/sci/ - Science & Math

Most debates about any particular issue on the Internet are full of fallacies. That's totally unsurprising. In fact, most of the arguments made by the pro-abortion side OTI are also shoddy.

>Are there any actual debates that come from pro-lifers
that doesn't stem from comparison to the nazis?

Yes, but this topic isn't science or math. It's moral philosophy.

too bad /sci/ is the only board smart enough to actually have a debate

1. Fetuses are humans
2. All humans have the right not to be killed.
3. Therefore.....

How could this argument not have occurred to you?

>>2550233
fetuses are not humans
humans dont deserve life
????
how has this not occurred to you? don't assume everyone values human life as much as you do, or that everyone considers a fetus a human.

Every abortion debate ever:

Pro-life: Life begins at conception, killing humans is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.
Pro-choice: Life begins at birth, killing non-humans is justifiable if there's a reason, therefore abortion is fine.

Add moral outrage, snobbish intellectual condescension, nazi comparisons, and general shouting to taste.

>>2548760
Uhh, basically,
1- Human life has value
2- It's asinine to say human life begins at birth.

>>2550265
Anyone who doesn't consider a human fetus human is retarded and wrong.

>>2548881

/sci/ is absolutely not prepared to handle this debate.

So premature fetuses arent human ?

lets kill these fuckers then, picrelated

you can't DISPROVE fetuses being human... but you can't exactly prove they are. somewhere between conception & birth, a fetus becomes a human. the mere probability of a fetus being a human warrants not killing them.
this isn't my personal opinion but it's a viable stance.

>>2550305
Lol subjective truth much?

>>2548760

You know, I often wonder what these dipshits who can't argue without invoking the nazis would do if the nazis had never existed.

>>2548760
Though I feel little bad for doing it, abortion copypasta inc.

Secular Humanist abortion copypasta part 1 of 2

In a rational world view, a single celled organism does not have rights, morally speaking, no matter its location or DNA. A bacteria making you sick has no rights. A fertilized human egg has no rights.

Argument: "It has human DNA so it has rights!"
Refutation: Cut off someone's hand. The hand does have human DNA. Does the hand have rights? Hell no it doesn't.

Argument: "A human hand doesn't have the potential to become human. A fertilized egg does."
Refutation: So do sperm and unfertilized eggs, under the proper conditions, just like a fertilized egg.

Argument: "My holy book / paster says that the human soul enters the body at fertilization."
Refutation: First, it's faith and religion, which makes it stupid. Not much more needs to be said without going into an atheist vs theist thread derailment. Second, your holy book does not say that. It's an invention of the religious people wholey appart from Christian scripture, Islam scripture, and Jeudism scripture. Those ignorant fuckers who wrote those holy books didn't didn't even know what a sperm was.

Second, that's still asinine. Consider the case of identical twins. What happens is that the fertilized egg splits /after/ being fertilized. The two cells after the split go on to become two indendepent human beings. Thus the soul does not always enter the body at fertilization.

>>2550335

Secular Humanist abortion copypasta part 2 of 2

So, where does that leave us? Secular humanism for starters. We need to identify where human life begins such that the thing deserves human rights. We face a similar probem at the other end - death. Usually death is identified with brain death. Some might argue heart not working any more, but with modern science we can keep someone alive and speaking hours after their heart stops, and I think that most people would consider the person alive, so again it's brain death. Consequently, brain "birth" seems like a good place to start giving things moral and legal rights.

So, the daily pill and the day after pill are perfectly moral and ought to be perfectly legal - the brain isn't there yet. At some point, we need to draw an arbitrary line, preferable erring on the side of caution just like we do when we declare someone dead.

Before the brain is "born" - no rights. However, once they become aware, then things start getting tricky. This is where Roe V Wade comes in. Let's suppose a mother is pregnant, and that the baby is aware and has moral rights. To outlaw an abortion is to use force by the state to conscript the mother's body to take care of another individual of society. It's almost indistinguishable from forcing people to donate kidneys to strangers. That violates our sense of right and wrong.

A good counter-argument is that having sex carries the risk of pregnancy, and thus carries consent to carry the baby to term.

A great counter-argument is that after 3 months, a woman knows if she's pregnant or not, and ought to have made the decision to abort or not, as the longer she waits the more she risks killing an aware human being. Thus if babies are aware at 3 months or later, abortions ought to be illegal after 3 months.

For the inbetween time of conception to 3 months, if the baby is indeed aware, then I am undecided.

>>2550331
It is not subjective truth that something human is human. It is objective truth. You're a fucking moron. Go away and don't come back.

>>2550328
If you want to know what species something is, you can look at its FUCKING DNA. A fetus doesn't BECOME human. It IS a HUMAN FETUS. Are you people trolling or just the stupidest people to ever stink up /sci/?

>>2550358
The definition of human is a subjective one.

>>2550358
The other guy's an idiot. The debate isn't whether a fetus is human but rather when does life begin?

sage cause this doesn't belong on /sci/

>>2550358
The other guy's an idiot. The debate isn't whether a fetus is human but rather when does life begin?

>>2550367
Stop arguing semantics

>>2550362
What about a sperm and an unfertilized egg do-

Wait you're a troll. Never mind then

>>2550370
No, the argument is where human moral rights begin. A dog is alive, but it doesn't have the same rights as a human.

>>2550392
goddammit you know what I mean.

>>2548760
>You are ok with abortions because you will never get aborted.
With a fucking smug.

>>2550418
>goddammit you know what I mean.
No, I think this is a very important point. You're using bad terminology, which is largely perpetuating this "yelling at walls" debate. You conflated "human life" and "moral rights", with which I fundamentally disagree. A fertilized single cell human egg is alive by any sensible definition of "life". However, in my world view (see else-thread for massive copypasta), it has no moral rights.

>>2548760
>"I think Pro-Choice people are okay with abortions because they willl never be aborted"
>With a fucking smug smile.

Some Christian group can by my uni.
After hearing that argument I called the dude a fucking moron and left.

I pretty much can come up with my decision based on the arguing techniques

Pro-Choice:
>scientific terminology
>refers to a medical procedure as a medical procedure
>doesn't try to stir up emotions
>doesn't demonize others for their beliefs
>leaves religion in the gutters
>based on facts, not feelings

Pro-Life:
>Going for emotional response
>Bringing up religion
>'How would you like it if YOU were aborted?'
>Nazis, Nazis everywhere
>Snake oil salesman tactics

It's not even a debate

>>2550476
>I've already decided my position long ago but I'm going to pretend I just made up my mind now and call the people who disagree with me stupid in a way I believe is subtle

If the fetus is a "human", then abortion is murder. If it's not, then it's OK. This is a matter of definition and can't be decided by logic and science.

Pro-lifers advocate for their definition using hysterical emotional appeals, and pro-choicers advocate for theirs using convoluted arguments dressed up in science in an effort to make them seem smart and therefore right.

>>2550507
>can't be decided by logic and science

not a debate then, it's a shouting contest

>>2550507
>If the fetus is a "human", then abortion is murder. If it's not, then it's OK. This is a matter of definition and can't be decided by logic and science.

No, it's not. I again reject your conflation that human life necessarily has (or deserves, whatever) moral rights. I believe that single celled fertilized human eggs are alive, are human, and have no moral rights, just like a detached human hand is human (well, part of a human), is alive (at least for a short time, like an egg without a womb), and has no moral rights.

>>2550507
There's no debate that the fetus has human DNA and is a developing member of our species. The debate is over whether or not it has the rights of a normal person, fewer rights, more rights, none, etc.

we should vote a fetus for president

that way, we'd relly know if they had the same rights as hunems

>>2550543

Children already have fewer rights.
Is it so crazy that fetus will have less?

>>2550556
>Suggesting that morality ought to be decided democratically.
Just went full retard.

>>2550518
this idiot makes the dumbest possible argument

but he is right that fetuses have fewer rights than the already born

abortion is murder, and i'm ok with that.jpg

>2550566
Right to life is pretty much the last one. It's not just "less" rights.

>>2550566
Children have fewer rights because they aren't
able to use the rights with proper responsibility

how responsible do you think a fetus is?
It's been freeloading off it's mom its whole life

>>2550576
thats just like your opinion man

I again redirect you all to my copypasta.
>>2550335
>>2550356
I've already replied to all of your arguments there.

>>2550515

pretty much

>>2550518
>just like a detached human hand is human (well, part of a human)

dumbest analogy ever

>>2550566

not having the right to not be killed isn't "fewer" rights, it's "absolutely no" rights.

>>2550589
Explain to me why a fertilized human egg has rights, a detached human hand does not, and unfertilized human eggs do not.

Please, and then perhaps see why it's a good analogy, as it makes fun of the whole "Has human DNA" argument.

>>2550589

>not having the right to not be killed isn't "fewer" rights, it's "absolutely no" rights

you can't prove this, its just downright wrong

how about the right to not suffer or be enslaved?
lots of things are worse than death
your wrong

>>2550589
Which is fewer.

>>2550608

your an idiot

>>2550633
>>2550616

>your wrong
>your an idiot

I can only assume you're the same person. Troll hopefully.

It ain't human until its experienced consciousness.
If you ban abortions, I'll just perform them with a baseball bat instead

>>2550608

ok, because you asked so nicely

your hand has exactly the same dna as you
an unfertilized egg has dna that is a subset of the mothers dna

an EMBRYO HAS ITS OWN UNIQUE DNA=NEW INDIVIDUAL

i said it loud to make sure you heard it, cuz i'm not repeating it

>>2550658
shut up retart

>>2550664
Twins. Are one person

>>2550608
>Explain to me why a fertilized human egg has rights, a detached human hand does not, and unfertilized human eggs do not.

Because it's an arbitrary definiton. Anyone can dress their argument up in all kinds of bullshit "science" and "logic", but it's still a completely arbitrary choice with no provably "right" answer.

>>2550664
>your hand has exactly the same dna as you
Why do I have rights and my detached hand does not? Why can't the detached human hand sue in court to get on life support and remain detached, or why not a caretaker appointed by the government?

Why is that idea so ludicrous, but the same idea for a fertilized egg is not, or an early term fetus? Only one real possible answer: the "has potential to become a normal thinking human" argument. This is also a non-argument, as sperm and unfertilized eggs also have the potential to become thinking humans, just like a collection of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and a couple other elements has the "potential" to become human.

Moral rights derive from the brain, from the mind, not from DNA.

>Choose to do a speech on Martin Luther King Jr. for Speech 101
>Google his name
>Jot down notes from various websites
>Get to like the 5th result
>"One thing most people don't know is that MLK was an adulterer and allegedly cheated on his wife."
>Oh, you're right. I didn't know that. Interesting fact, that is.
>"So it's not a big leap to understand just how he was a mastermind in the Zionist's plan to destroy America."
>wat

>>2550608
>Explain to me why a fertilized human egg has rights, a detached human hand does not, and unfertilized human eggs do not.

Because it's an arbitrary definiton. Anyone can dress their argument up in all kinds of bullshit "science" and "logic", but it's still a completely arbitrary, emotional choice with no provably "right" answer.

>>2550664

My sperm is peoples too?

>>2550709
I'm trying to draw out that he really doesn't believe what he's saying, and that he really hasn't thought this through all that well.

Because OP, most of them are religiousfags...
When logic fails, draw up poor analogies and appeal to human emotion.

>>2550710

your completely wrong bro, every doctor and geneticist in the world knows an embryo is a new individual, your detached hand is not

no other argument about potential is necessary, an embryo is a new, discrete member of the human species

>>2550820
>your completely wrong bro, every doctor and geneticist in the world knows an embryo is a new individual, your detached hand is not
>no other argument about potential is necessary, an embryo is a new, discrete member of the human species

You haven't answered the question. Why does the head have rights when its detached from the body, but the hand doesn't have rights? Why? It's because the head has the brain, has the mind.

I think everyone here agrees that its immoral to end the life of a being capable of self-reflective awareness. But what if a creature lacks this ability such as a fly or shrimp? Its considered acceptable to end the life of these undeveloped brain creatures. What about a creature that is growing into a human that has not yet developed the capacity for such capability; a being lacking secondary consciousness such as the shrimp or fly.

My argument is if a human's right to life is defined as the capability of self-reflective consciousness then a fetus or human child should not have a right to life until at least 6 months after birth. The average human baby does not have enough of a developed brain to even pass the simple mirror test for self-awareness till 18 months. I choose 6 months because that gives 12 months of safety zone, because we're unsure when exactly secondary consciousness begins, but its definitely not before 6 months.

Their retardation stems from the belief that the soul is injected into the fetus at an early point in time, by god or magic or whatever.
So if you believe in a soul, you're retarded. That's about it.
Infact in stem cell research thingamajigs, Bush's advisors on the issues were discussing when the soul is injected into the embryo with no sense of irony, guilt, satire or sarcasm.
And hence it was decided that the soul is injected by a sky magician right around 16 or so cells.
You stop the growth after that and it's murder because you send the soul to heaven. Or hell, depending on which parts of the bible you choose not to read.

>>2550874

in the embryo you are killing the whole thing, so how does your argument even have a point? abortion killed the whole new discrete individual, it leaves neither head nor hand

It's pretty simple you faggots.
Giving women rights hurts men.
/thread

dead people still have rights. you cant fuck with a dead body, it's illegal to do that

>>2551054
WHEN SOMEONE GETS THEIR FINGER CUT OFF, IS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DYING!?

WHEN SOMEONE GETS THEIR HEAD CUT OFF, BUT THEIR BODY KEPT ALIVE ON LIFE SUPPORT, IS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DYING!?

PS: DAMN I WAS TROLLED TO THE MAXIMUM WITH JSMATH AND I'M A RETARD.

>People still think murder is the most horrible thing ever
Sure is 12 year olds in here.
There's nothing wrong with murder.

>>2551079
edgy 14 year old up in here

>>2551072
>Dead people have rights
They shouldn't.
We shouldn't even keep dead bodies in coffins anymore. They're a waste of space and resources.

>>2551079
You're so right.
I tell you what. To celebrate your wonderful discovery, why don't we all go out an kill someone for the hell of it.
You first.

>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
>>2550272
/thread

>>2550820
Human =/= person.

Similarly, person =/= human. A sufficiently advanced artifical intelligence, or a reasonably intelligent non-human life form (e.g. the great apes) has more right to...well, rights, than a fertilized blob of goo.

>>2551051

I am as atheist as they come. I would consider myself "pro life". I do believe abortions should be allowed, and even encouraged, if the mother's life would be put in danger by carrying the fetus to term. As a means of ending an unwanted pregnancy, I don't believe it is justified. There are gray areas (rape, etc) that I won't get into, because nobody is willing to have an intelligent, civil argument without bringing up the bible.

The reason I consider I lean pro-life is simple: From a utilitarian standpoint, allowing the potential life the chance to exist has a higher net utility than terminating it in the vast majority of cases. Furthermore, if I am wrong, my error has inconvenienced someone. If i were pro-choice and wrong, my error as 'killed' someone (yes, yes, not a person, blah blah blah, you know what I mean).

tl;dr I'm a pro-life atheist.

>>2551096
>>2551079
This is why you'll never be put in a decision-making position.

>>2551076

when someone gets their whole body annihilated is that killing an individual?

>>2551109
CAN YOU MAKE ANY INTERESTING POINTS IN REPLY TO MY COPYPASTA, PLEASE!
>>2550335
>>2550356

SPECIFICALLY, I'M CURIOUS HOW YOU WOULD REPLY TO THE ARGUMENT IN
ROE V WADE, WHICH I OUTLINED THERE!

ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF FORCED KIDNEY DONATIONS!? AND IF NOT, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORCED KIDNEY DONATIONS AND OUTLAWING ABORTIONS!?

PS: STILL IN CRUISE CONTROL MODE BECAUSE I WAS TROLLED SO HARD WITH JSMATH SCRIPT. GOD I'M RETARDED! I'M EVEN A USUALLY COMPETENT PROGRAMMER!

>>2551116
THAT'S NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION ASSHAT! WHY IS THE BRAIN SPECIAL IN DETERMING WHAT PART OF THE SEVERED BODY IS THE INDIVIDUAL, AND WHICH PART IS A LIVING BUT DOESN'T HAVE RIGHTS!?

THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE BRAIN AND THE HUMAN MIND IS NECESSARY TO HAVE MORAL RIGHTS.

I'm all about allowing up to 8 weeks, except for a situation where the mother's life is in danger, because an already born human is always more important than an unborn human.
It should NOT be encouraged for birth control(contraceptives motherfuckers, use them).
But not made illegal. And tax payers should not have to ever pay for the procedure. 8 weeks is enough time to "choose".
It's not a religious thing. It's about stifling sexual irresponsibility more than anything. But after the first trimester, it's also very much about morality. A fetus at that age will actively try to struggle and get away from abortion implements.

>>2551127

i'm not against abortions....i'm against the idiocy and basic scientific ignorance of pro-choicers saying a fetus is not a human life, when it very obviously is

>>2551116
Not if you're Christian. If you're Christian, you go to Disneyheaven.

>>2551130
>It's about stifling sexual irresponsibility more than anything.
ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS FULL OF SHIT!

I WOULD ARGUE IT'S LIKELY THAT HUMANS ARE JUST HORNY, AND EASY ABORTION OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SEX!

>>2551135
OK! THEN I'VE BEEN ARGUING WITH AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT ANONS! I SAY AGAIN, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ORGANISM WHICH IS ALIVE AND HUMAN, AND A THING WHICH DESERVES MORAL RIGHTS.

>>2551095
>>2551099
>Haven't realized that morals don't exist

>>2551152
Tell that to the rest of the 6.5 billion people you share the planet with asshole.
I bet you think you're scientific too.
You probably believe you're like Data or some other thing.

>>2550659

>IF YOU BAN MURDER THEN THEY'LL JUST DO IT WITH GUNS ANYWAY

Yah dude we should just legalize forced euthanasia so people can kill each other "safely".

>>2551145

i don't think the embryo deserves the right to life, but it does deserve the right to not be enslaved(i.e. not sold for research) and the right to not suffer excessively(abortions must be carried out by medical professionals)

>>2551170
i.e. i believe all members of the human species deserve those two rights, no enslavement and no excessive suffering

>>2551168
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THERE. WE KNOW THAT ATTEMPTING TO STOP MURDERERS, AND LOCKING UP MURDERERS, PREVENT MURDER. THUS WE SHOULD!

THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO US IS THAT KIDS WILL HAVE SEX, AND INDIRECT EDUCATIONAL PRESSURES DO JACK SHIT, SO PERHAPS WE SHOULD FIND A MORE EFFECTIVE TACTIC!

>mfw Ohio is about to fuck abortionists in the ass
Wasn't another state going to legalize the murder of abortion docs, saying that the murder would be justified if a fetus is put in danger?
Maximum troll right there.

>>2551179
>THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO US IS THAT KIDS WILL HAVE SEX, AND INDIRECT EDUCATIONAL PRESSURES DO JACK SHIT, SO PERHAPS WE SHOULD FIND A MORE EFFECTIVE TACTIC!
CAPSLOCK ALL OVER THE PLACE BLAAAAAARGGGGGFGFFFG

And also,
>It's okay if you get pregnant Kaycee. We'll just abort it and you can go on fucking!

>>2551184

it almost seems fair, abortion doctors aren't really worth a whole lot to society anyway, just to see anykind of non-abortion murder legalized would be worth it

what a fucking awesome experiment that would be

>>2551190
I'M SORRY FOR THE CRUISE CONTROL! I HAVE BEEN TROLLED TO THE MAXIMUM VIA JSMATH, AND SHOWN TO BE AN IDIOT, SO IT'S CRUISE CONTROL FOR THE REST OF THE NIGHT TO EXPRESS MY RAGE.

>>2551177
People can't have those rights if they've been brutally aborted by their mothers.

I AWAIT
>>2551109
'S REPLIES TO MY MASSIVE COPYPASTA ELSETHREAD! SPECIFICALLY, I ASK AGAIN, ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF FORCED KIDNEY DONATIONS!? AND IF NOT, HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN OUTLAWING MONTH 8 ABORTIONS? HOW IS IT DIFFERENT THAN OUTLAWING MONTH 1 ABORTIONS?

>>2551122
I can attempt to. And for the record, I would probably consider myself closer to a secular humanist than anything else. I just err on the side of extreme caution.

In the case of forced kidney donations: Your stated counter-argument is a reasonably good one. Sex carries a risk of pregnancy, and people should have to take responsibility for their actions in that regard.

It might be a kind of stupid argument, but I would say that kidney transplants being "unnatural" should hold some weight. Without deliberate intervention, a pregnancy will often end in birth, but kidney's aren't generally known for migrating into other people's bodies spontaneously. This in some ways relates to the argument from the copypasta: surgery would put the donor's life in danger. The donor didn't choose to have matching kidneys. The pregnant woman (presumably) did choose to have sex, so she should have to live with the low, general risk of a normal pregnancy. Again, not talking about cases where the mother's life is reasonable danger, or cases of rape, etc...

>>2551179
>Really believes that locking up murderers will prevent murder
The only way to prevent murder is to end all life. Because your continued existence requires the ending of the lives of other living beings. So if you want to stop murder altogether, kill everything.

>>2551208
>end all life
>psychopath

>>2551208
FALLACY OF THE FALSE DICHOTOMY. THERE IS SOMETHING BESIDES STOPPING ALL MURDERS AND DOING SOMETHING. YOU CAN STOP SOME OF THE FUTURE MURDERS.

NOWHERE DID I SAY STOP ALL MURDERS. I SAID STOP SOME MURDERS.

>>2551211
>Believes that Psychopathy exists
Sure is Psychiatry in here. (And we all know that Psychiatry is bullshit, don't we.)

>>2551217
You said stop murder, which implies ALL murder. Also, it isn't a false dichotomy. Think of the numerous plants and animals that had to be brutally murdered so you could nourish yourself and continue to survive. Is it only murder when a human being is killed? Why are human lives worth more than the lives of other beings?

>this thread
It's no wonder moot wants to axe this place.
There's no science-minded folk around here at all.
Just kids looking for homework help, and nutcases(or trolls).

>>2551235
>Nutcases
Elaborate son.

>>2551226
>WHY ARE HUMAN LIVES MORE VALUABLE THAN THE LIVES OF PLANTS, OR BACTERIA!?
I REFUSE TO HAVE SUCH A RETARDED DISCUSSION WITH AN OBVIOUS TROLL! PLEASE VACATE THE PREMISES IMMEDIATELY!

>>2551205
Me again, a followup.

From a purely utilitarian standpoint: both cases are similar. They both inconvenience someone 100% of the time to offer a chance that someone else will have a life (or a longer one, anyway). However, the kidney scenario is somewhat artificial. The person could sit on dialysis and wait for a kidney to show up. Mandatory organ donations from the deceased would also alleviate the problem--which, although I'm sure many people would dislike, I think everyone would agree is better than forced donations from the living. I've always thought using the kidney argument was something of a red herring given its near impossibility. If, on the other hand, it was suddenly a serious problem (e.g. a new plague breaks out. About half of all people are going to lose their kidneys. The other half are immune.) then I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people's opinions on the matter change.

>>2551248
>Disagree with someone
>Call them a troll, because your opinion is obviously the only right one around here
Remove scientist from your name. You are not deserving of it.

>>2551244
>no such thing as morals
>kill everyone to stop murder
>human life is worthless
You tell a shrink that kind of shit and you're going away under the Baker Act, for being a legitimate threat to society.
You'd get turned down for any public office or civil duty.
And if you were a scientist and made these claims, your peers would shun you into oblivion.
The reason science is done, is because scientists(the good ones) want to better mankind and the world.
Think morality doesn't exist? You're just like Josef Mengele.

>>2551252
NO U!

ANYONE WHO SERIOUSLY BELIEVES THAT A HUMAN LIFE HAS AS MUCH VALUE AS THE LIFE OF A BACTERIA - AND ISN'T A TROLL - IS A NIHILIST RETARD OR EFFECTIVELY SUICIDAL! I CARE NOT TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH SUCH PEOPLE!

AND THIS IS 4CHAN FOR CHRISTS' SAKE! WHAT, YOU EXPECT ME TO BE CIVIL AND POLITE WITH THE TROLLS!? FUCK YOU TOO!

>Why are human lives worth more than the lives of other beings?
If you don't know the answer to this, CONGRATS!
You're a moron, and will never be a good scientist/engineer.
Time to "brush up" on your broom work Mr.Janitor.

>>2551272
I don't think you understand what I mean. Life is essentially worthless. That is not to say that it should be exterminated needlessly. But it is good to know that it is worthless. If something makes sense, then you do it. For instance, if a baby would be a serious inconvenience to your life and relationship, and the baby wouldn't have a great life, it only makes sense to do everything in your power to prevent that from happening, including killing the fucker.
>>2551268
>Implying that the majority is always right.
>Comparing me to Nazi for no reason
Science isn't done because people want to better the world. Science is done because we don't have anything better to do. There is an inherent logical fallacy in your statement and most of the replies to that post as well. You think that if someone thinks that there is nothing wrong with killing, then they are murderers themselves, or would condone senseless killing. You have no reason to make such a statement, and saying that is like assuming that because your significant other looks at other people, then said person must be cheating on you.

>>2551205
I'VE BEEN MEANING TO REPLY! THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE OPINION TO HOLD! I'M NOT SURE I'M READY TO AGREE QUITE YET THOUGH!

>>2551310
Since when do you determine what opinions are acceptable to hold?
Kill yourself you narcissistic fucker.

premise 1: a foetus is a human being
premise 2: A human has a right to life
C1: the foetus has a right to life
P3: the mother has a right to control her body.
P4: the right to life outweighs the right to control your body
P5: it is morally unjustifiable removing someones greater right to satisfy someone elses smaller right:
C2: it is morally unjustifiable to have an abortion.

this is the most common argument but relies on the foetus being a human being.

far better is this

Imagine a rescue crew 1 person is drowning in one lake and 5 are drowning in the other. It is morally acceptable to safe the 5 and let one drown.

now imagine the smae scenario except that there is 1 person lying on the road and the rescue team would have to run him over to safe the 5 people. this seems morally unnaceptable

therfore letting die does not equal killing
killing somebody is worse than letting somebody die.

by abortion you are actively killing someone rather than giving the mother a small chance that she might die.

>>2551314
SINCE WHEN I HAVE TO SHARE A PLANET WITH OTHER PEOPLE! ALTERNATIVELY, I COULD PASSIVELY SIT HERE AND NOT DEFEND MYSELF, BUT THAT WOULD BE SUICIDAL, AND I DON'T WANT TO!

>>2551303
You don't seem to realize you live on a planet where most people think murder and rape are bad.
If you truly believe that morality does not exist, there is nothing preventing you from committing crimes.
Not even prison, because with no morals, you'd care not for sitting in prison. It'd be just another part in time to you.
You simply BELIEVE no morals exist. The problem is, 95% of everyone around you does, and they decide your life as much as you do.

>>2551327
>Nothing preventing you from not committing crimes
>Doesn't realize that nothing prevents anyone from committing crimes ever
I don't kill people or rape people because I'm not interested in that sort of thing.

>>2551333
>I don't kill people or rape people because I'm not interested in that sort of thing.
No, you don't do it because-
A. You think it's wrong
or
B. You're a chickenshit and don't want to go to prison.
Either way, morals are causing you to not kill.

>>2551333
I also don't see how I would benefit greatly from it.
I also recognize that since most people are fucking retarded, we need to keep them believing that morals exist to prevent total societal collapse.

I'm on the fence about abortion.

On one point it gives women rights, and other the other I get to murder babies. Help me out /sci/

>>2551349
Forced abortions. It's anti-life and anti-choice.

>>2551321
Well stated. However,
>therfore letting die does not equal killing

Allow me to play the devil's advocate. Consider the following scenarios.
1: You and another person are wired up to an electrical device. There is a timer, and a button that you can reach. If, after 30 seconds, you have not pressed the button, then you will be severely shocked, to the point of permanent motor neuron damage and quadriplegia, but not killed by it. If you press the button, the other person will be electrocuted to death, but nothing will happen to you.

Scenario 2: Exactly the same as above, except for the timer/button. Instead, if you do nothing, you will be electrocuted after 30 seconds. If you press the button, the person is killed.

Would you still consider there to be a difference between killing (2) and letting someone die (1) in the above?

>>2551349
>give women rights
Right there. That's the decider. Fuck women. She wants an abortion?
She has to take a falcon paunch.

>>2551350
Not letting someone choose to murder takes the fun out of it though, so that argument is invalid.

Maleanon seriously weighing in on this. Abortion is a form of birth control (a preventive measure against conceiving a child). It's not anyone's right to stop one from using birth control. There's obviously a point where a fetus is considered a person,but society and science hasn't agreed on that point. It's difficult to think at one moment it's a fetus and in another moment it's a person.

>>2551355
A person has the right to save their own life.
Number one rule of life is, self preservation.
It's not pleasant, but it is the law.

>>2551343
There's a difference between having morals and finding anal rape unpleasant.

>>2551345 here
Also note that my knowledge of the nonexistence of morals does not mean that I do not hold myself to certain standards, I certainly do, and these standards are bullshit rules I and everyone else makes up to keep ourselves in line. However, instead of saying things like "I WILL NEVER DO X BECAUSE X IS WRONG!!@#!@!", I rationalize my standards.
For instance, I will most likely never kill, because I will most likely never be in a situation which necessitates the taking of a life. I don't fight other people because it doesn't get rid of the problem, and thus is a pointless exercise. I don't rape women because I see no point, if I wanted to fuck someone I would pay for a hooker, and seeing as most of rape is about the power aspect, I don't feel any real urge to feel the power over someone that rape brings. I don't steal because I have never longed for something enough to actually want to steal it. I pirate things on the internet because I see no reason not to. Sure, you can say that taking things without paying for them is stealing, but by that argument if you buy a game and decide to give it to your friend, then your friend has stolen the game, which is what pirating is. Buying things and deciding to distribute them to your friends, where your friends are random strangers on the internet.

>>2551369
No there isn't.
You find anal rape unpleasant because of the demeaning way it makes you FEEL. Meaning your feeling like a bitch goes against your morals.

>>2551365
You will notice that the person who can press the button is not in danger of dying. Merely suffering.

>>2551379
I find anal rape unpleasant because it makes my anus hurt.

>>2551370
CRAZY ALERT
You are quite a freak of humanity son.
Better get that checked out.

>>2551379
Most would feel anal rape unpleasant because they did not consent to such an act, and because they would not have been lubed up beforehand, or had sufficient preparation through the use of buttplugs and other toys before the reception of an erect phallus in their rectum, and thus it would be FUCKING PAINFUL

>>2551383
How would you know it hurts?
And jailhouse lube works.
>>2551388
No. EVERYBODY hates getting raped because of how it hurts your psyche.
>>2551381
That doesn't mean the natural instinct will go away.

>>2551398
My father grew up in a village in eastern Africa. The girls there were pretty much raped by boys a number of times in their life, and suffered no damage to their psyche, continued living their lives and not giving a fuck. If you believe that something will damage your psyche, then it will damage your psyche. Simple as that.

>>2551398
>That doesn't mean the natural instinct will go away.

Ok, reduce it to a swift kick in the nuts. The point isn't why the person pressed or did not press the button, it's trying to show that the difference between killing and letting die is a largely syntactical one, no a moral one.

Do you all actually believe there's no such thing as morality?
Really?
Who taught you this?
Have you ever told a potential employer or a psychologist?

>>2551417
>Talks to psychologists

>>2551436
Nobody knows the human thought process better.

>>2551442
>Really believes this

>>2551417
There is no morality among the religious, just guilt and fear.

Being moral means you can see why hurting people is bad, and it's not exclusive to anyone. Companies and governments hurt their customers/employees and citizens all the time, and there's still people who trust them.

>>2551417
>Didn't read the posts right
I said morals aren't real, in the sense that they aren't natural and are just made up shit we keep in our heads.

>>2551451
That's not a lack of morals.
That's I DON'T GIVE A FUCK, usually attributed to greed.
And plenty of religious people truly believe doing bad things is BAD, not just for the sake of going to hell.
My father was kinda religious, but got away from the church due to greed and hypocrisy.
I'm not religious at all, but morals still play a part in my life.
My fight for liberty and justice, combined with logic, make me the fiercest opponent of bullshit on this earth. Penn Gillette ain't got shit on me.

>>2551464
Religious people believe that doing X is bad because God will do Y to you if you do those things. That is indeed fear you dumbass. And that is indeed a lack of morals.

>>2551454
It's a good thing too, with our massive intelligence and egos, not giving a fuck could have caused some serious issues.

>>2551469
Have you ever known a moderate christian?
Why do you ONLY target Christianity?
Other religions lack a hell, but their followers still keep to morals.
You sound very inexperienced when it comes to the human thought process and religion.

>>2551474
>Other religions lack a hell
Nope. They all have some form of punishment, administered by a deity (a god for you hopeless fuckwits) for not doing what they say.

>>2551477
inb4 failed to account for nontheistic religions

>>2551482
nontheistic religion=philosophy

>>2551486
Okie dokie. Anyone feel like ranting about how self proclaimed agnostics are actually just atheists in denial? Circlejerk threads are always cool.

Question for you k00ld00d "got no morals" guys ITT-
If I came to your house, dragged your girlfriend out into the street by her hair, raped her, then used my kabar to slit her belly and remove her organs onto the street while she screams in pain and terror before taking her last breaths, would you, lacking any morals, just sit by and watch with no emotion at all?
If you have any rage, or sadness over my actions, or if you call the police, or if you try to stop me, you'd prove you do indeed have morals, and you aren't some laughably ill-conceived attempt to mimic Lt.Cmdr.Data.

>>2551496
>Thinks that this proves that we have morals
You sure are retarded.

>>2551496
>/sci/
>girlfriend
You sure are funny.

>>2551500
It completely proves it.
You should try to weasel your way out of this without resorting to childish
>implying
and ad hominem.
I asked a legitimate question. Can you answer it?

>>2551501
Okay, MOM then. Whoever is closest to you.

>>2551505
Explain how wanting to defend the life of someone you care about proves you have morals. Also note, what someone says when you ask them a question has little or nothing to do with what they would actually do in that situation, so such a question is pointless.

>>2548881
>mfw the irony of that statement

>>2551511
If you have no morals, the death of a person, any person, is merely an unrelated occurrence to you.
Here's hard mode-
The person in the above scenario is a total stranger. You still have a choice- watch in total carelessness as they get raped, then gutted in the street, or attempt to do something(or at least get the police) in order to stop it.
If you can honestly just stand by, I've got some terrible news for you.

>>2551528
>Doesn't understand that asking questions are entirely pointless because there are few people if any who have ever been in that position before, and you cannot know exactly how you will respond to any given situation until the given situation is the one you find yourself in.
Are you seriously so retarded that you can't understand something as simple as this?

>>2551530
Well no. You see, without morals, no matter how bad the situation gets, you should logically have no caring or concern for the assaulted individual.
If you show any anger, sadness, or distress from the aforementioned activity, then you indeed had morals that you would follow, and up until that point, you were just trying to be a toughguy.

Psychoanalyzing is fun.

>>2551541
I don't think you know what morals are.

>>2551541
>Never heard of something called sympathy

>>2551548
>>2551543
Sympathy is morals.
Morals are what you think is right and wrong. If you think a woman getting raped then gutted is wrong, it will show in your sympathy for her.
If you have no moral hangups, you just won't give a damn.
This is psychology basics.

>>2551549
If these are basics of psychology, then psychology is bullshit and a waste of fucking time.

>>2551552
I've utterly decimated your theory about morals ma boi.
You? You've done nothing but refuse to answer the question, preferring to say NUH UH and call people names.
Intellectual check and mate.
Toodles.

>>2551559
>Is seriously this retarded

>>2551549

> basing ethics on psychology

There has never been a retard going more full retard, than this retard

>>2551568
>>2551563
Like I said, ad hominem attacks instead of proper debate.
This is how everyone knows I'm right.

>>2551577
>a troll on /sci/
You went full retard son. You're trolling one of the slowest boards on this site.

>>2551321
I enjoy this argument, pro-lifer, but I disagree with it.
>premise 1: a foetus is a human being
>premise 2: A human has a right to life

Hmm I will challenge this
premise 1: a headless man on life support is a human being
premise 2: a human has a right to life

Therefore turning off any life support machine is equal to murder using your premise 2.
You need more work on premise 1!

For the record, I'm pro-choice.

>>2551577

You really want this pointed out?

> Sympathy is morals

Sympathy is NOT the same as morals. Sympathy doesn't say jack shit about what kind of person one ought to be. Sympathy is just when someone else's emotional state infects you.

> Morals are what you think is right and wrong. If you think a woman getting raped then gutted is wrong, it will show in your sympathy for her

By that logic, as long as she isn't suffering while she's raped and killed, it would be totally okey to rape and kill people.

And you're hiding a premise saying that what feels good is good. It's not only an equivocation, but If we discard that one, you're saying nothing.


> If you have no moral hangups, you just won't give a damn.

Just because you have a shitty character doesn't mean others have it.

Again, using psychology to derive morals is HERP DERP FUCKING LERP

>>2551595
>Again, using psychology to derive morals is HERP DERP FUCKING LERP
QUICK! You better let the psychological community in on your new discovery!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_Personality_Disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath

Nutcase status-
Told Faithful

to answer OP:
Godwin's law

>>2551610
Amazing how it's the Christian hate that's making Nazis look good today. I bet they even think he's the Antichrist.

If atheism is true, then our minds are reducible to physics. Since physics is fundamentally deterministic, we have no free will. Ergo, I have no 'choice' whether to adopt atheism or not, and you're wasting your time by trying to convince me of anything.

>>2551622
"Christianity is potentially one of the biggest problems facing society."

-Adolf Hitler

Bullshit.
[citation needed]
A source that predates 1943.

>>2551652

Bullshit.
[citation needed]
A source that predates 1943.

>>2551652

"I believe that by defending myself against the jew I am doing the work of Almighty God" - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

>>2551644

Classical physics is deterministic to a degree in the sense that given information about object A at time t, you can determine information about object A at time t + delta t.

But when it comes to quantum, not everything is determined from previous conditions. You deal with probabilities of an event happening. Same with thermal physics. Theres a probability of all states happening during a long enough time line, but some events are so unlikely, that you wont see it. This fits perfectly well with free will.

Free will is still governed by your situation and your life, so most of your decisions (all have a probably possibility) could be guessed. Or at least as a group and as a whole.

Also, stop going to wikipedia/philosophy 101.