.

Abortions are practical.

>>2197284
This may be the dumbest shit I've heard somebody take seriously.
Also begging the question.
>Why is your definition of a person experiential?
>Because being a person is experiential.
Like, do you even know what you were being asked or what an answer would look like?

Lastly -
>"the propositional logic of ..."
Please don't pretend to be smart lol

>>2197322
The ends do not justify the means. Eugenics is practical.

>>2197319
Whats your definition of being human? A zygote?

>>2197326
Good point. Eugenics can and should be practiced in a practical way...to decrease genetic diseases.

>>2197326
kek, are you implying eugenics is immoral?

>>2197327
Not the same guy but I'll trust biologists to tell me what a human is. And yes the zygote is the first stage in the development of a multicellular organism.

>>2193733
tits or gtfo

>>2197336
You're right. Nothing is immoral. Slavery is fine. Murder is fine. Theft is fine. Torture is fine. Eugenics is fine. Everything is fine. Nothing is wrong.

>>2197327
Being human is being of the species Homo sapiens.

>>2197364
Eugenics doesn't mean what you think it means

>Cognitivedissonance.jpg
>>2197319
No, it's the semiotic definition of experience. To knowingly perceive information from signs in ones external environment.
You could argue any definition of humanity to be arbitrary. If you apply it to me you must apply it to yourself.
Don't give me that solipist bullshit.
In order for a life to be taken away it has two requirements need to be fulfilled
1: it has to have been lived
2: It has to be taken from something
How can you take something away from that what doesn't know possession?

If you can, what makes the distinction between the taking of a fetuses life and the taking of a plants life?

Body form?

So you Believe that being shaped like a human has some intrinsic quality that must be preserved?

Only form and no function? Then what separates the living from the dead?

Being alive?

Then we are back to making the distinction between plant and human life.

That's circular nonsense, maybe you can provide me with an Alexandrian cleaving of this Gordian knot.
If knot you must agree that in order to be murdered, a body must have the form and function of human life.

And function must come from experiencing being a human

Humans are not born with knowledge, knowledge is obtained from ones external environment.
So one would need to have experienced being a person in order to be a person.

>>2197325

>>2197327
>I'll trust biologists to tell me what a human
But a biologist just told you what a human is and was meet with denial.
It seems that you only trust your unjustified beliefs, as you clearly do not know.

>>2193743

>be against spooks

>believes anyone is entitled to anything

further proof that stirner posters are just retarded teenagers

>>2197445
it means preventing people from breeding if you dont like the outcome of the genetic makeup of their kid

>>2197485
Your entire argument is reliant on arbitrary axioms which you cannot prove to be true which is hilariously ironic to me since I know that the only reason you purport to believe in these axioms is to bring about a desirable outcome that you desire which is the convenience of being allowed to kill your offspring.

>>2197485
>And function must come from experiencing being a human

More and more purportedly self-evident claims

Your entire argument is faith based

>>2196574
How about this axiom, you should absolutely kill yourself.

>>2197582
Nope, I'm going to dedicate my life to outlawing abortion.

>>2197558
>cognitivedissonance.jpg
Answer my questions then faggot.
You should be easily disprove my logic from my own arbitrary viewpoint if it is flawed.
Or atleast explain why my axioms are arbitrary.
How do you know anything is real?
How convenient it must be to dismiss anything that offends your fragile psyche as "arbitrary".
Or are you cognitively incapable of comprehending meaning?
If you cannot give me an objective definition of what it means to be a person then you must admit that your own argument is arbitrary and thus you have no business using it to tell others what to do.

>>2197590
outlawing it won't stop it, it will just force women who want abortions to seek the treatment from unqualified people in unsafe conditions and many will die. Just as it was before abortion was made legal and regulated.

>>2197572
No, you need knowledge to function, and you can't acquire knowledge without experience.
Refer to my computer programming argument and do one of the following.
>Tell me how one can function without knowledge.

>Tell me how one can acquire knowledge without experience

>Admit you are in denial and fuck off.

>>2197600
Cool, at least many of them will be prosecuted for child destruction and go to prison, as long as that happens, I'll be happy

>>2197593
Dude, you just keep making arbitrary criteria up.
>you have to do this or your wrong
ummm nope, i dont

look dude, its fucking simple, the first brain activity is measured at 6 weeks into the fetuses development, if you kill your fetus after that point, i will work to imprison you, youre a murderer

>>2197615
There's no such thing as knowledge.
All "knowledge" is predicated on faith in axioms.

>>2197261
not an argument

>>2197641
>there is no such thing as knowledge
>arbitrary

Wew, never knew that cognitive dissonance could reduce someone down to solipsism. I really hope that you aren't a literal retard like you appear to be. I hope you are a clever troll who has been taking me for a giggle.
You win this time, just to smart to talk to. Lmao

>>2197652
wasnt an argument, just letting you know i will work to make abortion a crime and that when you are prosecuted for facilitating murder when you say "b-but its just a clump of cells" the judge will say "thats not an argument" and you will be put in prison

>>2197656
not an argument

brain activity first occurs at 6 weeks

abortion after that, murder

>>2197660
Why does brain activity make a human though?

>>2197669
brain death is held as the point in which something that was living was no longer living

first brain activity is the other end of that

>>2197658
No, of course not it was a submission to your superior intellect dude.
How can anyone argue against
>I don't have to do anything to support my claims, u are arbitrary
And
>knowledge isn't real
Just one question tho, how do u know that humans have brain activity at 6 weeks?
How do we no brains are even real mayne?
Isn't that an arbitrary conclusion based off of objective observation?
They say it be like it is but it don't!! Knowledge is fake!

>>2197694
Is brain activity really enough though?
The chicken i ate today had brain activity too.

>>2197724

The chicken was a living chicken when it was killed and literally nobody disputes that.

>>2197694
Cows have brain activity. Zika babies probably have brain "activity", that doesn't mean they're as human as a healthy fetuses. Some verifiable cerebellum does not define person-hood.

>>2197729
*Cerebrum, excuse me. The point is there are more profound biomarkers to suggest the fetus is fully developed and healthy. IMHO we, like the Hebrews, should set person-hood at "first breath" all else perceived to be normal and well.

>>2197728
I don't see anyone trying to ban the murder of chickens or their unborn embryos.

>>2197754

And I don't see anyone trying to eat human babies, you fucking idiot. Apples and oranges.

>>2197754

You're not looking very hard, are you?

>>2197754
nigger does not see the difference between chicken's life and human life. Get the fuck out here

>>2197762
It's about the life, not what they do with the body afterwards.
>>2197765
Fair enough, but irrelevant
>>2197775
Yeah, a human life has experienced being a human. A chicken, much like an unborn baby has not experienced being a human.
Please refer to >>2197485
And
>>2197615

>>2197803
you're starting to sound awful lot like a pseud, tbqh

>>2197803
The experience of being human is having human brain activity which begins at 6 weeks

Whore

>>2197803
>It's about the life

And human life is valued more highly than that of livestock. Or are you going to now dispute that and posit that humans and chickens should be treated equally, for better or worse? Is your position that we should be able to treat humans as cattle and consume them as adults, and this is why abortion is okay? Or are you going to say we shouldn't be able to rear human beings as livestock to be slaughtered and eaten, in which case how exactly is your chicken argument relevant?

>>2197803
>A chicken, much like an unborn baby has not experienced being a human.

A baby will inevitably grow into a human and experience being a human unless it is killed. A chicken will not.

>>2197728
Ok, so what was the embryo before its first cerebral activity?
"just a clump of cells"?

And what was the chicken before its first cerebral activity?
"just a clump of cells" again?

What happened differently that made one of these something society should protect and another something we can eat?

>>2195972
>You're a hypocrite because you disagree with me!

>>2197657
>i will work to make abortion a crime
lmao, good luck with that and enjoy paying for laqueesha's 9 kids who have never heard of a job and cletus' 5 son-nephews who's jobs got automated.

>>2197211
Isn't "murder" one of those weird words with a specific definition?

>>2197837

>What happened differently that made one of these something society should protect and another something we can eat?

The inevitable outcome. Exempting misfortune, one will become a chicken and the other a human being. You can't just conveniently ignore that trajectory as if it isn't there. You can reduce anything to "just cells", that's an over-simplistic viewpoint that's useful to nobody but some retard peddling an ideology. It's the same as taking sunflower seeds versus an apple seeds and saying "it's just a bag of seeds" as if the outcome when fully grown is no different. They're different.

And for the record I'm not anti-abortion, I'm just not a retard and understand it's a nuanced issue without a convenient simple answer, be it "god said so" or "muh clump of cells".

>>2197837
>What happened differently

DNA. Only you can't see the difference between human life and mushroom, tree, chicken.

>>2197818
No.
In order to experience you have to perceive and gain knowledge from that experience.
An unborn baby cannot perceive anything at 6 weeks, the brain at that point is limited to the executive function of telling the organs what to do.
And you can't experience humanity from inside the womb, you need knowledge of being human and you are going to perceive any significant knowledge of humanity from inside a sack of meat.
>>2197824
First of all I do not believe human life to be more inherently valuable than any other self aware life, like that of cetaceans, elephants, and the great apes. And even then it's only marginally more valuable than none self-aware life.
The value of human life is a symbolic value ascribed by to it by other humans, a subjective value that doesn't come from an inherent value of human life, but from subjective sentiments like love.
I respect those sentiments, as long as they are toward a human they know.
Any sentiment toward a unborn, unhuman baby should be left up to the mother who knows it.
But none of that fucking matters because unborn babies are not humans, as they have not experienced what it is to be a human. Can't take away a life from something that has never experienced life in the first place. I mean you can but that would be like killing a plant, which according to you isn't worth what a human life is worth.

>>2197899
>And you can't experience humanity from inside the womb, you need knowledge of being human and you are going to perceive any significant knowledge of humanity from inside a sack of meat

Are we going to get into some arbitrary philosophical wild ride of what it means to truly be a human now? You could argue people aren't 'fully human' with proper human experience at any stage of development approaching adulthood.

>>2197899
DNA makes human human, not your pseudo philosophical drivel about experience.

>>2195972
>

>>2197927
How is human DNA any more valuable than chicken DNA?

>>2197938
t. chicken

>>2197919
>arbitrary
No, any human experience at all is enough.
That is very late in embryonic devolpment, so late that it would be illegal to abort under normal circumstances.

>>2197919
No never, that ride ends in you telling me that all knowledge is derived from arbitrary axioms and thus is not real, remember?
You can't prove that humans, unborn babies, or anything at all is even real without alluding to some arbitrary faith-based axioms.
And I refuse to legislate your arbitrary wild goose chase. You can't ban something that doesn't exist.

>>2197849
i wont be paying for their kids because welfare will also be abolished

you socialists facilitate these problems that you seek to fix

>>2197899
>An unborn baby cannot perceive anything at 6 weeks
prove this claim

>And you can't experience humanity from inside the womb
this is such a stupid statement, of course you can

>>2197966
Prove that babies exist without alluding to arbitrary faith-based axioms.
I'm waiting
>protip: you can't
It's been established that knowledge isn't real, now fuck off.

>>2197884
>>2197896
Except the "first brain activity" doesn't factor into these at all.

A fertilized egg will become a human being, this is true even before first brain activity happens.

>>2197966
>i wont be paying for their kids because welfare will also be abolished
yes you will

>you socialists facilitate these problems that you seek to fix
no the poorfag voters do.

>>2197969
what are you talking about?

>>2197973
i will not pay taxes in a socialist state ever

>>2197938
Because chicken can't conceive this question of yours, but you can.

>>2197971
How cares? An centigram of aluminum is destined to be become 1000 soda cans, that doesn't mean a centigram of aluminium can hold a weeks supply of Mountain Dew.
No, it has to experience the process of being turned into cans first.
A non-sequitur if I've ever seen one, I just can't prove that without resorting to arbitrary, faith based axioms so I guess you win.

Anyone who is pro-abortion but believes its wrong to murder a grown human being is violating the axiom of consistency because your distinction between when its lawful to kill a human and when its not is arbitrary and without logic

>>2197981
But I am not human DNA, I am human.
It isn't my DNA that has given me that ability but my experiences.
So human DNA isn't what makes me more valuable than a chicken, it's my experience.
Glad you finally agree.

>>2197994
Unborn babies are not people
Laws telling people that they can't do something is the definition of arbitration, you retard.

>>2198000
Unborn babies are people.

>>2198000
I'm seeing trips, but no arguments.

>>2197979
I'm taking about this >>2197641

Knowledge ain't real dog, it's been proven

>>2198003
Prove it

>>2198005
You're retarded

>>2198007
You were the first to claim they weren't people. You have the burden of proof.

>>2198007
*proves it*
ez pz

>>2197990
I'm talking to the guy who said abortion was murder only after the first brain activity, stop butting in the middle and acting like i was talking about something different you dumbass

>>2198011
I'm claiming that they are not people.
The burden of proof lies on you, has you are the one claiming they are something and I am claiming they are not.
Un-being isn't a quality to be proven.
You are like a Jesus fag claiming the burden of proof lies on Reddit for claiming God isn't real.

>>2197997
>But I am not human DNA I am human.

you became human because of human DNA, not your experience

>It isn't my DNA that has given me that ability but my experiences.

human DNA gave you ability to think, not your experiences

>So human DNA isn't what makes me more valuable than a chicken

Yes it is human DNA what makes you more valuable.

>>2198017
I'm sorry :((

File: notanargument.webm (2MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x480px

>>2198020
>you: makes claim
>me: uhh you havent proven your claim
>you: prove i havent proven my claim

????????????????

>>2198020
>burden of proof lies on Reddit for claiming God isn't real
Well, it does.

>>2198020
lack of evidence does not affirm a belief in the converse

that is not rational

>>2198024
Human DNA didn't give me the knowledge of the English language that allowed be to conceive that question.
My experience has a human did.
My DNA gave me the ability have my experiences but my experiences are what gave me the ability to conceive your question.
Without my experiences I would be a mouth breathing retard that doesn't even know how to use my legs let alone use the human language.
Can a computer that doesn't have Windows office downloaded use Microsoft word?
No, it has to download the software first.
A human brain that has never experienced being a person, cannot possibly be a person.

>>2195804
Yeah you should be able to abort them at 2 years old if they're unaware

>>2198049
inverse*

>>2198051
A child, the moment before its born, is still a person even though they haven't experienced the outside world yet. Your distinction is ridiculous.

>>2198037
But I've proven my claim extensively.
>>2197485
>>2197615
This is what has been offered to negate my claim thus far
>>2197641
>knowledge isn't real
I've proved it more times since and each to another absurd response
>>2198061
Maybe so, but then personhood is an irrelevant distinction as you can't tell me why a human life without experience of being human is more valuable than a chickens life.
You say "human DNA" which is clearly only as valuable as what it experiences.

>>2198084
Your claim of what the definition of the "experience of being human is" is ridiculous.

A child can sense everything in its surroundings before its born. Why do you choose to deny that this experience is experience?

>>2198098
Because trees can sense the sun but they don't experience the sun.
Experience is perception AND knowing

the hippocampus doesn't function until late in embryonic development

Experiencing the womb is not experiencing humanity

>>2197979
>i will not pay taxes in a socialist state ever
because you'll be on bennies yourself lmao

>>2198117
I think you're just playing semantics and making up definitions that suit the outcomes you desire.

Perception is knowing.

Even if your made-up definitions hold true, why would you be for partial birth abortion even though the hippocampus has already developed?

>Human DNA didn't give me the knowledge of the English language that allowed be to conceive that question.
My experience has a human did.

Human DNA gives the instructions of development of a human brain. Brain gives you ability to think. Experience is secondary.

>Without my experiences I would be a mouth breathing retard that doesn't even know how to use my legs let alone use the human language.

no, you would be a retard because of genetic disorder. You grasped to this fragile drivel about experience and keep embarrassing yourself.

>A human brain that has never experienced being a person, cannot possibly be a person.

It is irrelevant. It is human brain in human body with human DNA. So it is human. Your presupposition is arbitrary, but mine can be tested in lab.

>>2198051
>>2198134

>>2197094
>a dude had an abortion

>>2197211
>a tape worm is a person

>>2197884
>The inevitable outcome. Exempting misfortune, one will become a chicken and the other a human being.

>We should make sure this thing happens because unless it doesn't happen it will happen.

>>2198143
tape worm isnt human

do not kill if{
>is human
>is alive
>and has a working brain
}

this is not difficult f a m

>>2194781
Couldn't have said it better.

>>2193733
They should make a sequel to the movie "Born on the Fourth of July" called "Aborted on the Fourth of July".

>>2198159
you hedonists are fucking disgusting

ITT: a woman that has had an abortion asks a relatively simple question, cue philosophical cockfight in which chickens are proven to people and knowledge apparently is an illusion

>>2198132
Semantics as in the logical study of meaning?
Yeah, that's exactly what I am doing as meaning is exactly what's relevant to this conversation.
Im only for late term abortions under certain circumstances, like if the mother is not capable of giving the child a good life or her life is itself threatened.
The later is unfortunately why most parital-birth abortions take place, that or the baby dies during labour.
Partial birth abortions do not happen because a baby is unwanted.

>>2194739
>>2194749
wow, just wow

>>2198186
>like if the mother is not capable of giving the child a good life

jesus fucking christ

consequentialism is so fucking disgusting

>le the ends justify the means

you people are so fucking morally bankrupt you fucking pseud

>>2198192
That's for late term abortions, not partial birth abortion.
Partial birth abortion is a very late term abortion that does not happen for that reason.
Can't believe someone would be so morally bankrupt as to curse a child to a life that is doomed to suck, suck for the kid and all the people that have to deal with them.
Morality is subjective and telling someone else what moral decision they should make(that doesn't effect the rest of humanity) is itself unethical.
Don't tell other people what to do, unless they are doing something that is hurting society, you wouldn't appreciate pro-choice people forcing you to abort your baby so don't force them to keep theirs.
>inb4 you attempt to prove the objectivity of morality
Just don't

>>2198154
Why is a 6 week old fetus more important than a tapeworm?
You bigot.

File: Rubyanna.png (11KB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 360x240px

>>2193733
The moment we allowed morality to dictate scientific progress marked the steady downfall of humanity.

You sucked a lifeless insentient giblet out of you because you weren't ready to parent a child, your mate was of an insufficient breeding gene pool or you weren't able to financially support another person in your family.

Yes you are entitled to happiness. Why? Because I said so. Why must your emotions be dictated by an arbitrary set of made up rules? Why? Because you said so.

>>2198219
A mother does not have the authority to decide whether or not her child deserves to live or wants to live.

You have endorsed cold blooded murder. Plain and simple.

Rational people realize you're insane.

>>2198169
>>2198192
>disgusting
>morally bankrupt

Wow, that really forced me to re-evaluate my position.

If you can't formulate a coherent argument, then why do bother with replying? It's completely useless.

Come on, just nuke this atrocious thread, janny.

>>2193774
this tbqh

>>2198238
see >>2198235

Say whatever you'd like.

You and everyone else knows that murdering people is intrinsically wrong and that inside of a mother's womb is a living, breathing person.

Look OP, there's no objectivity in this debate. It's all emotional arguments. You either believe in the mother's choice above all else, or you believe in the rights of the child/lump of cells that will potentially be a child's rights above all else.

You obviously had a reason, and the guilt is natural but does not nullify that reason. Don't ask somewhere like 4chan, you know the answers you'll get. Just be more careful with birth control in the future.

>>2198247
Here's where we disagree. I don't consider it a person until it started forming a brain.

Early pregnancy full of spontaneous abortions. Many times a woman doesn't even realise she's been pregnant.

It's not a moral dilema.

>>2198134
Experience is dependent on DNA, no question
But it's experience that gives life value
>
No, I would have the same physical capabilities I do know(except for the physical location of my knowledge, and the plastic restructuring of my brain due to environmental effects I have experienced) actually no, there is a lot more to the devolpment of the human mind than just genome, the human brain is plastic and its form is litterally changed with experience.
I would be a retard because I would know literally nothing, that has nothing to do with genetics. I'm the same body without any knowledge received from experience, remember?
Or is that too hard to grasp?
It's human, but who cares?
Being human isn't inherently valuable, the human experience is. There is nothing valuable about a blank slate running on factory default, only potential value.

>>2198256
I absolutely agree. It is a person when it starts forming a brain. Maybe you are not who I was replying to. But whoever I was replying to does not believe it is a person when it starts to form a brain. He believes its a person whenever the mother decides its a person.

>>2198192
Why do you want children to suffer?
You god damn sociopath, if I ever find you I would murder you.
somepeople want to see children suffer
It's a crazy fucked up world we live in.

>>2198273
I belive it becomes a person that is entitled to a life after it experiences what it is to be a person.
The brain starts to devolp early, that's part of the evo-devo genetic tool kit, that brain does not begin to function as a human brain until very late in devolpment.
It's not my flaut that I know a lot more about human development than you do, and you shouldn't make that a random mothers problem either.

>>2198283
Your definition of experience is one known only to yourself. It is entirely your own creation. Ridiculous.

>>2198275
Suffering is not wrong. Murder is.

>>2198219
>Morality is subjective
>and telling someone else what moral decision they should make(that doesn't effect the rest of humanity) is itself unethical.

But ethics are objective?

You just think my morality is subjective but your "ethics" are not

If morality is subjective, you should have no problem with outlawing abortion or legalizing murder. Let people rape their children. Let people starve their children. Let people enslave their wives. It's all subjective. Don't tell another person how to live their life.

>>2198296
No, I've laid it out pretty rigorously ITT, if you do not know by now it's because you are not paying attention or are too stupid/dissonanciated to understand.

Rhetorical concepts do not need to have a widely accepted definition.

did you know that all linguistic concepts were originally articulated by individuals?
To claim something to be ridiculous because it was created is ridiculous.
Idk, Maybe try to argue against it logically instead of unsubstantiated attacks on its validity as a concept?

>>2198322
No ethics in this sense are applied ethics. As in pertaining to interpersonal interactions and not personal decisions
And that baby is a part of the mother until the umbilical cord is seperated.
If the baby is independent of the mother then it should be perfectly fine being removed from the womb prematurely.

>>2198364
I think you might be schizo

>>2198371
the mother has taken on a duty of caring for the needs of her dependent through engaging in consensual sex

The same people who are pro-abortion in this thread because "its her body and a fetus isnt a person thus she can kill it" are the same people who would imprison the woman if she did not labor to earn a wage to buy dog food for her starving pet dog

hypocrites

>>2193774
That's like saying dying from cancer is the same as dying from being shot in the head. One is nature, the other is murder.

The fact that OP even ask this question proves she knows what she did was wrong.

>>2198376
And I know you are a dumbass.

If the mother chooses to have sex then she can also choose to not be a mother.

>b..bbut the baby, uh morality
Blow it out your ass, it her body it her choice.
>bbb.but the babies body
Would be perfectly fine without the mother of it was an autonomous being.

It's a different story when that baby is capable of experiential cognition.
That doesn't mean brain function, it means human brain function. And if you knew a damn thing about human development you would know that, that doesn't happen until very late in embryonic development.
Learn about biological anthropology or even just human development, or shut up and leave the discussion to people that know what they are talking about.

>>2198420
Its the babies body, not her body.

>>2198259
>>2198259
>there is a lot more to the devolpment of the human mind than just genome

give me example of human brain which developed without influence of human DNA.

>I would be a retard because I would know literally nothing, that has nothing to do with genetics

google causes of mental retardation it is genetics, problems during pregnancy, problems during birth, Iodine deficiency, malnutrition. "I would know literally nothing" is not a cause of retardation.

>Or is that too hard to grasp?

It is for you, you deny human biology.

>Being human isn't inherently valuable,

it is, and for evolution and for other humans, at least for humans who understand the difference between human life and chicken's life.

>>2198420
>It's a different story when that baby is capable of experiential cognition.
Because you say so?

>>2198422
Then it should be fine being removed from the mothers body

Why is it physically connected to the mothers body?

Why does it grow as part of the mothers body?

It isn't its own body until it has a mind capable of owning a body, that happens around 7-8 months into devolpment.

>>2198437
>Then it should be fine being removed from the mothers body
No, because that would kill him or her.
>Why is it physically connected to the mothers body?
Ask your biology teacher
>Why does it grow as part of the mothers body?
The mothers body is designed to take care of the growing human, so it develops what's needed.
>It isn't its own body until it has a mind capable of owning a body, that happens around 7-8 months into devolpment.
Retarded, kys.

>>2198437
A human being has a duty to take care of the biological needs of a dependent they voluntarily take on.

Parents are forced by law to use their bodies to labor to earn wages to feed their kids or else they're held as criminally negligent.

Pet-owners are forced by law to use their bodies to labor to earn wages to feed their pets or else they're held as criminally negligent.

Why should a guardian who willingly took on a dependent through having consensual sex not be required to take care of the biological needs of their dependent?

You cannot just abandon your child and let them starve if you choose to no longer be their guardian. You cannot just abandon your pet and let them starve if you choose to not be its owner. You must find a suitable replacement guardian that will take care of the biological needs of your former dependent.

>>2198420
The hippocampal commissure forms on day 77 within the first trimester.

>>2193733

>Do the exact opposite of the one thing woman are capable of doing that men can't do better.

You had one job and you fucked it up, so no.

>>2198427
>give me example of human brain which developed without influence of human DNA
It's an extremely basic concept in neuroscience
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity
>
Blow it out your ass retard, the point is. If I was a normal adult human with normal brain structure and gene expression, and I suddenly lost all knowledge I had gained from experience I would no longer be capable of living as a human, I wouldn't know how to talk, walk, or comprehend the world around me on a symbolic level, I wouldn't be self aware, I would have none of the cognitive qualities that differentiate humans from non-human animals.
Apparently you can only take words like "retard" for their literal meaning, you have assburgers, don't you? Retard.
I understand biology a lot better than you do, especially bioscience related to this area, biosemiotics, cognitive neuroscience, the philosophy of biology, evo-devo, ect. As clearly evidenced by your inability to partake in elementary-level discorse.
And I'm sure I know more about basically every thing else under the humongous umbrella term "biology".
>
I understand the difference, you are the one who cannot tell me what it is.
DNA isn't what makes human life different from non-human life.

Please don't embarrass yourself by mentioning evolution. You probably don't understand how it works.

>>2193733

To be fair, your baby would have grown up to be a Muslim and gone to hell if they became an adult.

So at least you gave them a free trip to heaven.

>>2198514

Actually, no Christian has ever gave me an answer to the abortion paradox.

Its a sin to deny someone a path to the kingdom of heaven, no?

So let's say we have this devout Muslims who have babies who grow up to be heathens who all are going to hell anyways.

Wouldn't the right thing to do would be abort all the Muslim babies?

Otherwise you have billions of people going to hell.

And let's extend aborting just Muslim babies to all babies, because that guarantees billions of people will now go to heaven who would otherwise grow up to be non-Christians and go to hell.

Or are you just fucking to send more souls to hell?

File: 1473734034454.jpg (31KB, 367x358px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 367x358px

>>2193761
>>2193806
>>2194357

>it's a "anti abortioners only have spooky words and their emotions" episode

>>2198472
That doesn't mean it is working on a level equatable to human cognition, the hippocampus forming is part of evo-Devi toolkit for everything all the way back to atleast jawed fishes, I can't remember any earlier examples if there are any.
The brain doesn't develop the ability to work on a level that is uniquely human until much later and doesn't have the opportunity to use that fully use that ability until birth.
It's function not form.

>>2198556
>can it experience stuff yet?
>uhh yeah but it cant experience stuff "uniquely human" yet
>wtf does that mean
>whatever i want it to mean just go along with it so i can have the convenience of killing this little brat

>>2198535
the pro-choice argument is a spook too f a m
>you have a right to bodily integrity

a right? spooked

>>2198568
It cannot experience at that point.
Because it cannot interpret sensation.

Uniquely human means it is smarter than a chicken.

>>2198581
Fetuses are MORE sensitive than developed human beings. Retardation on your part.

>>2198573
Wasn't stirners whole thing extreme individualism and everything is my property with what I do what I please?

>>2198586
>GOTCHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sensation doesn't mean they are interpreting that sensation into experience.
Never said they aren't sensitive.

>>2198591
>Sensation doesn't mean they are interpreting that sensation into experience.
Of course they do you fuckwit. They feel MORE pain, not less.

>>2198573
if I was a woman Im a fucking dead baby farm and I can have as many abortions as I fucking want and I don't care what any old fart in a book or christcuck in the world says

spooked?

>>2198587
I think it was more "i should only do what i want because anything else other than what i want is just a social construct built on axioms that i can just deny the self-evidency of" so by that train of thought, there's nothing wrong with me dedicating my life to imprisoning women who abort their babies because its what my ego desires

>>2198593
see
>>2198594

>>2198581
What organ needs to form before they can """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""experience"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ?

Funny how no one has a counter-argument to:
>>2198460

>>2198592
Just because they can feel it doesn't mean they are interpreting it the way they would with a devolped mind, there aren't any emotions derived from that perception

>>2198616
So emotion is your distinction between a person and a non-person?

>>2198616
If you stab a dog, it feels pain. Same with a fetus.

>>2198601
A human brain, but experience isn't just dependent on intrinsic properties, exogenic stimulus, the love of a mother, the warmth and light of the sun, need to be perceived in order to be interpreted into an experience.
See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/

>>2198635
ok but what about >>2198460

On the internet, no one knows you're only pretending to be a girl.

File: image.jpg (154KB, 800x925px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x925px

>>2198639
Well as all life is interdependent, by way of interconnectivity arising from causal interactions 'duty' from your definition can be argued in a number of ways, many conflicting with eachother.
Example: it is a mothers duty not to bring a child into a world is that better of without it, it is a mothers duty to not bring a child into a world that cannot provide for it.
Duty is really a subjectively determined concept.
As for the law, I don't care for what the law has to say in the slightest and neither should you, I care about what is right and what is wrong.

And this is arguing that an unborn child is a moral obligation, and there are many circumstances where abortion can be seen as a moral obligation.
Anyways, it's should really be left up to the person who has the duty, whatever that duty may be, to decide.

>>2193733

I just had a shit, what's the diff?

>>2198710
No I fully disagree with you.

File: IMG_1300.jpg (108KB, 1842x901px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1842x901px

>>2193733
Get dat fetus, kill dat feetus

>>2198754
Sounds like a personal problem, go see a therapist or something

File: 1481912784127.png (349KB, 850x568px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 850x568px

>>2193733

I am lost.

What is the justification for being able to kill a fetus after it has brain function.

I want to be hip and modern and I think abortion is bad do I keep my position or change it.

Also humanities was a mistake.

>>2198786
>it is a mothers duty to not bring a child into a world that cannot provide for it.

She failed this duty when she engaged in sex. Now she has a new duty.

>Anyways, it's should really be left up to the person who has the duty, whatever that duty may be, to decide.

No, this is the point of a duty: that the one beholden to duty be beholden to it.

I don't think it is right for a pet-owner to let their dog starve the same way I don't think it is right for a mother to let her unborn child starve

>>2198813
>I determine what her duty is
>sex is for the sole purpose of recreation
t. Jebidiah
>>>/ChristianSingles/ is more your speed.
The intended purpose of sex is recreation 99% of the time. Accidents happen, we can fix our mistakes.
Why is abortion wrong?, let me guess , you don't like it.
It's not the mothers duty to do what you think she ought to do. Especially when you barely understand human life.
Keep your normative bullshit to yourself.
An unborn child, isn't a child, that's a false equivalency.

Take your desire to control other people to the therapist and not to the voting booth.

>>2198898
If I could change the mechanisms of sex surely I would, but I cannot.

Nature determined the purpose of sex. If you are a capable adult consensually engaging in sex, you are aware that reproduction is a consequence of such action. You are aware that there is a risk a dependent will form.

In no other facet of life do we allow a person to act in such a way that will bestow upon them guardianship of a dependent without holding that they have a duty to maintain the well-being of that dependent. For me to remain logically consistent in my jurisprudence, I must hold that mothers who consensually engage in sex that results in procreation have a duty to provide the biological needs of their dependent or so find a suitable replacement guardian whom will equally provide for the needs of the child.

>>2198953
But you can get rid of a baby before it has a life of its own.
Nature detrimened the possibility of abortion, if you are a potential mother you are capable of not being a mother.

Fetuses are not children.
Good night

>>2198981
All I ask is that we should be careful to not improperly determine the beginning of the baby's life out of desire for convenience or of tailored outcome and consequence.

>>2198411
>That's like saying dying from cancer is the same as dying from being shot in the head.

nope

>>2198411
>she

>It's an extremely basic concept in neuroscience
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

again retard, you like chickens, give me and example of human brain which developed under instructions of chicken's DNA.

>I suddenly lost all knowledge I had gained from experience I would no longer be capable of living as a human

mongoloid, capability of living as human is rooted in your DNA

> I would have none of the cognitive qualities that differentiate humans from non-human animals.

retard it is DNA that differentiate humans from non-human animals

>Apparently you can only take words like "retard" for their literal meaning

Retard, everyone know causes of mental retardation, but you special snowflake invent theoretical condition to justify your pseudo-philosophical drivel about experience.

>I understand biology a lot better than you do

no, you deny that human DNA is what makes human human, you continue to insist that "experience" is what makes human human. Again i can test in a lab, i say yep this sample belongs to a human being, not chicken.

>And I'm sure I know more about basically every thing else under the humongous umbrella term "biology".

no, you deny biology and replace it with philosophical drivel about experience.

>DNA isn't what makes human life different from non-human life.

yes it is.

>Please don't embarrass yourself by mentioning evolution. You probably don't understand how it works.

said yokel who denies that DNA is what differentiate human life from non-human life.

>>2198506
>>2199951

>>2198528
>Actually, no Christian has ever gave me an answer to the abortion paradox.
>Its a sin to deny someone a path to the kingdom of heaven, no?

You weren't talking to catholics then m8 only God can tell who gets into Heaven.

File: image.jpg (135KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1200x1200px

>>2199951
>mfw you can't prove DNA is real without resorting to arbitrary, faith based axioms.
Better luck next time kid.