Governments, politicians, and useful idiots have been impeeding

File: centrism.png (352KB, 500x785px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 500x785px

SAY IT LOUD SAY IT PROUD

RADICAL CENTRISM
A
D
I
C
A
L

C
E
N
T
R
I
S
M

>>9071578
>artificial wombs
>abortion
What is the connection here? I don't see it. Unless they're gonna pull the "how can she demand an abortion if the babby is formed in an external womb" argument, which has the implication that by the same standard, men should be able to demand abortions be carried out when babby is formed inside the woman.

Well, if this tech does progress and doesn't get legislated away we might see some really interesting effects on society.

File: stw97.jpg (113KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x750px

>>9071578
its going to sound obvious but better education for the public is really the only answer. America has really slipped in the global rankings in the last 40 years and you can tell by the general stupidity of the American population. What we teach kids in school should be based on facts, not political/religious ideologies.

>>9071600

When they say "right to abortion" they mean "right to murder".

>>9071600
>What is the connection here? I
"Pro-choice" arguments are entirely structured around the concept of "my body my choice" concept. Now that the baby is not in the womb the whole argument collapses. There's no point in aborting a child if it is growing in an artificial womb. Don't want it? Give it up for adoption, newborn babies sell like hot cakes. The whole "it still hurts the woman and causes damage and pregnancy is uncomfortable" was the only thing going against just putting the child for adoption.
>which has the implication that by the same standard, men should be able to demand abortions
No they wouldn't. See above. "My body my choice".

>>9071608
>false flagging as a dumb /pol/ack when talking to actual /pol/acks
I literally can't even
>>9071609
Well, that is sort of my point. How can women demand abortion rights for babbies not in their body? Why the fuck do they even need the abortion rights at that point? It literally has nothing and less to do with the woman's right to her body that they are so concerned about.

>>9071626
>how could /pol/ be retarded? It must be a falseflag!

>>9071626
It takes the control away from women. This is a very core tenant of feminism, and has influenced many other things: women must have absolute control over reproduction. The same justification is used by feminists campaigning against male birth control pills.

Just a small tidbit here, but it has been going on since 70s.
>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepillwomensloss
>"While we are transfixed by the idea that men might at last be able to share the loss of libido, weight gain, and general grumpiness which so often accompany pill taking for women we are in danger of losing track of the bigger issue: control of conception. The pill gives women control of the fertility tap. She decides when to turn it off but just as important she decides (after discussion we hope) when to turn it back on."

It's 20th century Imperialist politics but between the two sexes.

>>9071600
The law that dictates at what stage of pregnancy it was okay to abort a fetus was decided by trying to determine when it would be able to survive outside of the womb. The earlier technological developments allow a fetus to be viable the smaller the window becomes for a woman to legally/ethically abort it, until eventually the original legal basis for the law would deem it illegal altogether.

>>9071608

abortion is not murder. Im sick of this saying.

>the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
>Killing
>fetuses do not have any detectable continuous brain activity until about the 25th week. before that it's just random spikes here and there from development
>no abortions are occurring past the 25th week, legally, except in cases of risk to the mother (this is in the 3rd trimester).

im so sick of people who say that, it's just coming from an emotional place of "oh my gawd you kill babies". They are literally not even babies yet, they are fetuses.

>>9071695
You fuck. You're destroying all potential for life after an egg has been fertilized. This would be like growing a seedling out of a seed and then fucking destroying it and going "oh well it's not alive". Which is wrong. Just because they don't have brain activity until 25 weeks doesn't mean they're not alive before then. The embryonic stage where major organs are developed starts as early as the fifth week. Are you going to say a plant is not alive since it does not think? Are you going to say a human with a heart beat, with living cells that exhibits all 7 traits of what we define as an organism in the scientific community, as not living? You're fucked in the head.

>>9071695
And you're just quite literally shutting your ears and yelling "LALALALALALA" to keep your own conscience clear. You're trying to objectively define what counts as human, both philosophically and biologically. The fact still stands that you ended potential human life. You've just decided that, this time, it doesn't count. The "loss of potential life" is reflected in all other parts of our culture, expect abortion. People will add fetuses to the death toll of terrorist attacks, shootings and such. Children dying is seen as bad, because they didn't get to live. (Note, I am not saying children and fetuses are unto themselves equivalent, but saying that why the "added sentiment" to a child deaths should apply to fetuses as well)

You can't just say that abortions are a necessary evil, you have to lie to yourself for goodfeels. You're the one who is arguing from an emotional place.

File: Moloch-and-His-Minions-e1460383254356.jpg (128KB, 500x560px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 500x560px

>>9071725
really contentious opinion coming brace yourself, trigger warning:

Being able to get rid of unwanted children brings prosperity. Families have limited resources and being able to control the number of mouths your trying to feed/ clothe /educate can mean the difference between prosperity and poverty. entire bronze age religions were onto this idea and even embraced it. "all life is sacred" isn't a universal cosmological ideology.

>>9071578
Just take your science to another country where there's no regulations.

>>9071599
I don't think this forced meme is taking, kid.

>>9071736
All useful life is sacred. Hence class systems & meritocracies.

>>9071742
>All useful life is sacred
there is no way to objectively rationalize describing anything as sacred. its just a personal decision on what cosmology you subscribe to.

>>9071736
Very shocking, but also very wrong. In agricultural societies people wanted as many kids as possible, (the numbers were kept down because of infant mortality) and killing otherwise healthy infants was a sign of bad times. In agricultural societies more children (I.E more workers) = more wealth. More land can be cultivated, more crops can be harvested. In addition the children will look after the parents when they get old.

People killed children when the times were bad, and it did not really improve the situation. Prosperous periods almost always meant more and more kids.

>>9071751
>In agricultural societies
bronze age marked the transition from purely agricultural based societies to those with specialized trades people. That period in history was the first time when agriculture became efficient enough to support a large percentage of the population specializing in other kinds of work. So having more kids didn't automatically translate into having more hands to help work the fields. My point stands, learn history.

>>9071734
>You're trying to objectively define what counts as human, both philosophically and biologically.
that's exactly what im doing. I dont feel bad about it at all. you know why? because im not using my emotions, it's a bundle of cells, not a sentient lifeform which will miss a life it didnt even know it could have. If i was unwanted, i would want to be aborted, period.
>>9071725
>Just because they don't have brain activity until 25 weeks doesn't mean they're not alive before then.
yes it does, legally, and biologically. don't like it, change the law. I don't really care what either you two think, the law is in my favor, don't like it, change it. Extremely unscientific opinions guys, just emotional bullshit of "it COULD be a kid!". yea, it could if the mother allows it to be. If the mother doesnt, it wont. Simple as that. And the law says thats allowable up to the third trimester.
>You can't just say that abortions are a necessary evil
I don't think it's evil at all. Evil is a buzzword for religiousfags. There is no moral or ethical issue with abortion if you are non-religious. And if you think there is, you've never taken an embryology course.

>>9071747
Well, no shit Sherlock we are talking about religion here. Hence the use of, "sacred".

>>9071747
>all useful life is sacred
define useful, define life, define "sacred" fucking kek. Emotional bullshit, the word "sacred". Sacred is fucking subjective

guess what, human life isnt special, at all. unless you think your life is a miracle among almost 8 billion other miracles

>>9071759
>bronze age marked the transition from purely agricultural based societies to those with specialized trades people.
True, but you're exaggerating it by a lot. 90% of the people were still farmers, even if cities and specialized jobs did exist. For most of human history right up until the Industrial Revolution most humans lived off of their subsistence farming.
>My point stands, learn history.
It really doesn't. Up until our current wage based society kids were almost always a net positive. This being different for a fraction of the population is insignificant in relation to this topic.

Essentially, wearing a condom or using any type of contraception, for that matter, would be wrong bc you are preventing life from happening.

There are no definate boundaries in this talk bc there is a cross between science and morales.

But just think, the world is already heading towards 9 billion. Sooner or later there is going to be a cross where the population will be too vast to support with our finite resources.

>>9071772
>Up until our current wage based society kids were almost always a net positive.
you said it yourself. kids are no longer a net positive. so if a woman becomes pregnant during a time where a child would not be a net positive, it is within her right to terminate the fetus before it reaches the third trimester.

>>9071766
Holy shit. You are doing exactly what I said you were doing, and don't try to pretend you are somehow emotionally detached and a rational genius here. You can't just admit that sometimes killing a human being is necessary, you have to justify it in your head for yourself. Your post is exactly that. You lean on the law as crutch, again so that you don't have to feel bad about yourself. "It isn't a real human! So it's okay! The law is on my side, so it's okay!"
>biologically
By almost all definitions of life, fetuses are alive. The question is whether they are human enough to have human rights, not whether they are alive or not you brainlet. Don't try to pretend biology agrees with you on that point. You're just someone who clearly has a distaste for the concept of killing children and is trying justify it by dehumanizing them.

File: ao.jpg (145KB, 1920x1541px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1920x1541px

>>9071781
>A responds to B
>in this response A makes a mistake
>C corrects A
>this obviously means that C is B

>tfw you agree fetuses are alive but you are still pro abortion
Death isn't inherently wrong, you know?
It's only the suffering that comes with some kinds of death what matters.

>>9071772
>not realizing that the "all life is sacred and infanticide is bad" religions are pushed on dirt farmers by the wealthy to make the wealthy land owners even more wealthy.

>>9071791
You really think it takes effort to not give a shit about a bundle of cells?
>You can't just admit that sometimes killing a human being is necessary
i cant? I believe in capital punishment. Except fetuses are not humans. You have a human fetus, which has the potential to become a human. Until it is born, it's not a human, it's a fetus. You can manipulate that all you want but it doesnt change the fact. You're the emotional one, equating a bundle of cells with a human.
>The question is whether they are human enough to have human rights, not whether they are alive or not you brainlet. Don't try to pretend biology agrees with you on that point. You're just someone who clearly has a distaste for the concept of killing children and is trying justify it by dehumanizing them.
biology does agree with me, so does the law (the law follows biology). I don't have a distaste for killing fetuses, i do have a distaste for killing children, stop humanizing bundles of cells you emotional idiot. Even if the law disagreed with me i would still think abortion is fine, because it's a fucking fetus, not born yet. I'd even be ok with third trimester abortions. come at me.

let me guess, you have taken exactly 0 upper level biology classes and are religious.

>>9071799
This is my (>>9071791, >>9071734) point, I don't know if I'm just bad at conveying it.

Fetuses are alive, but it doesn't mean killing them is bad.>>9071766 >>9071695 is doing what most pro-choice people do: they present their philosophical opinion and biological fiction as facts to dehumanize fetuses, in order to feel good because they're "not killing children anymore". Dishonest.

>>9071799
Fetuses are alive but do not have rights. That's really the issue. And they certainly dont have the right to displace the mother's rights.

>>9071806
no you're humanizing a fetus. I am not dehumanizing a child, because it's not a child, it's a fetus.

File: catgirls for domestic ownership.png (252KB, 1164x511px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1164x511px

>>9071578
[math] \mathscr{We}\ \mathscr{must}\ \mathscr{secure}\ \mathscr{the}\ \mathscr{the}\ \mathscr{existence}\ \mathscr{of}\ \mathscr{catgirls}\ \mathscr{and}\ \mathscr{a}\ \mathscr{future}\ \mathscr{for}\ \mathscr{them}\ \mathscr{in}\ \mathscr{our}\ \mathscr{homes!}\ [/math]

>>9071805
I'm not religious, and you're lying through your teeth. The law does not follow biology, and fetuses are alive.
>muh bundle of cells
All living people are made of cells, many organisms much less complicated are considered to be alive.

You're lying to yourself to make yourself feel good.

>>9071815
>all living things*

>>9071815
it's hilarious how people think im somehow lying to myself or deluding myself to believe what i believe. It's really not a difficult thought process. The law does follow biology, or else abortions wouldnt be allowed. The reason the third trimester is the cutoff is because of continuous brainwave activity, which is seen as the beginning of human life, from a legal definition. Why do you think braindead people are sometimes declared legally dead? Bundle cells, no brain function = no life. exact same argument. Yes, pull the plug on them too.

i really dont understand you guys. If you're not religious, you're emotionally manipulated hard into thinking that 1. human life is something special 2. a fetus somehow cares if it gets aborted 3. a fetus somehow feels pain without the brain development necessary to feel pain 4. all fetuses should be brought to term no matter of environmental or socioeconomic condition, because of point 1.

when it comes down to it, i dont really care because again, law on my side, and it's not going to change. Go pray for fetuses, im gonna do research

>>9071829
to add on this, i guess it's easier for you guys to believe im either delusional or lying to myself to come to this conclusion. Well a shitload of people are lying to themselves, including a lot of the people who claim to be pro-life until they find themselves in a sticky situation, looking at you hardcore catholics

>>9071834
to add on this, i guess it's easier for you guys to believe im either delusional or lying to myself to come to this conclusion **then it is to believe that you're wrong or not fully educated on the subject. **

>>9071815

Death is medically defined as destruction of higher brain. It is why we can legally kill braindead but biologically alive people. And rightly so.

In the same way, beginning of a human person should be defined as "brain birth", or the moment when higher brain begins to function. This does not happen until 5-6th month in the womb at the earliest.

It is not any kind of a lie, consciousness/sentience as the basis for human rights is not an uncommon view. It is one reason why most people want early term abortions to be legal while late term ones banned.

>>9071810
>>9071829

I used to think this until I had a kid.

I'm not religious, rationally I know that the fetus was basically a parasite for most the pregnancy. It just changes your perspective holding a 6 month old child and a year ago my wife could have said "lol so bad so sad, my body my choice" and aborted her. Honestly I take a different way to work since my daughter was born because seeing the planned parenthood office on my old route made me want to cry.

You're not going to agree, and that's fine, I'm just trying to get you to understand why people feel the way they do, and that it transcends the very valid points your brought up.

>>9072398
As long as you dont stop others from them, your opinion is valid. I get that, i have a nephew i love unconditionally, but you're being emotional, and you're coming from a place of emotion. My mom had an abortion after she became pregnant after a failed vasectomy, this was after my sister and i were born. As long as you realize there are people who dont make that emotional connection, and don't restrict their access to abortion, your opinion is fine by me.

>>9071578
In the words of Morty from Rick and Morty.

"You're smart, you'll figure it out."

>>9071578

Stop federally funding science and technology. You can't put politics in charge of science and then wonder why science became political. There were plenty of advances in basic science and applied technology prior to 1945. There's nothing magical about government money.

My colleagues spend all their time chasing grant $$$. A private system may or may not spend more overall, but it would certainly spare them the 50%+ that top academics spend on the political song and dance.

File: USFund1.jpg (165KB, 946x709px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 946x709px

>>9072637
>pukes republican small government propaganda
you're a weak minded pinhead

>muh brain wavessss
>muh egg/sperm are potential life
>muh body muh choice
>muh freedom!

Why are murderers so stupid/deluded? The entire thing is settled, and convenience is just about the only excuse.

Just accept your label, murderers.

>>9072637
This would just make private companies super powerful because they would be the only ones doing R&D. Think pharmaceutical industry but in all industries.

>>9072697
>muh feelings

>The entire thing is settled
your right, it's legal.

>>9071695
human. human fetuses.

humans automatic personhood regardless of age.

>>9072705
>humans automatic personhood regardless of age.
that's an opinion. An opinion the law does not agree with. And an opinion most people disagree with. again, emotions "it's a person so it's sacred". it's neither.

>>9072702
>your right, it's legal
Exactly, murderers run around doing whatever they want. You don't need any excuses for murdering because you got mob rule on your side. Psychopathy is a state of being, like there is no need to dress it up like you are being something other than that.

Your feelings(brain waves) are more important!

>>9072717
laws are like opinions, (wo)man.

>>9072718
>pushing your cosmology on other people in a secular country with no established religion of the government.

its a privacy rights issue if you want to get technical. Its none of your business what women do with their own bodies. That's what Roe VS Wade established. its not your business so piss off.

>>9072718
keep using buzzwords like murder. it's not. if legally it were murder, abortion doctors would go to jail for murder.
>Psychopathy is a state of being, like there is no need to dress it up like you are being something other than that.
yea id argue you're the one with the mental illness having an unreasonable attachment to a bundle of cells with no brain function.
>>9072724
good argument.

>>9071599

How long till radical centrism is just another meme ?

>>9072737
Murder is not a buzzword, moron. It's referencing an act. Why are you so confident in your arguments when you are so unaware of even the most basic definitions.
> a bundle of cells
You brain is a bundle of cells, albeit not very interesting!

Men decide the laws, do you blindly worship the lawmakers? The likes of GW Bush, Clinton, Obama and other warmongers?

>>9072757
>Why are you so confident in your arguments when you are so unaware of even the most basic definitions.
why are you? here are the definitions. >>9071695
it does not have rights until it has brainwaves, which is the 3rd trimester. If people without brainwaves had rights, they wouldnt pull the plug on coma victims or that would be murder. it's not.
>Men decide the laws, do you blindly worship the lawmakers? The likes of GW Bush, Clinton, Obama and other warmongers?
no, if abortion was against the law i would still advocate for it, it has nothing to do with who writes the law. Because forcing a woman to carry to term a baby that is unwanted infringes upon the only entity that has rights, the mother. Until the fetus is in the 3rd trimester, but then it is illegal, as it has brainwaves and it is no longer her call.

>>9072699

The empirical results in management seem to contradict that. Faced with groundbreaking technological change, dominant companies tend to be unwilling or unable to adapt and are replaced by new entrants which are not already married to existing ways of doing business. Hence why such advances are called disruptive. It was a puzzle for decades because theory suggested what you're saying: that a dominant player in an industry, especially one with huge economies of scope and not just single industry scale, should be able to maintain its advantage indefinitely. And yet new advances seem invariably able to let small scrappy firms outcompete the megacorps and drive them out. The answer to the riddle was agency theory and political views of firm decision-making. A move might be profit maximizing for the firm as a whole but not be made because nobody currently employed in that firm would benefit. Or not enough people.

So technological advances lead to a punctuated equilibrium model of industry structure.

And btw look closely at the structure of the pharma industry and it's nothing like you're implying. Branding, distribution, and financing are consolidated, but R&D other than simple reformulations is dominated by a healthy and ever-changing landscape of small startups

>>9072660

Much of the privately funded research is government mandated and government managed. Eg pharma clinical trials. When you get to college, ask your professors what proportion of their funding for publishable academic work comes from government vs for- and non-profit organizations. Remember: university funds come mostly from course subs, which come from tuition, which is mostly government dollars.

But if you really believe that chart you're waving, then why so mad? It seems like science is going private anyway and has for decades. Eliminating that last quarter should solve the problem. If you really believed that chart, you wouldn't be so scared of that "minor" source of funding going away

>>9071578
Anything other than abortion is oppressing womynz.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/17/ny-lefts-radical-opposition-to-funds-for-pregnant-women/

>>9072823
>http://nypost.com/2017/07/17/ny-lefts-radical-opposition-to-funds-for-pregnant-women/
>nypost.com
lol

>>9071600
Better care options for premature fetuses alters the definition of "viability," which is a concept used in many state laws to define whats and abortion and what is infanticide.

>>9071578
Are people who make money off such ideas be a bigger threat then someone who bible thumps all day? Like big oil interests stifling alternatives to gas/oil? Water powered engines for example and since something like watered powered engines could revolutionize the life of the poor who pay huge sums for transportation(excluding public transport in cities).

>>9072870
(First word should be Aren't)
(This is my post.)
Continuation
.It might make people who are opposed to progress more accepting since they can see how science directly affects their pocket positively.

>>9072637
>all research should be limited to what makes a profit for a corporation
That's a fucking stupid idea.

>>9072801
>But if you really believe that chart you're waving, then why so mad? It seems like science is going private anyway and has for decades. Eliminating that last quarter should solve the problem. If you really believed that chart, you wouldn't be so scared of that "minor" source of funding going away
>why so mad?
Because the proportion of the funding coming from the government should be staying the same or even rising, not decreasing

>>9072801
You're basing this all on the assumption that the market "chooses" the best outcome for people. This isn't the case in science research and pharma, where thing like vaccines and cures for diseases don't have a large affect on rich western populations aren't funded.
You can say something about efficiency, or that the market decides fairly what is worth doing, but that would be wrong and would amount to blind worship no better than religious fanatics.

>>9071599
The centrist is just called both at the same time

>>9072705
>human. Human cells

Therefore cancer cells are chemo and it's immoral to kill them

>>9071841
I dislike this semantics game and how it pertains to lives and the law, since the same arguments used for abortion easily support infanticide as well.

>>9073020
how so? Infants have continuous brainwaves, and are not braindead. Fetuses up to the third trimester are. It's the presence of brainwaves that gives them human rights.

>>9072785

You made an entire argument from authority only to back-peddle.

So a clump of cells we are then, and you obviously don't want to pursue that line any longer since you have moved on to the brainwaves line of argument.

What makes brainwaves more special than DNA that can turn into a human? An embryo is a stage of human life. Basing anything on brainwaves seems like the most arbitrary position to simply peddle some agenda. It's also very inconsistent if you were to compare a comatose patient, worse yet a brain dead person, now to an embryo-a very dishonest line of argument.

>Because forcing a woman to carry to term a baby that is unwanted infringes upon the only entity that has rights, the mother.

We made excellent progress! Yes all women must be able to get rid of that which hinders her when it suits her, because responsibility is not important.

Going back to topic, if an embryo can now survive outside a woman then it will have more rights, and there is no denying that your line of argument has any weight.

>>9073121
>if I anonymously condescend someone on the internet, that must mean I'm winning!
So you're that kind of asshole.

I'm curious, in your opinion when does the ovum become a separate being, and not a constituent cell of the mother's body? It starts as one of her cells, no different than a skin cell or a liver cell, etc., but when do you see it as not being a part of her body? Fertilization? Viability?

I'm not the guy you replied to, and I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just asking what you think.

>>9073121
>What makes brainwaves more special than DNA that can turn into a human?

Because it implies some sort of conscious experience. Obviously you don't want to kill a fetus that can feel pain or terror.

>Yes all women must be able to get rid of that which hinders her when it suits her, because responsibility is not important.

Strawman

>Going back to topic, if an embryo can now survive outside a woman then it will have more rights, and there is no denying that your line of argument has any weight.

Maybe you should ask yourself how they can pass the experimental stage without "murdering" a few fetuses

>>9073121

>So a clump of cells we are then, and you obviously don't want to pursue that line any longer since you have moved on to the brainwaves line of argument.

We are clumps of cells with with brainwaves. Or minds. Call it whatever you want, but that is the ultimate source of any rights and what makes us morally different from inanimate matter. It has nothing to do with cells or biology really, a sentient strong AI simulated in a computer would deserve certain rights, too. As do higher animals. Having at least a simple mind is the basic prerequisite to even begin talking about something like "rights".

No mind, no victim, no crime.

>>9071578
Research in Europe/China

>>9073133
How are haploid cells anything close to being a human?

>>9073139
>conscious
What is this? Brainwaves?

>Strawman
Is it though? Really?

>Maybe you should ask yourself how they can pass the experimental stage without "murdering" a few fetuses
Experimental stage of what? What are you talking about? This isn't even about abortion. You can harvest stem cells without embryos. Are you strawmanning?

>>9073141
>We are clumps of cells with with brainwaves. Or minds. Call it whatever you want, but that is the ultimate source of any rights
Prove it.

The ultimate source of rights, for example: abortion, is might. The government exerts its monopoly on violence to legislate laws, which demand that such a practice is carried out without repercussions. Seems to be a lot of confusion around here.

>>9073165

>Experimental stage of what?

Artificial wombs, genetic engineering.. Are you luddite enough to be against that?

>>9073165

>Prove it.

>asking to prove a subjective moral judgement

Oh, I didnt realize you have solved the is-ought problem. Where is your noble price in philosophy?


I can explain my reasoning, (I already did), but it is impossible to truly prove a subjective moral opinion. Applies to abortion, too, and equally to pro-life and pro-choice.

>The ultimate source of rights, for example: abortion, is might.

That is what is. Not what ought to be.

>>9073167
>genetic engineering
No one can stop a storm. Am I against it? No, and why does it even matter?

>Artificial wombs
So far they have only been tried with animals. And, the first trials of these will be carried out to save the unfortunate who suffer miscarriages or other similar cases... They will be seen as live giving machines.

>>9073173
So you cannot prove it?

>Oh, I didnt realize you have solved the is-ought problem
You haven't either! You have been preaching about what ought to be, but I am only talking about what is... In fact, I have not once said what ought to be. Did I say anything against abortion? Other than it is murder?

>Applies to abortion, too, and equally to pro-life and pro-choice
I suppose you can apply it to murder and other atrocities too? oh, a slippery slope?! Subjective morality but we are all living under it? Wonderful.

>>9073183

>Did I say anything against abortion? Other than it is murder?

This is a subjective, moral statement. It is clearly an ought.

>I suppose you can apply it to murder and other atrocities too? oh, a slippery slope?! Subjective morality but we are all living under it? Wonderful.

Morality is indeed subjective. Get over it. It always ultimately comes down to feelz.

This does not mean we shouldnt discuss it or have moral convictions but it does mean you are being disingenuous when you pretend you are magically objective. As if!

>>9073186
>This is a subjective, moral statement.
Then what is it? The termination of a human stage of life? How would you term such a move? Let me guess, not murder in case of an embryo.

>>9071695
By killing a fetus you are ending what if left alone will be a human life so by killing it you end a life so it is murder by definition

>>9073197

>By killing a fetus you are ending what if left alone will be a human life so by killing it you end a life so it is murder by definition

"killing" a potential human being is as bad as using a condom.

>>9073191

>Then what is it? The termination of a human stage of life? How would you term such a move? Let me guess, not murder in case of an embryo.

It is just killing. Not all killing is morally wrong. To be murder it needs to be an unjust killing of a human person. Abortion is neither unjust, nor killing a person.

>>9073197
>what will be a human life
But it isn't a human life at that time. Religiousfag BTFO

>>9073202
>killing is morally wrong
I did not say such a thing.

It is however the killing of another human who is at a different stage of development.

We all march the path of embryo, toddler, young person, adult, etc., to simply discount such a stage because it suits your agenda is dishonest. Our development is procedural.

>Abortion is neither unjust
Nothing being said about just or justice, don't wander astray.

Is murder subjective to you?

>>9073209
You conveniently leave out semen. Is masturbation wrong? What about nocturnal emissions, which men have no control over?

>>9073209

>We all march the path of embryo, toddler, young person, adult, etc., to simply discount such a stage because it suits your agenda is dishonest. Our development is procedural.

We also march the path of a sperm and an egg. A condom ends the path towards adult human just as surely as an abortion would.

The point is, a mere potential human being has no right to life. Either it is actually a human being in the present, or it is not. What may or may not be in the future is irrelevant.

>Is murder subjective to you?

Ultimately it is. Murder simply means something like "a wrong killing". However what is good or bad is a subjective moral question.

>>9073212
>>9073214

I've already said about haploid cells. We don't exist as haploid cells. IS THIS EVEN A SCIENCE BOARD?? WHAT AM I DOING HERE??

>>9073216
So I didn't originate as a sperm cell in my dad's testicles?

>>9073165
>Experimental stage of what? What are you talking about?

What are you fucking stupid or something? Growing babies outside of wombs

>>9073216

So it's ok to kill haploid cells but not diploid cells?

>>9073216

>We don't exist as haploid cells.

Speak for yourself. I did exist as two haploid cells in the past.

Why should women be forced to give birth and raise a baby they don't want, is she going to magically become a good mother after she gives birth? In most cases no, the child will be neglected and suffer the consequences for the rest of their life. They will most likely become a burden to society. The world is already overpopulated, it's not getting better. People are already dying due to lack of resources, why take away an option that will help?

>>9071603
look at the demographic developments in the us in the past 40 years

>>9073235

>The world is already overpopulated

Only Africa and middle east. The rest of the world has issues with too low fertility.

>>9073239
US inner cities would disagree with you

>>9071608
Women that get an abortion aren't really the ones I want to reproduce.
It's a great way to keep the black and slut population in check.

>>9073244

Not him but that depends on the demographic, the largest rate of births in the U.S. comes from the Hispanic population. Both White and Black populations have lower rates relatively.

That's why you see charts showing the growth rate of the black population in the future roughly maintaining 13% while Hispanics continue to go up to 24%.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/%3famp=1

So unless you are specifically talking about Hispanics (which is more a immigration issue) they don't agree.

>>9071603
The US spends more, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of GDP, on education than any other nation. Explain a plan to improve education that isn't just another blind handout to the criminally wasteful institution of public schooling.

>>9072897

I think you need to take an intro microeconomics course, because I don't think you understand my argument. Or, indeed, what markets can and can't do. Or in fact the list of available alternatives.

First, markets don't choose the best outcome. Nor do governments, religious figures, or the trustees at non-profits. Where you have limited resources, the decision of which mix of priorities is better is a value judgement and nobody agrees on which is better. Markets, governments, non-profits, religions all offer competing ways of setting priorities, but positivist science can't answer normative questions.

A related question that CAN be answered is, given a set of priorities, how to get the maximum benefit towards those priorities with the minimum social resources diverted from other activities like food production. Obstacles that waste resources are corruption, using wasteful (usually obsolete) technologies, and lack of information/attention/processing power to make good decisions with. Basically all that dysfunctional crap you read about in Dilbert. Every organization of every kind is subject to it, and without mechanisms to prune it back it will simply accumulate.

Markets allocate more resources towards firms that prune this cruft back the most, and away from those that do so the least. Those that don't prune enough are disbanded and their personnel and assets end up in the hands of those who use their resources more effectively. Non-profits have a similar market discipline effect, though it's less effective. Governments, who hold a monopoly on the use of direct public coercion, can get a weak disciplinary effect from relaxing their monopoly in different ways (democracy and federalism are two examples).

The point isn't that markets are perfectly efficient. It's that they're the least INefficient known social organization. That's a matter of theory, but it's also empirically verified in countless contexts.

continued...

File: lmao2.png (503KB, 601x420px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 601x420px

>>9073286
>Explain a plan to improve education that isn't just another blind handout to the criminally wasteful institution of public schooling.

Why Finland has the Best Education by Michael Moore
https://youtu.be/XQ_agxK6fLs

it helps to make it illegal to run private schools. Forces the rich to give a shit about the quality of public education.

>>9071603

OP's complaint is that people are making political choices based on morality/ideology that he disagrees with. If people are making the "wrong" choices, then how is that not an ideological/religious problem? The alternative is to return to the pre-1940's system where research was not funded through the political process at all.

Also, it seems to me that what OP means by "impeeding" (sic) science is actually "failing to allocate as much money as I'd personally prefer to my favorite research areas". In which case, why doesn't HE cut the check?

Also, in education, decisions have to be made about what facts to teach and how to teach them. What's important, what can be skipped, and how those facts relate to one another. The moment you get into the social sciences, you need some kind of organizing principle that defines quantities of interest and how they relate. That organizing principle is called an ideology. What happens is that most people assume that their own world view and priorities are self-evidently factually true and everyone else is blinded by ideology.

I'm all for better education. It'll solve all kinds of problems, but the moment you decide to fund science publicly this problem becomes inevitable and intractable. You can't take the politics out of politics.

>>9073840

OK, so markets are efficient. That's just basic economics and one of the best-supported empirical findings in science.

As I said, though, they're not necessarily *right* in their priority-setting function, because values can't be proven or disproven. However, some people have made moral arguments that markets are also morally superior.

First, you talk about not enough resources going to projects you like. But I noticed that you didn't say which scientific projects are over-invested and should be cut. And of course given limited resources, that's the question.

Second, as you can see from this thread, different people have different priorities about what research should be done and how it should be done. OK so Alice disagrees with Bob and Charlie. Whose priorities are supposed to win?

Broadly, there are three approaches. First, Alice, Bob, and Charlie have a Game of Thrones contest of intrigue/politicking/violence. Bob wins, crowns himself King Bob, takes Alice's and Charlie's stuff, and uses them according to his priorities. It's all coercion.

Second, they cut violence off the menu and have some kind of vote. If Alice and Bob win, they take Charlie's stuff and spend it according to the priorities they've agreed to between themselves. Some coercion, some negotiation.

The third is for each to use their resources according to their own preferences. No coercion at all. Everything is voluntary.

Free markets and non-profits exist in that third category. If you think more money needs to be spent on vaccines targeted for the developing world, then you cut the check. Nobody is stopping you. In fact, you can even argue and persuade others to cut checks, too. What you can't do is make someone accept prioities against his will. Which is good because you're always 270 electoral votes away from someone else coercing YOU. That's the moral argument, but it's got a healthy practical dimension.

>>9073911
but anon that's not nice and it makes me feel bad

>>9071578
Establish a totalitarian oppressive government which will do anything for science, even use its own people as test subjects in the name of progress. All fueled by a mighty propaganda machine and eventually mind control.
Can't find any other way for humanity to focus on progressing.

>>9073911
I would just argue that markets are short term cost effective, as that is easiest to default to, but therein lies a problem to huge resources waste. A excellent example of such waste would be the agricultural infrastructure of America, quite a huge amount of water is drained straight from aquifers and never gets the chance to replenish. Additionally, you have such retarded choices such as growing nuts in California, which require huge amounts of water to produce, and really most crops would be better produced in different regions. But, it's cheaper to do it in California.

In essence, yes I agree with how efficient markets are, often brutally so. But, the short term (10-20 year outlook) cheapest solution is plague on humanity and will only fuck us over. I think a longer term outlook is more favorable, and more resources efficient in the long term.

they can make egg cells from skin cells.

combine that with crispr and artifical wombs.

you can make a baby to spec and never have to involve anyone but the customer.

>>9071695
Admit it, you only support abortions because it's consistent with your belief in eugenics.

File: 1500881962200.jpg (235KB, 1694x867px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1694x867px

we are quite far away from artificial wombs so i doubt anyone here will see it happen. these types of articles are always so far removed from reality and only aim to devide and confuse.

>>9072718
You don't really understand why murder is wrong, do you?

>>9074019
This. Mr. Cohen is just being kikey.

>>9071725
Its more like destroying a seedling and saying you chopped down a tree

>>9074012
>Admit it, you only support abortions because it's consistent with your belief in eugenics.
no i support abortions because it's consistent with my belief in free will and body autonomy. Also personhood. A human being does not have personhood, or rights, if they do not have consistent brainwaves. I really dont see how this is hard to grasp. Go complain about pulling the plug on braindead coma patients, you're just emotional because "muh baby".
it's not a baby.

>>9073963
where do you get the sperm cells?

>>9074100

The socks under my bed

>>9071599
This

File: unnamed.png (502KB, 600x386px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 600x386px

personally i think abortion should be against the law, its against the law to cut off your own finger so why should it be allowed with any other body part? think vangogh who cut off his own ear and was considered a loony.

>>9074132
>cutting your own finger is illegal
where

>>9074132
>its against the law to cut off your own finger
What country?

>>9073856
> forces the rich
I'd rather live in freedom surrounded by idiots than being a slave of some socialist shithole.

>>9074147
The outcome is the same either way.

>>9074147
>a slave of some socialist shithole
with the best educated people on the planet, in a society that cares for all its people's well being and actually provides it with a higher standard of living than in America.

you really are retarded, but then again that's what the propaganda was meant to make you be so it isn't all your fault except to the extent that your weak minded.

>>9073856
>it helps to make it illegal to run private schools
Not from where I stand. As a Dutchman I can only shamefully say that we have a burger-tier education system which exists in a socialist shithole. Private education is all but outlawed and your rich who you'd think would give a damn about their offspring have zero incentive to improve anything that's not related to their own career. The morons in government think it's a good idea that quantity > quality so you're not just spending almost every day the whole day at school barely learning anything, but the rest of your time gets swallowed up by tons and tons of homework which has the same effect.

Judging from your video it seems the Finns have figured out that kids learn best when they're being kids instead of bureaucratic produce that have to do nothing but fill out forms all day every day. I can guarantee you that removing your options in burgerland will only make things worse as now everyone will be forced to drink the commoncore koolaid.

God, I hate (((white))) liberals so much.

>>9074147
>I'd rather live in freedom surrounded by idiots
That quickly gives way to socialist slavery, though, but you're still surrounded by idiots

>>9073197
No, if left alone, the fetus will die, unless its put in one of these womb bags. If its left inside the woman, feeding on her nutrients, then there is a certain probability that it will become a child, but it may also spontaneously terminate. There is no guarantee either way.

>>9071600
men can now have children without women having some kind of veto power with abortions. Equal rights mean women get to control life and death and have the inalienable right to murder their own children.

>>9074132
Lol imagine some country wasting it's resources going after a man who cut off his fingers. fml

>>9071695
they're human and its murder. It's literally the 3/5ths argument with black people. You know how I know its murder because if you cause that women to lose her pregnancy you would go to jail for murder.

>>9071736
abortion promotes risky behaviour sexually, it causes the opposite of prosperity. Ever since the advent of birth control and abortion rights the rate of single parent families has exploded and is the single biggest thing contributing to poverty.

>>9071791
>By almost all definitions of life, fetuses are alive.
Not at all. Most definitions of a life form describe something that undergoes its own metabolic processes and adapt to its environment, something a fetus cannot do. The cells that compose the fetus could be described as alive, but the fetus itself is not

>>9074485
Citation needed.

>>9071600
men can now have children without the veto power a woman has in the form of an abortion. Women will no longer hold the power of life or death. Men will not have to do what women say in order to have children. Feminists are worried that women will lose all the power they have over men a concept they're obsessed with, after all they believe everything men do is a way to control women and for the sole purpose of getting power over them .

>>9074098
I support abortions, but only because I take the prevention of birth defects to be a valuable end, and abortions are a good means of preventing bad genes from being passed on. Your views, on the other hand, are inconsistent garbage. You've managed to convince yourself that personhood is dependent on having consistent brainwaves, which absolutely begs the question. Also, show me the studies which say that fetuses don't have consistent brainwaves, whatever that's supposed to mean. You likely know nothing about neuroscience, and the only reason why you bring it up is because you think it legitimizes your argument, which it does not. Even if the brain waves of fetuses are "inconsistent", it does not follow that you should not consider them people. This is completely stipulated. I support abortions, but you are laughably bad at arguing in their favor.

>>9074481
yea because only the pregnant woman is allowed to terminate a pregnancy. human fetus doesnt equal human rights, until brain waves. the mother would be tried in the 3rd trimester if she caused death because at that point it gains personhood and therefor rights.
nothing to do with black people. if they have continuous brainwaves, they have personhood rights.

>>9074185
When was the last time any significant person ever came out of Finland? What good has the Finnish government ever accomplished outside their country?
America may not be a nice suburban paradise from border to border but it's a beacon of progress and innovation.

>>9074517
>if they have continuous brainwaves, they have personhood rights.
No logic in this claim.

>>9074528
and i see no logic in yours. difference of opinion. try to change the law?

>>9074536
What kind of answer is that? I'm saying that it does not follow that ∀x: (x has continuous brain waves iff x is a person). Your argument is simply stipulating this. What are the grounds for this claim?

>>9071695
Yes abortion isnt murder, but white women are human cancer who kill their babies for fucking anything

OH MY GOD CHAD WONT LIKE ME NO MORE BYE BYE HONEY

OH MY GOD SOMEONE MADE ME FEEL BAD BYE BYE HONEY

OH MY GOD MY BF WONT RAISE YOU SO ILL KILL YOU TO PISS HIM OFF BYE BYE HONEY

Its really amazing how the mothers are the true murderers of children because most abortion cases have no logical roots its all inane stupid feelings.

>>9074543
Oh, basically that personhood starts from the point where you have perception, self awareness, any ability to sense pain. And that begins when there is a continuous detectable brainwave. before that point there are only small insignificant, extremely short spikes where certain neurons are making connections and testing them/growing.

>>9071771
Peace, Love, and Baby Murder.

The problem with your nihilistic rant is it could be used to legitimize murder anyone.

>>9074558
no it cant, read >>9074556
>>9074517
although braindead coma victims, yes.

>>9074556
Assuming personhood is attached to self-awareness, as you claim, is it fair to kill a fetus who, in spite of not currently holding personhood, will inevitably become a person in the following months? Your argument seems to rely only on the idea that you cannot kill actual persons, but one might ask why it should be that one is aloud to kill potential persons, especially if these potential persons are guaranteed personhood in a very short period of time. Is it not reprehensible to take away the life of a fetus who, given enough time, would be as much of a person as you, with goals and desires?

>>9074550
don't worry you'll impregnate a woman someday

>>9074565
gross

>>9072757
Why is murder wrong? Why should murder be illegal? Before you call me a relativist of edgelord or whatever, there is a logical reason; I want to see if you know it.

>>9074596
Value is not attributed based on logical reasons. The only correct view of ethics is that of Hume, where reason is secondary to emotional responses in shaping one's ethical beliefs. If most think murder should be illegal, this is because the vast majority of us have an innate aversion to murder.

>>9073197
you can't end a life that hasn't started yet, you utter moron.

>>9072746
But anon, it is another meme.

>>9074610
Nobody debates whether a fetus is alive. This is undeniable given our definition of life. However, the question is whether a fetus is a person or not, and whether this warrants us to kill it. But denying that fetuses are alive is ridiculous.

>>9074596
I would not want to be murdered. Therefor I feel that murder is wrong.
>>9074600
Basically this.

>>9074504
You're a fucking retard and not just because you're a eugenicist. The anon you're replying to is arguing with people who haven't bothered to make their case, instead just claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is clearly wrong. They're making a positive claim (Abortion is murder; babies are human beings) so the burden of proof is on them. Everyone debating them is being charitable in the extreme, yet that is the post you choose to nitpick. Why don't you take your own philosophy to heart and take your retard genes out of the gene pool

>>9074640
>Supports policy which allow people to screen for genetic abnormalities and abort babies which have these abnormalities (eg Down Syndrome)
>Against eugenics

Have you ever considered being consistent in your beliefs? But I suppose you calling someone a retard evidently makes you right and prevents you from having to articulate an argument of your own.

>>9071695
The goalposts aren't even on the field anymore.
In case you're too stupid to figure it out, nobody is making the argument that brain activity = life, rather that it being a human gives it rights.

>>9071829
That stipulation was implemented as a compromise between pro-life and pro-abortion camps, you ignorant fuck. The law doesn't follow biology, the law follows the arguments made for and against. If pro-choice had their say, they would put the deadline at 36 weeks, if pro-life had their say they would put it at 0 weeks. 25 weeks is the least arbitrary of the milestones presented.

>>9074616
The fetus is absolutely not alive based on pretty much every definition of life.
See:
>>9074487

>>9074655
Fetuses do have their own metabolism, which contributes, along with the metabolism of the mother and the placenta, to the growth of the fetus. See the article below.

http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/47/1/189.full.pdf

pro life people love the subject, it gets them off because they feel morally superior even though the supreme court ruled its none of their business what women do with their own bodies, including abortions.

>>9074667
>its none of their business what women do with their own bodies
I think one of the main arguments against abortion is that the practice is thought to target more than just the woman's body.

>>9074474
If a toddler is abandoned by the parents, then the toddler will certainly die as well. The toddler feeds on the resources of the parents. Furthermore, there is no certainty that the toddler will reach adulthood, as the child can die suddenly from one of thousands of contagious maladies. Therefore, by your definition, the toddler is not a person, so to act in order to kill the toddler is not murder.

>>9074645
I'm sorry your strawman isn't consistent, but I don't support any policy like that. Kind of obvious, what with my denunciation of eugenics and all. And if you don't want to be insulted for your stupid posts, I suggest you get the fuck of 4chan.

>>9074686
The policy is abortion. Abortion allows people to practice eugenics, and that's what you support. If you claim that women are allowed to get rid of their unborn babies, then I hope you're aware that this allows them to abort a child they find unfit.

>>9074672
well take it up with the supreme court, they ruled its none of your business.

>>9074708

t. brainlet

Buck vs Bell ruled in favor of involuntary sterilization.

Plessey v Ferguson ruled in favor of segregation

>>9074708
>Loses an argument
>Appeals to authority

>>9074716
your point?
>>9074719
your argument was lost before it began, sometimes authority appeals work when there is an authority with jurisdiction that has decided the matter.

>>9074734
>sometimes authority appeals work when there is an authority with jurisdiction that has decided the matter.
So I suppose questioning the Jim Crow laws was a lost cause since an authority with jurisdiction had decided on the matter.

>>9074743
>thinking I care about whatever examples you could cite

see that was your mistake

pointless debate is pointless

>>9074679
First of all I wasn't arguing a criterion for personhood, just point out all the ways in which the anon I replied to was wrong. Second of all, the abandoned toddler has an astronomically higher chance of surviving to adulthood than the abandoned fetus. This is comparing something that has happened multiple times to something that's odds aren't even 1:estimated lifetime of the universe

>>9074692
No, it doesn't. Supporting women's access to abortions does not equal supporting the use of in vivo genetic testing to determine abortion targets. Just like your dismissal of bodily sovereignty in abortion cases doesn't mean you support organ harvesting.

>>9074563
>Is it not reprehensible to take away the life of a fetus who, given enough time, would be as much of a person as you, with goals and desires?
No. It's not. at all. Not until the 3rd trimester.

>>9074600
>The only correct view of ethics is that of Hume
Wrong, but if you're going to make the feelz over realz argument, why even bother with this? You feel like abortion is wrong, but I do not. Checkmate emotivists.

>>9072717
>An opinion the law does not agree with. And an opinion most people disagree with.
If you're going to make this argument, don't pretend you have either a logical or moral high ground. You're essentially just saying "might makes right".

>>9074660
The fetal cells metabolize. The fetus itself does not.

>>9074762
>get blown out
>"None of this matters anyway"
K

File: 1472722733389.png (352KB, 483x637px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 483x637px

>>9071695
>thinking you can determine what is and isn't alive with an electroencephalograph

lel

The only real objective date for a an abortion cutoff is the beginning of the third trimester. That's when fetal brain development slows to its post-natal regular. Before then it can be argued that the fetus doesn't have the nervous system of a human, after that it's beyond debate that it does.

And that by no means solves the moral conundrum as only the most autistic behaviorists are comfortable with the law being based around biology alone; with no moral philosophy involved whatsoever.

>>9075009
im not claiming that is when life begins, i am saying legally that is when life begins, therefor it is not murder.
> Before then it can be argued that the fetus doesn't have the nervous system of a human,
that's pretty much my argument, it does not have the ability to be self aware or feel pain, therefor does not have the same human rights/personhood, same with brain-dead coma victims. basically >>9074556

>>9074930
its literally none of your business of women kill their unborn children. for a burger who loves freedom and privacy you sure give lots of shits about the things other people do that don't have any effect on your life.

>>9071603
Amsricas skip coincides directly with how non-european it became. The same phenomenon is happening in Western Europe now too, as test scores and health are dropping as more Africans and Arabs come in.

>>9071578
private funding and never publishing results but only bringing consumer grade products on the market.

>>9074504
>Butthurt nerds learn to reproduce a-sexually
>Suddenly Stacey Cares

Fucking hilarious what people do with a gun to their head.

File: AyyLmao.gif (660KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 320x240px

>>9076096
The memes...
They Are Multiplying

File: 1499949183861.png (1MB, 852x854px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 852x854px

>>9071766
>not arguing for using artificial womb technology to harvest human embryos for stem cell research and insisting on the abortion right

>>9076102
> AyyLmao
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHpJr7_5Mjg

File: nigger_SAT.jpg (339KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1536x2048px

>>9076007