/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10260118
When you notice developmental psychology even not vaccinating your kids is not killing a person.

>at what point is abortion actually killing a person?
At any point.

Sometimes even killing somebody 40 years old does not feel like killing a person.

Person>Individual>Exist as distinct entity.
Individual > total character peculiar to and distinguishing an individual from others.

Killing a soldier you know nothing about is not killing a person.

>>10260132
Killing a dolphin is.

A sound explanation for me is that it’s killing if the baby would have a good chance of surviving if delivered at that time.

In other words, the timeline of most abortions equates to removing a tumor, not killing a child. It wouldn’t live outside the womb.

A person sustaining a fetus should have total control of if and when the fetus is removed from their property. If the fetus is potentially capable of autonomy at its stage in development, then removing the fetus should be handled as a live birth, and any intentional disregard for its well-being at this point should be grounds for murder if it does not go successfully.
Fetal autonomy may best be determined by empirical observation. Shortest recorded successful gestation period ever recorded is something like 22 weeks, so giving a 2 week buffer, 20 weeks might be the best cut-off point, though this can be shifted as new records or new technologies become available.

But what you should really ask yourself is whether you believe that rights are god-given, or socially determined. Do you believe every human life has inherent value, or do you believe that value is socially determined?

Either from fertilization, from birth, or from the first word.
Anything else is arbitrary.

Well, it's always killing a person, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Heck, you can even make a case for postnatal abortion, as Peter Singer does.

If kid is born with condition that it will never be able to live and communicate and will have to be feeded to mouth for rest of the life or will be paralyzed, forcing it's existence in such pain is meaningless.

>>10260118
Define person.

>>10260118
"Person" is not a scientific, but a moral category. So the question isn't really "when does an embryo become a person?" But rather "what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be a person?" Once you answer that the question about human embryos becomes trivial.

>>10260239
We should ask question, when it is moral to kill a person.

>>10260180
Completely false. Other objective measures have been given before your post.

>>10260352
A better question is "when is it okay to deny someone's bodily autonomy to save the life of a person".

>>10260361
How much after being born is personality developed? It takes time for kid to evolve into person, harder question is how to define malfunction and malfunction of malfunction detection mechanism... Some life is not necessary. E.g. mine.

Killing a children can safe more life time than it took to be produced... That's it.

>>10260118
Depends on country and legal system.

Does it even matter? It's unethical to bring anyone into this world so essentially all fetuses should be aborted and people should get castrated.

>>10260118
>at what point is abortion actually killing a person?
At any point. Being composed of 2, 4, 8, 16 or a billion of cells doesn't make you any more of a human than a fertilized egg. Don't let me get started on arbitrary bullshit, like if it's self aware or if it is receiving nutrition inside a woman's body or already outside suckling milk - the maternal responsibility of nourishing it is also on the same principle.

The real question is if it's ok to kill a person if it's convenient for everyone, or not.

>>10260352
>>10260361
The OP question was just asking when killing an embryo was killing a person, not whether or not that act is immoral.

>>10260118
Why are you so against killing people hmmm?

>>10260464
Dumbshit. Go back to pol and never presume to interact with humans again.

>>10260464
a fully developed homo sapiens specimen certainly has more worth than a 2-cell zygote (or whatever the stage name is)

>>10260489
Well by this logic it would be okay to kill babies and children and the disabled.

>>10260118
It doesn't matter. Denying someone abortion is always immoral. Just like you can't force someone to donate their kidney to you so that you may live, the foetus has no right to force the mother to devote any of her resources to it. As for the inevitable counterargument that the women has given her consent to raise the foetus when she decided to conceive it, that still doesn't matter. Just like a person can retract their consent while they are having sex, the same principle can be applied to pregnancy.

>>10260496
children and the disabled can survive outside the womb. a human zygote cannot (as of 2019).
are you going to continue with more inane premises, you christian larper?

>>10260118
At any point. It’s objectively a form of human life at every stage, regardless of how you look at it.

The state itself even recognizes it. If someone murders a pregnant woman, even if she is within a month pregnant, they can and will likely be charged with a double homicide.

Abortion is simply a sacrament of the Jewish world liberal order, which is why it’s allowed and preached like a religion.

>>10260496
No, by that logic it is MORE ok to kill them than fully functional and conscious humans. Just like it's MORE ok to perform necessary surgery under anesthetic than to go out onto the streets and cut people with knives.

>>10260519
In the united states only since 2004 with the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Before then it was rare to charge these types of crimes.

>>10260519
>It’s objectively a form of human life at every stage, regardless of how you look at it.
Which by itself isn't an argument against abortion, see >>10260503

>>10260503
>Denying someone abortion is always immoral.
only if you forget about the "right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
but i would think that the right to life was fairly high up on the rankings of importance

>Just like a person can retract their consent while they are having sex
oh, youre just retarded, sorry carry on

>>10260541
Doesn't mean it's not still killing a person by how >>10260519 stated the somewhat relevant legal precedent; It just means that killing the person wouldn't be immoral in the case of how abortion is described in >>10260519.

I don't they're trying to make arguements against abortion.

>>10260519
>extremely low IQ perspective
>turns out to be a neonazi shill
Every time

>>10260586
The last one was supposed to be >>10260503

>>10260586
You're falling into the trap of thinking legal definitions are scientific which is completely untrue.

>>10260118
Certainly after 8-12 weeks

>>10260118
6 months after birth.

Let me explain. The human fetus is actually not fully formed at 9 months. The only reason humans get born at 9 months is because our heads are so big that the mothers will die if they stay in the womb for longer. So evolution maintain that the kids are born earlier before they reach infantile maturity while still in the fetus stage.

Other mammals give birth to functional children that can immediately walk and do other basic tasks.

Therefor abortion should only be considered killing a person 6 months AFTER birth. Before this point it's not a conscious being and still in a automatic "larval" stage.

>>10260577
The mother's right to life and liberty is as important as the fetus's. When removed, it's the doctors duty to do what he can to save the fetus's life, but right now there's nothing to do to save them. Would you rather force someone to give up their body, their money, and their freedom just for the sake of someone she explicitly doesn't want to give up exactly those for?

>>10260595
Is there a scientific definition of a person? I can only think of legal ones.

>>10260118
Once the egg is fertilized and becomes a zygote it has different DNA than its mother and can be considered a separate entity.

>>10260124
B&R

>>10260577
>oh, youre just retarded, sorry carry on
Please explain your problem with the statement. Lets look at a very clear case. A women and a man are looking to have sex. The woman tells the man to go ahead. They have sexual intercourse. If at any point in time either of the participants should feel uncomfortable with the arrangement and tell the other to stop, it would be immoral for their partner to continue. Why do you not agree?

>>10260741
>separate entity
bacteria and bugs can be considered "separate entities", too. but, can a fertilized egg be considered a human being? what about a 25-weeks old fetus? I don't think so.

>>10260118
It's a completely arbitrary criterion to have.

Any argument against abortion because muh fee fees is retarded anyway.

>>10260861
>Abolition of murder is necessarily based on "fee fees"
Read Kant's critiques and get back to me on that fee fee stance, genius.

>>10260922
Kant was a fucking hack. You can't force people to give up their body againt their will, no matter how many people it'll kill.

>>10260140
what if our tech becomes good enough that we're able to salvage a baby even a moment after conception? (And without any detriments to the baby - it grows up totally healthy and normal.) What then tough guy?

>>10260361
that's a good one m8y

>>10260993
>Kant was a fucking hack.
yo mama

>>10260118
Never because "killing" is just a legal term that we've invented to punish individuals for doing things we don't like. If you're allowed to abort, you aren't killing anything. If we start to assume that ending a life is the same as killing, then we'd also have to consider jerking off as mass murder.

>>10261031
Then the state has the obligation to raise it.

>>10260665
>Would you rather force someone to give up their body, their money, and their freedom just for the sake of someone she explicitly doesn't want to give up exactly those for?
can i get a "what is leaving an infant on the doorstep to a firestation" or even a "foster home"
ease of abortion doesnt justify violating the right to life

>>10260825
>Please explain your problem with the statement.
you dont "retract" consent, they can stop giving it during sex but they dont get to fucking take it back
"i said i was fine with sex, then we finished and i got upset with him a week later, so now i retract my consent and accuse him of rape"

>>10261062
what an odd way to think

>>10261071
That's not how consent works.

>>10261074
It wasn't born from the mother therefore it is the obligation of whoever chose to go forward with the birth to care for the new life. Just like how sperm/egg donors have no obligation to pay child support.

>>10261076
How does it work, anon?

Like a year after birth

>>10261084
The same way trolling works, If you aren't getting replies you aren't doing it right.

>>10260479

>>10260518
>children and the disabled can survive outside the womb
Are you fucking retarded? Ever saw a 1 month old infant grow it's own food?

>>10261117
Yes. Watch Asura. It's a Japanese animation film. Check and mate, heathen.

>>10261057
Sperm cannot self-fertilise. Periods are also considered no kiling for the same reason, they cannot self-fertilise. So it doesn't matter how much sperm you pump into your asshole, it will not result in a child. An abortion on the other hand terminates a fertilised egg that would otherwise become a child, which is why it is being terminated to begin with. It's funny how "muh body muh rights" retards act like they are experts in biology, yet conveniently seem to forget these truths.


>>10260993
>You can't force people to give up their body againt their will
You also can't force people to have sex against their will. Yet, strangely enough, even when the sex is completely consensual, for some reason there is a need for abortion. In fact, the number of abortions after consensual sex disproportionately outnumbers the number of abortions after non-consensual sex. Surely in a country like the US condoms would be super cheap, but I guess the US is just so dirt poor that nobody can afford them.

>>10261121
>An abortion on the other hand terminates a fertilised egg that would otherwise become a child, which is why it is being terminated to begin with.
Which is not the same as killing, let alone killing a person. And those are the works OP used. He didn't ask
>at what stage does an abortion kill life
or
>at what stage does an abortion end the life of a separate entity
because those questions would have an obvious answer and abortion would therefore never be OK. Learn to differentiate you ignorant little cocksucker. You're not even remotely as intelligent as you apparently think.

>>10261121
>Sperm cannot self-fertilise.

>>10261128
>Which is not the same as killing, let alone killing a person.
It actually is because you are artificially causing a termination. If you press the button to a machine in which someone is working on, as a result of which the person dies, you have killed that person and are thus tried and sentenced accordingly.
>because those questions would have an obvious answer and abortion would therefore never be OK
After the fertilisation of the egg is the point where you are ending the life of a separate entity. Just because some chick wants to abort it anyway isn't sufficient grounds to immediately create a purely subjective boundary to redefine what is considered human.
>Learn to differentiate you ignorant little cocksucker
Learn to fucking read
>You're not even remotely as intelligent as you apparently think.
That is a point against you. If you are dumber than a retard then what does that make you?

>>10261141
>as a result of which the person dies
>person

>>10261121
>terminates a fertilised egg
What about when that happens without any abortion? It usually takes more than one try (like 5) for a girl to get preggo. Think of all the times fertilized eggs don't make it. Is that immoral?

>>10261159
>What about when that happens without any abortion?
>Think of all the times fertilized eggs don't make it. Is that immoral?
Well then you didn't cause it then, did you? So you can't be held responsible because it was out of your control. You expected some sort of gotcha from this?

>>10261163
If it happens all the time (and it's a normal thing) what's wrong with inducing it yourself?

>>10261165
((((((((((((((((and it's a normal thing ))))))))))))))))

>>10261165
>what's wrong with inducing it yourself?
The act of inducing it. People die in car accidents all the time, if you are involved in a car accident but the death of another person was in no way caused by you then obviously you go free without punishment. If you induce it by driving recklessly or even by intentionally running someone over, then you get punished. These concepts are self-evident to absolutely everyone. Yet for some reason Westerners seem to have difficulties understanding it.

>>10261184
But car accidents aren't a normal thing. They're caused by retards. Zygotes not making it is biologically inevitable, so it's normal/to be expected.

>>10261184
>Yet for some reason Westerners seem to have difficulties understanding it.
Yes, all of us have difficulties understanding these complicated concepts, it's a good thing we have some of such as you here, among us, schlomo.

>>10261184
Think about it this way: cancer is inevitable for some people so there's nothing wrong with giving yourself cancer. That's why smoking is legal.

>>10261184
>People die in car accidents all the time
Nobody dies in an abortion except in the extremely rare cases of medical error.

>>10260853
This post was overly defensive for no reason, and also a pretty stupid strawman.
You don't need to defend your opinions to me.

>>10261194
>But car accidents aren't a normal thing
They are most definitely a normal thing. In fact, they are sufficiently normal that there's even a whole process involved in settling disputes. There is no dispute settling process for manslaughter or rape charges, and as far as I can recall there is none for robbery either.
>They're caused by retards.
And abortions are caused by whores. What's your point?
>Zygotes not making it is biologically inevitable, so it's normal/to be expected.
Nobody has ever been charged for natural deaths. So why are you bringing up this irrelevant point? I already gave you my answer, do you have memory loss or something?
>cancer is inevitable for some people so there's nothing wrong with giving yourself cancer.
There's condoms if you really don't want to have kids. And anal sex has existed for millennia. But as far as I recall, nobody has ever been thrown in prison for getting cancer.
>That's why smoking is legal.
Smoking for yourself is legal. If you give five-year olds cigarettes and they start smoking them, since they are underage, you are acting in an illegal manner for causing them to engage in the act.


>>10261207
Except the kid, of course, you kinda forgot that part.


>>10261197
>schlomo
Pretty ironic coming from a burger. You have the largest number of Jews of any country outside of Israel.

>>10261218
>There is no dispute settling process for manslaughter or rape charges, and as far as I can recall there is none for robbery either.
Before retards start misrepresenting my point, I mean no dispute settling process outside of court.

>>10261218
No, it's not ironic. because I'm not a burger. Wake up EU.

>mfw we have an impregnation fetish so we just abort after a few weeks.

>>10261218
Five year olds aren't allowed to have abortions either. Accidental zygote termination has a basis in biology car accidents are accidental. What's wrong with inducing a natural thing? Or do you live a perfectly unaltered life at all times. And the smokin hing still stands,everyone knows full well that smoking will give you cancer but if you want to you can, same thing with abortion, now killing a full blown baby is fucked, but a zygote is whatever. So I guess I'm really arguing for moring after pills.

>>10261232
>What's wrong with inducing a natural thing?
Dying is also natural so what's so unnatural by inducing it with a car accident? It's ot like you are being vaporised, you simply get crushed between a fast moving car and another hard object (possibly a wall or another car) as a result of which you bleed to death. It's not like you are being vaporised.

>>10260118
The part when they kill the baby, sweetie

>>10261240
I actually don't mind euthanasia either for similar reasons butthe vetting process has to be legitimate.

>>10261240
I actually know a guy who's gonna off himself voluntarily.
>cancer
>personal shit
I don't think he should be idk his life.i don't think he's old enough.

>>10261218
>Except the kid, of course, you kinda forgot that part.
What kid? That's a zygote.

>>10261215
did you even read the OP?
>at what point is abortion actually killing a person?
>killing a *person*
you were talking about "entities", as if they somehow became "persons" just because they came from humans and were fertilized

>>10260118
I think the important point is, it is hard to be sure at what point you are killing a person.

So what do you do when you are not sure if an action you want to take will result in what is basically a murder? Do you do it anyway and hope for the best, or do you err on the side of not murdering somebody?

Me, I'd be a bit cautious. I don't shoot into houses, either, because there might be somebody in there...

>>10260118
I believe brain function can be detected at something like 8-10 weeks? That's usually where I draw the line.

>>10260118
Umm, sorry sweetie but NO womyn should EVER be forced to sacrifice her convenience for a fucking tumor. Especially when that tumor has a 50% chance of being a proto-rapist. Children and childbirth are just methods for the cishetpatriarchy to oppress womyn and should be abolished as soon as science allows. It should never get to the point of abortion in the first place.

I've got the pussy, I make the rules.

>>10261806
Guys, guys. I've got a crazy idea. What if we set a modest threshold somewhere around the 12 week mark, legalize abortion, AND understand it to be taking a life and deeply regrettable.

What if we looked at abortion as possible, but undesirable and tragic? Am I fucking crazy or does this always collapse into
>always unacceptable REEE
vs
>lol who cares, it's like blowing your nose
When it really fucking shouldn't.

>>10261842
Exactly this. It's obviously a moral gray area, even if our time range is a bit arbitrary, it's still better than all or nothing because of just how nuanced the situation is.

>>10261076
>That's not how consent works.
thanks, thats literally what my point was

>>10260665
>Would you rather force someone to give up their body, their money, and their freedom just for the sake of someone she explicitly doesn't want to give up exactly those for?

Yes, that's called taking responsibility. The proper answer is to demand it just as strongly of the men involved as the women. Fostering womenchildren alongside this epidemic of manchildren is not progress.

>>10261928
>The proper answer is to demand it just as strongly of the men involved as the women.
>an issue with womens behavior needs to be dealt with by blaming men
?

>>10261117
This post cannot and will not be answered. That guy is retarded and was easily BTFO.

>>10261943
Sorry, I'll clarify. If you assume her unspoken underlying grievance of "why ME and not HIM?" then my response stands. Two people fuck up and make a child they don't want, of course BOTH should be on the hook. Grow up and find a solution for the kid's sake.

The feminist position is too often something like "waah, I don't want to be accountable". As if childish unaccountability is a good thing to have. It's short sighted and destructive.

>>10261943
Not him, but it's an issue with parental and personal responsibility. It's not simply that women aren't responsible enough not to kill their babies, it's that people who are sexually active don't fully realize or care about the potential consequences, and aren't mature enough to deal with the results of their actions.

>>10260464
Do you eat eggs? Kill ants or mosquitoes or whatever else? How does an embryo distinguish itself from that until its developed?

>>10260118
At fertilization, when the probability of that organism becoming a salient human is no longer insignificant.

Up until fertilization, the likelihood of ant given sperm or egg becoming a human is insignificant, but upon fertilization, it becomes a very likely outcome.

This is why menstruation, sex not for procreation, and masturbation are moral, but abortion is not.

>>10262090
>menstruation
m8 menstruation is amoral. It's a brute biological reality on the level of pooping.

>>10260665
A woman carrying a child to term does not impede on her life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Abortion obviously impedes on the fetus's right to life.

>>10262101
You don't understand. These people define "liberty" as "freedom from hardship or inconvenience".

>>10262099
Lots of biological actions can be considered immoral, anon, but regardless, the point is that not making sure that every egg and sperm becomes a kid isn't immoral, because they likely wouldn't become a kid in the first place
However, when it's exceedingly likely that a sperm and egg would become a kid (fertilization), it's immoral stop it.

Obvious reason for this is that, relatively speaking, there's not much difference between a fetus and an infant.
They're both clumps of sub-sapient human cells dependent on a mother for care; the latter is just bigger and not physically attached.

>>10261806
This.
If someone can be brain-dead, they can also be brain-not-alive-yet.

>>10261842
>>10261868
>>10261806
Only sane posts itt. Though I might put the threshold at under 12 weeks. HOW MUCH brain activity there is can be a factor though, so I might move it up if I learned more about it. If the brain at the time is less sophisticated than say, a mouse’s, I wouldn’t be against termination. Still definitely morally gray at that point though. But at the sub-8 week range I see no reason to consider it a life, using fertilization as a marker just seems way too arbitrary.

>>10262101
>A woman carrying a child to term does not impede on her life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness
Oops, you just proved your own ignorance on human pregnancy! You surely must have caught yourself seriously trying to state that heavily pregnant women aren't impeded physically, emotionally (hormonally as well), economically, and physiologically in any way that could restrict their pursuit of a healthy life and the finances to pursue liberty and happiness. But you still went forward, didn't you?

Heck, I bet you even spared a few brain cells to consider death during childbirth and post-partum depression, not to mention the opportunity and real cost of giving birth! Man, you're just shameless, aren't you?

>>10260432
This, my anti-natalist nigga.

>>10261967
Child support is already a thing.

>>10260118
>at what point is abortion actually killing a person?

Objective morality does not exist so we have to invent subjective definitions that suit our individual survival. Essentially people who benefit from not having a child when pregnant will want abortion to be available. Those who would benefit from those not having a choice to improve their outcome will vote against abortion. This discussion will never be more than mental masturbation when considered objectively as it has no value.

>>10260465
>killing a person is not intertwined with morality

hmmm

>>10260118
About 3 months in. At that time, the fetus starts to resemble a human, and if you'd seen it, you'd definitely feel bad.

Physiologically, anything from about 3 weeks after conception, because that is the point where heart starts beating.

Take your pick:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood#Biological_markers

I think "brain birth concepts" make the most sense.

>Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39 By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns.

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

>>10261991
What the fuck? If I eat eggs? I straight eat back half of a goat while the front half's still breathing motherfucker. How is this even related to the topic we're discussing here?

>tfw you weren't aborted
Thanks mom.

>>10262269
This.

>>10260118
It’s always killing a person.

Of course, if it’s elderly or retarded or going to be born to shit parents might as well kill it.

ITT: retarded people who don't understand what a person is

pro-tip: person =/ lump of cells, especially since OP specifically asks about the psychological portion. An embryo is not a person.

>>10260118

>>10262518
So, are you insinuating that women eat children to nurture them inside their stomachs?

>>10260361
When the other person is considered alive...hence their human right to live should preceed the other party's right to choice. Past the point where the baby is deemed alive, it's afforded universal rights as a human, and the mother's choices should not encroach on the baby's right to live. So you can't answer one without the other

>>10260124
Was gonna post this.
I understand why people are so afraid to face reality, though.

>>10262527
>has never had a blow job

>>10262590
Have you?

>>10260361
This.

Then this>>10260140

Thread

At 4 months it becomes acceptable murder, past then it's straight up baby-killing, before then it's basically a tumor

>>10262226
None of those impede life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness though. Litterally not one. You seem to be under the impression that one or a combination of those rights guarantees you a comfortable life free of struggle or hardship. They don't.
The ONLY exception, as you pointed out, is the case where the pregnancy would threaten the mothers life.

>>10262510
He asks physiologically, anon. Are you illiterate.

>>10260118
when is personhood acquired?

>>10262646
>before then it's basically a tumor
More like a parasite.
The tumor claim is pretty retarded as it doesn't even share your DNA, only half of it.
It is a foreign organism. It's not even a part of you.

>>10262742
FUCK

>>10262750
>This is what amoral reductionists unironically believe

>>10262761
Show me anything else growing in your body with a similar differential of DNA that is still considered a part of your body.

>>10262772
Fetuses are organisms you have an obligation to protect, not part of your body.

>>10262772
Tumors don't become a person
Necrotic arms don't become people
Cannibalized flesh of some other person doesn't become human
Subsumed conjoined twins don't become people

A fetus does become a person

>>10262774
>>10262790
Exactly. So it is a parasite, not a tumor, not a part of your body.
You won't get women to admit that, though, because it's easier to argue their sole right over abortion if they don't.
I don't particularly mind that they have sole choice, but I'd rather they just accept reality.

>>10260140
literally just muh feels

Since we are arguing with feelings, I feel like we should err on side of caution, just in case it is metaphysically human at the time of conception.

>>10260118
Ditto.
You have to define what a person is. I think many animals such as chimps, dolphins, elephants, pigs and octopi must qualify as well as human beings.
There isn't one test for personhood or sapience. Our infants (and african children apparently) cant pass the mirror test but ants can.

An embryo early in development can't be a person but a late term abortion isn't any different from infanticide.

>>10260118
Define person

>>10263729
A miserable pile of secrets.

>>10260358

Objective measures of what exactly?

>>10260432
I bet you're a vegan that's controlled by the Jews.

>>10260432
>>10264015

This.
Also this person is the kind who gets his very life essence out of spewing as much intelectual missery onto other as he can, otherwise he would get into an ever more increasing state of self-destructive depression.

Very sad if you think about it, this people hate themselves but get the drive to live purely by attacking human honor, dignity and hope in a quest to bring down other people in their hole of misery. Individuals like him are probably the closest thing to “demon possesion” you can get without active phisical manifestations.

>>10264040

>>10260503
Your mother should have aborted you.

>>10260503
I think its only immoral if they were raped. Otherwise its even more immoral to abort a zygote at any stage.

Termination of a living organism in any point from its inception is considered a termination of life and it does not matter what this organism is.
Moral and medical standings on termination of life are moronic due to subjective nature of them.
Hope this helps with your question anon.

>>10261806
>I believe brain function can be detected at something like 8-10 weeks? That's usually where I draw the line.

Not really, those are only random bursts of activity. Coherent brain activity, the kind that is associated with consciousness and detectable as brain waves, only appears at 5-6th month of pregnancy.

>>10260118
4 years.

>>10261991
eggs which people eat are usually unfertilized...

>>10260124
/Thread.

>>10260228
>Inb4 Alvin plantingas modal argument for dualism enters the room

If it's wrong to kill a fetus (because it is a potential human) then it is wrong to ejaculate sperm. I reject the idea that it is wrong to kill a fetus (non identity problem). And I therefore accept the conclusion that killing an actual baby is not wrong either.

It's only wrong to kill a human when it causes grief among the living.

>>10260124
SPBP

Its the same as when you scratch your arm. Your killinh cells not attached to the nervous system

>>10260644
Everyone read this.

>>10260124
This

>>10267335
kek

>>10267335
makes sense to me

>>10260140

Well thats false; Tumors CAN live outside the body lol. You can culture tumors, even do PDX models of tumors.

>>10260124
This. Any other answer is whiteknightting on behalf of whores

>>10260228
featherless biped

>>10260124
That's true, but it's a mother's right to murder their fetus if they want to.
When a child is actually born, you don't have that right anymore, because the kid might survive on it's own or get adopted or whatever.
But when it is still a fetus, it is a part of the mother, 100% dependent on her and can't survive on it's own and she has every right to murder it if she wants to.
So abortion should be legal up until the baby can survive outside the womb.

>>10268721
Behold! I've brought you a man :3

>>10260118
This >>10260124
If the woman got pregnant because of her own choices, then she ought to carry that responsibility to the end. If it's a rape baby, by the logic that the child shouldn't be punished by the misdeeds of the father, the same applies.

>>10268823

>>10268825
If I were a rape baby and aborted I wouldn't be opposed to that because my consciousness would have been terminated before it ever developed - nothing gained nothing lost. Anyone who is thankful that they weren't aborted hasn't thought the situation through entirely.

>>10260118
When the brain is developed.

>>10268005
Nah fuck that, what if the baby is an invalid? I'm not taking care of that shit.

either during or after the point where consciousness is developed.