Life

File: whatisconsciousness.jpg (20KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x400px

>"But it's just a lump of cells without a consciousness. It's not a "human" until it's technically (life + consciousness).

A coma patient is life without consciousness. Arguably, while dreaming, you are no longer "conscious" so it OK to terminate you while in your dream state?

A sleeping person may lead to consciousness.
A coma patient may lead to consciousness.
A human embryo may lead to consciousness.

Whether you are old (90+) or a few weeks old, a "human" is "life" in its various stages.
Consciousness sometimes laps for 8 hours, 9 months, or 15 years.

Regardless of what your religious, morals, or (((science))) tells you, what are you ground for pro-life / pro-choice?

>"The nigger race will explode if we didn't have abortion!"
Do you even economics? If niggers breed 5x times faster, then the (((money))) or "tax payer dollars" would dry up sooner. It's an inevitable fate that we're leading to economy collapse and the 2nd American civil war. Take the red pill and stop pussying out. Don't ignore the question.

>>129973147

As the #1 killer of black people, I strongly opppose abortion.

>>129973372

I love presenting this uncomfortable fact to all my liberal friends.

File: 1486588365163.gif (2MB, 245x187px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x187px

Please ignore some of my typos. This is OC, and I haven't written this before.

It's major red pill to swallow. Think about it. Dwell on it. Please come up with a solid argument against this that doesn't create you own fallacies within you other morals / politics.

I've given this a lot of thought, so I'm coming to you now to further confirm my hypnosis and test it.

>>129973147
I'm too selfish to care about the lives of others (It's a sad existence, I'm not proud), but I'll give ya a bump because you seem to have put effort into it, and 90% of the rest of the catalog is spam, slide, or bait.

File: getmetheredpills.jpg (90KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1280x720px

A "life" isn't human.
If a machine passes the Turing test, is it "consciousness"?
Why cannot it not be "human"?

Is "life" + "consciousness" = "human"?
Why isn't an embryo "human"? Is a bed-stricken coma and/or dying person "human" if they lack a consciousness?

Will life that be one day be "conscious" human? Is life that was once "conscious", and maybe one day again, human?

>>129973147
What liberals don't understand is that one can be pro-choice AND pro-life at the same time.

Our species is one of the few that engages in sex purely for recreation. Unfortunately, biology does not differentiate between insemination for fun and insemination for baby-making. Ergo, unwanted pregnancies occur. I would prefer it if I lived in a society that had the means to adequately care for every child that was brought into the world, but such a society doesn't exist. If the choice is between having an unwanted child that gets put into the dismal foster system and abortion, abortion is the more responsible option. Better than creating another juvenile delinquent/future criminal.

From an existential standpoint, our scientific and technological development as a species, if it doesn't kill us all first, will eventually lead us into evolving into what we would now consider to be "gods". We already play god on a limited basis. Part of being a god is making the big choices, and then living with the consequences. Given our status as the most advanced beings on the planet (certainly gods from the point of view of lesser creatures), it absolutely is within our purview to make life and death determinations, including within our own species. This is ESPECIALLY true when speaking about our creations, which children are. If you make it, essentially you get to decide what to do with it. This is the same reason why A.I., when it is created, should not be given the same rights or considerations as humans. It is also the reason that we should be careful what we create. "Create responsibly" is an appropriate catch phrase.

>>129973147
But that life cannot survive without "her body"

>>129973147

For me the cutoff is whether it has a consciousness/can feel pain

>>129973147
Everyone knows that the fetus is a human being. They just don't care about killing it because they would rather have someone die than disrupt the comfort of their life.

File: 「Too Much Monkey Business」.png (106KB, 346x327px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 346x327px

>>129973147
>All life form can reproduce
So mules aren't alive?
Shitty definition of life.

>>129973372
This is a half-assed argument. You're saying it's okay to allow X number of white babies to be murdered because they kill Y number of black babies too. If you support abortion as a means of reducing the number of black people in the country, then what you really support is the removal of blacks from your country. Don't half-ass it with abortion.

>>129975458

does that mean we can abort infants then? because if you leave a 2 year old alone for a month they'll die.

>>129973147
>The four criteria to life
You're short a couple, there are 7.
Also, DNA isn't actually a criteria for most definitions of life since it's technically possible for RNA based life to exist (and some hypothesis on abiogenesis state as much).

>A virus is ... cannot reproduce (technically) on its own.
Neither can a single human (technically)

Fun fact: A fetus is technically a parasite, since it cannot survive without its host. And yes, by that metric an infant is also a parasite.

File: 1497476459463.jpg (13KB, 555x312px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 555x312px

>>129975458
Can a coma patient survive without nourishment and care? Are they "non-human"?
Can a young child survive in the wilderness without shelter, food, and protection from beasts and weather?
What makes a child inside, or outside the womb needing protection, any less human?

>>129975563
Can will kill all the coma patients and elderly on life-support that cannot feel pain and/or will no longer be contributing to our society?

>>129975956
Excellent! I was hoping someone would say this, but I've already understood that a mule is a "multi-cellular" organism with each of it's cells following the criteria for life. A mule can technically "reproduce" on a multi-cellular level (regenerative tissue).

>>129976135
"Aren't a man created equal"? Are you un-american if you don't believe this?
Please, continue everyone. I sincerely want to find a flaw.

>>129976280
You should have clarified "all life forms can reproduce" in your initial statement.

>>129973147
You contradict yourself.
The embryo, like the virus, cannot survive without the host

>>129973147
that pic is hot I love thinking about how I slithered out of my mummas nice vagina all warm and slippery in vagina juices

>>129976559
Viruses can't metabolize. A human can.

>>129975356
>If the choice is between having an unwanted child that gets put into the dismal foster system and abortion, abortion is the more responsible option.
Bullshit. You cannot claim that without knowing what happens after death. You claim it is better to not let a child have a life at all rather than let them have a life which you deem is undesirable. You're not the arbiter of that. You don't know what happens after people die, so you cannot possibly say it's better for someone else to be dead than to live at all. You in your comfortable, non-aborted life, having grown to an age of reason with access to a computer and internet at least, are not a judge over whether or not a tiny fetus/baby's life is worth living.

>>129973199
A sleeping person or comatose person were conscious at one point. That lump of cells is not conscious or ever was, so no its not the same thing

File: 1483154104294.jpg (58KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 427x640px

>>129976245
>Fun fact: A fetus is technically a parasite
I was waiting for this one, too!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633676/
In short, stem cells from the fetus can help the mother. Making a symbiotic relationship rather than a parasitic one.

>>129976452
All "life" can reproduce as the criteria for life includes this. A virus is created by a different cell. A virus cannot make a virus with other viruses.

>>129976559
In later stages of it's life, it can survive pre-mature birth. Gray area?

As long as it has it's nourishment and ideal conditions, whether or not from it's mother, it's still life as it meets all of the criteria.

>>129976690
Nice

>>129975458
It can't survive once it's out of her body either, for about 6 years, and arguably much longer. But killing a baby after it's born is clearly murder. Why would it suddenly not be murder just because it's still inside of its mother? Because it still "needs" its mother? That's nonsensical.

The definition of life is subjective and subject to change. It is a manmade delineation. It intrinsically means nothing.

The points of all "criteria for life" can be magnified and studied endlessly until it's all just grey. It's not binary. There's no "switch".

A rock is just as alive as you are.

Yes, you read that right.

The only difference is that your somatic cells have more molecules in them, and they're arranged in such a way that, ultimately, a human functions as they do. That's it. Down to the smallest scale of function, everything is just two molecules reacting.

We are biologically designed to recognize "life" and see others of our species as "alive" because that is what "life" has "learned" to do over generations in order for us to further excel in a naturally selective environment and survive as a species.

But objectively, nothing's alive or everything's alive.

I am pro-life except in instances of rape.

>>129977065
>That lump of cells is not conscious or ever was
[Citation needed]

>>129973147
>>129973199
Dead niggers are the only upside for abortion.
It should be illegal for white women.

>>129977065
So we agree: consciousness is an arbitrary deciding factor that has no point in defining life.

File: 1452240125252.jpg (37KB, 353x439px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 353x439px

>>129977209
>We are biologically designed to recognize "life" and see others of our species as "alive" because that is what "life" has "learned" to do over generations
>The definition of life is subjective and subject to change. It is a manmade delineation
Nice contradiction boy-o.

File: reading_is_fundamental[1].jpg (39KB, 848x595px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 848x595px

>>129977346

>>129973147
>ID: We6N8Won
what did he mean by this?

File: stig.gif (961KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 500x281px

>>129977065
So then, your logic between what is and isn't human is solely based on:
>Where they ever conscious at some point, somehow lost it, but cannot redeem it.

In your logic, when does this conscious begin? At birth? 3 months old? 2 months old?

>>129973199
I am pro-life because abortion is murder

I have more thought out beliefs but they are pretty much included in>>129973147
>>129973199
so basically, yeah OP I agree with you

>>129977209
That's a lot of opinions you're stating as fact. If you want to be reductionist and say everything is made up of matter just say that instead of some retarded ledditblog.

>>129976861
If the role of metabolization is to perpetuate the lifeform, then infecting the host is a kind of metabolism for the virus

The abstract being, one entity performs an algorithm involving itself and it's environment in order to perpetuate itself

I think that if you want a strictly logical argument against abortion as the protection of life, you're just going to run into the counter-argument that the same people who want to protect the fetus don't want to support it when it comes to term (in the form of welfare for children of poor single mothers, resources for low income communities where dumb women crank out kids because it's human nature to fuck anything that moves, etc)

But I think that counter argument is a bogus straw man because it implies a dead baby has it better off than a living poor baby. The bottom line usually being that having a baby ruins a woman's life (citation needed) since thy are so expensive and require so much attention.

If you want to watch pro lifers squirm just agree with them and say "Her Baby her Choice"

>>129977919
>If the role of metabolization is to perpetuate the lifeform, then infecting the host is a kind of metabolism for the virus
Well I'm glad I can reject your post with the first sentence.

>>129977919
>you're just going to run into the counter-argument that the same people who want to protect the fetus don't want to support it when it comes to term (in the form of welfare for children of poor single mothers,
and the answer to that is that you are interested in defending life, not lifestyle. people are responsible for themselves assuming someone is not literally trying to kill you

File: birchslap.jpg (28KB, 460x351px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 460x351px

>>129977573
I don't know, but I haven't received digits yet.

>>129977863
Basically this, but I was hoping someone else might put it into a better argument. At this point it's "whatever I feel like is life and it doesn't matter anyway".

>>129978223
>whatever I feel like is life

But anon that's literally the only thing a scientist or politician can say, there is no basis upon which to establish any fact.

>>129977231
White women who have been impregnated by a white man have enough privilege that they should have been able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and abortions should be illegal in that instance. Black women have suffered much more, and therefore abortions should be allowed for them. The race who has suffered most of all is the Jews, they should get free, mandatory abortions in order to make up for the Holocaust

>>129978384
>OP goes to arduous lengths to establish thourough criteria for life
>"duh, but anon, you have no idea what life is- it could be anything!"
dude, you are a fucking dink

>>129973147

You're just playing into the whole mental gymnastics thing.

Here's the cold hard truth...

1. Life begins at conception. The baby growing inside of a woman is a live human being.

2. Everyone knows this, but people still want to be able to have abortions for convenience sake or any other reasons they may come up with.

3. So people came up with the myth that a baby isn't actually a baby, it's a group of cells. That way, they can say (out loud) that they're not actually killing their child.

4. Now here's the point... nearly EVERYONE operates this way. The mother having an abortion knows this, but out loud she tows the line that it's a group of cells because she thinks she's the only one who doesn't believe it.

5. This is why a vast majority of women feel life-long guilt after having an abortion. Everyone told them that it wasn't a life, they acted like they believed the same, but they secretly knew it was a life.

6. But... within the abortion world there are people who love killing. In any other profession they would be mass murderers and would die in prison or with a needle in their arm.

7. These people know that the baby is a life, but they just don't care. They scream the loudest about the baby being a group of cells, but they don't believe it. In fact, their joy comes from knowing that it is a life.

8. And this whole cycle of lies, nods and winks carry on.

>>129978384
Does Sand Metabolize? Does Sand respond to stimuli? Does Sand reproduce?
There are easily observable qualities of any given entity that can distinguish between animate/inanimate.

SLED test.

^ This thread is OVER.

Too fast for you? Okay. "S L E D test."

File: 1483366511818.jpg (72KB, 956x960px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 956x960px

>>129978384
Neat. So by this, you are stating that there may or may not be any "criteria for life" as the matter is subject to change and/or a matter of personal opinion.

In which case, both Pro-life and Pro-choice have valid arguments, as the morality is subject to whatever the State, Federal, or governing body, determines what is "right or wrong".

>>129978749
Are you OK?

>>129976911
My argument is that the creators of life are the arbiters of whether that life lives or dies. You don't have to agree with it. Interestingly, this concept is exactly what most of the religious pro-life crowd actually believes in, even though they don't realize it. It is completely acceptable for their "god" to slaughter humans (adults and children) en masse....he has that right because he created us, according to their belief. The created being owned and controlled by the created isn't a new concept.

>>129979263
You're the first person to mention religion as part of the argument in this thread. Your argument would legitimize the murder of children right up until (and after) birth and hence, worthless.

File: stay frosty.jpg (65KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x600px

>>129978606
>You're just playing into the whole mental gymnastics thing.
You should probably read the thread.

>>129978888
This quads. There we have it. But does it speak the truth?

>>129979263
yeah but those religious people believe that the "god" that controls human life is beyond human control

therefore, allowing humans control of life is giving them sort of god like powers, which would be bad, no?

If this
>>129973147
A fetus is life. It's not a part of the mother as it has its own unique DNA separating it, thus refuting the whole "my body; my choice" argument. It's not "your body" and it meets the criteria for life.

Ok, than you are a super-vegan who let himself be bitten by flies instead of squashing them because "muh form of life".

And cum is millions of half humans you kill with a fap.

A fetus is a proto-human, that grows inside a woman body and will be heavily dependant on the parents for a shittonne of time.
As such, it's a parent's wether they want to take this responsibility or not.
Full stop.

File: 1497411050877.gif (646KB, 512x481px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 512x481px

>>129979572
poor form, but
>8-2=2
>2x2=4
>quads
>4+2=6
>We6N8Won

>>129979823
oh fug 8-6=2

>>129979453
I didn't say I was religious. I was merely connecting the dots between a purely secular and detached idea and one that many religions teach.

>>129979765
Humans>>>>Flies
Sperm and Ovum are gametes of the parents, not individuals

>>129979608
We are evolving into gods. That is the entire point of science and technology....to exercise an ever greater level of control and dominion over the universe, which includes life. Obama's answer of, "It's above my paygrade" about when life starts is complete bullshit. It is entirely up to us to decide when a potential life (a.k.a. fetus) is granted the same rights and considerations as already existing (born) life.

>>129973147
Also full genome is present at 4 cell stage.

So litteraly the moment sperm+egg multiplies to 4 cells, you can pull it's DNA and find out quite a bit about that person to be.

>>129980190
okay, well at least your being honest

your way of looking at the world/human capabilities is what religion was created to warn us against.
not being religious, i'll just cite jurassic park. you think that humanity can wiled control over nature, but "nature always-huh- finds a way"

File: Homer_consider the following.jpg (25KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x451px

>>129980516
I agree that we have a long way to go, but the fact that that is where humanity (and our descendants) is headed (again, if we don't go extinct first) is undeniable.

There are two possibilities in the universe: 1. We are not the first advanced intelligent species to have evolved; 2. We are the first advanced intelligent species to have evolved. Regardless of which option is actually true (which, at this time, we have no way of testing), don't we, as an intelligent and advanced species (at least on our planet) have a responsibility to continue our advancement?

If the answer is "yes", then at some point we are going to have to assume the mantle of responsibility for choices such as when to create and when to kill. This applies to both animate and inanimate creations.

>>129981376
obviously humanity has a natural desire to progress and ought to do so, but toward which goal are we moving?

I am not denying that we are on the verge of being able to do things that are near "superhuman," but abortion is a gift for society if your society is interested in screwing whoever the fuck they want when they want. a society that is driven towards improving itself and its world surely wouldn't be interested in killing its own youths (especially when we know abortion always effects well-off educated folks, as opposed to people who could actually benefit from it)

the existince and preservation of human life is the purpose of human life, all human life. the only reason it would be convenient to take a life, and why it would be an important asset to society is if your society is driven towards endless self gratification

>>129981965
>the only reason it would be convenient to take a life,

should specify
"convenient to take AN UNBORN INFANT'S life"

Yes it is life and wrong. But the shit skins leave us with no choice. The first world is going to be impacted severely if shit skins keep breeding at current rates while at the same time staying worthless gibs. Abortion is a necessary evil right now and I only approve of it on people who can't form a working culture and lifestyle that doesn't constantly drag the rest of us down

>>129981965
A scientific reality is that eventually, the Sun will run out of fuel. When that happens, it will expand until the Earth is no longer habitable by anything, not even bacteria. In all likelihood, the Earth's orbit will be inside the red giant that our Sun will become, which means the planet itself will be vaporized.

If no species have managed to get off the planet by the time that happens, then it will be a 100% extinction level event. Not just the species themselves, but also every trace of them and their ancestors that ever existed will be wiped out. The only thing of humanity that would survive are the probes and satellites in deep space. Other than that, it will be as if we never had existed at all. All the wars we fought, all the ideas we had, all the love and hate, children and adults....all of it will be rendered meaningless.

This, however, could be averted by a species being advanced enough to not only leave the planet, but flourish off of it. Such a species would be able to save lower species from this type of extinction. Maybe not every individual of every species, but certainly record of them and, more importantly, their complete genetic code. Humans can already print synthetic DNA and create living cells out of non-living matter. There is no reason to think that our technology won't advance to the point where we are able to re-create a long-extinct species from scratch, provided we have their DNA information.

This is the worldview with which I approach everything. I try to look beyond my own lifespan, and even the lifespan of my country. The level of technological and scientific knowledge and proficiency that would allow us, as a species, to become interstellar and successfully manipulate life is where humanity (and our descendants) needs to be headed.

To me it depends on the timeline.
4+ months is a huge no.
Abortion past 4 months, maybe 3, is murder and should only be the solution in emergencies.

>>129983039
>This is the worldview with which I approach everything
congratulations, i do too, most people in some way do


what i am saying is that a society capable of doing all of those things you describe, is not a society that embraces exterminating its unborn children in the name of hedonism

>>129983241
Agreed.

Can we also agree that there are circumstances when abortion is warranted? For instance, what if the fetus tests positive for genetic defects, or if the fertilization was achieved by rape? What about a couple who, despite using birth control, conceives anyways (since no birth control is 100% effective)? Such a couple would have been using birth control specifically because they decided, for whatever reason, that they were not in a position to have a child. Should the ability to follow through on that responsible choice be removed? Now we are getting into the real weeds here. These are the choices and determinations that, sooner or later, we HAVE to make.

File: 1472355734572.jpg (60KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x373px

>>129973147
Are Henrietta Lacks' cells, which made it all over the world on their own, life?
If you can reproduce but circumstance doesn't bless you with it, were you ever alive?

>>129983241
It should also be noted that this debate would be rendered moot if we had an unobtrusive method of birth control that was 100% effective. Yet another reason to continue our scientific advancement!

>>129976135
Niggers leave us with no choice when it comes to abortion. Until they figure out how to graduate highschool without already having children who are paid for by the government, abortion is the only thing keeping their negative impact on society from turning into a full blown crisis.

>>129975458
Would it be different if humans laid eggs instead of live birth?

it's not about whether something has life or not that should guide your morality
it's whether it is aware of it or not that you should be concerned about

>>129983826
>Can we also agree that there are circumstances when abortion is warranted?
yes

>Can we also agree that there are circumstances when abortion is warranted?
that's a tricky one, but i'd see your point for certain defects that could actually kill a person, but then you get into risky territory defining defect...

>f the fertilization was achieved by rape?
why are you going to kill a child as punishment/consequence of someone worthless piece of shit raping you. I understand why it is a burden, but, again, it's a burden that is unquestionably worth carrying if you think that life is truly valuable

>What about a couple who, despite using birth control, conceives anyways (since no birth control is 100% effective)?
dude, no, this is my fucking point, you can;t just screw things endlessly with no consequences. you get rid of the immediate consequences of getting pregnant and you invite long term consequences of societal destruction (seriously)

the bottom line is what do you value: human life, or human freedom? the way I see it, freedom is not, in itself, a postiive. human life isn't always a generator of good either, but, since we are only human, our biological imperative is to defend it, assuming it is not destructive to society just by existing (like a murderer rapist)

>>129983957
fair enough. I believe in birth control, but I believe in freedom, up to the point that it begins to hurt you. "birth control" post-conception is just an excuse to breech that barrier in the name of hedonism

Do all things that fit your criteria of life have the same value? Will you defend their right to life equally? If not then everything you wrote is pointless. Humans don't value life, they value a specific kind of life that resembles them.

The prefrontal cortex is widely regarded to be the seat of consciousness, and it doesn't really start lighting up until 5 months after birth (assuming a 42-week term).

>>129973147
bump

You're right OP, for me my views on abortion are mostly two things
-The kinds of people having abortions shouldn't be having kids in the first place, thus yes it's murder, but I view it as a mercy kill
-I support eugenics, so with the first answer still in mind it helps consciously and unconsciously root out who shouldn't be breeding anyway

>>129973199
I will add that there have been coma patients whose brain activity where detected. It's inaccurate to state that coma = without consciousness. There has also been success with communicating with coma patients using brain activity readings. Thus pulling plug is still murder too, but is it mercy kill, and if so, for the family or for the patient?

>>129973147

Nah, dont even bother. Go with the argument that nobody has to provide this service for them because we dont want our taxs to go to it and its our choice what happens with them. Legalize them but deny them the doctors to carry it out. They can fall on a broom handle if they want to kill their child that bad.

>>129984363
>why are you going to kill a child as punishment/consequence of someone worthless piece of shit raping you. I understand why it is a burden, but, again, it's a burden that is unquestionably worth carrying if you think that life is truly valuable

Why are you going to punish an already developed adult who is the victim of such a damaging crime? Why would you force the child produced by rape to be slung with that baggage? I'm not sure if studies have been done, but there has to be at least a subconscious resentment or other psychological ill effects passed to a child born of rape by the mother. Or, worse, because she is forced to bring the fetus to term, she throws it in the foster system.

>the bottom line is what do you value: human life, or human freedom? the way I see it, freedom is not, in itself, a postiive. human life isn't always a generator of good either, but, since we are only human, our biological imperative is to defend it, assuming it is not destructive to society just by existing (like a murderer rapist)

As a society, we take the lives of fully formed adults under certain circumstances (war, rape, murder, etc.). Not all life is valuable to the advancement of civilization. I am a firm believer that conception and birth should be strictly controlled by society, and that some sort of testing and licensing should be required to have children. You can't tell me that a child who spends all day lying on the ground starving to death is ever going to contribute anything meaningful to the ultimate advancement of our species. It would be better if such a child had never been allowed to exist. Most of the projected population growth (10 billion by 2050) will happen in the third world, which is more of a drain on civilization than anything.

>>129975356
Abortion reduces the fertility of the mother, and has been linked to health problems. If it's her first pregnancy, the fertility is cut by an even larger margin.

That being said, I don't disagree with what you're saying entirely. The women who're having causal sex outside a relationship and getting knocked up shouldn't be mothers anyway so it doesn't matter

>>129973147
It's a matter of whether it's "significant" life or not. Individuals have hundreds of animals slaughtered every year as a luxury for them, and embryo is less cute and more of a hassle. Why would they give a fuck about that?

>>129973199
I will also say that this part

> If niggers breed 5x times faster, then the (((money))) or "tax payer dollars" would dry up sooner. It's an inevitable fate that we're leading to economy collapse and the 2nd American civil war.

Is especially true, USA was doomed from the start. We're a nation founded on egalitarianism (anti monarchy) we where an experiment as a country and the experiment showed the poor results. We will fall, and will be better off for it. It's not a matter of if, but when, and all we can do is soften the fall so something can be rebuilt from the ashes.

>>129985766
>Abortion reduces the fertility of the mother, and has been linked to health problems. If it's her first pregnancy, the fertility is cut by an even larger margin.

Interesting. I was not aware of that.

>>129985685
>Why are you going to punish an already developed adult who is the victim of such a damaging crime?
because a child is not a punishment, it is a burden

>Why would you force the child produced by rape to be slung with that baggage?
baggage that their mom didn't want to kill them? sounds rough. go search for that girl, conceived of rape who is pro-life activist for more on that (hint: she confronted nancy pelosi recently)


>Not all life is valuable to the advancement of civilization.
If you attribute the value of life to the fact that you have taken a breath thats fine, but I see an unborn childs life as worth protecting because most GOOD societies, in my book, protect the innocent, and what is more innocent than an unborn fucking baby?

>You can't tell me that a child who spends all day lying on the ground starving to death is ever going to contribute anything meaningful to the ultimate advancement of our species. It would be better if such a child had never been allowed to exist.
I get that there are problems with the world, but how is killing people so they dont ever suffer solving anything? it's a pseudo solution designed to make you feel good about killing chidren in the name of convenience

> Most of the projected population growth (10 billion by 2050) will happen in the third world, which is more of a drain on civilization than anything.
yeah, and they don't even know how to use condoms. they have less-developed, agragrian based communities, people are key to their survival, why would they stop breeding? the objective for us is to breed at least on par with them so there are more people to take care of those idiots offspring

>>129976280
>Aren't all man created equal
No, they're not, life is inherantly rooted in hierarchy, it's part of why our nation's collapse is inevitable, we defied this natural law. Also, Negros aren't men, they're animals, pure breeds anyway. Mixes are sub-humans

>>129976911
>Choosing the unknown over the known
You have a couple of options here
If you're an atheist, and believe nothing is after life. You can say that you know what is facing the potential life and choose after weighing the pros and cons. If you're a Christian, than the unborn is still innocent life and going to heaven anyway (this applies for most) if you're Hindu/Buddhist, it will just be reincarnated anyway.

Under what belief system or circumstance does it seem better to pick the unknown over the known?

>>129986163
>If you attribute the value of life to the fact that you have taken a breath thats fine, but I see an unborn childs life as worth protecting because most GOOD societies, in my book, protect the innocent, and what is more innocent than an unborn fucking baby?

I'm not basing my determination on sentiment or emotion. I'm basing it on detached logic and reason. I agree that the unborn are innocent. That does not mean, however, that they will be of use to society. The circumstances that determine whether they will even have the opportunity to be useful (ex. genetics, place of birth, etc.) are completely out of their control.

>I get that there are problems with the world, but how is killing people so they dont ever suffer solving anything? it's a pseudo solution designed to make you feel good about killing chidren in the name of convenience

The current estimate by most serious scientists is that, at present, the planet is at least 3 billion over its SUSTAINABLE carrying capacity. Our current industrialized, petroleum-based agriculture system is, from ecological and resource abundance perspectives, unsustainable. The third-world depends on cheap food produced by this system in order to survive. Once the system starts breaking down, basic natural principles will trim the human population back down to sustainable levels. It will be a DRAMATIC trimming. Allowing billions more to be born into the group that will be decimated the most (the third-world) is just irresponsible, as it is just going to create more deaths down the road. We need to implement severe population control. Contraception should be at the forefront, of course. But abortion also has its part to play.

>>129980190
>We are evolving into Gods
Ironically the anti 'we're playing God' arguement often comes from those worshiping the God of Abraham. Yet Genesis clearly states man after eating from the tree of knowledge became like God, in that he could judge. That his whole point in exile was to learn to properly utilize said judgement, our entire time on earth is a test to see how we do with said ability.

>>129986950
>That does not mean, however, that they will be of use to society.
well I already explained how fucked our society is to begin with if it embraces abortion- why would I care what that society values in humanity? I'd rather let humans EXIST and then do things to define whether or not they are of value

>all that shit at the end
dude, no shit, this is why I am saying- we need to KEEP BREEDING becuse the third world will NOT STOP EVER. once a pandemic hits and wipes half of everyone out, you better hope that smart people have kept breeding long enough to leave a few left after that. if on the other hand you embrace abortion and other destructive indulgent habits, your society falls, and is consumed by the wave of undesirables

Reminder that far less than 1% of abortions that are performed are done so in cases of rape and incest. Any mentioning of these in an argument about abortion is a red herring.

>>129986018
The source aside, there are references to the claims made. Anecdotally, it's quite common for women who've had their first pregnancy be an abortion to have difficulty getting pregnant later.

http://www.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Summary-of-Known-Health-Risks-of-Abortion.pdf

>>129987278
I this is the part where we have to just agree to disagree. It was a stimulating conversation though!

>>129987562
*I think this is the part.....jesus I need to go to bed already.

>>129987287
>Reminder that far less than 1% of abortions that are performed are done so in cases of rape and incest
Indeed, source for those interested.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf

>>129987603
night

File: 184.gif (1MB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x280px

>>129973147
>>129973199
I haven't read this and I have nothing to offer

>>129973199
>>129973147
My god pregnant woman are so fucking hot. This is exactly what defines a perfect female body

>>129973147
bumpf