Alliance Defending Freedom flies lawsuit to preserve clinics'

>"Freedom of speech also means the freedom to not express views that would violate one’s conscience. Yet, under this law, Hawaii is forcing pro-life centers and physicians to provide free advertising for the abortion industry against their conscience," ADF Legal Counsel Elissa Graves said.

>The bill was approved by the state Legislature on May 4, and became law on Wednesday.

>>160295
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/judge-stop-forcing-pregnancy-centers-to-promote-abortion/

>>160295
The word abortion is never mentioned, they have nothing to stand on. Also, abortion isn't illegal, despite the best efforts of some.

>>160309
Is it really "promoting abortion" to just give patients complete information, which takes all of a half a minute to explain, given that patients are going to clinics under the assumption that they're going to get complete information?

>>160314
Abortions kills: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449553/canada-sweden-promote-abortion-developing-world

>>160315
>abortions kill
No fucking shit, it's a procedure that scrambles a fetus inside the womb. There are inherent risks.

It's really a matter of what's objectively more important, a woman who is loved and depended-upon by many, or a developing ball of tissue. Take into account that we would all be living in third world conditions if all ~7.5 billion of us had the same lifestyle.

>>160319
I never enjoy hearing the left / abortion advocates arguments because they always spiral around subjective "value" arguments - rather distasteful and repugnant in my view, and the more valid but equally disturbing "it's my decision to make" ie it's my lifestyle, consequences be damned.

What's more it rarely ever takes into account the detrimental effects widespread abortion acceptance does to a society. It's not often even considered - my time in China was ride with children abandoned, tossed off of buildings, thrown into traffic. The value of life just does exist. And it's scary, and depressing.

>>160319
>>>160315
>>abortions kill
>No fucking shit, it's a procedure that scrambles a fetus inside the womb. There are inherent risks.
>It's really a matter of what's objectively more important, a woman who is loved and depended-upon by many, or a developing ball of tissue. Take into account that we would all be living in third world conditions if all ~7.5 billion of us had the same lifestyle.

So you are only referring to pregnancy that is risking the life of the the mother, right? Otherwise it's killing the life of a fetus over inconveniencing the mother for 9 months.

>>160331
I've never heard a good argument against abortion though. We partake in the mechanized slaughter of billions of factory farmed livestock animals. Don't they feel suffering? Maybe they feel even greater pain than humans. We do this because food tastes better with animal product.

Why then is a clump of cells which doesn't even feature a nervous system contentious, when a mothers' entire future can be changed for the better by its death? If it has never had a functioning nervous system, then it almost certainly never had any prior sense of self. It was never self aware enough to want anything for its future.

Not to mention, some women seeking abortion are really desperate, many for no fault of their own. Banning this stuff will just force innocent people to seek abortion without professional help and with no guarantee if something goes wrong.

There really is no good explanation I can understand beyond the religious. And if you're religious, that's fine, but don't expect other people to follow your religion.

Besides, you guys on the right keep complaining about how minorities are having too many babies given their family's income and all that. Yet it's precisely minorities that are 5X more likely to have abortions in the US:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

>>160331
Even if we assume your individual experiences are 1) true and 2) generalizable to all of China, correlation != causation. You have no actual evidence connecting the legality of abortion (or lack thereof) to these nebulous societal detriments.

We also have plenty of counterexamples. Canada, France, Spain, Russia, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Greece, half of Australia, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Mongolia, etc. have legal abortions. Are you really claiming that nearly all of the developed world devalues human life?

>>160333
>Babies stop existing as soon as you deliver them!

>>160338
>I've never heard a good argument against abortion though. We partake in the mechanized slaughter of billions of factory farmed livestock animals. Don't they feel suffering? Maybe they feel even greater pain than humans. We do this because food tastes better with animal product.

Animals do not have the same rights as human beings.

>Why then is a clump of cells which doesn't even feature a nervous system contentious, ?

All biological lifeforms (humans especially) can be described with the vague term "clumps of cells". To use the term as if it somehow reduces the humanity or the genuine "human-ness" of a fetus is disingenuous.

>when a mothers' entire future can be changed for the better by its death

Nowhere else in society do we accept economic betterment or social necessity as justification for murder.

>If it has never had a functioning nervous system, then it almost certainly never had any prior sense of self. It was never self aware enough to want anything for its future.

I'd classify this as largely irrelevant. Many mentally disabled people aren't fully "there". It wouldn't be right to kill people just because they were unconscious. To "want anything for [one's] future" has no relevance on the ethics of taking another's life.

You don't have to be religious (I'm not): it's just a matter of believing in a right to live and the basic biology that fertilized embryos have their own unique dna and are their own organisms.

>>160344
Not your body. Not your say. Not your dependent. Not your choice.

>>160338
If you feel that humans are just animals like any other, then it's not worth having the conversation from the get go. We're not thinking on the same plains.

Humans are clumps of cells, you're a clump of cells. That's a dumb pseudo science talking point.

I don't think minorities should have fewer children - namely blacks should regenerate the family unit and have children in wedlock. This is besides the point.

>>160348
But suicide is illegal, and the life within a woman is not hers to end.

>>160344
>>160349

>Animals do not have the same rights as human beings.

You mean non-human animals. But they still deserve consideration. Everything deserves consideration commensurate with its ability to suffer.

And when I say "clump of cells", I mean, just a clump of cells, not implying differentiated and specialized. Nothing more complex than a mere clump of cells. Such a thing almost certainly has never had any interest in its future and it can't suffer. Unlike its mother.

As far as mentally disabled people, I guess it depends how disabled we're talking about. If someone was incapacitated we should respect their wishes as far as how they wanted to be treated under such circumstances. If they had a do not resuscitate order placed then we should let nature take its course, otherwise we should expect they wanted intervention to help enable them to continue their life. We do this because we would want the same done for us if we had been in the place of the guy that was going to be incapacitated. We like the peace of mind of living in a society where our wishes are respected.

On the other hand, take an example of someone who was only ever as conscious, intelligent, and self-aware as, for example, a dog. In that case, it would be right for one to extend them the same level of consideration for their suffering as for a dog's. Dogs are pretty intelligent and probably able to suffer quite a lot, so I think they should receive almost the same amount of consideration as humans in any case

But when you're talking about an embryo, this doesn't make sense because there was no time at any point in history when it wanted anything.

>>160348
Similarly, the child is also not the mother's body. It is its own organism with its own rights. Parents are the guardians of their children, not their owners.

>>160355
>And when I say "clump of cells", I mean, just a clump of cells, not implying differentiated and specialized. Nothing more complex than a mere clump of cells.

You are performing mental gymnastics and entirely arbitrary differentiation to attempt to justify yourself. The specialization of an organism's cells has no bearing on its rights or its status as alive.

>Such a thing almost certainly has never had any interest in its future and it can't suffer. Unlike its mother.

Whether or not it can suffer is irrelevant as to whether or not it has the right to life. Certainly you wouldn't support killing anyone as long as they did not suffer from the death?

>As far as mentally disabled people, I guess it depends how disabled we're talking about. If someone was incapacitated we should respect their wishes as far as how they wanted to be treated under such circumstances. If they had a do not resuscitate order placed then we should let nature take its course, otherwise we should expect they wanted intervention to help enable them to continue their life. We do this because we would want the same done for us if we had been in the place of the guy that was going to be incapacitated. We like the peace of mind of living in a society where our wishes are respected.

Indeed.

1/2

>>160361
You're setting an impossibly high standard. Every distinct living thing has equal right to life? Every bacterium, every animal, plant, fungi, has the same inalienable right to life?
We have to be more nuanced than that because that's just an impossible way to live.

>>16035
2/2
>On the other hand, take an example of someone who was only ever as conscious, intelligent, and self-aware as, for example, a dog. In that case, it would be right for one to extend them the same level of consideration for their suffering as for a dog's. Dogs are pretty intelligent and probably able to suffer quite a lot, so I think they should receive almost the same amount of consideration as humans in any case

This is ridiculous and inhumane. I'm just going to repeat that back to you, but you're suggesting we treat mentally disabled people as we would animals of similar intelligence.

>But when you're talking about an embryo, this doesn't make sense because there was no time at any point in history when it wanted anything.

You keep coming up with these arbitrary and meaningless factors as to whether or not it is okay to kill someone. It's not complicated. All human beings have the negative right to life.

>>160362
I referred only to humans. Apologies if this was not clear.

>>160364
A human is defined by more than just the sum of its matter and an embryo is not a complete human.

Also, why don't other animals get to enjoy a right to life?

>>160357
>its it's own organism with it's own rights

Until it's born. And then you complain about single mothers leeching off the system, or fathers being forced to pay childcare.

Prolifers have always been pro-fetus, once the baby is born they could give less of a fuck.

>>160371
"People should be held responsible for the children they make" and "people shouldn't be allowed to kill their children in the womb" are compatible views. I say this even though I think abortion should stay legal.

>>160387
>>160371
>>160367
>>160364
>>160363
>>160362
>>160361
>>160357
>>160356
>>160351
>>160349
>>160348
>>160344
>>160341
>>160338
>>160333
>>160331
>>160319
>>160315
>>160314

Okay. But when is it okay to kill?

>>160391
Define "okay" and "kill". No more of this definition gymnastics.

>>160398
Okay as in there should be no repercussions or consequences besides the natural result of your action (read as: the thing you attempt to kill dies)

Kill as in you directly, intentionally, successfully stop something from being alive, brain, heart and lungs all fail to function without assistance.

>>160343
>>>160333 (You)
>>Babies stop existing as soon as you deliver them!
It's called adoption..look into it. I'm your parents have.

>>160401
In regards to human killing - animal killing would have separate parameters but certainly a set of instances that it's not okay - killing without pre-planning in defense would most definitely be universally moral. Killing with pre-planning in "defense" is a grey area (righteous assassination) and would be case by case. Killing in war would have to follow just war doctrine, I think individual level killing in war is a problematic nessesity. On the whole, it's never a good thing - but it can be nessesary.

Abortion is always abhorrent in my mind unless the mothers life is in direct and immediate danger. It is our societies fault for trying to come up with ways to make it less abhorrent because we seek justifications for our desires and the west does not like judging womens behavior / actions in this regard for some reason.

>>160367
>Also, why don't other animals get to enjoy a right to life?
Why DO humans get a right to life? It's simply an axiom, something that western society has collectively agreed upon based off Enlightenment philosophy.

>>160371
This is like holding someone at gunpoint and when I tell you to not shoot, you ask "Well are you willing to pay for his college education?" It's also why I referred to a negative right to life. Wanting someone to not be killed does not necessitate wanting a government system of welfare. Calling me "pro-fetus" doesn't even make sense. I'm not religious, what motivation would I have for holding some sort of preference for fetuses over babies?

>>160391
Generally when there is a credible threat to your life.

>>160419
>Giving up a child for adoption is easy and painless, and insures the child has a chance at a decent life!

>>160401
>brain, heart and lungs
Does that mean the fetus is not alive before a certain point in its development?

>>160428
Cultural Marxism = humans are not special, they are animals and do not warrant special treatment

Gee can't wait to see where this ideology leads. Nothing utilitarian and tyrannical I hope lol

>>160454
>people given up for adoption were better off dead
>it's okay to kill people because they inconvenience your life
I guess divorce courts would get a lot more interesting

Liberals = whatever is most convenient for me is objectively moral and best

>>160487
>dead
xDDDD typical lifer

>>160492
I'm not sure how to respond to this. That is the argument you were making, is it not? That adoption isn't an easy process and as such, abortion is an alternative?

>>160497
Do I commit genocide when I jack off into a sock

>>160457
Dunno. I don't consider a fetus alive, but I'm not a biologist. I'm willing to accept the accurate, unbiased consensus of the scientific community when it comes to that.

>>160428
Interesting. So per your statement, it would be not okay for foreign combatants to involve themselves in a war hundreds, even thousands of miles from their homeland, correct? I'm not particularly anti-war, but I'd like to know if you are. Sorry, if this seems like I'm leading you somewhere. I'm not. Just curious.

>>160420
Ok. What about killing non-human animals?

What makes war necessary?
Why can war be justified but abortion can not?
Walking, talking, proven to be useful people die in wars. Abortions just kill babies at the worst. Those babies could become Hitler or Pol Pot or some asshole who touches babies without washing his hands. At best, it just removes a few lifeless cells.

P.S. I think we should have an upper limit on how many non-functioning members of society we have around. Keep them for research. When we reach that limit, we kill the spillover. Edgy, I know, but it seems practical/efficient to me. Put a pin in that idea for now.

>>160502
Already stated abortion can be justified if the mothers life is in direct danger.

Wars are justified in some instances. Also it's not the same, wars aren't "chosen". They generally occur wether you wish them to or not.

Babies are innocent. Their value is not based on function, just like killing a new born puppy is abhorrent. You're killing something that does not deserve to die, that has not commited wrong. And what's more, you're doing it out of selfishness.

You sound like an edgy teenager. In your own world, would you be spared?

>>160512
I must have overlooked that, my bad.

You always have a choice, anon. You could always die. At the root of it, whether you like it or not, you are making a statement when you defend yourself against attackers or if you pre-emptively put a stop to would-be attackers. That statement is that your life, your values, your desires are more important than theirs.

When you boil it down, we're just left with opinions. How we feel about this or that. Anyone who says it's more than that is deluded,

>>160499
Do people who make this point have no understanding of basic biology? Sperm are haploid cells, not their own organisms. Fertilized embryos are diploid with their own unique dna.

>>160479
Haha

>>160502
>Interesting. So per your statement, it would be not okay for foreign combatants to involve themselves in a war hundreds, even thousands of miles from their homeland, correct? I'm not particularly anti-war, but I'd like to know if you are. Sorry, if this seems like I'm leading you somewhere. I'm not. Just curious.

I was referring mainly to civil law rather than wartime law. There are international agreements regarding this that I have little knowledge of. This point honestly seems like a distraction from the issue at hand.

>What makes war necessary?
>Why can war be justified but abortion can not?

I never made the point that war could be justified.

>Walking, talking, proven to be useful people die in wars. Abortions just kill babies at the worst. Those babies could become Hitler or Pol Pot or some asshole who touches babies without washing his hands. At best, it just removes a few lifeless cells.

This is as bad as the "what if the baby cured cancer" argument and you know it. Also, they're not lifeless cells.

>P.S. I think we should have an upper limit on how many non-functioning members of society we have around. Keep them for research. When we reach that limit, we kill the spillover. Edgy, I know, but it seems practical/efficient to me. Put a pin in that idea for now.

Okay, do you don't agree with the fundamental concept of human rights?

>>160518
They don't care about reality. Of course they're stupid, but it's more than just that.

>lifeless cells

Oh lol liberals have done it now

>>160515
If they are trying to kill someone who has not instigated the fight, then their values are already less moral than the one being attacked. Your have a right to live. You cannot let others take that from you.

No. These are objectively truth. Opinions are for your favorite food. Truth is reality.

>>160518
>Making a distinction based on ploidy

???

Alright for real amigo define life for me

Abortions isn't about life or death, but how women should live. The most likely ladies to get abortions are prostitutes and whores; living a sinful life of sodomy and lust. Abortions promotes those sins and it's our jobs to eliminate the enabling of sinning.

>>160579
But how can they get pregnant if they're living a life of sodomy? Checkmate Christians!

Really though, of the people who get abortions, 14% are married, 91% have at least a high school degree, more than one in five have a college degree, and 62% identify as religious. Prostitutes and whores, indeed.

>>160560
Where are your proofs? Having a right to life is a nice idea, but it's fundamentally a matter of opinion. Where is your right to life when you are in a jungle and an anaconda eats you? For something to be objective, it has to be true, no matter who is viewing it.

There may be something that I'm missing. Again, I'm not really sure where I stand in all of this, but I can't be against abortion until I understand why I shouldn't be for it.

From where I stand, abortion makes sense. So does eugenics. They are unpleasant ideas in our current social atmosphere, but they make sense to me. The line of logic that I'm following is:
I want the world to be its absolute best.
To be the best world, we need the best people. To have the best people, we have to select the best people and keep them alive, while culling the undesirables.

Of course, we'd have to sit down and decide what makes someone better than others. And we'd have to find some objective measurement I guess. Anyways, table that for now.

But even in my perfect world, it's just that: MY perfect world. At its root, it's just how I feel it should be. Your stance against abortion is exactly the same.

>>160579
I hate people like you because you offer an avenue for people who agree with abortion to completely ignore all of the well-reasoned points of disagreement on abortion, letting them claim that all pro-lifers are religious idiots.

1/2

>>160584
>Where are your proofs? Having a right to life is a nice idea, but it's fundamentally a matter of opinion.

The right to life is one of the fundamental ideas of all western civilization. I won't disagree that it's a matter of opinion, but you should think of the potential logical consequences of disagreeing with it.

>Where is your right to life when you are in a jungle and an anaconda eats you?

The same as when you die to some other accident, like drowning. This comment makes me think that you don't understand what the right to life is. It doesn't say that we have to keep everyone alive and if someone dies then someone else must go to jail, it means that if you violate someone else's negative right to life you go to jail.

>There may be something that I'm missing. Again, I'm not really sure where I stand in all of this, but I can't be against abortion until I understand why I shouldn't be for it.

I feel like people in this thread have presented well-reasoned points as for why you should be against it.

>>160584
If you don't agree with the right to life (which btw is spelled out in the constitution) then you're advocating that murder is acceptable. You're advocating "might equals right".

"Rights" do not deal with nature. Nature does not care about your rights. Nature, animals, the weather exists as a constant neutral.

Abortion does not make logical sense. It is the same as eating a large amount of food and getting liposuction or reverting to bulhemia. Or smoking and getting a lung transplant. Or performing any action with obvious, direct, self evident outcomes. It makes sense not practice good judgement - to not smoke, eat that food, or to have sex with someone you don't wish to have children with. You may disagree with that, but your disagreement is grounded in your desire to justify pleasure and lifestyle against fact of natural law - actions beget consquence (reap what you sow).

Your viewing mankind inappropriately and I'll tell you why: your experience of life is limited in a small window. Man will continue on, and whether we ascend to technological greatness is moot - especially if you're an atheist and don't believe in life after death. So practically it means nothing to "progress", especially through "population culling" and eugenics. The amount of suffering, heartache, and pain it would cause would not bear out any benefits, for anyone.

Your life is now, and you must make the most of it in the most positive and productive way possible. That almost universally means being moral and objectively virtuous. (It is objective)

2/2

>>160584

>From where I stand, abortion makes sense. So does eugenics. They are unpleasant ideas in our current social atmosphere, but they make sense to me. The line of logic that I'm following is:
>I want the world to be its absolute best.
>To be the best world, we need the best people. To have the best people, we have to select the best people and keep them alive, while culling the undesirables.

It's easy to fall into this utilitarianism and think that it leads to the best outcome, but I wouldn't be so sure. Would you agree with enslaving a percentage of the population to work for the rest of the population if it could be proven to lead to some sort of massive improvement in life? Would you agree with killing 1 person to gain organs and bodily fluids that could save 10?

>But even in my perfect world, it's just that: MY perfect world. At its root, it's just how I feel it should be. Your stance against abortion is exactly the same.

I attempt to make an argument against abortion based on a logical followthrough of a priori principles, not based on opinion. It seems that you disagree with the principles, so I will attempt to either find a flaw in your reasoning or show how following your beliefs to their logical conclusion will result in an absurd or undesirable situation.

>>160589
He needs to read crime and punishment - kicked the utilitarianism out of me

>>160588
What's your stance on birth control?

What does it mean to be moral or objectively virtuous?

>>160590
Link? Or who is the author?

>>160588
>>160588
>>160589

Just because a line of thinking CAN be abused, it doesn't mean that it WILL be abused. I can see how eugenics can go bad. That's why I'm not writing a book advocating it.

And you're right about progress meaning nothing. Like I stated earlier, it all ends. That's why I just stay out of people's ways. Nothing matters beyond how it makes you feel while you're alive, from what I can tell.

With all that being said, I don't like abortions, but the thought of some kid being born to parents who can't give them a good life or having to grow up without their biological parents is also heavy and unpleasant. However, like someone mentioned earlier it's selfish of me to kill a kid just because it makes ME sad to think of their life, lol. It's fucked either way.

Also, there's an argument to made with epigenetics and trauma being passed down through DNA or some shit, that's scary as fuck.

All in all, I had my nuts snipped, so hopefully I'll never find myself in the abortion situation.

>>160594
>Just because a line of thinking CAN be abused, it doesn't mean that it WILL be abused. I can see how eugenics can go bad. That's why I'm not writing a book advocating it.

The right to life is an incredibly serious and important concept. We're just trying to get you to remain ideologically consistent. If you don't like some of the logical results from your axioms then perhaps it's an indication that you should change your beliefs. Like I said, I'm trying to show the absurdity of following your ideas to their logical conclusion.

>With all that being said, I don't like abortions, but the thought of some kid being born to parents who can't give them a good life or having to grow up without their biological parents is also heavy and unpleasant. However, like someone mentioned earlier it's selfish of me to kill a kid just because it makes ME sad to think of their life, lol. It's fucked either way.

I agree, that thought is tragic to me too. More tragic to me, however, is that much of society would agree that killing the child is a viable alternative to growing up with a tough life.

>All in all, I had my nuts snipped, so hopefully I'll never find myself in the abortion situation.

Forgive me if I'm being rude, but this conclusion sounds like a cop-out to me. Like you don't have a response, so you're just ending the conversation with "Yeah man, it's crazy." Do you still hold your previous beliefs about abortion? About the right to life? About utilitarianism?

>>160597
It's totally a cop out.

I can't reconcile with all the loss of life and freedom that comes from a utilitarian standpoint (to my credit, I never identified as such, but I can see how I might seem to be one, I'm just confused mostly)

So for now I'm just bowing my head and removing myself from the equation. I can't definitively prove that one is better than the other, but I can drastically reduce the chances of ever being in that situation or ever putting someone else in that situation (I'm a biological male, so I'd never be pregnant anyway)

So yeah, it's a cop-out.

>>160594
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_Punishment

Enjoy, it's a good read

>>160598
>It's totally a cop out.

Okay, that's fine. I can't say I'm happy with it but I honestly do respect you a lot for admitting as such. Not many people would even continue the discussion when they don't have a response, much less admit as such.

I hope you'll think on it for a few days or even a week. If you come up with a point or a question hopefully the thread's still up and you can come back and ask it.

I've always wondered if any of the debates I've participated in or any of the points I've made online have ever changed someone's mind. Even if it wasn't the person I was talking to, but some lurker or onlooker who got a new perspective. Nobody's ever said as much, so I hope that explains why I care so much about whether or not you changed your mind.

>>160603
Lol yeah, I'm not the best at debating, but I like to think there is at least some merit in approaching the topic with honesty and an open mind.

I enjoyed this, I found Crime and Punishment on Kindle, per anons recommendation.

I have this thread pinned and /news/ threads stay up for a while usually, so I'll check back in.

>>160296

this

why the fuck is the Hawaii legislature involved in this in the first place? fuck liberals

>>160313

it's not about abortion, it's about freedom of speech.

>>160313

1 more seat on the supreme court and abortion is illegal again

cheers

>>160319
>a woman who is loved and depended-upon by many, or a developing ball of tissue.

you're implying there's a conflict. in the vast majority of cases, there is not.

>Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

typical dishonest leftists

>third world conditions

at least they're not degenerate. the west has lost its soul. material alone will not sustain the enterprise. and look at the time. ww3 soon. degeneracy attends destruction throughout history. today is no exception

>>160343

the mother's life is not at risk just because she has to raise a child, stupid fuck

>>160338

animals aren't humans. killing other animals for food is normal. murder is illegal. the basis for all social morality and law is the value of innocent human life. dispense with that and you devalue all life, including your own. see >>160331

>>160341

>no evidence

the principle is clear and we don't need muh "study" to appreciate it. pretending ignorance won't save you

>Canada, France, Spain, Russia, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Greece, half of Australia, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Mongolia, etc. have legal abortions.

they're also letting ISIS into their nations by the thousands. they have a death wish. huh

and ww3 soon. careful what you wish for

>>160348

the baby is not the woman's body either! the baby in utero has its own unique body with its own unique DNA. not her choice, by your own logic. checkmate, idiot.

>>160356
>differentiated and specialized. Nothing more complex than a mere clump of cells

wrong. the baby's heart beings beating just a few weeks after conception.

>>160367

a baby in utero has its own distinct DNA and its own body

you are trying to justify your immorality with arbitrary rationalizations. it's transparent

>>160367

social morality prioritizes one's own species, and predation is a normal, healthy, and necessary function of nature

abortion on the scale we see in the West today is pathological and literally degenerate. related;

>The mortality rate among females was extremely high. A large proportion of the population became bisexual, then increasingly homosexual, and finally asexual. There was a breakdown in maternal behavior. Mothers stopped caring for their young, stopped building a nest for them and even began to attack them, resulting in a 96 percent mortality rate in the two crowded pens. Calhoun coined a term—“behavioral sink”—to describe the decay.

https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm

sound familiar?

>>160371
>Prolifers have always been pro-fetus, once the baby is born they could give less of a fuck.

false strawman, and irrelevant to boot. welfare does not excuse murder

try again, retard

>>160454

or the mother could just raise her own fucking child, there's a thought

>>160457
>>160502

>When life begins is a scientific, not a philosophic or theological, question: Life begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with those of the ovum, forming a distinctive DNA complex that controls the new organism’s growth. This growth process continues unless a natural accident interrupts it or it is ended by the sort of deliberate violence Planned Parenthood sells.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-barbarity-of-a-nation/2015/07/31/344f5140-36eb-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html

>>160479

kekd, exactly

>>160489

truth

>>160502

wars exist for various reasons, chief among them self-defense or defense of innocent victims.

a corollary is killing an armed criminal who breaks into your home, or killing an armed criminal breaking into a school. there are good reasons to go to war and bad reasons to go to war, just like there are good reasons to kill somebody and bad reasons, like abortion

>lifeless cells

this is objectively wrong.

>>160524

just wait until the "baby is the same thing as a cancerous tumor" argument

>>160626

It's amazing how 9 jews that don't even know how to use a computer are allowed to basically decide your freedom in every area of life

>>160584

>Having a right to life is a nice idea, but it's fundamentally a matter of opinion.

see>>160633

where's the basis for your own right to life, hmm?

logical reasoning is circular by nature; premises leading to conclusions; conclusions referring back to premises.

you will not find "objective" proof for the value of life; life is self-justifying.

>The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance, and this Einfühlung [literally, empathy or 'feeling one's way in'] is developed by experience.

-Einstein

>>160641
Posting Washington Post is not a good start to a debate on any level

>>160584
>I want the world to be its absolute best.

the best world is one that values innocent human life

best is more than just material. materialistic, utilitarian viewpoints are superficial and ultimately self-defeating

nature regulates life reflexively, it's not up to our rationalizing

>muh objective measurement. see >>160655

>>160656

it's George Will, it's correct and you'd do better to address the substance at hand than attack the source. that gets you nowhere

>>160588

abortion is also literally self-defeating - an evolutionary dead end

and I thought leftists believed in evolution...

>>160593

not that anon, but birth control is problematic, and also self-abnegating, tho not on the same level as abortion

>>160658
It's an opinion peice

>>160662

he's right

In some ways it's similar to requiring a homeopathy or alternative medicine clinic to post a sign saying "Hawaii has public programs... medical insurance.... Only diagnoses and procedures performed by qualified... should be considered medically accurate."

Because there's nothing preventing these religious clinics from likening abortion to the holocaust, etc., and their doctors certainly will not present it as a medical option, they are in effect operating a type of "alternative medicine." So I think this reframe of the argument is valid, in which case, would you say it's justifiable?

>>160665

no, that's bullshit

it's a moral problem not a medical one, at the end of the day. see;

>Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%. About 98.3% of abortions in the United States are elective

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

>>160667
I know. Has absolutely nothing to do with my post though.

>>160671

yes it does. let me rephrase;

>>160667

pregnancy is not a medical problem

therefore, in light of your statement

> their doctors certainly will not present it as a medical option, they are in effect operating a type of "alternative medicine."

abortion is a "solution" in search of a problem. it has nothing to do with medicine, therefore your objection and Hawaii's on those grounds is an irrelevant red herring, actually just an excuse to intrude on moral policy, infringing the 1st Amendment rights of pro-lifers

>>160671

yes it does. I will clarify;

>>160667 (You)

pregnancy is not a medical problem

therefore, in light of your statement

> their doctors certainly will not present it as a medical option, they are in effect operating a type of "alternative medicine."

abortion is a "solution" in search of a problem. it has nothing to do with medicine, therefore your objection and Hawaii's on those grounds is an irrelevant red herring, actually just an excuse to intrude on moral policy, infringing the 1st Amendment rights of pro-lifers

>>160667
Whatever your opinion on the ethics of abortion, clinics should not be masquerading as something they aren't in an effort to convince patients of anything.
There has to be an expectation of transparency when it comes to giving the patient full and factual information.

>>160673
>abortion is a "solution" in search of a problem.
There are certainly problems for which abortion is a solution, whether or not you think it's always justifiable, and some of those problems are medical.

>>160674

>clinics should not be masquerading as something they aren't

like planned parenthood? the equivalent here would be a Republican legislature putting up pro-life signs in a planned parenthood clinic, and I'm sure you would oppose that.

it's a blatant political play, it has nothing to do with medical policy whatsoever.

again, pregnancy is not a medical problem, signs up for contraception or abortion (direct or indirectly) are out of place, especially state-mandated

>when it comes to giving the patient full and factual information.

see the "planned parenthood" example above. you don't actually believe what you said. you're just making excuses to target pro-lifers. private businesses have the right to conduct themselves according to their personal moral/religious beliefs, in line with 1st Amendment protections. Hawaii is out of order here

>>160391
If it isn't suffering and never were self-aware enough to have expectations for the future, what's the problem with killing it as per the convenience of those that can suffer and do have plans for the future?

The problem is a legal one because our constitution defines human life as having certain inalienable rights so it becomes a question of when is the life considered human.

But ethically it's a grey area at best and otherwise the only party for whom there need be concern is the needs of the mother.

>>160675

in principle, no. pregnancy is a normal and healthy part of human biology. it is not a "problem". your logic is faulty to begin with.

it's dishonest language, self-justification used by abortionists. the problem is the abortion, and practically all abortions are merely "elective"

>>160676
>Republican legislature putting up pro-life signs in a planned parenthood clinic, and I'm sure you would oppose that.

Well, what exactly would those signs say? Is it factually true and relevant and not inherently religious?

>>160678
He wasn't saying that pregnancy is a problem, he was saying that problems can arise in pregnancy for which abortion is the solution. Can you please stop making so many posts in this thread? I'd like for it not to hit bump limit any time soon.

>>160677

>ethically it's a grey area at best

speak for yourself. it's not a gray area for the majority of the world's people

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/15/whats-morally-acceptable-it-depends-on-where-in-the-world-you-live

>If it isn't suffering and never were self-aware enough

first, there's plenty of evidence that babies being aborted do suffer

second, who gets to decide "self-aware enough"? see, again abortionists fall back on these arbitrary rationalizations

by this logic we could murder people in their sleep. they're not self-aware when they're sleeping and a bullet in the brain would be arguably less suffering than abortion...huh

>plans for the future

what difference does that make at all? talk about arbitrary morality....this is incoherent

>>160677
>If it isn't suffering and never were self-aware enough to have expectations for the future, what's the problem with killing it as per the convenience of those that can suffer and do have plans for the future?

I already had this conversation earlier in the thread, but let's have it again - why are you adding these fabricated modifiers as to a human's right to life? If you killed someone who had no plans or desires for the future and they didn't suffer, would that be okay?

>ethically it's a grey area at best and otherwise the only party for whom there need be concern is the needs of the mother.

I disagree. Would someone you don't know being killed only be the concern of the people he/she knew? Would you be okay with it simply because it did not involve you?

>>160679

>factually true and relevant

we could put up a ton of signs that are factually true and relevant. that's not the point. the point is you're forcing somebody else to promote speech they don't believe in

>not inherently religious

see >>160641

let's put that quote up. what do you think? it's factually true and relevant, and it's not inherently religious. I'm not religious. the other pro-life anon arguing forcefully and persuasively ITT says he is not religious

but note that you're appealing to the 1st Amendment when you say "not inherently religious" - indeed we don't have the right to force our religion on each other, but the 1st Amendment also protects our right to our own speech! you just made my point for me, thanks for playing

>>160680

again, the logic behind abortion in 98% of cases is that the pregnancy itself is the problem. that's the framework in which we're operating. those are the reason these pregnancy centers exist and the reason abortion centers and contraception exist.

>Can you please stop making so many posts in this thread?

take your own advice. I have the right to post here and you can go to hell if you don't like it. typical fucking "liberal" "tolerance", get fucked moron, not my fault you're wrong

>>160661
For what reasons?

>>160686

it's self-abnegating, and by extension, it abnegates one's relationship with one's girlfriend/boyfriend wife/husband

the primary purpose of sex is procreation. sex without procreation is failure. contraception internalizes that failure both individually and for the relationship in which the sex occurs. and not surprisingly, relationships are much less secure and stable these days

>>160664
That's your opinion

Noone ever talks about the depression, self loathing, nightmares, abuse and psychological damage mother's go through after abortions either.

>>160687
Why is the primary purpose of sex procreation?

>>160684
>again, the logic behind abortion in 98% of cases is that the pregnancy itself is the problem. that's the framework in which we're operating. those are the reason these pregnancy centers exist and the reason abortion centers and contraception exist.

He said "there are problems for which abortion is a solution". This is true. There are valid medical reasons for abortion. You ignored that and thought that he was making the point that all pregnancies are problems. It seems to me like you misunderstood.

>>Can you please stop making so many posts in this thread?

>take your own advice. I have the right to post here and you can go to hell if you don't like it. typical fucking "liberal" "tolerance", get fucked moron, not my fault you're wrong

I'm not a liberal you fucking cunt. I managed to have a civil conversation earlier in the thread, something you appear to be incapable of doing. I'm not even any of the people you replied to besides the one you just quoted.

>>160609
If this thread dies email me, newsman (at) cock.li

>>160688

no, it's a matter of fact. feel free to dispute anything he said...

>>160690

biology? evolution?

>You ignored that and thought that he was making the point that all pregnancies are problems.

No, I'm addressing the problem in its entirety, unlike you. You are trying to pigeonhole abortion into the small fraction of % of cases where medical necessity may exist. it's dishonest, but typical of leftists on this issue

>I'm not a liberal you fucking cunt. I managed to have a civil conversation earlier in the thread, something you appear to be incapable of doing.

you're taking the liberal position. civil conversation is incompatible with asking others to stop posting, simply because you disagree with their political position. that's intolerant and rude

>>160691
your response is there too>>160694

>>160694
>No, I'm addressing the problem in its entirety, unlike you. You are trying to pigeonhole abortion into the small fraction of % of cases where medical necessity may exist. it's dishonest, but typical of leftists on this issue

I don't know who you think I am in this thread, so let's take this from the top. I disagree with abortion. I believe it should be illegal. I was not making the point that because of the small number of cases where there is medical necessity that abortion should be universally legalized. I was not making that point.

>>I'm not a liberal you fucking cunt. I managed to have a civil conversation earlier in the thread, something you appear to be incapable of doing.

>you're taking the liberal position. civil conversation is incompatible with asking others to stop posting, simply because you disagree with their political position. that's intolerant and rude

The liberal position is pro-life? I didn't ask you to stop posting because of your opinion. I asked you to stop posting because you were making a lot of posts when you could have consolidated them into one, pushing the thread further to bump limit. I don't want this thread to hit bump limit because I was having a conversation with >>16069 and we agreed that he'd take a few days and come back. It was just a polite request for some forum etiquette rarely seen on 4chan.

>>160697

the point of the law is not for the fraction of a % of cases where there are medical issues during the pregnancy, and that small fraction of a % are not why these "limited service pregnancy centers" exist, in the first place. that's clear enough in the name. and therefore, the purpose of this legislation is also abundantly clear and it has nothing to do with medical necessity. it has everything to do with leftist pro-abortionists imposing their agenda on their political opponents, period.

the equivalent is republican states inventing arbitrary hurdles for abortionists to jump over to continue operating, when what they're really doing is targeting abortion itself.

what I'm doing is having an honest debate about what's going on here. you're pretending this pretext is actually sincere - it's not.

>I didn't ask you to stop posting because of your opinion. I asked you to stop posting because you were making a lot of posts when you could have consolidated them into one

news threads hardly ever reach bump limit, and if it did you could just start another thread. that's a shitty excuse. I responded to posts as I went along, and in many cases I did combine responses, but at the end of the day I'll post when and how I like. it's not your place to micromanage this thread, you can fuck right off to ribbit if you don't like it.

>forum etiquette rarely seen on 4chan.

indeed, this is free speech in action, not reddit

btw, if you don't the thread to keep accumulating posts then take your own advice

>>160682

>why are you adding these fabricated modifiers as to a human's right to life?
Well the fact that it's human life is actually quite arbitrary in my opinion. I know that's how the law is written so it's a legal question not an ethical one. In an enlightened society our legal code would not give any particular importance to a life just because it was human.

But that's not to say we'd be committing holocausts with no regard. The truly important factors to consider is not whether it's human but how much it will suffer, whether it has dependents and who those are, and what are its plans for its future. That last one is important because the rest of us receive peace of mind in knowing we won't be killed without our consent even if we're, for example, incapacitated.

>If you killed someone who had no plans or desires for the future and they didn't suffer, would that be okay?
If they didn't have dependents and if you could verify they had no desire to continue life nor would they suffer, then it would be acceptable.
That's the point of physician assisted suicide, yes?

>I disagree. Would someone you don't know being killed only be the concern of the people he/she knew? Would you be okay with it simply because it did not involve you?
But a fetus can't know anyone and nobody is dependent upon it. Is that what you're asking about?

>>160697
>I don't know who you think I am in this thread, so let's take this from the top. I disagree with abortion. I believe it should be illegal. I was not making the point that because of the small number of cases where there is medical necessity that abortion should be universally legalized. I was not making that point.
Will you also then be willing to support social programs like universal healthcare, nutrition supplement, public housing so that children won't suffer due to circumstances beyond its control?
Or do you just draw the line for society's responsibility that the mother be forced to give birth to the child?

>>160707
>Well the fact that it's human life is actually quite arbitrary in my opinion.

What makes it arbitrary to you? A fertilized embryo has its own unique DNA. By what regard is it not life?

>I know that's how the law is written so it's a legal question not an ethical one. In an enlightened society our legal code would not give any particular importance to a life just because it was human.

Are you saying that in an enlightened society animals have equal rights to humans? How about plants? Insects? Who or what receives rights in your enlightened society, and why not for the things that don't receive rights?

>But that's not to say we'd be committing holocausts with no regard. The truly important factors to consider is not whether it's human but how much it will suffer, whether it has dependents and who those are, and what are its plans for its future. That last one is important because the rest of us receive peace of mind in knowing we won't be killed without our consent even if we're, for example, incapacitated.

Why does how much someone will suffer factor into the morality of killing them? Do you believe in the negative right to life? If so, how does suffering factor into that? If not, why?

>>If you killed someone who had no plans or desires for the future and they didn't suffer, would that be okay?
>If they didn't have dependents and if you could verify they had no desire to continue life nor would they suffer, then it would be acceptable.
>That's the point of physician assisted suicide, yes?

The key words there are "if you could verify they had no desire to continue life". This cannot be done for fetuses.

>But a fetus can't know anyone and nobody is dependent upon it. Is that what you're asking about?

You said that abortion only concerns the mother. I believe it concerns all of us.

>>160715
>Will you also then be willing to support social programs like universal healthcare, nutrition supplement, public housing so that children won't suffer due to circumstances beyond its control?
>Or do you just draw the line for society's responsibility that the mother be forced to give birth to the child?
From earlier in the thread: "This is like holding someone at gunpoint and when I tell you to not shoot, you ask "Well are you willing to pay for his college education?" It's also why I referred to a negative right to life. Wanting someone to not be killed does not necessitate wanting a government system of welfare."

>>160707
>In an enlightened society our legal code would not give any particular importance to a life just because it was human.

??? an enlightened society of humans. legal code by and for humans. if an enlightened society would not give any particular importance to human life, then how would you eat?

>The truly important factors to consider is not whether it's human but how much it will suffer, whether it has dependents and who those are, and what are its plans for its future.

arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary, and arbitrary. suffering alone is impossible to quantify/objectify. there is psychological suffering, processed in the brain the same way as physical suffering, for example.

>what are its plans for its future. That last one is important because the rest of us receive peace of mind in knowing we won't be killed without our consent even if we're, for example, incapacitated.

what keeps you alive are protections against innocent human life, not your plans for the future. when we degrade innocent human life we degrade all life, including your own.

>If they didn't have dependents and if you could verify they had no desire to continue life nor would they suffer, then it would be acceptable.
>That's the point of physician assisted suicide, yes?

there's a difference between murder and suicide. presumably this would be for a person who didn't choose to die, just somebody with no particular future plans. in fact, most young children would fall into this category. they don't make plans for the future. they don't have dependents. kill all 2 year olds then? asinine

>But a fetus can't know anyone

wrong; babies familiarize themselves with the voices of their mother and father etc. in utero

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97635

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/babies-learn-recognize-words-womb

>>160700
I really don't know how to respond to your first three paragraphs. Never once in this thread have I said anything about the law talked about in the original news article. Your response is a non-sequitur.

Sure, go ahead and post however you want. Wasn't trying to micromanage, was just asking.

>>160721

that's the point of this thread, and the context of the post I was originally responding to that started this specific argument>>160665

I wonder how many prolifers have adopted a kid to save them from universally horrible lives in the foster system. I would guess the number is pretty low.

Feel free to continue your hobby of moral outrage on a subject that has zero effect on your life while making other people's lives worse.

>>160371
>>160717

You're strawmanning pretty hard there anon(s), maybe you should focus on the argument instead of deflecting.

>>160725
I wonder how people's lives most anti-murder advocates have saved. Heh, the number must be pretty low.

I mean seriously, why do they care? It's not like it effects THEIR lives?

>>160726
Did you mean to reply to >>160717?

>>160725

I have my own kids to raise. see >>160387

in any case material welfare is secondary to life

plenty of people have struggled through poverty, etc., become stronger by it, and grew up to live happy, successful lives

>a subject that has zero effect on your life while making other people's lives worse.

abortion ends the life of an innocent baby. that's making it worse. and it puts us all in that toxic environment that devalues innocent human life. look around at all the degeneracy and you can see some of the consequences that attend such callous selfishness

>>160718

Your analogy assumes that the killing I'm about to commit isn't a mercy killing. If it is, then those are actually important considerations. If the person wants death to prevent further suffering and doesn't have responsibility to dependents, then if you act to prevent his attempt at death, you have a responsibility to him.

If I'm about to commit murder, then the analogy is invalid. It's important not to set a precedent where people are killed against their will. Nobody wants society to turn into a place where people are afraid their life may be taken for arbitrary reasons. If a living thing never had a desire to live and isn't responsible to any dependents and won't suffer then taking its life is a totally ethically neutral act. Nothing is necessarily harmed.

>>160730
>It's important not to set a precedent where people are killed against their will. Nobody wants society to turn into a place where people are afraid their life may be taken for arbitrary reasons.

that's literally abortion in a nutshell

>>160730
>Your analogy assumes that the killing I'm about to commit isn't a mercy killing. If it is, then those are actually important considerations. If the person wants death to prevent further suffering and doesn't have responsibility to dependents, then if you act to prevent his attempt at death, you have a responsibility to him.

If the person wants death it is their prerogative to do it themselves. Allowing killing just because someone has no desire to live sets a dangerous precedent.

>If a living thing never had a desire to live and isn't responsible to any dependents and won't suffer then taking its life is a totally ethically neutral act. Nothing is necessarily harmed.

Regarding the issue of abortion fetuses never had a chance to express their desire to live. If you say that your logic justifies abortion then it would also, say, justify killing someone who was mute and claiming that they never expressed a desire to live (obviously this is an analogy - sign language exists. It's meant to illustrate how you can't assume consent given a lack of communication)

Furthermore, I disagree with your analysis. The idea of all of these modifiers to the right to life detailing a situation where it is okay to take a life is absurd.

Finally, your response doesn't address the "welfare" argument you (I assume) made. Was that not you or was it something else?

>>160728
I meant to respond to >>160715

>>160730
>If a living thing never had a desire to live and isn't responsible to any dependents and won't suffer then taking its life is a totally ethically neutral act

I find it interesting that you have to call a human, a thing. It might be a zygote, or embryo, or a fetus, but it's a human. It's funny that pro abortion arguments usually attempt to dehumanize. It is assumed in western society, and I'd assume most societies around the world, that humans, like most creatures, have a survival instinct. If western society deems suicidal thoughts/behaviors as an illness (it does), then it would follow that a healthy baby would want to be born/live. Since we do not have the means to detect suicidal thoughts/tendencies in fetuses, then it should be assumed that the child has the innate desire to live. The prerequisites that you assigned in order to justify life or death are arbitrary, as there responsibility to dependents, and suffering are both subjective topics.

>>160655
I have no right to life. I'm here. I don't have a right to live, but that doesn't mean I'm not selfish enough to kill you if you try to harm me.

>Einstein quote

Basically, it's feels. Which is my point. It's a nice idea, but it's just how you feel and then you use logic to explain why it's a good idea. I'm already convinced that it's a good idea, I'm not convinced that it's anything more than just how you feel. If it's just a good idea based in how you feel, I can feel differently and then your idea becomes unrelatable and all points become moot.

Assume that I am a sentient, non-human entity: Why should I honor your right to life? If I am more powerful and more intelligent and otherwise capable of enslaving you or making you my pets, why should I let the ones with no discernible use or function live?

(Reminder: I'm just curious. None of this is a trap and I have nowhere to lead anyone)

>>160694
Does this not imply that anything not intended for procreation, or to signal one's fitness for procreation, is purposeless?

>>160735
I know this is weird to say, especially on 4chan, but nice post anon. Concise, well-reasoned and well-worded.

>>160737
>I have no right to life. I'm here. I don't have a right to live, but that doesn't mean I'm not selfish enough to kill you if you try to harm me.

You do have a right to life, whether you recognize it or not.

>Assume that I am a sentient, non-human entity: Why should I honor your right to life? If I am more powerful and more intelligent and otherwise capable of enslaving you or making you my pets, why should I let the ones with no discernible use or function live?

>(Reminder: I'm just curious. None of this is a trap and I have nowhere to lead anyone)

The threat of force. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here with the "sentient non-human entity" thing. As for why anyone should respect others' right to life, the answer is the threat of force and retaliation. As to why we HAVE the right to life, it's because western civilization has collectively decided that, based on Enlightenment ideals, it logically leads to the best result. Disregarding the inherent right to life would logically lead to some undesirable or absurd situation.

>>160738
Idk bout that. Humans tend to do a lot of things that aren't really related to procreation. Shit. Then again, lots of the people who take a hard line approach like that to sex often have gaping holes in other parts of their lives.

>>160741
Like I said, I'm just curious.
Do you think this is part of what's wrong with Africa? They didn't get the memo that killing each other should be a LAST resort and avoided as best and as often as possible?

>>160735
>as there responsibility to dependents, and suffering are both subjective topics.
They're not; the end goal being to minimize any unnecessary suffering. Whether that's suffering of the individual, their family, or society as a whole.

>Since we do not have the means to detect suicidal thoughts/tendencies in fetuses, then it should be assumed that the child has the innate desire to live.

We have enough knowledge of embryology to make a convincing estimate regarding a fetus's the ability to have desires for the future. But we also know an embryo lacks cell specialization to have any nervous system so at least at that stage we can generally argue unequivocally that it doesn't deserve consideration.

>If the person wants death it is their prerogative to do it themselves. Allowing killing just because someone has no desire to live sets a dangerous precedent.

Not if it's verifiable that the party seeking death desired assistance with that. Physician assisted suicide does not set a dangerous precedent for the rest of us in any significant way. Almost nobody is afraid that if we let people decide to have their life terminated by doctors suddenly we'd all be at risk of getting stabbed and having our death billed as a mercy killing because folks wouldn't find that convincing.
If it's a fetus and it's going to be a crack baby left in a dumpster and suffering, significant chance of it dying, then one can make a convincing argument that presumed consent exists to prevent it being born in the first place.

Isn't it disturbing when liberals discuss moral issues?

It always seems... off. Like speaking to one of those automated answering machines.

I never understood why this rubbed me the wrong way until I became bored enough to discuss abortion with a liberal myself. I know, I should have known better.

It was a basic conversation at first. They went over their riveting talking points. Fun stuff, but this is where I should have let it be.

Soon I began to notice that disturbing feeling again. As I investigated, I realized this person wasn't really arguing FOR anything.

The liberal advocates for nothing, but death itself.

They seek destruction of everything we love. Our customs, our morals, and our children. Abortion is their most direct assault, and their most cherished issue.

>>160737
>I have no right to life. I'm here. I don't have a right to live

Actually, you do. Western civilization abides by something called the social contract. Your rights to life, liberty, and property are unalienable, ordained by God, and protected by the Government that reflects the will of the people.

>>160744
>Like I said, I'm just curious.
>Do you think this is part of what's wrong with Africa? They didn't get the memo that killing each other should be a LAST resort and avoided as best and as often as possible?

This is a point I've thought about a lot but never really talked about. Civil society can only arise from a civil people. The rights and freedoms we enjoy do not cause our society to fall apart because the majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens. In a less civil society the same freedoms we enjoy could cause it to fall apart (gun laws come to mind). John Adams said it best: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

>>160737
>I have no right to life

I disagree. life is self-justifying, we see protection for life within same-species societies throughout the mammalian world, until/unless a reason arises to kill, as in self-defense

>Basically, it's feels. Which is my point.

that doesn't make it wrong. it's feels within the context of a life and survival (life) instinct that precedes your ability to rationalize it away.

>If it's just a good idea based in how you feel, I can feel differently

it's not arbitrary; again see survival instinct. some people "go bad", just as some people commit crime, but that doesn't refute the rule of law, it just clarifies it.

>Assume that I am a sentient, non-human entity: Why should I honor your right to life?

again, morality within the same species is different from morality between species. predation is a normal and healthy part of nature. cannibalism is not, at least among mammals. your analogy is a red herring.

(Reminder: I'm just curious. None of this is a trap and I have nowhere to lead anyone)

does this even need to be said? strange

>>160738

not necessarily anything. for example

>Semen is understood by the Aka and Ngandu to be necessary not only to conception, but also to fetal development. A woman who is already pregnant will see having intercourse as contributing to the health of her fetus.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849

plus, I'd say marginal exceptions (eg. having sex outside of the ~2 weeks of a woman's peak fertility) still have beneficial functions (eg. closeness, protein transfer?) outside of conception alone

but yes, if you are completely neglecting conception you're doing it wrong.

it's like eating purely for taste instead of nutrition. not healthy. likewise, pleasure in sex exists to support a more fundamental function

>>160750
Oh brother... the fact that I don't believe any special value should be given to a life being defined as "human" does nothing to devalue human life in general. It only serves to give consideration to the suffering of non-human life which until now received almost no consideration beyond what is most economical for humans. And it forces us to be more nuanced in consideration of how much consideration each individual life is deserving of. We have finite resources, and we have to figure out as a society how to divvy those up to make the greatest impact in reducing suffering.

>They seek destruction of everything we love. Our customs, our morals, and our children.
Western civilization isn't a list of beliefs everyone must have. What is truly important isn't the particular goal but the system of arriving at the right ideas. The end goal can change over time to adapt to increasing education and enlightenment.

>>160737
>I have no right to life

Then I hope you don't mind if I kill you

>>160746
>They're not; the end goal being to minimize any unnecessary suffering. Whether that's suffering of the individual, their family, or society as a whole.

The utilitarian mindset of "ignore rights to minimize suffering" quickly falls apart when you take it to its logical extremes. Search the thread for "organs" for an example from a past conversation.

>We have enough knowledge of embryology to make a convincing estimate regarding a fetus's the ability to have desires for the future.

Uh, you are referring to its lack of ability for thought, right?

>But we also know an embryo lacks cell specialization to have any nervous system so at least at that stage we can generally argue unequivocally that it doesn't deserve consideration.

The idea that killing somebody is okay as long as they don't suffer is patently ridiculous. Nothing more needs to be said.

>If it's a fetus and it's going to be a crack baby left in a dumpster and suffering, significant chance of it dying, then one can make a convincing argument that presumed consent exists to prevent it being born in the first place.

The problem is that people use that same justification for any amount of economic hardship, not just your exaggeration of "being left in a dumpster". That argument has the unfortunate implication that poor people were better off dead than living life poor.

>>160758
I'm not gonna discuss this with you or any other "liberal."

One can only stare into the darkness for so long.

I feel nauseous already...

>>160758
>Oh brother... the fact that I don't believe any special value should be given to a life being defined as "human" does nothing to devalue human life in general. It only serves to give consideration to the suffering of non-human life which until now received almost no consideration beyond what is most economical for humans. And it forces us to be more nuanced in consideration of how much consideration each individual life is deserving of. We have finite resources, and we have to figure out as a society how to divvy those up to make the greatest impact in reducing suffering.

If you're the same person as before then you didn't answer the questions: who receives rights in your enlightened society? For those organisms that don't, why not?

>>160746
I agree there are circumstances where a baby has little to no possibility of ever attaining any sort of satisfaction from life, but
>presumed consent
is the most absurd concept possible, at least when it comes to babies/fetuses. I don't even know what compelled you to even say it when a few sentences before you said that consent doesn't matter in the first place because it has no brain/consciousness.

A baby has never at any point given any sort of consent whatsoever to be killed. Not once in the entire history of the human species. When you kill them, you're killing them with the precise justification that their consent doesn't matter.

>>160752
There is no God. Now what?

>>160754
Hm. Interesting stuff to think about.

>>160756
Isn't that ability to rationalize what makes us superior to other animals?
That is to say that our ability to rationalize supercedes our survival instincts. So if we can make a rational argument around suppressing our survival instinct in favor of improving on society or humanity at large, shouldn't we?

And yeah, my curiosity got the better of me. Thanks for humoring me. The disclaimer was because some people might feel like I'm attacking their beliefs or trying to make them into evil people or as if there is some big GOTCHA! around the corner. There isn't. I'm just here to learn.

>>160746
>the end goal being to minimize any unnecessary suffering

How do you quantify suffering? What's the scientific measurement for suffering? Is suffering bad? It's entirely subjective, which is why what constitutes torture, and "Cruel and Unusual punishment" in the United States has altered different execution methods implemented. It's also why there is no fixed amount of money awarded for damages due to emotional distress in torts.

>we can generally argue unequivocally that it doesn't deserve consideration.

But earlier you (assuming you're >>160730) wrote
>If a living thing never had a desire to live

An embryo, like all life, innately has the desire to live, as the cells will attempt to reproduce. You mentioned that the embryo never had a desire to live, then you argue that evidence suggesting that creatures innately desire to survive, should be disregarded, because they can't develop suicidal thoughts. Since all life innately attempts survival, all living things have a desire to live. You're denying life.

>If the person wants death it is their prerogative to do it themselves. Allowing killing just because someone has no desire to live sets a dangerous precedent.

I never made this assertion, keep up with your posts. However, if I did, I'd argue that Physician assisted suicide is hard to verify, and you'd have to argue that the incident wasn't a homicide.

>>160744

Africa still has healthy fertility rates and abortion is practically non-existent, speaking of "killing each other".

population pressures create problems everywhere. African societies are less developed, so they lead to conflict more readily where in the West we paper things over for a while, making them worse, while conflict is still inevitable here too

>>160744

>Humans tend to do a lot of things that aren't really related to procreation

we're talking about sex, not jumping rope etc. sex is how babies are made, the primary purpose of the act. the reason people have sex is because of hormones and attraction guided by our instincts to reproduce

>often have gaping holes in other parts of their lives.

unsubstantiated non sequitur strawman

I'd say the people who embrace abortion are the ones living generally fucked up lives overall; their moral understanding is faulty

>>160746

>the end goal being to minimize any unnecessary suffering.

"if it feels good, do it", amirite? it's myopic; you eat too much junk food, sure it tastes good at the time, but it's going to make you fat and unhealthy, ie. miserable. plus again, suffering is not just physical

>we can generally argue unequivocally that it doesn't deserve consideration.

wrong. life is self-justifying. once the baby exists in utero it has an endogenous will to grow (see >>160641) ie. a will to live

>If it's a fetus and it's going to be a crack baby left in a dumpster and suffering, significant chance of it dying

kill it because it has a "significant chance of dying"?! what kind of retarded non-logic is that? the rest of that statement is a stupid strawman, there are plenty of crack babies who go on to live successful lives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U8pjuf-Yz8

life is primary; material is secondary. you don't get to rationalize away life because it's hard. what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. the west has the opposite problem. spoiled ass degenerate weaklings

>>160767
>And yeah, my curiosity got the better of me. Thanks for humoring me. The disclaimer was because some people might feel like I'm attacking their beliefs or trying to make them into evil people or as if there is some big GOTCHA! around the corner. There isn't. I'm just here to learn.

Thanks for participating, good on you for trying to learn and not just trolling.

>>160769
The "prerogative" thing was in response to my post.

>>160750

it's a lot of selfishness, resentment, self-deception and rationalization

like "babies are cancerous tumors". even the language is obfuscating; "pro-choice", instead of what they're talking about choosing to do. you can credibly choose coke or pepsi, not to kill your neighbors with a hatchet

"fetus", etc.

leftists are the cancer

>>160764
>is the most absurd concept possible, at least when it comes to babies/fetuses. I don't even know what compelled you to even say it when a few sentences before you said that consent doesn't matter in the first place because it has no brain/consciousness.

What I said before is compatible with this. Before I was talking about an embryo in a state of development where it could not possibly have any desires. But if it's one day before the child's birth, the child is fully conscious and there's no doubt at all the child will suffer and die if born, then it's still acceptable to assume consent to end that life earlier given that it would probably wish not to suffer and it has no dependents.

D00D WE SHOULD KILL BABIES lol

WHY?

...

FOR THEIR MOTHERS!!!!!!!!!

>What ThE fUcK iS gOiNg On???

>>160750
4chan conservative roleplaying has gotten out of control

>>160770
I assume the Africans killing each other bit was more in reference to adults killing each other and them not recognizing the right to life than in reference to abortion.

>>160776
>What I said before is compatible with this. Before I was talking about an embryo in a state of development where it could not possibly have any desires. But if it's one day before the child's birth, the child is fully conscious and there's no doubt at all the child will suffer and die if born, then it's still acceptable to assume consent to end that life earlier given that it would probably wish not to suffer and it has no dependents.

Given that I'm a /news/man this reminds me of the story of that British child denied treatment. I think the fault in your reasoning comes from "and there's no doubt at all the child will suffer and die if born". How often is this truly the case where doctors are 100% right? How often have they been wrong before? The idea of "it's dead soon anyways so let's just get it over with" I disagree with.

Dude stfu I got a good thing going here *hisses*

*Rubs hands* You want it? *opens hands reveling fetuses* HAHA

Aight peace out

>>160782
Fuck meant this reply for >>160778

Aight peace out now

>>160758
>What is truly important isn't the particular goal but the system of arriving at the right ideas.

we don't have to arrive to right ideas. we already have them. traditional morality exists as such (traditions) because they're continuously selected, because they work. see FDR's "old and precious moral values"

the value of innocent human life is at the core of traditional moral values

>>160764

>A baby has never at any point given any sort of consent whatsoever to be killed. Not once in the entire history of the human species. When you kill them, you're killing them with the precise justification that their consent doesn't matter.

well said

>>160767

>There is no God.

there is order in the universe; morality is one expression of that order. God is a metaphor

>That is to say that our ability to rationalize supercedes our survival instincts.

no, we still have survival instincts. if somebody with a gun were coming to your house to kill you, you wouldn't just sit there and let it happen, eh?

our instincts are our primary biological programming that operates unconsciously. we don't get a choice, we're stuck with them. rationalization (ideas) come and go.

rationalization (the ability to think, to reflect) is a powerful tool, yes, but only when it is in accord with nature, with reality, with the truth, with morality, our instincts, etc. when it's opposed (ie. when the ideas are bad), there's friction/conflict, and you and others will suffer

>disclaimer was because some people might feel like I'm attacking their beliefs or trying to make them into evil people or as if there is some big GOTCHA!

I've had this debate dozens of times before, over many years; there's probably nothing you could say I haven't heard. and even if so, I believe I am right, so if a novel argument arose I would handle it

regarding "evil", people can say whatever they like. again, I'm confident I'm on the right/good side. It's leftists who should worry about being evil, imo

>>160779
It's not even a rp. The left is dark. Something isn't right man. Matter of fact, it's left! Kidding aside, leftys got some soul searching to do.

>>160780

>I assume the Africans killing each other bit was more in reference to adults killing each other and them not recognizing the right to life than in reference to abortion.

I'm aware, but I'm saying the distinction between adult and baby life is not as significant as one might think

I do think Africans recognize the right to life, there's just more struggle there, more hardship regardless, and that results in conflict more readily than in the West where cheap and easy food, government assistance, etc. are readily available

which, btw, should serve as a counter to anybody in this country pretending raising a child is too difficult. never in human history has it been easier and less expensive with more social protection to raise a child than in the developed (Western) world in the present day

>>160779

it's not roleplaying

leftists do this too. you strawman, lie/hide to avoid engaging honestly and directly with an argument. isn't that revealing? you lie/hide/deflect because you cannot engage successfully on the merits, because you are wrong

>>160769
>How do you quantify suffering? What's the scientific measurement for suffering? Is suffering bad? It's entirely subjective

We may not agree on the purpose of life; why questions are inherently subjective. So we should settle for deciding our own purposes for ourselves. And society should exist to maximize freedom to live as one desires in so far as possible, maximizing the ability for each of us to work toward the purpose we decide for themselves.

To estimate suffering is one surrogate I'm using for whether an individual or group is living in accordance with their desire. And suffering can be convincingly quantified. Just to take an extreme example it would be possible to establish some relationship between particular lifestyle and activity of the nervous system (neurotransmitter output, &c,).

>An embryo, like all life, innately has the desire to live, as the cells will attempt to reproduce.

This is not a desire this is merely biological tendency. It's the same as the tendency of a rock to roll down a hill. Stopping it isn't acting against the rock's will. It has no will.

>>160786
>I'm aware, but I'm saying the distinction between adult and baby life is not as significant as one might think
>I do think Africans recognize the right to life, there's just more struggle there, more hardship regardless, and that results in conflict more readily than in the West where cheap and easy food, government assistance, etc. are readily available

Yeah, it was really just a bit of memeing. You must admit however, many areas in Africa have poor rule of law. Backwards ideology dominates and cruel and unusual punishment is common. Hardship is one factor, but they all haven't accepted Enlightenment ideals.

>>160791
>This is not a desire this is merely biological tendency. It's the same as the tendency of a rock to roll down a hill. Stopping it isn't acting against the rock's will. It has no will.


HOW REVOLTING, this twisted use of the English language.

I do declare, you have taken the most perfect tool and twisted it and used it for evil. How dare you? Or are you sincere in comparing a life to a rock?

*Schwarzenegger voice* Take it BACK!

>>160770
>"if it feels good, do it", amirite? it's myopic; you eat too much junk food, sure it tastes good at the time, but it's going to make you fat and unhealthy, ie. miserable. plus again, suffering is not just physical

That's not a counter point since it's possible to estimate collective suffering of everyone indefinitely into the future.

Junk food tasting good is one consideration, but if you eat it regularly you'll cause yourself suffering as well as suffering for your dependents.

>>160767
>There is no God. Now what?

You lose the absolute rights of Life, Liberty, and Property, as they are now more subjective. The people are not ordained to decide the direction of the Government, and the Government has the ability to restrict these freedoms at their will. This is why countries that outright ban religion, tend to have communist roots, that result in more authoritarian regimes.

>>160776
>Before I was talking about an embryo in a state of development where it could not possibly have any desires

Cells desire to reproduce. Ability to reproduce is one of the ways that scientist measure whether or not something should be classified as life. If every living thing attempts to survive, and reproduction is a form of survival, why would it be correct to assume that there isn't a desire for life.

>>160787
>o we should settle for deciding our own purposes for ourselves. And society should exist to maximize freedom to live as one desires enables each of us to work toward the purpose we decide for themselves.

Except you explicitly denied the ability for fetuses to do that.

> And suffering can be convincingly quantified.

Except it can't, and your example

>establish some relationship between particular lifestyle and activity of the nervous system (neurotransmitter output, &c,).

neurotransmitter output doesn't actually show quantifiable suffering, it shows that the nervous system reacted, and how it reacted. Also, different humans react different ways, and there are variations in the amount of neurons present in different bodies. This wouldn't return quantifiable data. It's the reason why a subjective pain scale is used in hospitals for physical and emotional pain.

>>160787
>Stopping it isn't acting against the rock's will. It has no will.

The cell, being life, has the will to live. The rock, an inanimate object, by definition can not posses a will.

>>160792
>You must admit however, many areas in Africa have poor rule of law.

natural law > fiat

we have the "rule of law" in the West that allows and/or promotes abortion, adultery, sodomy, no-fault divorce, institutionalized gambling, institutionalized drug addiction, gay adoption, fiscal corruption, factory farming (cruelty to animals), feminist bullshit, etc.

sure, it's shiny and often polite, but it's rotting beneath the gilt

>Backwards ideology dominates

leftism is backwards ideology, far beyond the superstition you would find in africa. does africa have problems? sure. population pressures create problems everywhere, tho they manifest in different forms. on balance, I think the West has much greater problems

> and cruel and unusual punishment is common.

I'd say mass incarceration, again, tho "civilized" is far more cruel in most cases than what you'd find in Africa for equivalent offenses

Africa is like Europe in the dark ages. there was more superstition and violence, because of less development, but that superstition and violence was not essentially at odds with natural/moral laws; the center held together

finally, it should be said Africa is not one single entity. there are big differences, for example, between what you'd find in a large city (leftover from European colonization) and a traditional village. you'd likely find many more problems in the former

>>160728
Can you at least proof read your verbal diarrhea before throwing it against the wall?

>>160729
Citation needed for abortion causing the destruction of society. Surely you have something other than just saying "*insert thing* is ruining the world". The same argument people have used over millennia for everything from the printing press to computers.

>>160791
>>How do you quantify suffering? What's the scientific measurement for suffering? Is suffering bad? It's entirely subjective
>We may not agree on the purpose of life; why questions are inherently subjective. So we should settle for deciding our own purposes for ourselves. And society should exist to maximize freedom to live as one desires in so far as possible, maximizing the ability for each of us to work toward the purpose we decide for themselves.
>To estimate suffering is one surrogate I'm using for whether an individual or group is living in accordance with their desire. And suffering can be convincingly quantified. Just to take an extreme example it would be possible to establish some relationship between particular lifestyle and activity of the nervous system (neurotransmitter output, &c,).
>>An embryo, like all life, innately has the desire to live, as the cells will attempt to reproduce.
>This is not a desire this is merely biological tendency. It's the same as the tendency of a rock to roll down a hill. Stopping it isn't acting against the rock's will. It has no will.

Hey...
You didn't say anything overtly transphobic, but have this gut feeling, so I have to ask... did you AT ANY POINT assume my gender when typing?

That is not ok... if you did that fyi ;(

I have a college degree in crying about global warming I MEAN climate change... fuck.

>>160733
> your logic justifies abortion then it would also, say, justify killing someone who was mute

A fetus is not a person. It is not capable of thought or expression. It's a bag of developing organs that could possibly become a person in a few more months. The same way semen is not a person.

>>160791
>And society should exist to maximize freedom to live as one desires in so far as possible

arbitrary and ultimately self-defeating, when one person's liberty inevitably impinges upon another's. what when one person decides to rob and murder? should he have freedom to do it? if so, those acts impinge on the lives/liberties of others to be free to do what they want

>To estimate suffering is one surrogate I'm using for whether an individual or group is living in accordance with their desire.

imprecise and impossible to measure. there are consequences that you cannot foresee. that's a large part of why traditional morality exists. because people don't know better, especially when they're young and subject to their emotions/hormones/appetites, etc.

>And suffering can be convincingly quantified. Just to take an extreme example it would be possible to establish some relationship between particular lifestyle and activity of the nervous system (neurotransmitter output, &c,).

how would you distinguish between emotional suffering and physical suffering? and altho it can, in theory, be quantified, in practice that would be impossible given the infinity of different situations (ie. different possible settings for suffering)

>This is not a desire this is merely biological tendency.

it's a will to live

>It has no will.

a human being in utero does. see>>160641

it grows and develops (lives) on its own

>>160794
>That's not a counter point since it's possible to estimate collective suffering of everyone indefinitely into the future.

? no it's not. you cannot possible measure all the variables involved, especially considering emotional suffering as well as physical

>but if you eat it regularly you'll cause yourself suffering as well as suffering for your dependents.

the point is your proposed ideology would have to know the difference, where to draw the line between one's desires for something in the short term and the long term (in order to make one happy), and also mediate physical suffering (eg. from being unhealthy) with psychological suffering (eg. from being deprived of something that would make you happy in the short term but unhealthy and unhappy in the long term). it's nonsense, and really when you take human myopia and appetite out of the equation and get down to what is "objectively" healthy then you'll arrive at "old and precious moral values", ie. traditional morality; ie. conservative morality, since they developed reflexively that way to begin with

leftist/degenerate ideas attend social collapse and destruction, and the suffering that goes with it, throughout history

either way you're wrong

>>160800
>> your logic justifies abortion then it would also, say, justify killing someone who was mute
>A fetus is not a person. It is not capable of thought or expression. It's a bag of developing organs that could possibly become a person in a few more months.

I love the words people use to try to imply that fetuses are in any way biologically different than humans. Pretty much everything alive can be described as a "clump of cells" - your heuristic as to whether or not it's human just because of how it looks falls apart in the face of biology.

>The same way semen is not a person.

Wrong for a number of reasons. Semen, much like your skin cells, are a part of you. They do not constitute their own life (in fact, given that they're haploid and only contain half of the genetic material necessary for cell reproduction, you could say they're even less of their own organisms). Fertilized embryos have their own unique DNA, completely different from the parents. This is what makes them life.

>>160796
>You lose the absolute rights of Life, Liberty, and Property, as they are now more subjective.
I don't believe in a right to property. I believe capitalism is a useful means to an end. Nobody has an inalienable right to a plot of land or any object that isn't themselves. There's no reason for such immutable right to exist.

>Cells desire to reproduce. Ability to reproduce is one of the ways that scientist measure whether or not something should be classified as life. If every living thing attempts to survive, and reproduction is a form of survival, why would it be correct to assume that there isn't a desire for life.
.
>The cell, being life, has the will to live. The rock, an inanimate object, by definition can not posses a will.

A will is a product of conscious thought. Conscious thought is a product of matter in a particular configuration. If it doesn't have matter organized in that particular way, it doesn't have a will.

The distinction is important because if it were socially acceptable to arbitrarily kill things with a will to live, we'd have a precedent where everyone has to fear for their life.
If it doesn't have a will to live and it can't suffer and has no dependents, then it doesn't deserve any consideration.

If it's 24 hours before birth, well the child is probably developed enough to have a will to live, so at that stage it does deserve some legal status. But certainly less so when it is a fetus and none when it is an embryo or earlier.

To this effect, our law is imperfect in how it's written. It merely defines humans as having a right to life. So until that can be changed to reflect more enlightened nuances, as far as abortion is concerned, it's just a matter then of determining when the clump of cells is defined as human. To this end, it's in society's interest that a human life not merely be defined by the existence of a body constructed according to the information encoded by human DNA but by particular thought and experience.

>>160798
>Citation needed for abortion causing the destruction of society. Surely you have something other than just saying "*insert thing* is ruining the world".

I'm talking about morality, not technology

and yes, we've seen throughout the same happen over and again. a rich society liberalizes, because it can afford to; the liberalization increases, by inertia, beyond the point it can be contained; families are split apart, crime increases, people suffer. weakness from within invites destruction from without

it's happened time and again, and today is no exception. ww3 incoming

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1500/59/1500594407901.png

btw, I'm not saying it's all "cause"; degeneracy is effect too. what goes up must come down. things fall apart, etc.

the important thing in all that is to recognize the nature of the deterioration/destruction, recognize that immorality is not conducive to a healthy society, so after the crash the survivors will understand how to rebuild

>>160800
>A fetus is not a person.

more semantic obfuscation

what the fuck is a baby in utero? is it a hippopotamus?

>t's a bag of developing organs

you're a bag of organs. see how easy that is?

>muh semen

it's not growing on its own; see>>160641

>>160805
>I don't believe in a right to property. I believe capitalism is a useful means to an end. Nobody has an inalienable right to a plot of land or any object that isn't themselves. There's no reason for such immutable right to exist.

Let's examine the consequences of that idea. Anyone could, at any time, take anything that (was) in your possession. The clothes off your back? Your jewellery? The food in your fridge? Not a sustainable society.

>If it doesn't have a will to live and it can't suffer and has no dependents, then it doesn't deserve any consideration.

>If it's 24 hours before birth, well the child is probably developed enough to have a will to live, so at that stage it does deserve some legal status. But certainly less so when it is a fetus and none when it is an embryo or earlier.

The right to life is not predicated upon having a will. It is a human right - granted to all humans.

>To this effect, our law is imperfect in how it's written. It merely defines humans as having a right to life. So until that can be changed to reflect more enlightened nuances, as far as abortion is concerned, it's just a matter then of determining when the clump of cells is defined as human. To this end, it's in society's interest that a human life not merely be defined by the existence of a body constructed according to the information encoded by human DNA but by particular thought and experience.

Why is this in society's interest? Your whole point here is entirely arbitrary. You just cite "more enlightened nuances" as for why the "clump of cells" that is a fetus (and all human beings) shouldn't be granted rights.

>>160805
>A will is a product of conscious thought.

wrong. our will is the result of our life, manifest primarily in our instincts, hormones, ie. unconscious/subconscious processes/programming

>Conscious thought is a product of matter in a particular configuration. If it doesn't have matter organized in that particular way, it doesn't have a will.

arbitrary and wrong

>>160801

>>And society should exist to maximize freedom to live as one desires in so far as possible

>arbitrary and ultimately self-defeating, when one person's liberty inevitably impinges upon another's. what when one person decides to rob and murder? should he have freedom to do it? if so, those acts impinge on the lives/liberties of others to be free to do what they want

Where did I say any of those things would necessarily be acceptable? My only argument is that our goal should be to structure society in a way that enables as many people as possible to live according to their desire for as long as possible into the future, and one surrogate measure of that is minimizing overall suffering.

The argument you're putting fourth is one could imagine a circumstance like, "hey, it's a good thing that guy got mugged because the mugger made much more of the resources he stole than that penny-pincher ever did." That's a strawman because there are good reasons why we would have laws against theft and have laws recognizing a right to private property with respect to an end goal of minimized suffering. For example, people don't want to live in fear of being stolen from, so you would produce a precedent against it in the form of a general rule whereby theft is unacceptable, even if we could point to one example where it turned out to be overall a good thing that something was stolen.

>>160814
To put your point concisely: that other anon seemed to ignore the concept of rights in a free society

>>160801

>>To estimate suffering is one surrogate I'm using for whether an individual or group is living in accordance with their desire.

>imprecise and impossible to measure. there are consequences that you cannot foresee. that's a large part of why traditional morality exists. because people don't know better, especially when they're young and subject to their emotions/hormones/appetites, etc.

>>And suffering can be convincingly quantified. Just to take an extreme example it would be possible to establish some relationship between particular lifestyle and activity of the nervous system (neurotransmitter output, &c,).

>how would you distinguish between emotional suffering and physical suffering? and altho it can, in theory, be quantified, in practice that would be impossible given the infinity of different situations (ie. different possible settings for suffering)

We can do a pretty good job of estimating the type of things people desire from life. Look at maslow's hierarchy of needs. In fact, I don't think we have to get into the nitty gritty of whether one more unit of nutrition has a greater opportunity cost than a unit of education etc. Just recognizing it as a general goal and doing our best would certainly be better than a society built upon pursuit of totally arbitrary values informed purely by holy books.

In fact, I'd argue that what I'm advocating as a sensible goal for society isn't very far at all from what we have right now, even though it's currently expressed with a lot of unnecessary cultural and religious baggage..

>>160815
yes, thank you

>>160814
>Where did I say any of those things would necessarily be acceptable?

you said "freedom to live as one desires". it's implied in what you said. what if somebody wants to rape, rob, and kill - that's the way he desires to live?

I'm saying traditional morality reflexively takes your ideas into consideration; that's why it exists, since traditions are continuously selected because they work. what is selected for is selected according to the laws of physics, which operate according to the path of least resistance

>>160809
>is it a hippopotamus?
Don't be absurd, we're trying to have a mature discussion about killing babies.

>>160805
>Nobody has an inalienable right to a plot of land or any object that isn't themselves.

Leave Western Society then, because your mere presence assumes that you consent to this contract.

>There's no reason for such immutable right to exist.

They exist because in their absence, objective morality is replaced with subjective morality. Unalienable rights exist as a sort of moral "ground zero" that Western Society uniformly agrees upon. Property is a right that is supposed to protect the individual's belongings, to prevent theft by government or by other citizens.

>>160805
>To this end, it's in society's interest that a human life not merely be defined by the existence of a body constructed according to the information encoded by human DNA but by particular thought and experience.

You do realize, that categorizing by particular thought and experience is completely subjective, while classifying a human as unique DNA is objective. The Cells are programmed to reproduce, and are a product of life.

>f it doesn't have a will to live and it can't suffer and has no dependents, then it doesn't deserve any consideration.

That's a completely subjective list of prerequisites that to my knowledge has no legal basis, and has no basis in Western philosophy or government.

>>160814
>and one surrogate measure of that is minimizing overall suffering.

You have not once successfully and succinctly quantified suffering. The minimization of suffering is an asinine argument at this point.

>>160815

depends how you define "free" and "freedom to live as one desires"

not all desires are acceptable, is my point.

and laws that restrict our freedom to do x, y, or z, also create freedom elsewhere, by removing the threat of x, y, or z from society. ie. we are not free to kill, rape, and steal, and therefore we are generally free from these things being imposed on us

it sounds like we ultimately agree more than we disagree. the only difference potentially comes from what kind of society that would actually look like. I think it implies traditional morality, as described here;>>160818

but when leftists and libertarians have the idea to "maximize freedom" they have something else entirely different in mind, eh?

Who even invented abortions! It's the worst idea imaginable!

Is she still alive? Does she have a twitter?

>>160816
>Just recognizing it as a general goal and doing our best would certainly be better than a society built upon pursuit of totally arbitrary values informed purely by holy books.

again, I'd argue traditional morality takes into account these considerations already

religious morality is not at all arbitrary. if you study the world's religions you will see a lot of fundamental commonalities. see the pew research here>>160681

religion is a vehicle for morality, not the source

the source is natural law.

> I'd argue that what I'm advocating as a sensible goal for society isn't very far at all from what we have right now, even though it's currently expressed with a lot of unnecessary cultural and religious baggage..

right now? right now society is a fucking trainwreck. record levels of mental illness, incarceration, obesity/diabetes, family disintegration, drug addiction, gambling, debt, etc. it's plainly unsustainable. society is falling apart. meanwhile, western societies' borders are loose, so we've invited in thousands of jihadists who have come to destroy us. see >>160807

>>160819

wry kek

>>160807

I'll add, recognizing the nature and value of morality is not just necessary for the survivors after the crash, it's also necessary in order to live right in the present. degeneracy is not just socially destructive; it's also personally destructive. after all, society is just a collection of individuals

>>160818
>you said "freedom to live as one desires". it's implied in what you said. what if somebody wants to rape, rob, and kill - that's the way he desires to live?

No one person can have complete freedom because we have to occupy finite space with finite resources. We have to make the most of what we have, and that's why rights are important.

>I'm saying traditional morality reflexively takes your ideas into consideration; that's why it exists, since traditions are continuously selected because they work. what is selected for is selected according to the laws of physics, which operate according to the path of least resistance

I think you're right, and the society we have now in the US actually isn't far at all from what I'm advocating. But then at the same time it isn't necessary to obstruct reform of those morals and traditions when we can reason something better in their place. If it's fulfilling to you to maintain those traditions, you should do that in your personal life and convince like minded people to do the same if you desire coherent cultural community, but law should not necessarily reflect that.

>>160820
>Leave Western Society then, because your mere presence assumes that you consent to this contract.
>They exist because in their absence, objective morality is replaced with subjective morality. Unalienable rights exist as a sort of moral "ground zero" that Western Society uniformly agrees upon. Property is a right that is supposed to protect the individual's belongings, to prevent theft by government or by other citizens.

I'm not arguing against property rights. I understand the importance of rights. I just don't think that right should be as hard as it is now. I'm not an advocate of communism either.

>>160820

>>To this end, it's in society's interest that a human life not merely be defined by the existence of a body constructed according to the information encoded by human DNA but by particular thought and experience.
>You do realize, that categorizing by particular thought and experience is completely subjective, while classifying a human as unique DNA is objective. The Cells are programmed to reproduce, and are a product of life.
The existence of a nervous system and a distinct brain capable of self-awareness are quite objective. It's important because nobody wants to live in a society where they're liable to be killed without consideration to their desires. If an embryo can't think, it has no desires, and thus doesn't warrant concern.

>>f it doesn't have a will to live and it can't suffer and has no dependents, then it doesn't deserve any consideration.
>That's a completely subjective list of prerequisites that to my knowledge has no legal basis, and has no basis in Western philosophy or government.

Well we can keep asking why for whatever standard we come up with. The only truly objective thing is that if you think, you can be certain of your existence. Purpose is inherently subjective. Society should merely exist to organize resources toward maximizing everyone's ability to live as they desire for as long as possible.

To this effect, we can establish general considerations. It's important not to kill anything with desires for its future for arbitrary reasons, because nobody wants to live in a society where they can be killed without their consent being taken into consideration. That has importance with respect to the peace of mind of everyone else. It's also generally important to avoid causing suffering, whether to a living thing or by extension its dependents, without explicit, informed consent.

>>160820

>You have not once successfully and succinctly quantified suffering. The minimization of suffering is an asinine argument at this point.

See:
>>160816

I think we're getting off track in any case. We're talking about the ethical status of abortion. If an embryo has no nervous system, it can't suffer. It also has no dependents. And killing it for arbitrary reasons doesn't set a precedent whereby murder is OK because it has never been self aware to have had a will to live. There is just about no ethical reason why it shouldn't be killed at the convenience of the mother.

>>160830
>
>If an embryo can't think, it has no desires, and thus doesn't warrant concern.

Why are desires the criteria for having a right to live?

>To this effect, we can establish general considerations. It's important not to kill anything with desires for its future for arbitrary reasons, because nobody wants to live in a society where they can be killed without their consent being taken into consideration.

No, nobody wants to live in a society where they can be killed without just cause. You're entirely fabricating this "desires" aspect

>>160831
>I think we're getting off track in any case. We're talking about the ethical status of abortion. If an embryo has no nervous system, it can't suffer. It also has no dependents. And killing it for arbitrary reasons doesn't set a precedent whereby murder is OK because it has never been self aware to have had a will to live. There is just about no ethical reason why it shouldn't be killed at the convenience of the mother.

The right to life is not predicated upon suffering or dependents or a will. It is a human right. Granted to all humans. There is no getting around this point no matter how many times you repeat the suffering or dependency argument.

>>160829
>No one person can have complete freedom because we have to occupy finite space with finite resources. We have to make the most of what we have, and that's why rights are important.

we agree on that. the only question is where do you draw the line. there are "rights" we have today that are wrong.

>the society we have now in the US actually isn't far at all from what I'm advocating

I disagree. see >>160797

you think we should have the "right" to commit adultery? we should have the right to "divorce" even when there is "no-fault"? keep in mind divorce is harmful, especially for children. ie. it is a fault in itself.

you think we should have the right to maintain animal suffering in factory farms? the right to tax dodge? GE gets billions in dollars back from the IRS every year, legally, even when they make a profit. is that a "right" they should have when I'm paying taxes making a middle class living? you think homosexuals should be allowed to raise children? you think we should have quotas written into law to protect the "rights" of women and minorities, even when they create more distortion and unfairly punish white men?

"old and precious moral values" accord with the right balance of rights and responsibilities. I think we've gone way too far in the wrong direction; related;

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html

>But then at the same time it isn't necessary to obstruct reform of those morals and traditions when we can reason something better in their place.

I don't think reason is the source of morality tho. People rationalize and lie (see all the leftist studies fabricated to promote an agenda) in order to manipulate the argument to serve one's selfish interests. morality is deeper than that.

>but law should not necessarily reflect that

yes it's the only way, otherwise that society will suffer, including those within it who are living moral lives.

>>160832
>Why are desires the criteria for having a right to live?

Because nobody wants to live in a world where they can be killed against their will for arbitrary reasons. It's not so much bad for the one being killed as it is the setting of a bad precedent which prevents the rest of us from living with peace of mind.

>The right to life is not predicated upon suffering or dependents or a will. It is a human right. Granted to all humans. There is no getting around this point no matter how many times you repeat the suffering or dependency argument.

We keep arguing around in circles. What I put fourth is what sensible ethics should look like for society.

That being said, a right is a legal construct. Until our laws can match something more sensible, I think the best way to interpret the right to life in our constitution would be to argue a human is defined not merely by a "physical" human body but additionally a uniquely human capacity for thought and self-awareness.

>>160834
>"old and precious moral values" accord with the right balance of rights and responsibilities. I think we've gone way too far in the wrong direction; related;

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't have the wherewithal to get into the weeds and argue this right now.

>>160835
>Because nobody wants to live in a world where they can be killed against their will for arbitrary reasons.
That doesn't make having desires the criteria for the right to life. That makes having a just cause for violating someone's right to life a necessity. In our society, that just cause is pretty much only a credible threat to your life.

>>The right to life is not predicated upon suffering or dependents or a will. It is a human right. Granted to all humans. There is no getting around this point no matter how many times you repeat the suffering or dependency argument.

>We keep arguing around in circles. What I put fourth is what sensible ethics should look like for society.

Why? What makes your society more sensible?

>That being said, a right is a legal construct. Until our laws can match something more sensible, I think the best way to interpret the right to life in our constitution would be to argue a human is defined not merely by a "physical" human body but additionally a uniquely human capacity for thought and self-awareness.

Why??? You're not even making an attempt at justification here. This point doesn't make any sense and seems expressly crafted to exclude fetuses and the mentally disabled.

>>160840
>Why? What makes your society more sensible?
see:
>>160830

>Well we can keep asking why for whatever standard we come up with (for society). The only truly objective thing is that if you think, you can be certain of your existence. Purpose is inherently subjective. Society should merely exist to organize resources toward maximizing everyone's ability to live as they desire for as long as possible.

Purpose is subjective. We're never going to arrive at a purpose for society we can all agree upon. So the next best thing is for each of us to seek our own purpose in life and society to be structured merely to facilitate that as much as possible for everyone for as long as possible.

>>160842
>We're never going to arrive at a purpose for society we can all agree upon.

not true

the vast majority of people in society will have similar purposes, according to our nature/biology/instincts; chief among them, finding a mate and having children

abortion is contrary to that primal purpose

>>160853
Anon, what makes us human is the ability to CHOOSE our purpose instead of blindly following instinct due to sentience, self-awareness and sapience. The very concept of celibacy puts paid to your 'primal purpose'.

If your main priority is to start a family, fine by me. But don't presume to speak for everyone else when they have their own aspirations independent of reproduction. Being able to think past nature's directives is why you're posting on the internet in the first place.

And as to abortion being contrary to 'nature's logic', would you agree to an abortion if you barely had the means to take care of yourself, let alone another baby, so you could reproduce again later once you're in better circumstances? I can tell you right now that animals don't even have the luxury of choice when push comes to shove.

>>160295
No one gives a shit. Human life is not precious or scarce.

>>160868

we are still largely directed by our instincts, hormones, and other unconscious/subconscious biological programming

throughout history the vast, vast majority of women have had children.

even in these exceptional, degenerate days, most women still have children

degeneracy is anomalous and short-lived; once we are past this period, more normal, healthy times will return, and the vast majority of women will resume having children just as nature intends

>Being able to think past nature's directives is why you're posting on the internet in the first place.

no, the internet is not at odds with nature. it is an extension of our natural inclination to socialize, to communicate, to trade, etc.

when technology is aligned with nature, good. when it's not, people suffer, because our nature is not going anywhere.

>would you agree to an abortion if you barely had the means to take care of yourself, let alone another baby, so you could reproduce again later once you're in better circumstances?

of course not. see>>160786

it's never been easier to raise a child than in the West today. no excuses

>>160870
Then why don't you kill yourself?

>>160835
>Until our laws can match something more sensible
Sensible being your opinion, our laws currently reflect this as murder from an objective standpoint. You're rationalizing killing human life because of subjective parameters that you placed upon human life.

Life is defined biologically as the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Tell me what abilities the fetus gains after the second trimester that they didn't have before the second trimester, in regards to the definition of life.

>>160790
I don't engage honestly with liberals because they can not do the same.

You think these psychos are trying to advocate for women's rights? Choices? HAAA!

They're trying to convince you that morality itself does not exist.

This is the end of all their arguing. Their passion. It's death.

What's to gain from discourse with a bottomless pit? Nothing! You only risk slipping into the pit yourself.

>>160899
>Sensible being your opinion, our laws currently reflect this as murder from an objective standpoint. You're rationalizing killing human life because of subjective parameters that you placed upon human life.
It's not human life before it's born. That's perfectly objective and far more sensible than a world view where condoms and birth control pills are murder.

>>160951
>It's not human life before it's born

"is it a hippopotamus?" -Justin Trudeau 2015

>>160625
I don't want my health professionals to have free speech, I want them to save my fucking life and not peddle in bullshit.

>>160954
It's jut a part of the mother's body.

>>160995
Like a toe? Or is it more like a toe nail?

>>160995
It's not

>>160995

wrong. a baby in utero has its own unique, growing body with its own unique DNA

>>160991

>I don't want my health professionals to have free speech

too fucking bad, the 1st Amendment protects the speech of people you disagree with

>I want them to save my fucking life and not peddle in bullshit.

these are "limited service pregnancy centers". they are not designed to save your life. if you are in that much trouble you can go to the ER or your regular doctor. these centers have a specific purpose - helping save unborn babies' lives, and that's not bullshit

bullshit is killing innocent babies for no good fucking reason

>>161071
>too fucking bad, the 1st Amendment protects the speech of people you disagree with

except when you bill yourself as a medical clinic and then you peddle pseudoscience to scare patients for motives other than complete transparency.

your right to extend your fist ends at my face.

your right to free speech stops at pretending to be a medical professional being dishonest with your patients.

>>161071
>these are "limited service pregnancy centers". they are not designed to save your life. if you are in that much trouble you can go to the ER or your regular doctor. these centers have a specific purpose - helping save unborn babies' lives, and that's not bullshit

you realize these people intentionally open their clinics across the street from actual clinics for the express purpose of fooling people into mistaking them as legitimate, just to prevent patients from getting the information they're actually seeking.

>>161069
I choose to define it as part of the same body until birth so that we don't have nonsensical standards like birth control pills being considered murder.
>unique DNA
People aren't defined by their genome. Peoples' DNA degrades all the time. That doesn't make them a different person.

>>160625
Freedom of speech as it pertains to businesses applies to matters of opinion. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a list of services that could otherwise underhandedly be hidden from people. Nowhere does it mention abortion. Case closed.

>>161079
>Guy offers services for assassination
>Guy offers services for selling stolen goods
>Guy offers services for beating puppies

Freedom of speech

>>161084
literally what do you mean by this?

>>161076

it's a limited service pregnancy center. you can't go to the foot doctor and expect a hysterectomy either. it's not pseudoscience, it's morality. see >>160667
>>160676
>>160683

>your right to extend your fist ends at my face.

it's a free market. and free speech is not physical violence, stupid fuck

>being dishonest with your patients.

they're not being dishonest. they're just not advertising abortion, just like Planned Parenthood doesn't advertise things like >>160641

>>161077

like I give a shit. abortionists are killing babies. the faith based centers are trying to save them. they have a right to open a shop wherever they want. free market

>>161078

>I choose to define it as part of the same body

stay delusional, you're wrong

>People aren't defined by their genome.

yes they literally are. people are convicted or acquitted based on their unique DNA profile

>>161079

It's a matter of fact that pregnancy is not a medical problem. abortion is not a "solution" then. abortion is the problem.

case closed indeed.

>>161147
>they're not being dishonest. they're just not advertising abortion,

But they're purposefully billing themselves as places where patients can get information just to fool them out of it.

>just like Planned Parenthood doesn't advertise things like >>160641 #

Why would they? Planned Parenthood facilities bill themselves as medical clinics, which they are.

>>161147
>free speech is not physical violence, stupid fuck
It doesn't have to be violence. Your rights end when they impinge on the rights of others. You don't have the right to propagate false advertising.

>>161158

they do get information, just like they get information at Planned Parenthood

>Planned Parenthood facilities bill themselves as medical clinics, which they are.

no, abortion is butchery. pregnancy is not a medical problem. abortion is the problem. planned parenthood is the problem

laws won't save you, justice is coming. ww3 soon

natural law > fiat

>>161159

>It doesn't have to be violence.

yes it does, otherwise your analogy is worthless. well, not entirely worthless, considering Planned Parenthood violates the right to life of an innocent human baby

huh

>You don't have the right to propagate false advertising.

It's not false. just the opposite. the clinics refuse to promote an idea they consider false, one they don't believe in, and one that has nothing to do with pregnancy, a normal and healthy function of human biology

abortion is the problem, you have it backwards

>liberals go muh utilitarianism
>conservatives go muh thinly veiled bible reasoning and say they're right with no evidence

Why are you all so bad?

>>161201

>he didn't read the thread, just strawmans

most of the pro-life arguments here aren't religious

>>161078
You think you're making a decision to be ignorant but thats actually not a decision.

You're just stupid as shit hahaha.