Why is abortion wrong?

Murder of an innocent human being is wrong

>>136560996
Repostin' this

>>136560834
>why is killing a baby wrong?
Idk you tell me

>>136560834
really races the neurons

Like when a woman's drunk she's not responsible to consent, but when someone gets into a car drunk they're responsible for their actions.

Did you guys know more black babies are aborted in New York City that are born every year?

Only white abortion is wrong.

dude it's not a human if the mother who aborts the child isn't human, she's literally a monkey

a human woman would never kill her own child

>>136560834
>unborn babies aren't alive
Your premise is incorrect. This thread is now moot.
They know the cells are alive.

>>136560996
Not a being. Beings have sentience. Fetuses before a certain time frame lack the necessary brain cells for sentience. This should be the cut-off for abortion.

Argument over, everybody go home.

File: 20632378_679013055628343_2022751265_n.png (232KB, 274x327px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 274x327px

>>136560834
Are you forgetting that a rat was found on Mars?
https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/694114main_Watkins-2-pia16204_full.jpg

>>136561526
It's a fucked up industry though that is not above inflating a demand for abortions. They would literally get girls to take shitty pregnancy pills that didn't work so they could meet abortion quotas. I totally agree with you on the whole sentience thing but its a fucked industry senpai shits evil.

The argument was never that a clump of cells isn't alive, or isn't life, or isn't human life.

It's that it's not a person, something with legal status and rights.

>>136561526
>semantics
It’s a human person that’s what i’m saying.
And if we go by awareness then it’s 100% okay to kill human vegetables.

>>136562042
I think it is. Why would it be immoral to kill a vegitable?

File: 34b.jpg (29KB, 600x597px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x597px

>>136560834
Cancer cells are also alive and contain human DNA so why isn't their removal considered a murder?

It might have something to do with being sentient. Hell considering what is sentient and what is not I would propose post-delivery abortion for niggers and other shitskins up to 40 years maybe even more.

>>136561752
I wholeheartedly agree with you anon, PP needs to go down for the market of baby parts they've created.

>>136562042
Vegetables have sentience though.

It seems like an awfully selfish thing to do.
Like I'm not sure a womans soul ever recovers after aborting.

>>136562042
Okey lets use the same method for fetuses majority of nations use for vegetables. Lets rip out of life support (uterus) and if it can live on its on it has the right to live.

We don't kill vegetables by actively killing them we just stop actively and artificially forcing vital functions to keep going.

File: 1501904912090.png (973KB, 1081x2124px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 1081x2124px

>>136560834

pic related

>>136562507

I challenge this claim. I do not believe they do have sentience.

>>136560996
oh but killing adults because of their ethnicity is fine

>>136562525
>woman's soul

good kek

>>136560834
so if i piled off a piece of my skin, would you consider that killing a human?

>>136562507
By definition they don't. If your brain doesn't have the processing power to maintain your vitals it sure as hell doesn't have the necessary resources to keep your higher functions, including what we'd consider sentience, going

>>136560834
Besides the moral implications?
And the wicked economic implications?

Oh, I will give you one argument: no consecuences for stupid actions = no responsibility. No responsibility = no civilization.

>>136560834
it's not, also they're considered alive imbecile, just not human so it's irrelevant kind of life

>>136562612
So you believe that killing vegetables that you know will gain sentience in few months is not immoral?

>>136562923
>dehumanizing fetuses to justify abortion
Retard they are human.

>>136562612
To add to this every abortion should be made in surgical operation similar to caecarean section.

This leaves scars that will mark the woman for life. Women are extremely conscious about their looks and thus they'd finally start to take care of their contraception to avoid these scars in favor of smoother skin.

Problem fucking solved!

>>136562360
>>136562796
>>136562923
Stop vomiting nosenses.
A fetus is a single individual with a unique DNA. A cancer or your fucking skin have your DNA and IS part of your body. A fetus is not.
That DNA is from one particular species: homo sapiens sapiens.
The size or the amount of cells are irrelevant.
Nobody doubts if an amoeba is a living being or the plancton or coral.

So we have a living being (in it's early stages) from a determined species (sapiens sapiens).
There is not a fucking single biological and logical argument against that abortion is the killing of a Human Being.

>>136562937
There is no way of knowing that they will. 99.9% of cases of where brainwaves have completely flat lined there is no coming back.

If the vegetable has brainwaves it still has a change of recovery so no I wouldn't recommend killing it. Then again I never got my medical license and am a pure labtech.

>>136560834
It's not. Miscarriages are natural.

>>136560834
I don't think anyone says unborn babies aren't ALIVE. Instead they say it's not a human being, or not a person.

people shouldn't be classed as human unless they have at least 120 IQ and empathy.

Under that they should be classed within a merit based scale starting at animals, and sliding down to garbage, with their rights diminishing as they descend the scale.

>>136563170
Cancer cell has unique DNA due to mutation. Why doesn't it have human rights you inhumane biggot!

File: internet.jpg (156KB, 528x528px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 528x528px

>>136563303

>>136563379
>Cancer cell has unique DNA due to mutation.
>>136563170
> A cancer or your fucking skin have your DNA and IS part of your body.
One of you is lying to me.

>>136562796
Faulty comparison. A piece of skin does not grow into a new human.
>>136562923
There is no other thing in existence that grows into a new human. Once the baby is born, no one denies that it's human. So answer me this: At what point between the sexual act and birth does it become human, and why?

>>136563379
>cancer is baisically the same thing as a fetus lmao

>>136563438
Deus vult guy doesn't even know how cancer cells work and that the fact that they have unique DNA is the reason they do not function as they are supposed leading to the fact they cause you harm by disrupting the normal functions the type of cells they were was supposed to maintain.

I don't know how to dumb down these things to retard levels of thinking.

>>136560834
wait wouldn't that be a good question to ask that baby ? oh wait you cant you just killed it... that's fucking why its bad

>>136563666
>pro-abortion viking is confirmed Satan
You had a good run but your lies have been exposed.

>>136563618
Just slapping down the argument with absurd argument of my own. I'm not suggesting they are the same but if you claim the unique DNA is the defining factor we describe to new life then cancer also applies. This only means you have to find something else to define new human life with, nothing more.

>>136563782
Must flee back to the ninth plane of my kingdom then..

>>136563838
The DNA argument is a counterpoint to a woman saying "my body, my choice." The claim is the baby in the womb is part of the woman's body, and thus she is allowed to kill it. The counterpoint is that the baby has a uniquely different DNA from the mother, so no, it isn't her body, it's literally another's body. The DNA argument doesn't have to do with defining human life - it has to do with defeating a point the pro-abortionists use for justifying abortion.

No one disagrees a newborn baby is a human. There's no discernible difference between a newborn baby and that baby one minute before being born, or two minutes before being born, and so on as far back as you want. If to justify abortion you have to say the baby in the womb is not human, then at what point does it become human? And why then? If at birth it is human but at some point in the womb it isn't, when does it gain human status?

>>136561351
This is the final redpill.

>>136564379
>abortion thread
>slide

>>136562729
Yes well they had the chance to kill themselves by that point, and had failed to do so. There is really no blame in this situation.

>>136563611
Why does it matter if it grows into a human. Neither a ball of stem cells or skin cells are considered to a person, even though they're genetically human. If a crushed an acorn, would that mean that i cut down a tree?
>>136563170
Different DNA is irrelevant. A ball of cells is not a person.

>>136562507
then why the fuck don't they get up?

>>136564379
>>136564573

Sliding what? It's 6am on a Tuesday nothing is going on you fucking retards.

>>136560834
IMO
ITS NOT WRONG IF YOU ABORT UNDER THE 3 MONTHS TIMELINE
what do you think?

>>136563267
You're fucking autistic finnfuck as usual. He's saying that if a vegetable will become a functioning human in some months, would you let it live? Because in a majority of cases, that's what a fetus is.
Please fix your autism finngol

File: mars.png (274KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 600x400px

>>136560834
eh? when did they find life on mars?

File: nigger abortion.jpg (9KB, 300x249px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x249px

>>136560834
Abortion should be compulsory in some cases. Such as with people who aren't white.

>>136560834

It violates the NAP*.

It's quite easy to understand. You take a life no matter how you look at it.

* If it's mongoloid, you should be able to abort.

File: 1471818594678.gif (3MB, 442x366px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 442x366px

>>136564741
>12 weeks
>3 months
>not wrong.

File: child support pro choice abortion.jpg (31KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x381px

I agree that abortion is a murder in the sense that you are taking a life away from something that is alive, as in killing a mosquito, but it's not a murder in the sense of killing a fully sentient baby. I don't think abortion should be illegal because I acknowledge the practical reasons behind it, and that abortion is also the symptom and not the main problem. The main problem is that people are irresponsibly whoring around and then expecting society to fix their fuck ups.
Not that I think awful parents should be forced to take care of their accident baby, that would just mean awful childhood for the child, but there has to be something that can stop people from making retarded decisions.

I don't want to restrict people, but in other hand I don't want to have them to be forced to raise a baby they don't want to raise because that would mean the baby would grow up to be a criminal or something. I don't want abortion to be 100% illegal either, because I understand the practical reasons of it (rape, medical reasons, etc.). This shit would be so much easier if people could just stop fucking around, literally. Give out more free condoms, more in-depth sex education without any censorship or political interfering.

>>136564681
>Why does it matter if it grows into a human. Neither a ball of stem cells or skin cells are considered to a person, even though they're genetically human
Stem cells and skin cells do not grow to become new humans. A baby in the womb does. That's how you know it's a human. Pro-abortionists say it's okay to kill a baby in the womb because "it's just a clump of cells" and "it isn't a human." Of course it's a human. It is the only thing in the universe that

If you crush an acorn that would've grown into a tree, no you didn't literally "cut down" a tree, to use your words, but you certainly did stop a tree from growing.

Now answer the question:
>Once the baby is born, no one denies that it's human. So answer me this: At what point between the sexual act and birth does it become human, and why?
If you can't answer this question, then you must admit abortion is the killing of a human.

>>136564929
its that really a 12 week abortion??

>>136564741
>>136565030
What has yet to happen before 3 months that makes it okay to kill the baby?

>>136564355
I don't know about the US here in Finland we've drawn the line at 14 weeks from conception to make sure the fetus has absolutely no change of having any even the rudimentary brain functions we'd considered sentience in even on rodents or fish.

The way I understand it is that your limit is somewhere around 6 months so there really needs to be philosophical discussion about this matter what is a definition of a human being.

>>136560834
When did nasa find 3 cells on mars. Also nobody is arguing that embryos are not life. The question is if its worth protecting. The whole image is a strawman argument.

>>136565113
sorry I misspoke. The limit here is 12 weeks.

>>136565110
its still a cell, that can be extracted with pills or vaccum
I mean if both partners are ok with it why not
BUT BEFORE THE 3RD MONTH thats crucial

File: FetalGrowthchart03.jpg (35KB, 549x327px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 549x327px

>>136565030
More or less. That's the end of the 1st trimester.
Could be 12 and a half, could be 13 weeks. But it's right in and around that area based on the development.

>>136563838
No you're just being deliberately obtuse as a substitute for a proper argument

>>136565113
The laws in the US vary from state to state, which tells you there's no grounded idea on what makes abortion okay. If there were, of course, there wouldn't be a debate about it.

>>136565213
You didn't answer my question. What has yet to happen before 3 months that makes it okay to kill the baby?

>>136565315
YOU ARE NOT KILLING A BABY FFS
killing a baby comes after the 3rd month when a fetus is developed now thats wrong

>>136565419
Why is a baby in the womb before 3 months "not a baby" to you, but after 3 months it suddenly becomes a baby? What event happens that you think turns it into a baby? Answer the question, Mexican intellectual.

>>136565315
Well I'm even skeptical with the 12 weeks limit and might be convinced that the limit should be even shorter but when we're talking about only 2 to lets say 8 weeks I really don't see a problem with aborting the pregnancy.

>>136565528
its a cell that can be extracted without any complication whatsoever thats it, moms go away without any issues and can have a baby later on if she decides to
DUMB NIGGER THIS WORLD IS OVERPOPULATED FFS KILLYOUSELF IF YOU WANT MORE POOR PEOPLE INVADING YOUR COUNTRY

Grow up fags, abortion should be allowed so long as we use the dead babies for research. Don't throw them in the bio bin, accelerate stem cell research so we can live longer instead of packing more shitty people onto this already over populated earth.

>>136565419
Literally replied to you with a fetal growth chart which you ignored and then you posted this bullshit.
Fucking Mexico

>>136565670
I showed you a fucking gif of a 12 week abortion. It's not a cell, you can clearly see it's not a cell.
You asked me if that's really what a 12 week abortion looks like and I showed you a fetal growth chart indicating that that is exactly what a 12 week abortion looks like.

It's not a cell at 3 months. It's not a cell at 2 months 2 weeks.

It's a cell for the first week and a half to two weeks.
Then it's no longer a cell. It has a heart beat.

>>136565670
You have yet to answer the question, which says to me you're blindly parroting your position and don't know the answer. What event happens at 3 months that turns that "cell" as you call it into a "baby" that you're no longer allowed to kill? Do you think it takes 3 months for the combined sperm cell+egg cell combo to finally divide into two cells?

>DUMB NIGGER THIS WORLD IS OVERPOPULATED
Not in the West it sure isn't. Mexican intellectuals, everybody.

>>136565590
If abortion is the killing of an innocent human, and if the killing of innocent humans is wrong, then abortion is wrong at any stage during the pregnancy. It doesn't matter if the baby is 2, 8, or 12 weeks old: it's still human. Unless someone, preferably someone not from Mexico since he had his shot, is capable of explaining how a newborn baby can be a human life protected by law, but that same baby still in the womb isn't. If the newborn is human (or a "person") but a baby at some point in the womb is not, then at what point in the pregnancy does it become human?

>>136566078
You know there are some feminists arguing that women should be able to kill new born babies because they're "ostensibly no different"

off course it's huff post
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/29/medical-ethicists-propose-after-birth-abortion-law_n_1309985.html

>>136566078
>>136565960
>>136565862
I'm reading all the info about pregnancy and such
HOLY SHIT IT CHANGES EVERYTHING FUCK THAT 12 WEEK SHIT IT SHOULD BE 2 WEEKS AT MOST
AND YES FAGGOT IN THE WEST PEOPLE ARE HAVING LOTS OF BABIES JUST LOOK AROUND

>>136566274
We're not really having as many babies as you think.
You have to look at it objectively.
One of the biggest, (and at one point only) excuses for mass immigration was the baby boomers dying off and not having enough folks to replace them.

People are having children in the West, but it's not John and Sally Smith, it's H'alalam and his 4 wives popping out 12 kids each.

>>136566078
forget it
its not human just the first two weeks
but you cant really tell tbqh so I agree now abortion is wrong

>>136566206
Of course. Any time a pro-abortionist uses the argument that "the baby isn't viable on its own" or "until it can survive outside the woman's body", they're advocating for the murder of actual born children. You know this. No baby can survive on its own. Children take years and years of constant attention and purposeful care before they can live and survive on their own. The argument that abortion is okay up until the baby is "viable" or "can survive if removed from the womb" is nonsense.

>>136566557
What's so special about the first two weeks that the fertilized egg is not human, but then suddenly becomes human after two weeks? What event occurs that you can point to that says "from this point on it's no longer okay to kill the baby?"

>>136560834
>when you relate random living cells found on Mars to abortion but still eat fruits and vegetables

>>136566466
what about africa or muslims those fuckers dont know the word condom or what
FFS
Now I agree that abortion is fucked up holy shit

>>136564975
A ball of cells, imo, becomes human once there's a nervous system. Without a brain that can process thoughts and feelings, there's no way I'd consider that object a person. Again, the main point of this debate is distinguishing between human and personhood. A clump of cells can be human, but it's not a person. We kill human cells all the time. Persons are philosophically different.

>>136566587
Of course.
And even further. Premature children cannot survive without immediate intervention. The incubation machines which basically keep them alive until they matured to term.

To a feminist, it would be okay to leave the baby to gasp and slowly die on a table.

In fact. I've heard a story about abortions where a living baby is left to die in a steel bowl. Happens all the time in late term abortions where the only option is to surgically remove the child.

>>136560834
People make the mistake of thinking that women have an automatic urge to protect their children. They don't. Most just want the status and reward and when it's inconvenient they will whore them out or kill them. Actual good mothers are rare.

>>136566727
its still a cell but you cant really tell IF A WOMEN IS PREGNANT OR NOT so to sum it up this thread:
ABORTION IS WRONG AND PEOPLE BETTER USE CONDOMS OR EMERGENCY PILLS

File: 1476391090577.png (2KB, 198x164px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 198x164px

>>136561182
I love abortion now

>>136566853
Condoms only. There is some research which suggests that the pill may damage women permanently.
Since the pill is designed to basically trick a woman's body into believing that it is pregnant so it can't get pregnant, the hormones involved in that, long term, are thought to cause irreversible damage to a woman' brain.

The jury's still out on that one though. I doubt we'll see any proof as long as the feminists control all the biology departments.


Honestly. The best choice is abstinence, but that's unlikely at this stage in the game, so condoms are what should be used.
Ideally people would only have sex with people they trusted enough to start families with. That whole r/K selection theory.

>>136566466
John and Sally Smith usually agree to abort because they don't have a home or steady employment to take care of this new responsibility. H'alalam and his 4 wives get increased benefits for every child they pop out on to the street and teach their kids that they don't have such nice childhoods with nice toys and own rooms because the kaffir are islamophobic and racist. Why do you think 2.nd generation muslim immigrants are more radical than the 1.st generation?

>>136561412
>a human woman would never kill her own child

Women love to kill their own children. It's one of the main recreational activities here in Scandinavia, the source of the pure ideal aryans.

>>136567056
what if the condom is broken tho
emergency pills help you to do that
and fuck that abstinence BS man do you go out to party and such, dont tell me you never got a bitch to fuck some saturday night?

File: Absent-Father-Impact.jpg (355KB, 850x1711px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 850x1711px

>>136567174
No, I don't party anymore. I'm too old for that. I did when I was younger and I regret it, honestly. For many reasons.

I don't know about your country, but here, the higher the number of premarital partners the higher the divorce rates.
And when divorce happens children get hurt.

>>136566853
There you go with that "still a cell" line again. It doesn't matter if you can tell the woman is pregnant or not. If there's a fertilized egg in her, and you're okay with killing it at some points, but not at others, you have to justify why it's okay in one timeframe and not the other. Saying it's a "cell", implying the baby isn't a human, isn't a justification if you can't then point to an event that makes it human, and say this here is the point when it stops being okay to kill it.

>>136566789
Human and person are interchangeable in the morality of abortion. Just swap the word "person" for "human," it makes no difference. "It's not okay to kill innocent humans." <-> "It's not okay to kill innocent people." Now, you say it becomes a person once there's a nervous system? Then most animals and insects are also people. Would you say it is the combination of a nervous system and human DNA that makes it a person?
>We kill human cells all the time.
Those human cells are fundamentally different from a fertilized egg. The egg will grow to become a new human. Your skin cells or blood cells will not. Thus a fertilized egg is an entirely unique entity because it is the only thing that will become a new human, or as you say with your word-thinking, a new person.

>>136567268
we got lots of single mothers here its insane?
yeah its the same cuz one way or the other people just end up cheating on
>>136567323
lets agree with this
ABORTION IS WRONG

>>136560834
You do realize you're basically just a clump of cells too.

>>136567323
Ok sure. Human DNA plus a nervous system makes a person. With regards to the morality of abortion, we need to make the distinction between human and Person. Human, in this context, is a scientific and related to the dna of an organism. Person includes the more subtle aspects that define what it means to experience life as human-being. There's a reason we don't have funerals for early term miscarriages.
Just because A can become B, doesn't mean A = B. Your statement is fundamentally wrong.

>>136566789
A baby that has yet to grow a nervous system, will grow one soon. It hasn't reached that point yet, but you know, that if you do not interfere, it will grow one and it will become a new person. How do you justify killing the baby before it has grown a nervous system? It will become a person - in short order too, you won't be waiting very long. Suppose you could spot the exact time it grew that nervous system and crossed your threshold for abortion. What's different between killing the baby the instant after it achieved what you call personhood, and killing it the hour before? You know it's about to grow it and become a human. Why would one killing be okay and the other not?

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/

File: white4.jpg (169KB, 972x725px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 972x725px

>>136560834
It's wrong but it still should be legal.

>>136567969
>With regards to the morality of abortion, we need to make the distinction between human and Person. ... Your statement is fundamentally wrong.
the statement that the terms are interchangeable? No, that statement is correct. Perhaps you misunderstood me. Whether you use the word human or person is your preference; the meaning being conveyed is: "It is not okay to kill innocent [humans/persons]. The baby in the womb is an innocent [human/person]. Therefore it's not okay to kill it." The meaning is the same for the moral context.

>>136568258
Again, just because A could become B doesn't mean A = B. I have no issue with terminating those cells if they haven't grown a nervous system. We could simply move this argument in the opposite direction. If i prevent two people from having sex, if that the same as killing a baby? Had i left them alone, a new person could have been born. Why is it ok to prevent people from having sex but not ok to terminate a ball of cells without a nervous system?

>>136568697
It is not ok to kill people. It's ok to kill humans that have not achieved personhood.

All people are human. Not all humans are people.

>>136568777
No, it's not "could" become a person. It's "will." A baby in the womb WILL grow a nervous system, unless something interferes. How can you justify killing it when you know, for sure, it will fulfill your criteria for personhood?

It's different with sex because that is where your "could" word applies. Sex may conceive a child, but it's not gunsranteed. However, after the egg is fertilized and already developing, it will - not up to chance, it will - develop a nervous system. Knowing this, how do you justify killing the baby before it becomes a person? How is it different from killing it the instan after it has fulfilled your nervous system criteria?

>>136568887
Yes, good. I'm glad you're on the same page as me now. You prefer the word person, I prefer the word human. In the moral context we're using them in they mean the same thing.

>>136569580
But that's not true. Miscarriages happen all the time. Fertilized eggs don't always result in people.

>>136569668
So then why do you believe a fertilized egg is morally equivalent to human existing outside the womb? Sure it can become a person, but until it has properties that we'd typically associate with people, why call it a person?

>>136561596
It's a fucking rock with a dark patch that looks like an eye ffs.

>>136565110
Developing a brain with some sentience?

It's not.
More people should abort their unwanted children.
There's too many people anyway.

>>136561596
fuck me australians really are dumb...

>>136561596
You should probably be less concerned about Mars and more concerned about whats going on in your ocean

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/08/07/australian-teens-feet-legs-bloodied-by-mystery-sea-creatures.html

nobody claims unborn babies are not alive u dumb shit-for-brains

>>136569740
You're dodging the question. Miscarriages are irrelevant: a woman seeking an abortion doesn't know beforehand whether she's going to have a miscarriage or not. Thus you have to assume the baby is healthy and will grow properly. That's the assumption the woman and her doctor are certainly working under. A developing baby will grow a nerrvous system. According to the link earlier this begins at about Day 16, and continues from then on all the way to birth. Suppose for example's sake Day 16 is the date for a particular baby's development where it crosses your theshold for personhood, where it is no longer okay to kill the baby. Why do you think it is okay to kill the baby one second before Day 16? Or one minute before? Or ten minutes before? The baby WILL cross that threshold. Justify your position why killing it is okay when you know it will become not okay.

>>136571456
Until it developes brain chemistry there is no moral problem killing it. It developing into a human is meaningless, until its a human being it has no human rights and therefor is not subject to human morality. If a mexican is on the pathway to citizenship, we do not grant him all the rights and benefits that citizens enjoy, nor do we hold any moral obligation to ensure he achieves citizenship. We can deny him at any time for any reason. However once he is a citizen he is subjects to the same laws and rights as everyone else.

>>136571456
From my perspective, it's relevant weather something A will become B in the future. If it's not B, it's fine to terminate. If you're ok preventing two fertile people who have a 99.9% of making a baby from having sex, i don't see how you don't think that's the same as "killing a child".

>>136570634
>Flag
>You're country sure is overpopulated all right

>>136572087
It developing into a stage where we would no longer agree it's okay to kill it is not meaningless. It's far from meaningless. You know the baby will naturally grow into something it's not okay to kill. What is the difference, then, between killing it one second before that point, and one second after? If you kill the developing baby just one second before that point, you've denied it from becoming human (or a person or what have you). It was going to become human in one second, but you killed it. Morally, how can that be justified, when you admit it cannot be justified to kill the baby one second AFTER that point? The baby's already developing in the womb. It's not up to chance anymore. It's going to grow pretty normally in there, like you and I did.


Denying citizenship isn't an applicable analogy. In denying citizenship, you at worst send the applicant back to Mexico. In an abortion, someone dies! That's a big difference. It isn't meaningless. Abortion is a matter of life and death. It's worth figuring out if, how, or why it can be acceptable.

>>136573601
Actually, no one dies because the cells haven't crossed the threshold. For the millionth time, even if those cells are a nano second away from having brain chemistry, they're not what most people typically consider a person to be. It's morally irrelevant what happens prior to the event regardless of how sure it you are that it'll eventual cross that threshold.

>>136573601
There was a time before you were a human being. Just because you were becoming a human being didnt make you a human being. A seed growing is not a tree until it is a tree. My analogy is fine, you are not killing a human being until it has brain chemistry, until then it is nothing. We should not hold 2 week old zygotes to the same standards as we do 2 week old infants. Killing something without a conciousness is not immoral. The fact that my analogy talks about illegal aliens is irrelevent. The point was that the pathway doesnt matter, intil the transformation is complete, the are still what they used to be which is not subject to the same standards as what they may become.

I dont think someone gains consciousness in the span of a second, so your question is impossible to answer. However to humor you, I think once we know there is brain chemistry beginning should be the cutoff.

Furthermore, why is it a dilemma, take for example, if a store is closed at 6:59 and open at 7:00? Within a minute it changes from one thing to another, but do we question it? No.

>>136564962
>a fully sentient baby

Babies are not fully sentient. They are completely underdeveloped at birth, totally incapable of living on their own. They can only leech on their parents, for years and years after birth. The only functional difference between a newborn baby and a fetus is like real estate: location, location, location.

>>136574748
I think even partial sentience should protect it from death. This allows us to carefuly distinguish between a newborn baby and a newly develope zygote.

>>136561526
Retards, drunks, demented, alzheimer people and those in coma, and africans dont have sentience either. So their fair game right?

>>136574364
>For the millionth time, even if those cells are a nano second away from having brain chemistry, they're not what most people typically consider a person to be

There is "brain chemistry" almost immediately, as a matter of days, after conception as the notochord develops. It may not be "brain chemistry" on the scale of a human adult, but in fact the human brain isn't finished developing until around 25 years of age in a male. Does that mean that an 16 year old, or an 8 year old, or a 4 year old, or a 2 year old, or a newborn baby is less of a person?

Babys in the womb visibly and audibly panic, thrashing around and such, when they are dismembered during an abortion. The pain generally only ends when their skulls are crushed.

>>136575011
You are 100% wrong on all of those accounts.

>>136575000
>I think even partial sentience should protect it from death. This allows us to carefuly distinguish between a newborn baby and a newly develope zygote.

Gastrulation, whereby the three primary germ layers differentiate and you have the first brain activity/development, begins at 3 weeks in a human embryo. Being liberal, that would mean any abortion after 4 weeks is murder. Most women don't even find out they are pregnant until well after brain activity begins.

>>136575453
So be it. If you have unprotected sex you should be aware of the possibility of getting pregnant. This becomes a personal responsibility problem on the individual. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Women that have abortions are evil, as are men who encourage or suggest them. I hate to use this 'argument but it's true that men can never understand what it's like, which is also why men shouldn't be advocates for these so called rights. Women, however, can understand which makes it so much worse. Changes during pregnancy happen fast, so fast it's hard to keep track. Women feel these changes early on and they know there's life inside them. That's why those that know what it's like should be the ones most against it, but unfortunately we live in a time where it's considered empowering to murder simply because >my body my choice
Abortions are disgusting

>>136575168
nice statement.

Prove to me a retard with 50 IQ or a man in a coma is more sentient that a newborn.

>>136560834
it isnt if its a brown clump of cells

>>136575017
I don't support abortions at those stages so it seems like a different type of discussion.

>>136576012
Ok, the man with iq of 50 is mildy retarded. Retards can speak and articulate thoughts, infants cant. The man in a coma still has more complex brain chemistry than the infant. You are still sentient even if you are sleeping.

Also I dont know why we are comparing these things, I've said before even partial sentience should shield it from death. So all those examples you used AS WELL as newborns would be protected. Only two week old zygotes wouldnt.

>>136576075

funny because browns are against abortion. whites seem to be the ones in favour...

>>136560834

Abortion is one of the key critical weaknesses within left wing positions that we MUST exploit.

They want to be humanists, and so many of their demands for "social justice" are built upon the axiom that human life is inherently high in worth and all human life is equal in said worth.

The problem:

Women don't want accountability for their life creation. They want to kill the unborn but don't want to lose their humanism badge.
They then must then perform extreme mental acrobatics to try and get around the fact that the unborn are human lives.

An additional problem:

Uneducated young girls might genuinely be tricked into believing that the unborn are not actually alive and that abortion is an acceptable moral decision.
If they were to learn the truth about human conception, they may not be so quick to abort their children and may be more careful when it comes to the act of sex.

This is:

#worsethantheholocaust

and

#thefeministholocaust

#theliberalholocaust.

After all, Eduard Bloch, among many other Jews, survived the German "Holocaust", however, how many aborted children can say that they survived abortion at the hands of liberal humanism?

We must use this issue to rob the enemy of their sense of moral high ground and force them to admit that they support the right to murder the unborn.

As a bargain, if liberals want the right to murder the unborn, then we right wing White Nationalists, deserve the right to murder anyone who poses a threat to our race.

The ultimate compromise.

>>136561526
Not realy. They have the potential to become sentious, thus killing them is wrong.