Abortion

wut
shit logic fam

What is the difference between yourself and pic related

Abortion will become unnecessary once medical technology has advanced to more reliable and convenient forms of contraception. sage.

My brain has developed.

jesus are you so fucking stupid that i have to explain the difference between a fetus and a fully developed human being?

The only real solution is s compromise that permits it only if it threatens the life of the mother, is the product of a crime such as incest or rape, or shows signs of disability, and perhaps allowed in the first trimester.

It's important to understand accurately people's true feelings. Those who oppose abortion do so because of a sincere belief that a fetus is a life, it is not, as some people like to contrive, due to a desire to punish women for having sex.

Similarly, people who support it believe (somewhat nievely) that a woman who has an abortion does so of her own will after making a very difficult choice.

lmao, this is fundie tier arguments. they could have been a serial killer too but it's more likely for someone born in loving, willing circumstances to achieve something good in life.

If that was true they wouldn't oppose sex education and so on

A sperms a potential human, so's an egg, it just requires certain things to reach conception. Handicapped people are already people and have been for some time, they're entitled to human rights, as are coma patients

Its about where you think life starts, at conception or at development, which is why the abortion debate is dumb and youre dumb for trying to start it because there are only 2 camps and its hard to convince someone to switch from one to the other.

OP obviously thinks life starts at conception, because op agrees in certain types of abortion, so he therefore acknowledges a period where the embryo is just that, not a fetus, and so its "okay" to kill it. (i know you used the sexual assault example as to why you think its okay, you still think its okay.) OPs first arguement was shit tier, every response hes given to those calling him out on it have been abysmal. Shit thread.

So? That there babies brain will develop. Further, brain development continues long after birth.

Reactionary social democrats need to be shot.

but it hasnt developed yet
that is literally the fucking point
and anyways for all you know the brain will never develop
there is literally no difference between an embryo that wont develop a brain and one that will, only time

That doesn't make sense.

Let me provide an illustrative example. A shotgun wedding refers to a wedding where the father finds the man who impregnated his daughter and forces him with a metaphorical shotgun to marry her and care for the child. Who wants this man to marry the daughter? The father doesn't want to lowlife to be his son in law, the daughter clearly doesn't, the mother? The family of the man?

None of the above. So why marry instead of abort the child? Because the child is a life in their eyes and the value of that life overrides all of their own desires.

There is a difference. "Will develop a brain" and "won't develop a brain" is literally a difference. It's this way in most philosophy I think

Heh. I could just as easily argue it's because now the woman is damaged goods because she's been fucked, that's how the bible sees it. Their punishment for rape is marriage.

its impossible to determine at that stage
an embryo that will go on to develop a brain and another embryo that will not go on to develop a brain are exactly the same up until you get to the brain development point

Then the marriage should be forced to happen for taking the girl's virginity. It's not though.

Besides, traditionally sex outside of marriage was considered rape and the man was held responsible for that crime.

Maybe not NAP, but your position reeks of humanism then.
I feel completely right in calling it a spook.

A woman shouldn't need permission from the state to remove a parasite from their body.

It's easier to hide screwing than screwing that results in a pregnancy

children cry at restaurants and are generally awful to be around. dead babies contribute to stem cell research.
Abortion should not only be legal, but actively encouraged.

k, let's ask the babby fetus:
"Dear fetus, do you want to live?"
"Uhm, fetus… ?"

great job, op

Women divorce and remarry too. In my view it's important to actually understand others, so that's why I try. Those who oppose abortion aren't trying to punish women. That's a lie. They are genuinely trying to protect life.

what an original and edgy opinion
i bet you like memes too, right my dude?
what aboout this grinning bloke giving you the ol thumbs up? proper funny that.

You literally only think this because you're a beta male and are intimidated by good looking women.

makes sense, sadly

cool use of the ironic beta arguement, in all seriousness isnt it more attractive to see a girl "who can do both" than a girl who only looks good done up in make up with hair done? Drake literally had a verse about this at one point, im sure of it, and hes a better philosopher than anyone on this godforsaken board

Go away cosmetics shill

Point being that you like her without makeup because she seems more attainable, not because she actually looks better that way.

My nigga

I can clearly see eyeliner

i suppose it could be that, but thats not a conscious conclusion im drawing.

Less makeup, whatever.

It's the same reason why men say they like "curvy" (fat) women.

Some people just think it's cuter with less makeup. Her face looks like plastic in the second picture to me.

Yeah and cuckoldry is a perfectly healthy lifestyle as long as it's consensual amirite.

Oh, so you're from Holla Forums.
Now it all makes sense.

i dont agree with that one, thats a sexual preference. Its usually the opposite in terms of attainability with curvy women as ALOT of men appreciate them. The point could be made for girls who look good without makeup, they know this better than us, so theyre obviously going to be confident in their appearance without it. But a subconscious theory of attainability in men still stands i think

i dont know which i like more, killing babies or denying wemon the right to do what they want with their own bodies.

kill the pregnant women, two birds with one stone (that pun was a bit forced but imagine the childs a girl)

Yes, I want to to explain how the fetus in that picture is different to one that has been freshly squeezed out of a vagina and would thus qualify as "a fully developed human being".

Matter of opinion, that.

why IS Holla Forums so concerned with other peoples sexual lives? is it;
if so, then Holla Forumsyps sex lives must be so boring,… oh wait…

...

i just imagined she fucked a turkey and had some sort of human-turkey hybrid.

It's far more 'immoral' to have a child than it is to abort one.

that would make for an awkward thanksgiving. Her partner is the main course…

They're insecure.
That's really all there is to it.

long nights like these make you worry about posters over there. you just wanna give them a hug, ya'know? tell the everything is gonna be alright, youll get there someday, then youll understand that the only fucking that was important was the fucking of the proletariat, comrade. but then they start talking about jewish conspiracies and you realise their just fucked in the head.

Come on fam

But its going to suffer. You aren't giving it the choice NOT to choose

So you don't support euthanasia either?
Like what mental disabilities? You've got a pretty fucked up understanding of the human brain tbh. Besides there is an actual purpose to killing a fetus.

Why? That contradicts your argument about fetus autonomy. Does the baby not have the right to live just because the mother suffered?

Looks like I'm breaking out my argument on this again.

Let us consider what we are interested in when talking about a human life. Are we interested in just the body of the person, in and of itself? If we were to simply talk about a living organ, say, a liver, we would not consider that a person. Nor would we consider a number of interconnected organs, so long as it had no brain to have a mind. It's just meat.

Now we consider the inverse. What happens if we have just a mind and not a body? Say, we were to figure out how to transfer a human consciousness to a computer. We would without a doubt consider this to be a person just as much a human as they were beforehand.

Thus, what we are interested in when discussing what a person is, is the psychological, qualia experiencing mind.

Now let us go back to considering the mind-in-a-computer. What happens if this computer has never been turned on before, but we know that if we turn it on, it will create an entirely new, sentient mind? Are we obligated to the future mind to turn it on? No, that being does not exist. It cannot be obligated to. Even if the computer is going to automatically turn on after so many days, we have no obligation to cause creation of a new being. Even if we were to destroy the turned-off computer, it would not be murder of a person.

Now, every bit of evidence we have tells us that the mind of a human requires the presence of a brain. The

Applied to a person, then, it seems that abortion is not murder if done before this fetus has developed a brain.

the keks must flow

Look, I'm no fan of abortion. I find the whole act reprehensible, but really.

It is the Woman's body, and the fetus is essentially a guest, to be evicted at any time. Applying all this "the fetus has a consciousness" is as spooky as saying it has rights, because it has neither (at least functioning adults have one).

Sure, retards and coma patients my have lower functioning consciousnesses, but objectively, nothing is stopping you from killing them either, so. But the fact is, they are here now, and fetus aren't, so it's kind of a different thing altogether.

Honestly, I would never want my SO or daughter to get one, but that's just my personal belief. I don't want them doing heroin either, but hey, their body, their rules.

Only good resply

The one time I agree with socdem poster. Good job.

This is a considered and well made argument, but it approaches the biological development of the brain as though it exists in a binary "on/off" state. The real situation is that the tissue structure that forms the brain collects neurons gradually, growing in size as it does so.

This results in a situation where there is no definite transition between "off" and "on". Certainly, there are states were the mass of neurons is so small that we can authoritatively assert that the brain must be "off". Similarly, there are states were the mass of neurons is so great that the brain can be asserted to be "on". However, with intermediate masses of neurons, it becomes increasing difficult to authoritatively assert the state of the brain.

What then?

I suppose you think it's murder to have a wank too

zygotes have a unique human DNA and thus are human individuals, it's really not up for debate.
The question is whether humans have a right to life or "people" do.
the answer is neither

As far as I approach it, once the brain starts developing there's no real way to tell what's going on at that early a stage of life so I consider it to be the same as later developments. At least until further evidence is attained.

Hence I only really apply that to early term abortions, but it's mainly to de-mystify the process of conception rather than apply a hard rule of when abortion is okay and when it's not.

Babies should have the right not to be born, but I'll settle for a right not to be born to a mother who does not want them.

Can someone please explain to me why leftists must be pro-abortion? Nobody has ever given me an answer as to why this is.

Speak for yourself. If someone is in a permanent coma or a permanent state of being retarded then yes, they should be put down.

feminism and shit, gotta burn down all church-related beliefs without any ethical consideration whatsoever because we're a force for change, man.

Because murdering kids is cool and a de-spooking process. You don't want to be spooked, do you! Das rite.

ow.

Kys fascist

anyway really i don't think you can really consider morality when it comes to something as airy when mixed with morality as abortion.

my rational is it doesn't really matter anyway. if a woman wants her fetus out of her body then she's gonna get it out whether a hospital will do it for her or not, and so it's better it's done in a clean environment by someone who knows what they're doing than like…her boyfriend with a coathanger lmao

ppl who act like there's nothing weird about the act of abortion are lying to themselves and so are the people who act like it's some kind of cosmic sin

...

..i'm pro abortion

er..pro choice

or whatever

That's beside the point tbh, things don't need to be illegal to be wrong or need to be 100% enforceable to be illegal, think of it as child porn.
peer pressure is important, lolbert individualism is cancer.

It's not some cosmic sin, it's murder, just like vegans see meat eating as murder and a plantation owner in the 1700s might not have seen putting down slaves as murder.
ethics isn't feelings.

what? i was just saying illegalizing abortions would be detrimental to women's health since they'd probably get impromptu amateur abortions from people who aren't doctors anyhow

People are pressured from committing murder but they do it anyway. If we assume a fetus is a person then it's not the governments responsibility to protect the killers.

But first we have to decide if a fetus is a person.

well in what sense is a fetus a person really? they definitely aren't agents in the same way non-fetal people are. i think they only really count in some kind of philosophical/moralistic manner.

Abortion is good for aggregate demand. As I spoke of in a previous post ultimately getting women out of the workplace would create the best work environment in general and boost the economy seven-fold, but until than abortion needs to be very legal and very unrestricted, outright encouraged even to avoid an inflation of unqualified workers.

Inflation might be good for money, but not for people who need said money. Unless of course you plan to start a war and want to draft a ton of people, but even than modern warfare does not use tanks and ground troops nearly as much… so all that "manpower" is unnecessary. I can see no economic benefit to a condensed population save for maybe some international uses of having huge child brothels or mercenary firms.

wat?

Maynard Keynes was an economic genius and single-handedly won the cold war for the U.S. with his superior views on economics.

Anarcho-capitalism has a lot of valuable beliefs surrounding the privatization of all institutions, including many we automatically assume have to be public utility.

Couple the two, and have a strong government to mediate and direct a private marketplace like a referee on the football field, and you have a perpetual motion machine.

like, I've got all that meme figured out

Abortion is a good thing, it prevents those babies from suffering the pain of life. It should be manditory IMHO.

I want to sniff that girl's panties.

tricked ya! without makeup is just with "without makeup" makeup
silly boy!

Abortion should be mandatory

no

Babies exploit their mothers.
Babies go to Gulag.

abortion will lead to a post scarcity world

...

Yes. Abortion is a metaphysical and philosophical problem which is why boiling it down to "lol it's part of a woman's body" is stupid as hell. It also has a somewhat dumb conclusion if we take it to the extreme that people "own" their bodies or have absolute domain over them which of course we don't.

People in a coma were autonomous at one point and might wake up. Parents should also be able to euthanize a retarded baby.

Extending personhood to fetuses is so fucking dumb. A fetus can't think and offers no worth to anybody.

If a woman wants to get rid of it, absolutely let her. Can you imagine how worse our society would be if there were even more unwanted children?

I'm in favour of forced abortions. Life isn't worth living, cut it before they're born.

Does a tree have a right to live? What's the difference? That's right, cognitive ability. Fetus' do not have cognitive ability before minimum 18 weeks, or pain receptors, and only after do they only just begin to have any.

Yep, I can.

The man is nought but a sperm dispenser.

See here's the issue with that analogy. A person in a coma already had a life prior to entering a coma, and if they hadn't killed themselves before we can interpolate and assume that they would want to keep living or that they were cogent enough to decide that life was worth living for them. Also a person who is in a coma's relationships play a factor. Acting as if these 2 are comparable is nonsense.

And yet, how do you justify there being valid circumstances and yet deny others? I know how I can, but how do you given your very black and white reasoning?

I still think abortion is de facto good

Trees do have cognicence and the right to life.

I HAVE AWOKEN FROM MY DOGMATIC SLUMBER

Yes, that is my opinion.
I have an old tree in my back garden and it creates a load of mess most of the year.
As annoying as it is I won't kill it unless it gets ill.

In all seriousness though, I could never have an abortion because

what if it wants to die tho

How about we give the baby the right to kill himself ?
you can't kill him the only one that can kill him is himself
educate him that this life sucks support him with money without his family until he hits school
how about that . left him decide

It would have to kill itself.

this is correct

Um, but it can'ttttttt silly

I feel terrible after reading that. I hate you right now.

Yeah but you can.

One KFC bargain bucket, please.

Don't be mean user

Now you know how trees feel when you tell them they have no right to live

hummm ok we'll call it a draw!

I`m glad that you agree with communist party of china comrade. Since when did you become an anti-revisionist instead of being one?

No problem user, was my pleasure to engage in fine intellectual pugilism with such a sharp mind!

It's the only thing they did correctly IMO

Wait, so it's both "de facto good" as you say here, but it's also a sin? Sins can be good and piousness wrong? meshuga