/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3282106]

You should be able to solve this.

[Anonymous No.3282110]

Solve what? I don't think a problem has been presented.

[Anonymous No.3282116]

>>3282106
no, its still considered life, its just not considered alive

[Anonymous No.3282118]

False-equivocation.

[Anonymous No.3282143]

[Anonymous No.3282145]

/thread

[Anonymous No.3282146]

/pol/ go homu

[Anonymous No.3282147]

>>3282145
Last time I checked, the suicide rate among poor people wasn't 100%. Maybe you'll have an argument when that comes to fruition.

[Anonymous No.3282148]

I wish libs would just admit that fetus' are alive, but that they don't give a shit. It would be a much more honest position, but I guess it would destroy the whole "morally superior" position they pretend to hold.

[Anonymous No.3282150]

>>3282147

-1/10, read the book first.

[Anonymous No.3282151]

>>3282150
No. I can tell by the title the position it's taking, and I just refuted it.

[Anonymous No.3282152]

>>3282151

And Benatar proves you incorrect in the first chapter, as I said, read the book.

[Anonymous No.3282155]

>>3282151
-73434893483971/10

[Anonymous No.3282156]

>>3282152
>morality
>proves

[Anonymous No.3282157]

>>3282148
I, and my liberal friends and family, say this pretty openly. I guess it's just too touchy for a liberal politician to say.

[Anonymous No.3282158]

>>3282151
>No. I can tell by the title the position it's taking
>No. I can tell by the title the position it's taking
>No. I can tell by the title the position it's taking

get out

[Anonymous No.3282160]

>>3282148

I agree. And I also think that abortion is okay. But you equally can´t claim the moral high ground. But there is a difference between indipendent life and the life of an embryo. It´s a little bit harder to pinpoint the moment the child becomes an entity on it´s own. Is it birth? At least legally it is but that´s no strong argument.

[Anonymous No.3282163]

killing unborn babies is wrong

killing animals is delicious :9

[Anonymous No.3282165]

>19th century
>this slave is my property, stop infringing on my rights!!
>21st century
>this fetus is my property, stop infringing on my rights!

Why is the left so logically inconsistent?

[Anonymous No.3282167]

>>3282165
???

[Anonymous No.3282168]

>>3282165

3/10

[Anonymous No.3282169]

of course a fetus is alive, anyone would believe that.

It's just not wrong to kill it, it doesn't share the features that make humans not-morally-killable, whatever those features are

[Anonymous No.3282172]

>>3282169
>it doesn't share the features that make humans not-morally-killable, whatever those features are

They don't exist.

[Anonymous No.3282174]

>>3282172
so go along killing someone in the street you badass and let see how you will be forgiven because it wasn't morally wrong

[Anonymous No.3282175]

>>3282174
>implying popular opinion has anything to do with morality

[Anonymous No.3282177]

>>3282174

I wouldn't mind killing a being without consciousness.

>inb4 then go kill an unconscious person.

[Anonymous No.3282178]

>>3282106
Here you can only have an abortion until the third month, aborting a full-grown fetus (legs, arms etc) is illegal in my contry.

[Anonymous No.3282179]

>>3282178
>muh arbitrary lines

[Anonymous No.3282191]

>>3282175
>implying law has nothing to do with morality

[Anonymous No.3282192]

So what ? everytime you masturbate, you are committing a genocide ?

Worst, everytime you DON'T rape a woman, you are committing a murder ?

dumb fucktards

[Anonymous No.3282198]

>>3282191
When the entire fucking debate about the law is about the "morality" of abortion, yeah it does have something to do with it.

[Anonymous No.3282201]

>>3282192
>So what ? everytime you masturbate, you are committing a genocide ?
>Worst, everytime you DON'T rape a woman, you are committing a murder ?

Can you please take this strawman shit back to le reddit? You're making pro-choicers look retarded.

[Anonymous No.3282205]

>>3282191
You just repeated what I said. Just because you would get thrown in jail by the mob for murder doesn't mean murder is morally wrong, which was his/your argument.

[Anonymous No.3282213]

>>3282191
>women must be 18

[Anonymous No.3282212]

>>3282116
alive = living
life = living things and their activity

[Anonymous No.3282215]

>>3282175
that's literally what morals are

[Anonymous No.3282218]

>>3282215

[Anonymous No.3282222]

What went wrong?

[Anonymous No.3282220]

>>3282218
cool reaction face

[Anonymous No.3282223]

>>3282220
Thanks

[Anonymous No.3282224]

>>3282215
Nope.

[Anonymous No.3282226]

>>3282222
>2222

[Anonymous No.3282225]

>>3282222
When Americans couldn't set up public healthcare and education along with private alternatives like any other modern country.

[Anonymous No.3282241]

>miracle babies
I like how we apply that term to babies that, as a mother, I would actually hate myself for letting live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_in5EUdaQ

You can always argue that you can put it up for adoption, but imagine, for example, you were raped. Imagine for a second you're a woman and you have a baby inside of you that was raped into you. I can only imagine how horrifying that must feel on a daily basis.

>>3282225
That's because whenever they actually try, people actually start screaming about nazis and communists, l like it's the 50s and blacks still can't go to school.

>Comparing Obama to Hitler
>Not pure fucking lunacy.

However, one thing america has that I'm always lamenting about not having where I live is public water fountains. That's a great idea. Just generally an awesome thing.

[Anonymous No.3282242]

>>3282165

>tfw you're a civil libertarian and oppose gun laws as well as drug laws

I'm a socialist on economic issues, though.

[Anonymous No.3282246]

A foetus is alive, and it is human.

The debate is around the point the organism gains personality. Some people claim that a human becomes a person at birth (or even later), while some believe that a human is a person at the earliest stages of its development.

[Anonymous No.3282251]

>Implying the law isn't absolute
>Implying its not created/modified by people who are far more 'morally qualified' than yoruself

[Anonymous No.3282252]

>>3282241
>Comparing Obama to Hitler
>Not pure fucking lunacy.

True, at least Hitler got things done.

[Anonymous No.3282253]

>>3282242
>Implying gun laws mean no guns
I don't know what people have against gun laws. You'll still be able to get them.

>>3282246
Except scientists have proven that personality and sense of self comes later, after birth.
I think, therefore I am. You don't think without a developed brain. A fetus is alive, but it's not human. It has the right to live only in the sense that all living things have the right to live. It's only human later.

[Anonymous No.3282255]

>>3282252
Obama tried, man. He did. People who blame him for everything going to shit clearly have no idea how the american government works, which is not very well.

[Anonymous No.3282256]

>>3282242

Haha, Socialism.

[Anonymous No.3282257]

>>3282253
>I think, therefore I am.

Opinion.

>A fetus is alive, but it's not human.

Arbitrary line.

> It has the right to live only in the sense that all living things have the right to live. It's only human later.

Are you implying that humans have an objective right to life that surpasses any other living thing?

[Anonymous No.3282262]

>>3282257
Well humans do have more worth than anything else on the planet. That doesn't seem so farfetched.

[Anonymous No.3282263]

>>3282222

That picture conveys an incredibly perverted sense of Liberalism.

[Anonymous No.3282264]

>>3282262
>Well humans do have more worth than anything else on the planet.

Based on? Your opinion of merit?

[Anonymous No.3282265]

>>3282257
>Are you implying that humans have an objective right to life that surpasses any other living thing?

No, I'm not, but it's an argument that's invariably brought up, and it's a distinction that is there in both laws and moral teachings. So it's going to be addressed either way.

[Anonymous No.3282266]

>>3282264
Yessir. That is why nothing will come from this conversation, because it will forever be based solely on opinion.

[Anonymous No.3282272]

NO ONE is so stupid to say that a fetus is not a alive, it has nothing to do with the abortion debate

only people on /pol/ are so stupid to think this is an issue

[Anonymous No.3282277]

>>3282272
>NO ONE is so stupid to say that a fetus is not a alive

The Democratic Party.

[Anonymous No.3282279]

>>3282272

No, it isn't an issue. Women retain the liberty of self ownership and shouldn't be subjected to government interventionism which attempts to impose subjective moral and ethical standards.

[Anonymous No.3282280]

>>3282279
>get government out of the bedroom!
>except when I want free birth control!

[Anonymous No.3282283]

>>3282279
Do you also support the elimination of age of consent laws? Kids own their bodies and should be able to get the dick from whoever they want without government interventionism which attempts to impose subjective moral and ethical standards.

[Anonymous No.3282285]

>>3282280

> except when I want free birth control!

Implying I support a free birth control initiative.

[Anonymous No.3282290]

>>3282106
fuck off americunt. nobody cares about your /pol/itical issues.

[Anonymous No.3282291]

>>3282255
>Obama tried, man. He did.
Being the chief executive of the United States isn't playing Rainbow soccer.

[Anonymous No.3282292]

The fetus is alive but it's not a fucking human because it doesn't have any of the features that comes with humanity yet. The masturbation reductio is valid, the fertilized egg frontier is as arbitrary as anything else, and way more than any criteria based on the nervous system's development

[Anonymous No.3282294]

>>3282292
>The fetus is alive but it's not a fucking human

Arbitrary line.

[Anonymous No.3282295]

Infanticide should be legalized because infants are no more intelligent than chimps we test medicine on.

[Anonymous No.3282301]

Hey disdain for white people and America is palpable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_EvsLCqoWs

[Anonymous No.3282303]

>pretty much impossible to remember what happens with you pre-birth

>we are our memories, they are what makes us, without them we're almost blank slates with some predispositions

>Yes, a fetus IS a living organism

>No, I don't value it as high as something that already had the chance to form something like the capability to know what the fuck is happening.

The only thing I would debate over is the lost potential.
Also this world has already enough children, adopt one you gen-nazi.

[Anonymous No.3282304]

>>3282294

what defines a human being? how a fucking cell can be human? Is my cat human too?

[Anonymous No.3282308]

>>3282291
Actually it is. You clearly have no idea how politics work. Image is important too. And he has tried to go through with what he promised.

[Anonymous No.3282309]

>>3282304
A fertilized human egg isn't a cell, cunt. I can tell you've spent most of your time arguing the issue in a le reddit echo chamber. "YA AND LIK MASTURBATION IS GENOCIDE AND MY CAT IS HUMAN CUZ CELLS LOL".

Just admit that it's a human and you don't care, stop being a pussy.

[Anonymous No.3282310]

>>3282308
Image is the only thing Obama has, your idol worship is pathetic.

He's been a terrible president, face it.

[Anonymous No.3282312]

>>3282310
Not worse than Bush.

[Anonymous No.3282316]

>>3282312
They're pretty much the same, both war-mongering corporate dicksuckers. Also, "the last guy was worse" is a terrible reason to support someone.

[Anonymous No.3282318]

>>3282309

> ad hominem
> doesn't answer

Come back when you finish highschool, kid.

[Anonymous No.3282320]

>>3282318
> kid

When your opponent resorts to this in order to mend his damaged ego, you know that you've won.

[Anonymous No.3282322]

>>3282309

also it's not a human and here are something for you to read. Carefully, right? Don't want you to hurt your brain:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/17/the-fertilized-egg-is-not-a-hu/

[Anonymous No.3282326]

>>3282320

> I won lelelele xDDDD

I asked you what makes something a human and you didn't answer. Not your fault anyway, antichoice are usually even more retarded than you, you should be proud

[Anonymous No.3282330]

>>3282106
There's a logical problem here.

The first panel says (scientists) (would) consider something (life) if it were found on mars.

A conditional statement where : (Group A) behaves, or is expected to behave in a certain way if a condtion is satisfied.

The second example states that another item does not satisfy another condition for (group B)

Even if we assume that group a and group b are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they're referring to different cases, and the quotes around the word life in both examples seems to suggest that they may not be defining their base terms in the same way either.

therefore the two examples have no relation to one another.

Did I solve it? Do I win?

[Anonymous No.3282334]

>>3282326
Do I have to explain this to you? Saying that when a child is out of his mother's womb he becomes human is asinine and unscientific. Every line you draw between human and non-human is going to be arbitrary. Whether consciousness, fertilization, first breath, there will never be a solid line until we fully understand what "life" is. Which will probably be never.

So until we do, stop pretending like you know best, and just admit that you pro-abortionists have no problem with the killing of unborn children and stop dancing around the issue as if you have a plausible solution to the life dilemma.

[Anonymous No.3282336]

>>3282334
>stop pretending you know best
>goes on and does it himself

[Anonymous No.3282339]

>>3282334

>Do I have to explain this to you?

Haha, what a misunderstanding! Yes, since I ask you a question, you do have to answer it. Again, what makes something a human?

>Saying that when a child is out of his mother's womb he becomes human is asinine and unscientific

Pity nobody said that, right? Ohhh, you were assuming, sorry

> there will never be a solid line until we fully understand what "life" is

Every cell in the body is alive. When you wank, you're sending millions of alive cells to death. The shit you shat is full of life, the food you eat is full of life too. You kill and give birth billions of living cells every minute. We're not allowed to do that either? The HUMAN life is what matters here, and now I'm asking you, for the forth time, to explain me what makes a fertilized egg (a cell) a human. Pls respond

[Anonymous No.3282341]

>>3282336
I did no such thing. I'm not pretending that I can draw a line where life starts, it's you that is doing that. I have not taken a position on this issue because both sides lean on their personal definitions of "life" when we don't even know what life is.

[Anonymous No.3282344]

>>3282341
We've freely admitted it's alive.
Do you feel bad when you wank?

[Anonymous No.3282345]

>>3282339
>Pity nobody said that, right? Ohhh, you were assuming, sorry

The majority of pro-choicers support abortion, yet if you murdered the baby once out of the womb it would be murder. That is drawing an arbitrary line. I suggest researching your own position before embarrassing yourself.

>Every cell in the body is alive. When you wank, you're sending millions of alive cells to death. The shit you shat is full of life, the food you eat is full of life too. You kill and give birth billions of living cells every minute. We're not allowed to do that either? The HUMAN life is what matters here, and now I'm asking you, for the forth time, to explain me what makes a fertilized egg (a cell) a human.

I guess you're incapable of reading, so I'll say it again. Until we fully comprehend what "life" is, it will be impossible to define where it begins.

[Anonymous No.3282348]

>>3282345
We have a working definition for life bro,

[Anonymous No.3282352]

>>3282348
yeah and it works too hard, bro monsieur, that bretty soon it will be retired monsieur bro and will probably die before it can cash in on its life savings so the question become "who gets the inheritance?" and i'm not for answering it.

[Anonymous No.3282362]

>>3282345

> I guess you're incapable of reading, so I'll say it again. Until we fully comprehend what "life" is, it will be impossible to define where it begins.

Well, my dense friend, I already told you the fertilized egg is alive. We don't know what "life" is, but that's not the question. The question you're pitifully dodging is why that life is HUMAN. You say human existence begins at conception, right? Well, you have to explain how the egg, a cell women kill every period with no concerns to anybody, becomes a human after conception.

[Anonymous No.3282370]

>>3282362
>You say human existence begins at conception, right?

No. I said it's impossible to know. Saying that a 1 month old baby deserves life but a baby that's been in the womb 9 months doesn't is just opinion and not based on science.

That's what the pro-life vs pro-choice debate comes to, opinions. That's all. So at least admit it, and don't pretend like your definition of life is any more arbitrary than a pro-lifer.

[Anonymous No.3282371]

You guys are getting bogged down in politics and ethics and missing the whole point of the puzzle. Let me rephrase it using a different example.

If (Tailors) would consider (a piece of absorbent linen) to be a "diaper" if it were found on a baby's butt.

But (heralds) would not consider (a piece of cloth-of-gold) a "diaper" if it were placed in a coat of arms...

can you solve the puzzle.

try it now, without all the /pol/ crap

[Anonymous No.3282383]

>>3282371

I don't understand the problem.

[Anonymous No.3282388]

>>3282371
getting bogged down in humanity man, just give us the psychopathic logic you're on and we'll be set straight like monsieur russel and his nigger clan of logicians. all dirty british paedophiles with their long slender white fingers dipping buttered toast breaking off crumbs onto those dry bony fingers and spilling tea all over themselves.

[Anonymous No.3282393]

>>3282370

A opinion may be based on scientific criteria. The nervous system's development, i.e. What I'm saying is "life begins at conception" is as arbitrary as setting a frontier, except that the frontier may be justified by things that are not somebody's god or something like that

[Anonymous No.3282395]

A baby is "life" since conception. However it is not conscious life so, we should be able to come up with a decent timeframe for legal abortion.

[Anonymous No.3282396]

>>3282383
hint
>>3282118

[Anonymous No.3282418]

>>3282371
>>3282383
>>3282388


the problem is whether that statements are incompatible: do they contradict one another?

the answer is no. It's like the one in Finnegan's Wake. There are two different definitions, being used by two groups that aren't the same group exclusively, therefore any statement maade by one group (as a group) can't be expected to agree with the conclusions of the other group (as individuals). But the big clue is in the quotation marks around the word "Life" in the original example and "diaper" in my example.

The quotes separate it from any single definition: it's being reported as a statement. therefore in either case the speaker or the group might be referring to a board game, a magazine, a breakfast cereal, or any of the many definitions of life in the dictionary. it's not just a puzzle, it's a riddel, and the (apparently) controversial subject matter is just in there to distract people from a relatively simple logic problem. it's classic misdirection, and it's a good one. I may use it in one of my classes.

[Anonymous No.3282430]

>>3282418

I wish you would shut up.

[Anonymous No.3282442]

>>3282418
tell us more about your classes. heck an geez, i mean, we didn't know we was dealin' wit' a real professor of the Logic.

[Anonymous No.3282453]

>>3282442

Just a Math guy. but I have to teach beginners Symbolic Logic classes. and riddles and puzzles are where we start.

right now we're on Thomas Aquinas, at least as soon as the spring semester rolls around.

Riddles always use distractors, or some other form of misdirection. It honestly had never occurred to me that making something controversial would work as well as the old fashioned ways

I f anybody knows any other good ones along these same lines I'm always interested. II'd like to find some that aren't either primarily based in medieval theology or not googleable. It's harder than you might think.

[Anonymous No.3282460]

>>3282453
like i give a fuck about what your schoolmaster taught you. in a fight i would cut you down in one hit.

[Anonymous No.3282477]

>>3282106

it's considered life but why should i give a shit?

i massacre billions of sperm everyday and i eat meat, why should i give a shit about the sanctity of life? to be honest, i'm for abortion just due to the fact that not all pregnancies are wanted and not all children can be supported, so why force all parties to go through the misery of poverty and suffering? for the sake of an unfeeling fetus or a holy book?

doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. prioritise the already born, and then fuck them if i want to eat them. if you don't like it then go ahead and try to stop me.

[Anonymous No.3282478]

>>3282460


I don't know; I'm a pretty good shot. You'd have to make that hit first. Better not get distracted by side issues and peripheral arguments or I'll get both barrels in you while you're still refining your aims.

[Anonymous No.3282480]

>>3282478
i'd shoot you in the back while you was loading your gun depending on the honour of men which you still believe in with your logic and your nice rules all ordering the world like a great children's game because you can't see the seeping pile of shit that is stinking right in your chubby little face.

[Anonymous No.3282484]

>wake up
>see this thread in my /lit/
>don't even read
>sage/hide

[Anonymous No.3282495]

>>3282480
nah. While you're shooting some guy in the back who has a chubby little face, I'll take off and nuke the site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure).

Probably with a Logic Bomb

captcha: denuki said

[Anonymous No.3282496]

>>3282484

[Anonymous No.3282550]

both are life its just one is the mothers choice...you fucking idiots, youre male you dont understand, its all the womans choice. stop being a prick

[Anonymous No.3282571]

>>3282143
No one is saying that it isn't life. We're saying it's not worthy of having human rights.

A bird egg does not have the same rights a 10 year old girl has.

[Anonymous No.3282573]

Im in favor of aborting fully grown conscious adults, including celebrities and kings.

Why? Because no man has the right to use another body as their personal life-support machine. If you can't survive on your own, too bad for you, nature takes its course.

Once a person removes consent you must exit their body. NO EXCEPTIONS.

If its the middle of sex and a person says "get out" you must LEAVE.

If you are using their body like a life support machine and they say "out"---you get the fuck out. Otherwise its tantamount to rape and infringing their bodily freedom.

[Anonymous No.3282582]

>>3282148
>I wish libs would just admit that fetus' are alive, but that they don't give a shit
I admit this all the time, and I don't even think it's immoral. I don't fucking care about something that isn't even self-aware yet. Even if they killed two month olds I wouldn't fucking care.

[Anonymous No.3282591]

>>3282582

I dont care if Tom Cruise is using your body like a life support machine. The moment you remove consent he has to exit.

If he dies in the process, too bad for him. It would be nice if you let him tag along, but the law can't force you to become someone's life support machine.


I never cared for the "self aware vs unaware" or "alive vs dead" arguments, they totally miss the point.

[Anonymous No.3282596]

>>3282222
The funny thing about this pic is that liberals were even worse 50 years ago.

[Anonymous No.3282605]

>>3282591
not really missing the point, I don't give a fuck about eomen's rights.

Especially since 99 percent she wanted to get fucked and knew she could create a baby out of it.

Life starts at conception but there are too many people in the world anyway and a mother who wants to abort her child would raise it terribly anyway, adn it isn't self-aware yet, so I really don't care. That's my view.

[Anonymous No.3282614]

>>3282605
>I don't give a fuck about eomen's rights.

It's human rights you dumb shit.

No human can use another human as a life-support machine once the other removes consent.

>Especially since 99 percent she wanted to get fucked and knew she could create a baby out of it.


Totally irrelevant, missing the point again.

[Anonymous No.3282617]

babies are a side-effect of intercourse
like an STD

Yes some STDs are alive. Too bad for them they're gonna get cured.

[Anonymous No.3282638]

>>3282614
Except that the woman created this human being and knew that being a trampy slut could cause a babby to grow inside of her yet did it anyway.

You make it sound like a self-aware being forcefully took her body and that none of her actions logically could have led to it as a consequence.

[Anonymous No.3282640]

>>3282614

Doesn't apply to fetuses.

[Anonymous No.3282645]

>>3282638
>Except that the woman created this human being

Irrelevant.

If during sex your partner says "get out, stop" you have to exit their body.

Same goes for people inside other people's bodies.

>ou make it sound like a self-aware being forcefully took her body

It doesn't matter how it happened. The only thing that matters is if the person consents to it or not. Once consent is removed, the other being must exit and find a new host or die.

[Anonymous No.3282654]

>>3282645
Consent is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.3282655]

The government can't force someone to be a life-support machine for another human. This is absurd.

[Anonymous No.3282661]

I think the whole point about when life begins is that everyone disagrees

Therefore, the law should not impose a prohibitive law based on one side of a contentious argument--especially when the fetus exists inside the mother.

Basically, if you don't agree with abortions, do not get one. You are also well within your rights to try to explain to those considering abortions that there are other options.

Making abortions illegal first of all would not even stop them. It would make them unsafe and underhanded, but people would still get them (or attempt to do them themselves).

[Anonymous No.3282668]

>>3282661
>Making abortions illegal first of all would not even stop them. It would make them unsafe and underhanded, but people would still get them (or attempt to do them themselves).

Just like gun control, or age of consent laws.

[Anonymous No.3282669]

>>3282661
>I think the whole point about when life begins is that everyone disagrees

It's also irrelevant.
We can assume the fetus is totally conscious and give him the full rights of an Adult, and abortion would still be moral and legal.

>>3282573
>Because no man has the right to use another body as their personal life-support machine. If you can't survive on your own, too bad for you, nature takes its course.

refer:>>3282573

[Anonymous No.3282672]

>>3282655

I would argue that it can.

[Anonymous No.3282673]

>>3282672
>I would argue that it can.

Try

[Anonymous No.3282675]

>>3282669
>no man has the right to use another body as their personal life-support machine.

Why not?

[Anonymous No.3282677]

>>3282661
>If you don't agree with murder, then don't kill people. However don't try and do anything about people being murdered.
>If you don't agree rape, then don't rape people. However don't try and do anything about people being raped.

[Anonymous No.3282679]

>>3282668
I think that differs because the range of effect with guns or consent laws undeniably reach other people, while abortions are different because not everyone even thinks the fetus IS a person.

[Anonymous No.3282681]

>>3282679
>that cognitive dissonance

I brought those up for the sole reason that I knew you would be unable to apply your own logic to other things.

[Anonymous No.3282682]

>>3282645
>Irrelevant.

Why?

>If during sex your partner says "get out, stop" you have to exit their body.

Except that is a fucking retarded analogy that only a moronic feminist could make sense out of. You are the creator of the baby, you aren't the creator of the latest nigger you beg to fuck you. The baby is not self-aware and the entire reason it exists is because of your actions. You aren't a fucking 4 year old with a parental guardian, you have to have some responsibilities and understand that there consequences both positive and negative for the things you do.


>It doesn't matter how it happened. The only thing that matters is if the person consents to it or not. Once consent is removed, the other being must exit and find a new host or die.

It does matter you fucking cunt. You willfully had sex and knew that your actions could cause a baby to grow inside of you and that you would be the creator of this baby.

What you're saying basically is essential to jumping in front of a train and saying it's not your fault that the result of that was your death and that it is the train's fault for riding on the tracks that you want to stand on.

[Anonymous No.3282688]

>>3282675

>why not

Because slavery is immoral and it infringes your freedom.

Because human dignity and freedom and bodily control. Done.

[Anonymous No.3282689]

>>3282669
>We can assume the fetus is totally conscious and give him the full rights of an Adult, and abortion would still be moral and legal.
You better be a hardcore libertarian or anarchist or by your logic it's ok to murder you

[Anonymous No.3282693]

>>3282688
>human dignity
>create a baby and then call it a leech as if it came out of nowhere and you were too stupid to know what procreation is

Just stop, it's getting tedious.

[Anonymous No.3282697]

>>3282688
>Because slavery is immoral

Based on..?

>it infringes your freedom.

And? So what?

[Anonymous No.3282699]

>>3282682
>You are the creator of the baby
>>3282682
>You willfully had sex

And you willfully remove consent, and once you remove consent it can't stay in your body, it has to exit.

It's literally this simple.

I can let you in my body and let you use my nutrition and calories and immune system, but once I change my mind, you gotta exit.

:)

Otherwise I become a slave and a tool for another human, this is immoral and illegal.

[Anonymous No.3282704]

>>3282688
I don't have the freedom to eat and have shelter without working.

I don't want to work because that is slavery.

Therefore you should pay taxes that fund my food and shelter and general lifestyle so I can have freedom.

But then that makes you my life-support machine.

That makes you the slave now.

Oh, no, we're going in circles here. Your logic makes no sense unless you are an edgy 14 year old who just discovered Ayn Rand.

[Anonymous No.3282705]

>>3282693
>Just stop, it's getting tedious.

doesn't matter if you create it, or invite it, or it jumps inside you out of nowhere

once you remove consent, the other person has to leave your body and find a new host.

Done. Otherwise they infringe on your freedom, life, liberty, health, bodily freedom, will...you become a slave and are raped. This is illegal.

[Anonymous No.3282707]

>>3282697

>infringes your freedom, so what

So the other person exits your body and then your freedom is restored.

Solves the problem.

[Anonymous No.3282708]

>>3282704

Terrible analogy try again.

[Anonymous No.3282710]

>>3282699
>Otherwise I become a slave and a tool for another human, this is immoral
>this is immoral

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.3282713]

>>3282699
The human inside of you is a slave and tool for you. You have created it and caused it to be dependent on you. You have made it your slave.

[Anonymous No.3282715]

>>3282708
You've made no logical point. You use terrible analogies yet display nothing else BUT terrible analogies to support your shitty trolling attempt of a skewed sense of morality

[Anonymous No.3282718]

.>>3282713
>The human inside of you is a slave and tool for you. You have created it and caused it to be dependent on you. You have made it your slave.

I never decided how this universe works and how evolution works. Sorry.

I might have allowed you to use my body for a month or two, but then I changed my mind.

I only decide and control my body, once I remove consent, you remove yourself from inside my body.

I don't care if you are an unconscious fetus, or the King of Spain.

:)

It's this simple and easy.
remove consent, remove the other person.

[Anonymous No.3282720]

>>3282715

>skewed morality

It's immoral to legally demand another person to be a life-support machine for someone else when they don't want to.

So simple. Abortion is so easy to argue for.

[Anonymous No.3282722]

>>3282718
>remove consent, remove the other person.

I like it.

[Anonymous No.3282723]

>>3282720

Nah dude, you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.3282725]

>>3282720
It's immoral to make another human being entirely dependent on you and then murder it because you've forcefully made it unable to support itself.

[Anonymous No.3282726]

Meanwhile, in a factory farm near you that is producing your delicious chickun.

Oh, yes, on topic. REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF HUMANS WHO INFEST THIS PLANET IS WRONG! DON'T KILL BABIES! YOU'RE TERRIBLE PEOPLE!

[Anonymous No.3282729]

Most of you would swat a fly.

We draw the line somewhere.

Where that line is drawn is a complicated ethical question, in that it plays into reproductive rights in a major way. I'd say we already have a good system - we don't legally allow late-term abortions. I don't see any qualm with allowing a woman to make the decision with regard to her body

[Anonymous No.3282731]

you're using two definitions to explain two things with the same word (life). you're an idiot. welcome to /lit/. you'll fit right in, op.

[Anonymous No.3282735]

>>3282731

>a word cannot have multiple meanings

Goodlike doublethink, comrade. Continue so.

[Anonymous No.3282737]

>>3282725
>It's immoral to make another human being entirely dependent on you and then murder it because you've forcefully made it unable to support itself.


What is Nature?

You increased the probability it would happen, you might have even allowed it stay for a little while, then you changed your mind.

Once you change your mind it leaves. Sorry Nature, try again.

[Anonymous No.3282738]

>>3282718
But you are aware of how the universe and evolution works.

Just like you are aware that standing on train tracks can result in your body being splattered.

Ignorance is not an excuse for you to commit murder of something that is ENTIRELY your fault.

[Anonymous No.3282740]

>>3282720

If a human is depending on you and you remove support that is immoral.

If I have a child who is dependent on the food I bring to the table, and I choose instead to not feed that child and to let it die, that is immoral.

You are misguided, immoral, and wish to create a society governed by selfishness. Fortunately not all of us fall into the same category.

[Anonymous No.3282742]

>>3282738

The only thing I consent to is a person using my body as life support.

Then I take that consent away and thus the person is taken out.

He has to figure out how to survive then, if nature made him so weak that he dies, sad day for him.

[Anonymous No.3282745]

Hi guys, am I late to this discussion?

I have no problems in taking the lives of human beings that will serve no significant purpose in this community. I do not see it as morally wrong. If I were to see it as morally wrong, I wouldn't eat meat or dairy (see >>3282726). Morality is bullshit. Consequences for not following norms are not.

[Anonymous No.3282746]

>>3282737
If I go speeding through a playground there is a probability that I might run over some children but since there is a chance I won't, I should not be held responsible for any children I kill or wound because then I would become a slave which is immoral.

[Anonymous No.3282748]

>>3282740
>If I have a child who is dependent on the food I bring to the table, and I choose instead to not feed that child and to let it die, that is immoral.

If a person is in your body and using your calories and using your immune system, and then you decide it has to exit, then it has to be removed immeditately.

I agree.

The issue is bodily freedom. No man can turn another man into their life support machine if the other disagrees. This is absurd.

[Anonymous No.3282750]

>>3282748
>No man can turn another man into their life support machine if the other disagrees.

Why?

[Anonymous No.3282751]

>>3282746
>If I go speeding through a playground there is a probability that I might run

Terrible analogy #901

The people aren't in your body. You aren't removing them from your body.

Stay on topic.

[Anonymous No.3282752]

>>3282742
If you spray poison gas into someone's home, and they die, it is not your fault, it's Nature's fault for making them weak, and you should not be held accountable

[Anonymous No.3282753]

>>3282735
words can have multiple meanings.

blue i.e. the color blue.

blue adjective as i am feeling blue

you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3282754]

>>3282750
>Why?

Because it's slavery and infringes your bodily freedom.

What country do you live in? Maybe those are legal in your country.

But you can't do that in canada.

[Anonymous No.3282757]

>>3282751
We are on topic, you are saying it's "nature"'s fault that you are a slut, and that the results of your own actions are not your responsibility and that they are "Nature"'s. I'm pointing out how fucking retarded your view is

[Anonymous No.3282759]

>>3282226

[Anonymous No.3282756]

>>3282752
>If you spray poison gas into someone's home

terrible analogy #902

If your boyfriends dick is in your ass and you tell him to pull out, he has to pull out. If he dies in the process, too bad.

[Anonymous No.3282762]

>>3282756
Terrible analogy #903

I didn't create my boyfriend and make him dependent on me and taking his dick out of my ass isn't going to kill him.

[Anonymous No.3282770]

>>3282757
>We are on topic, you are saying it's "nature"'s fault that you are a slut,

Even if a woman is a slut, if she says you have to remove your penis from her vagina, you have to remove it. And if you die in the process, too bad for you.

Even if a woman wanted to get pregnant and has a fully grown adult inside her body that depends on her body to survive, once she removes consent and says it has to exit, it has to be removed. no exceptions.

I don't see how being a "slut" means the government should force her to do immoral things against her consent.

[Anonymous No.3282777]

>>3282762
>I didn't create my boyfriend and make him dependent on me and taking his dick out of my ass isn't going to kill him.

No one created the fetus and decided how nature operates.

At best you allowed it to enter your body for a while.

And we are assuming that once he removes his dick he dies. Too bad.

Same goes for the person in your body.

[Anonymous No.3282794]

>>3282777
Again, 14 year old level analogies.

You don't decide how nature and the universe operate, but you are aware of how your actions in this universe can result.

You have to have some responsibility for the things you do. If I crush your skull with rock, that can possibly result in your death. That is how physics and this universe work. I can't blame the nature for making the rock too hard and for making your skull too weak to withstand my blows. You can't blame nature for your being a slut, either.

[Anonymous No.3282802]

>>3282770
>Even if a woman is a slut, if she says you have to remove your penis from her vagina, you have to remove it. And if you die in the process, too bad for you.
But I'm not going to die, therefore that analogy makes no sense.

>should force her to do immoral things against her consent.

You creating another human being and making her entirely dependent on you, then murdering her, is immoral.

[Anonymous No.3282807]

>>3282794
>you are aware of how your actions in this universe can result.

Yep, you consent to a person using your body, and then you change your mind remove consent. And they get removed from your body.


>>You have to have some responsibility for the things you do

As long as the responsibilities are moral.
It's immoral to force someone to be a life-support machine against their will.

Its immoral to force someone to kill or rob or and steal or be a slave. Doesn't matter if they are a slut or what they did in the past.

[Anonymous No.3282814]

>>3282802
>But I'm not going to die, therefore that analogy makes no sense

>can't into hypothetical arguments at all

LOL are you 14 or just this dumb? My friend had the same problem, he couldn't understand hypotheticals and argue points abstractly.

Look up the word: Hypothetical

[Anonymous No.3282824]

There's a reason abortion is legal in civilized countries.

People can't be used as life-support machines against their will. Ever.

[Anonymous No.3282856]

If I leave my 2 year old daughter on top of a mountain in the snow, is that ok?

She's like, a parasite, dude.

[Anonymous No.3282862]

It is immoral to remove support from a human who needs it, but you all will never accept that. The root of your motivation isn't to promote morality but instead to promote selfishness.

[Anonymous No.3282864]

>>3282856

If a person is inside your body and you are on top of a mountain you are still legally and morally entitled to remove the person from your body, even if the person will die in those natural conditions.

People can't use each other as life support machines unless there is continual consent.

[Anonymous No.3282869]

>>3282862
>It is immoral to remove support from a human who needs it

It's immoral to use a person's body as a life support machine.

Remove the person and hook him up to artifial life support, if we have no artificial support, then nature takes it's course.

[Anonymous No.3282873]

>>3282869
>Remove the person and hook him up to artifial life support, if we have no artificial support, then nature takes it's course.

It's so simple and clear.

Until science can make artificial incubators, then fetuses will just naturally die. It's so simple and perfect...no need to commit immoral crimes just to save their lives.

[Anonymous No.3282891]

>174 posts and 22 image replies omitted.

[Anonymous No.3282930]

>>3282864
The principle is the same, my daughter is dependent on me, and would die without me. Is it moral for me to leave her in the snow to die?

[Anonymous No.3282934]

>>3282869
>immoral
>immoral
>immoral
>immoral
>immoral

So your argument is pretty much, "because my feelings say so"?

[Supine !OypYdDKP3c No.3282953]

>>3282106
It's considered life, just not human life.

[Anonymous No.3283037]

>>3282192
>argument taken out of Legaly Blonde

Oh /lit, you have exceeded my expectations for today.

[Anonymous No.3283077]

>>3282118
This is where the thread should have ended.

[Anonymous No.3283094]

I just don't get how young people can be pro-life, what if anyhow you get a girl pregnat? do you want to throw your life to the bin because you believe aborting in the first 3 months is inmoral?

Do you know how many people die to have you living your shitty unhappy lifes?

Is obvious you don't get any laid or come from a non high income family if you are 'pro life'

[Anonymous No.3283106]

>>3283094
toughen up. deal with your actions.

that's what pro-choicers hate.

duty.

[Supine !OypYdDKP3c No.3283115]

>>3283106
I can't help but feel that any child I have a chance of siring would be worse of for it. I was raised by a poor family that couldn't deal with a kid. I don't want to force that on anyone. I don't find abortion any more immoral than forcing a kid to climb up out of the ruins that I tossed them into.

[Anonymous No.3283123]

>>3283106
>toughen up. deal with your actions.
By that logic, the more honorable men are the ones who risk impregnating women, as opposed to those who abstain in fear of the consequences.

Like going to war: the men who don't fear death and pursue honor are the ones most respected. Those who cower in fear and don't face death are forgotten.

[Anonymous No.3283126]

>>3283115
So give him the choice, you cunt. If he truly would rather be dead let him kill himself. But we both know he most won't, so at this point you are just trying to make excuses.

[Anonymous No.3283134]

>>3283123
>By that logic, the more honorable men are the ones who risk impregnating women, as opposed to those who abstain in fear of the consequences.

Is this the part where I'm supposed to disagree?

[Anonymous No.3283140]

>>3283123

Not so much honorable. The ones who are more likely to have a child are the ones who can manage it. But this is in the advent of an unforeseen pregnancy. In which case, the advice rings true. Don't rationalize killing the unborn baby to escape parenthood.

[Anonymous No.3283154]

>>3282573
>inb4 calling babies proto-rapists.

[Anonymous No.3283159]

>>3283134
I'm sure the Christian pro-lifers, who advocate against premarital sex and use impregnation as a practical justification for abstinence, would disagree with your world view.

In my experience, (and my family is predominantly Christian), those born to a Christian family are expected to abstain, "duty" only coming into play in the act of polishing a turd, covering up a mistake, etc.

[Anonymous No.3283165]

>>3282573
But the baby is (of) their body.

[Anonymous No.3283171]

>>3283159
>religion

why

[Anonymous No.3283186]

>>3283171
Why not?
The man made a generalization and I provided a counterexample.

[Anonymous No.3283192]

>>3282106
I fucking hate this thread and wish someone would abort it. Abortion is legal, get over it.

[Anonymous No.3283198]

>>3283106
so if the condom is defective and you don't notice until the first pregnancy test comes over a month later you have to fucking accept that you juts have to have the kid with the girl.

makes sense.

[Anonymous No.3283227]

>>3283198
That's right boy.

[Anonymous No.3283231]

>>3282748
>if the other disagrees

But there is a tacit consensus about the possibilities of unprotected sex leading up to pregnancy, right? Therefore the woman that chooses to have sex with out contraceptives should also be aware that she is implying (yes, fuck you >implying) her agreement towards the responsibilty that conveys having a kid.
I would like to note that im pro choice, but your argument is just stupid. I'm against any political party that coerces the birth of unwanted children (for instances, births that come out of rape) but you are pretty much giving every single stupid ass teenage minded female validity towards their bullshit borderline moodswing.

[Anonymous No.3283253]

We're thinking about them on different planes.
Astrologers think of life on Mars as a much more simple, primodorial thing; merely as a thing in the world. Pro-choicers think of life in its relation to society.
That's a very basic, and admittedly vague, sketch of the difference between the two. To really get at what I'm saying, let's regard how astrobiologists and pro-choice bioethicists think of when they think of the origin of a life:

The Astrobiologist will be the one to say "Hey, a primitive life-form; the laws that governed the origin of life on Earth are at force on other planets. Cool.

The Pro-Choice Bioethicist will be the one to say: "Hey, these two people had sex and created a child. The act that created one life will create a life that operates within the plane of social life; I think that if this baby was born the mother would, depending on the circumstance, be jusitified in killing it.
This highlights the difference between the different methods of inquiry and judgement taken by the two fields and shouldn't be taken to mean much more beyond that.

[Anonymous No.3283260]

>>3283227
Have you considered the possibility that a woman could potentially use pregnancy as blackmail against a man, or vice versa?

[Anonymous No.3283270]

>>3283260
deal with it.

any obligations people run away from these days, honestly.

[Anonymous No.3283279]

>>3283260
deal with it.

people will run away from any obligations these days.

[Anonymous No.3283319]

>>3283279
Your entire argument has essentially been that one should attempt to have as many babies as possible, regardless of consequence and by any means necessary. You've lionized people who entangled others in adverse situations for personal gain, in fact if the act creates more babies that makes them more "honorable" than those they manipulated, blackmailed, raped.

I'm pretty sure baby-making wasn't listed as a teleological imperative in the Manual to Being A Human, and the fact you look down on those who choose any other path is hilarious.

I sincerely hope this is a troll because I don't think you could possibly make a stupider argument in any scenario, and it would be an opinion if someone who genuinely held these opinions were allowed to vote.

I'm pretty sure you'd rape the ballot box.

[Anonymous No.3283324]

>>3283279
>>3283279
Your entire argument has essentially been that one should attempt to have as many babies as possible, regardless of consequence and by any means necessary. You've lionized people who entangled others in adverse situations for personal gain, in fact if the act creates more babies that makes them more "honorable" than those they manipulated, blackmailed, raped.

I'm pretty sure baby-making wasn't listed as a teleological imperative in the Manual to Being A Human, and the fact you look down on those who choose any other path is hilarious.

I sincerely hope this is a troll because I don't think you could possibly make a stupider argument in any scenario, and it would be an abomination if someone who genuinely held these opinions were allowed to vote.

I'm pretty sure you'd rape the ballot box.

[Anonymous No.3283356]

>>3283324
nope. abstain if you don't want any chance of babby. You don't need to have sex. But if shit happens and you have an unwanted pregnancy, your fault.

Never said anything about trying to have as many babies as possible.

[Anonymous No.3283358]

>>3282106
that baby is jacking off two dicks.

[Anonymous No.3283363]

>>3283324
>I'm pretty sure you'd rape the ballot box.
>if you don't support women who get nailed by the entire football team and then get an abortion to avoid responsibility you're evil and a rapist

[Anonymous No.3283366]

>>3283356
>Never said anything about trying to have as many babies as possible.
>>3283106
>>3283123
>>3283126
>>3283134

[Anonymous No.3283379]

>>3283366
No >>3283126, that jumped in there somehow.

>>3283363
You're grasping at straws.

[Anonymous No.3283381]

>>3283366
tsk, what you're missing

There's a responsibility to deal with and raise a child.

No such responsibility to attempt to create as many as possible.

(By the same token no responsibility is apparent in attempting to abort as many as possible.)

[Anonymous No.3283392]

>>3283381
But you agreed to the statement "the more honorable men are the ones who risk impregnating women, as opposed to those who abstain in fear of the consequences."

Now you're saying:
>nope. abstain if you don't want a chance of babby. You don't need to have sex. But if shit happens and you have an unwanted pregnancy, your fault.

Clearly the issue is not about honor or "duty". You've already admitted yourself that little honor can be found in relation to having a child and taking responsibility for it. If the goal were honor, seeking out as many women as possible and forcing them to become impregnated with as many babies as you can support would be the most honorable path, by your definition.

[Anonymous No.3283395]

little honor can be found by abstinence in relation to having a child**

[Anonymous No.3283410]

>>3283392
I never agreed to that statement afaik, but if you could show me how I somehow did in collateral, sure.

You know it's not about honor, it's about duty. The two are not mutually inclusive.

[Anonymous No.3283413]

>>3283392
Consent is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.3283427]

[Anonymous No.3283438]

It's pretty liberating when you give up on humanity and don't have to argue about shit like this anymore.

I can just sit back and watch everyone revel in their moral mediocrity.

I recommend it to other idealists.

[Anonymous No.3283450]

>>3283410
>>3283134

You know it's not about honor, it's about duty.
See the above. What quality, then, does a man exhibit by choosing to raise a child as opposed to abandoning them? Likewise, what quality does a man not exhibit by choosing to abandon the child as opposed to raising them? If a man doesn't exhibit this quality or that quality by his decision, how can you support one yet declaim the other?

>>3283413
Social constructs are social constructs.

[Anonymous No.3283456]

>>3282222
picture brought to you by Faux News and the Murdoch Coproration

[Anonymous No.3283459]

>>3283456
Post brought to you by the MSNBC defense force.

[Anonymous No.3283488]

life != intelligent life

[Anonymous No.3283535]

>>3283438
Embrace the absurd, faggots.

[Anonymous No.3283605]

>mfw OP derailed the entire board

Good job. 10/10.

[Anonymous No.3284121]

>>3283427
this

[Anonymous No.3284231]

>>3282759
/b/ is my wall?

[Anonymous No.3284768]

>>3282814
Your analogies are idiotic and on the level of a 14 year old. Come up with something better and maybe you won't be laughed at.

[Anonymous No.3284771]

>>3282807
By this logic no one should be given emergency care if they do not have the money to pay for it, because then they are using the taxpayer as life support.

[Anonymous No.3284794]

they gain money out of it...
they can easily lie their minds to get something they want.

[Anonymous No.3284813]

>>3284121
>>3283427
And? You had a mother who wasn't a selfish cunt like the typical modern day young American female.

Doesn't mean abortion should be illegal.

Honestly if a girl wants to murder her unborn child she would be a horrible mother anyway so it's probably for the best.

[Anonymous No.3284854]

>>3282582
>Even if they killed two month olds I wouldn't fucking care.

hooooooly shit

[Anonymous No.3284867]

>>3284854
What?

[Anonymous No.3284874]

Life means two different things in the the two completely different examples.

/thread

Everyone fuck off.

[Anonymous No.3284879]

>>3282175
It completely is though.

It's like you have absolutely no awareness of human history.

[Anonymous No.3284896]

mu here. is lit a prominently pro life board? if so, i'm in.

[Anonymous No.3284897]

>>3284879
It's like you think culture defines what morality is.


Just because people were hanged because they were thought to be witches doesn't mean it was right because people thought it was back then.


Are you fucking 12?