/sci/ - Science & Math

cause killing babies is awesome, they never even see it coming haha stupid babies

Life is present from long before conception, there's bacteria on both of their genitals. Tons of it.
Life is technically there, yes, but I honestly don't give half a shit about blastocysts, hell, even when they sort of look less like a lizard and more like a human I don't care.
I mean, I don't even like babies very much.

I support Abortion because the mother is more important than the potential life.
I support Abortion because if it was illegal it would still happen, it would just be less safe.
And I support Abortion because Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly hate it, and any time they agree on something, it's probably wrong.

by all the criteria of molecular biology, life is present before the conception. so /sci/, why do you support fapping?

>>3110728
this


>>3110714
who gives a fuck, kill it and move on, bfd

so an embryo is alive. so what? so is cancer. if it's gonna irritate you for life, cut it off.

There are seven billion people on earth; does it really matter if we kill a few babies?

If only there was as much support for adoption as there is opposition for abortion...

>>3110736
>I support Abortion because the mother is more important than the potential life.

Because having a baby does something harmful to the mother.

You are everything that is wrong with the world.

>>3110737
f'rill f'rill
everytime you bust a load it's like a holocaust, but no one ever says nothin' 'bout that, y'heard

poleward fromilly

why not skip most of the microscopic biological intricacies, and try to realize that a person is mostly consciousness and awareness. without a fully functioning brain, self awareness, consciousness, reasoning, or ability to survive on your own are you really alive? its just the same question as is a person still alive if they are brain dead?

its a technicality.

It's not a good idea to bring new people into the world unless they have extremely good conditions (like guaranteed to be able to be fed, cared for, etc.)

There is no shortage of people, fewer happier people is more favorable then loads of niggers starving and dying of aids.

>>3110756

What this guy said.

Also, this guy is stupid and is out of touch with reality >>3110748 .

>>3110741

I was gana write BUT cancer isn't a person but than I lol'ed. good job

The problem is that most people associate life and consciousness as the same thing, when it comes to humanity.

Anyone who argues life doesn't begin the moment the sperm and egg become one, doesn't belong at the table.

>inafter a bunch of fags who simply support selfish women that refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
I cant wait for test tube babies, they'll be safe from the cold hearted women.

This is why I love /sci/ :
>>3110736
>>3110741
>>3110746
>>3110756
>>3110764

action Regrood

Why does anyone honestly care if someone else wants an abortion?

Your moral and ethical opinions are irrelevant. People get pregnant all the time and some of them want abortions, and there are doctors willing to be payed to abort it.

>>3110771
> their actions
> Women: If you become pregnant from being raped, it's your own fault
> my face when

>>3110741
so your parents alive. so what? so is cancer. if they're gonna irritate you for life, why not kill them?

>>3110781

Disagree with this dude though...man, we were on a role too....

>>3110783
>people always use this rape angle
>most abortions are not because of a rape-baby and you fucking know it

>>3110781
Why does anyone honestly care if someone else wants to blow up a school?

Your moral and ethical opinions are irrelevant. People get psycho all the time and some of them want to blow up schools, and there are people willing to be payed to supply the explosives.

>this is why i don't like any pro-aboprtion arguments.
Its like everyone keeps their morals on everything then suddenly when abortion is brought up everyone forgets they're killing a fucking baby.

sage this shit
sage this shit
sage this shit

there is no discussion of abortion because no one is open minded about their opinion. This makes sense: one side sees it as a matter of civil liberty, another side sees it as murder. There would never be a time where either would be willing to compromise, so why bother talking?

>it goes in every field if you're a boss

>>3110830
Legalize murder. Seriously my only problem is we can only murder babies when theres many other things need murdering.

1) Less people means less impact on the environment.
2) Less people means labor is more scarce, which improves worker negotiating power, which improves worker conditions, which improves society. This is a necessary adaptation to ending caste-systems of work- when blacks and women started working, competition for jobs went up, quality went down, and society went "pro-business" to the point of banana-republic scale wealth inequality.
3) I've taught, known, and dated people who were abused as kids. It is terrible and ruins them, in some ways, for life. Eliminating all unwanted children would not totally end child abuse, but it would go a long way toward it.
4) Less kids would increase the amount of resources- wealth, time, attention-per-child that society AND that given kid's family could spend on 'em. This would result in less neglected kids and a better society as a whole.
5) In rare occasions you need to abort to prevent some kid from being born with some nasty birth defect.
6) Because I like to have sex for fun, and don't want to have kids as a result of it. Abortion is a shitty and undesirable birth control but it is a no-fail last defense against unwanted children. And every child deserves to be wanted, and there's no reason they shouldn't be.

Your quote is... not really relevant to any of these, OP. Of course it's true that life is present from the moment of conception. So wat?

Yeah, this deserves a sage. Only Christards can't logic about abortion.

>>3110748
>Because having a baby does something harmful to the mother.
Yes. Pregnancy and childbirth are traumatic experiences. Ask ANY MOTHER. And they're the ones that wanted it. Forcing it on someone who doesn't want it it just plain cruel.

And I'm sorry that my basic compassion for my fellow man (or woman in this case) is apparently everything wrong with the world. I always thought that if more people cared about the suffering of other people, the world would be better off, thank you for correcting me.

>>3110792
> "Most people don't get raped so it doesn't matter"

lol ok

>>3110865
1) the ones who can afford the abortions are the ones getting them.
2) the lower class scum of the earth are the ones keeping children and multiplying
>3) I've taught, known, and dated people who were abused as kids. It is terrible and ruins them, in some ways, for life. Eliminating all unwanted children would not totally end child abuse, but it would go a long way toward it.
I don't even know what your fucking point is there.

But seriously I've heard your arguments before but they are totally fucking invalid to me because like i said, the people who really shouldn't be having kids are the ones breeding like fucking rabbits negating any fucking point you are trying to make.

>>3110899
Abortion for rape babies is fine then.
Happy?
I've always considered circumstances like that to be okay for abortion.

>>3110906

Excellent, so you agree that abortions should not only be legal, they should be government funded, along with family planning and birth control.

>>3110906
so what is your point, civilized people should stop getting abortions and africans/etc should? I'm not the person you replied to, and I don't know your stance, but that is most definitely not an argument against abortion, it is an argument for imposing abortion upon other cultures. i.e. everyone should be aborting.

FUCK YOU! FUCK ALL OF YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKING PROLIFE MOTHERFUCKING RETARDS SHITTING UP THIS PLANET!

>>3110937
No, i believe the government should fund adoption and childcare programs etc.
(I'm sure you sounded wittier in your head.)

You should have the right to not have your body forced to be a life support machine.

abortion (and sterilization) should be mandatory for rape victims.

abortion (and sterilization) should be mandatory for rape "victims".

>>3110960
For 9 months? Oh HOWEVER would a woman survive 9 months of exactly what nature intended?

>>3110979
>nature intended
>bipedals with huge heads

>>3110979
Potential death wasn't the base for my assertion, nice strawman and naturalistic fallacy, thanks for playing.

>>3111007
my point

_____________
your head


Oh....you ran away already... =(

>>3110951
No, this just worsens problems 1-4 of my original post:
>>3110865
And your own concerns for "The poor people breeding too much" anyway. You should think harder.

>>3111020
>No, this just worsens problems
What problems?
If you means the problems of population/resources then I've told you why abortion wouldn't solve anything. Did you miss my whole point?

>>3111018

Make your point clearer, then, if you will.

>>3111038
Your point was stupid. Publicly funding family planning and abortions would reduce the population and therefore reduce all of those things. Your dopey-ass assertion that it wouldn't doesn't change anything.

>>3111038
neither does a religious viewpoint solve anything but create an irrational roadblock. unless you're willing to take care of the unwanted baby, you're being a hypocrite.

>>3111040
Well, actually if you wont mind me asking. What the fuck is YOUR point exactly since you seem to be insinuating i missed it?
If your point is a clear as it seems, it is a very stupid point indeed.

>>3111055
Religious? WHAT THE FUCK are you on about? What unwanted baby? Please rephrase the entirety of what you just said.

>>3111058
>You should have the right to not have your body forced to be a life support machine.

I don't think I can reword it any clearer. If it's as stupid as you say then, what's your counter-point?

>>3111067
1. anti-abortion is a religious viewpoint because it places a mass of organic material on some pedestal

2. the baby is unwanted because the mom who aborts it doesn't want it and neither does society, unless the baby put up for adoption is healthy, not retarded, and is of a desirable race.

>>3110714

So?

Why do you eat?

>>3111111
sextuplets? ABORT THEM

>>3111084
That you/they/ the woman VOLUNTARILY had sex, the baby was the result and that she/they should pay for it. Or if not, get it to be adopted. And before bullshit theres PLENTY of families wanting to adopt and you know it.
And the whole, baby born into unloving family bullshit. Are we that siically that we see death as doing the child a favour? A favour as we yet we try to help people wanting to suicide stay alive.
shit like THAT pisses me off. The double standards, double standards fucking everywhere

>>3111120
>siically
cynical****
don't know how the fuck that happened.

Because we don't need more people on the earth.

And people who need abortions are genetically unsuited for reproduction.

>>3111129
YEAH WELL IMMA GONNA HAVE 20 KIDS AND YOU AINT DO NUTHIN BOUT IT WHITEY!

>>3111120
>PLENTY of families wanting to adopt and you know it.
>double standards
people who oppose abortion want to choose the race of the adopted baby, hmmm...

>>3111120
Why should they pay for it when they can just have an abortion instead? You're not making much sense.

>>3111120
>the baby

The problem with pro-life supporters.

>>3111120
So your counter point to:

>You should have the right to not have your body forced to be a life support machine.

is

>sex has a penalty ("should pay for it") and that is having a baby

Truly, do you think this even begins to address my point? Is the fact that you went on a tangent completely unrelated to my argument lost on you?

>>3111120
Lol people that have sex should be punished with children.

>>3111148
What the fuck happened to the days when child bearing was a service to the country? Whatever happened...

>>3111163
People realized that patriotism is for faggots.

>>3111157
>>3111159
I'm saying that murder of a child should not be so easily decided.
But you guys weren't aborted so everything is okay.
I'm gonna sage my thread and go torture a cat because fuck morals.

>>3111168
hey....hey dude....America sucks...

>>3111171
>murder of a child

Cool propaganda.

>>3111157
I think you are the one who doesn't understand his argument. If you choose to have sex, you're choosing to engage in an activity where another person's life depends on your own. After the fact, you don't get to decide that you don't want that responsibility. If I'm going rock climbing with a friend, I can't decide I'm tired of holding onto his rope and just let him fall to his death.

Now, if you want to argue that the baby isn't a person so it doesn't matter if you kill it, that's fine. But your whole life support machine argument is fallacious since when that situation happens in real life, you don't get to choose to actively kill others to avoid inconvenience.

>>3111120
If lots of families want to adopt kids then how come so many children sit in waiting until 18?

>>3111171
>torture a cat because fuck morals
so you're opposed to abortion but you have no problem torturing cats and fucking morals?

>>3111195
>you don't get to decide that you don't want that responsibility

But I do, that's the beauty of abortion.

>>3111195
>you don't get to choose to actively kill others to avoid inconvenience.
yes, you can as long as it's legal. police and the armed forces do it all the time, even when the use of lethal force is questionable and avoidable.

>>3111195
No, if you choose to have sex you're choosing to have a fun time. If you don't want to raise a baby as a result there's no reason to do so. We are no longer in the middle agres.

>>3111204
Yes... that is why abortion is murder if you use the " pregnancy is life support of another person argument"....

Which is my point....

>>3111214
Not murder of anybody that really matters. It's a fetus, it doesn't have a brain, a name, any memories.

>>3111195
Pro-choice people view life in terms of consciousness. Terminating a pregnancy is like pulling a weed from the ground.

>>3111214
Even if it is murder. So what? Who's complaining?
You? Get over it. It doesn't concern you.

>>3111195
>If you choose to have sex, you're choosing to engage in an activity where another person's life depends on your own.

No, you're not. If you choose to have sex, you choose to have sex and nothing more. Having an accidental pregnancy is just that-- accidental.

>But your whole life support machine argument is fallacious since when that situation happens in real life, you don't get to choose to actively kill others to avoid inconvenience.

That situation never arises in any other context than pregnancy. The man hanging from a rope isn't using your body as a life support machine in every sense of the word-- he could replace you effortlessly and do what he is doing alone.

Under what pretense would you allow someone to feed off your own body without your permission?

>>3111220
>>3111221
>>3111226
When I think of the embryo/fetus I see POTENTIAL. Fucking potential. Yes consciousness isn't there, memories aren't there (but are they really in a new borne baby?) but the the POTENTIAL is there. Shouldn't that be enough?
also
>>3111195
damn well put

>>3111208
>>No, if you choose to go rock climbing you're choosing to have a fun time. If you don't want to hold a rope as a result there's no reason to do so. We are no longer in the middle agres.

Look, my point is that the guy who mentioned "life support" as an argument in favor of abortion is wrong and retarded since there are other cases where you're engaged in life support and you it's never moral to kill the person instead. If you want to talk about "fetuses aren't people" or "the middle agres [sic]", that's fine, those are different arguments.

30% of pregnancies miscarriage anyways. Many times even without the mother's knowledge.

>Mfw even if we stop the holocaust of abortion there will still be millions of dead babies every year.

>Mfw biologically speaking the Mother's body is perfectly happy to flush the little bastard with an extra heavy period if conditions are not exactly right.

ONLY TEST TUBE BABIES AND UNIVERSAL MANDATED CONTRACEPTION CAN SAVE US.

>>3111236
Potential for what? Helping society? Please. Statistically, you're bound to be poor and irrelevant. Potential means shit.

Does OP realise the difference between "sentience" and "life"? A fucking germ is alive. It certainly isn't sentient. Sentience isn't even apparent in humans until after birth.
But most clinics only allow abortions up until the fifth month, where it starts to look a little too human.

>>3111157
This is the worst possible argument for choice. It's so stupid I'm going to go ahead and call you a Christian troll.

sage because I just don't care anymore

>>3111236
So you argument is basically " What if?". Well what if the fetus grows into somebody really negative to society? What if? Why take the risk?
Besides that potential is easily created with another nut bust. We'll never be short of humans, if anything we can have too much.

I don't think we should permit the government to interfere with someone's own body. I don't mind the morality of abortion-- it changes with your value system, but giving that much power to the government is troublesome, very invasive.

>>3111226
>Even if it is murder. So what? Who's complaining?
You? Get over it. It doesn't concern you.
lol

>>3111234
>The man hanging from a rope isn't using your body as a life support machine in every sense of the word-- he could replace you effortlessly and do what he is doing alone.

I'm holding a rope that keeps him from falling to his death. If he wants to replace me, I have to keep holding the rope the rope until he's ready to climb up. Unless you can go back in time, there's no way for him to not have his life be dependent on me holding that rope. Do you think there's a moral difference between someone being dependent on the nutrients in your blood or someone being dependent on the contraction of your arm muscles? Either way, they are dead without you.

>Under what pretense would you allow someone to feed off your own body without your permission?
Why is it without permission?

Morality is relative. Anyone who says otherwise probably thought the world would end on Saturday with the "Rapture."

That being said, an appropriate abortion can prevent a lot of suffering. Whether or not the fetus is alive or sentient is really quite irrelevant. Us post-birth humans get to make the decisions.

>>3111252
I really hope someone fucking kills you.
>>3111257
Says you. *I* argue that someone isn't fully human until they reach the age of consent because until that time they are incapable of making decisions on their own. So, anyone under 16 (in my country) should be allowed to die with no consequence because they're still in school and aren't helping society anyway.
WHATS THAT? They could have the potential to help society when they get an education? FUCK THAT. I don't care about fucking half-baked brains. If one isn't FULLY FUCKING CONSCIOUS AND AWARE AT ALL FUCKING TIMES THEY ARE NOT HUMAN. I'LL SEE YOU NEXT TIME YOU GET KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS THEN KILL YOU FUCKING WASTE TO SOCIETY.


>you seem to have mistyped the verification

>>3111250
That's kind of a non sequitur. Millions of adults die every year, from natural causes, or accidents or whatever. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether murder is moral or not.

>>3111279
Understand this:
Man = Has lived a whole life, has human connections on earth, is self aware conscious and can feel pain

Fetus = Unconscious piece of tissue that depending how long it's been growing can barely feel a sense of pressure.

Do you really think killing them both is equal? If you do you have some fucking problems.

What's all this talk about? It's a simple question and answer once you make a realistic definition.

What is murder?

murder:
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

What is a human being then? What is a person?

If you give me a definition of a person, then we will find out that we both support abortion to a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person#Unborn_or_unconscious_humans

>>3111299
How do people like you get round the fact that a fetus is a future human?
Seriously. How the FUCK do you see around it? Maybe I'll join your side when I get it.

>>3111279
>Under what pretense would you allow someone to feed off your own body without your permission?
Why is it without permission?

I'd assume because an unwanted pregnancy would be the only pregnancy one would want to abort.

>>3111284
>I really hope someone fucking kills you.

LMAO, but what about my potential? The fetus you want to save because of his potential could also share my opinion once he grows up.

>>3110714
I support my right to choose.

I would much rather raise a child in a good home that was ready than be forced to carry 25 extra pounds for nine months and then push a giant meat sack through my legs if i thought i wasn't ready to support one.

Plants and animals are alive. We kill them to survive. It happens. As much as we'd all like to live in a happy fairy-tale land where nothing bad happens, that's not reality. Sometimes we need to make decisions that displease people, and born people generally get priority over unborn people.

>>3111311
Fuck off "Jennie" you are not wanted here

>>3111317
>Women with opinions intimidate me.

>>3111310
>LMAO, but what about my potential? The fetus you want to save because of his potential could also share my opinion once he grows up.
AH GOOD SIR THEREIN IS MY POINT! Double standards. There's plenty of "sentient" people that deserve to fucking die.
>>3111311
>A child is a child when I want it. When I don't its a sack of meat.
You stay fucking classy.

>>3111307
>Future human
Because it's just that, something of the future. For the time being it's just a lump of unconscious cells. Just because it has potential to have life doesn't give me some obligation to make sure it gets that life.
As far as I see it, the fetus will never know, care or worry that it is being aborted. So there is no moral issue.
It hasn't yet made an impact on the world in the slightest, except maybe to the mother, who after all is the one that decides to get an abortion or not.

>>3111299
Well apparently I should not worry about murder of the guy unless it concerns me.

But like I've said TWICE ALREADY, if you want to argue that it's OK to kill fetuses because they're not people, that's fine. But you are never morally allowed to kill the person whose rope you're holding up because you're tired of being used to keep him alive. So arguing that you get to have an abortion because the fetus is using you for life support is stupid.

If people want to say that fetuses aren't people and it's OK to kill non-people, that's fine. Although while a one day old fetus isn't more than a few cells, it *is* legal in the US to kill fetuses old enough to have a brain and feel pain.

ITT a bunch of women invade /sci/ and "express their opinions". Pathetic.

>>3111314
>and born people generally get priority over unborn people.
And some born people get priority over other born people don't they?
Why should women have the right to choose to abort? (humour me please)

>Why should women have the right to choose to abort?
Because it's their body doing the work and their 18 years spent raising the child. In many cases, aborting a fetus avoids a lot of future suffering and the only argument against it is that it's somehow wrong in an abstract philosophical sense. Well morality is relative, so that doesn't mean much to me. I'd rather see real, existent people be happier than have everyone suffer to meet some arbitrary moral goal.

>>3111344

Because they are not "unborn people". They are fetuses. Is a sperm cell an unborn person? Yeah, that's right. Go get yourself an edumacation.

>>3111327
Sorry if that offends you, i was painting a picture. How would you feel if you gave birth and then had to put a child up for adoption? How would you feel if because of the child, your circumstances change such that you can't adequately care for the child?

I would much rather end an embryo/a fetus's life than birth it and have it suffer as a human being.

(in b4 'fetuses aren't human beings' -- correct)

>>3111338
>it *is* legal in the US to kill fetuses old enough to have a brain and feel pain.

Do you have sources for this? Or are you just assuming? Last time I checked it was legal to about 14-16 weeks, and fetus' didn't get a full sense of touch, pressure and pain untill about 30 weeks.

>>3111327
>AH GOOD SIR THEREIN IS MY POINT! Double standards. There's plenty of "sentient" people that deserve to fucking die.

OK, you're an idiot, figures.

>>3111344

Why shouldn't they have the right to inject their own body with misoprostol whenever they feel like it? Why would the rights of some unborn child supercede the mother's?

>>3111338
>But you are never morally allowed to kill the person whose rope you're holding up because you're tired of being used to keep him alive.

How do you know that? Are you authorized to decide moral law? Morality is abstract and relative.

>>3111332
>As far as I see it, the fetus will never know, care or worry that it is being aborted. So there is no moral issue.
Nor will a man whos throat I slit in the middle of the night. I STILL don't understand you. I mean I do, but I dont agree with it at all. Maybe this is pointless lul.

>>3111388

You got to be trolling? Your a religious nut, right? Where did you get your magical definition of "human"?

>>3111310
>I'd assume because an unwanted pregnancy would be the only pregnancy one would want to abort.

Unwanted != without permission
I just wanted to go rock climbing (have sex). I never wanted the piton (condom) to break so that I have have to support the climber (baby).

Your whole life support argument is stupid and you are retarded for arguing it. There are other arguments in favor of abortion but this is not one. If you think the fetus isn't a person, just say so. You don't need to make up a stupid analogy to justify being able to kill bacteria. But that's the real argument, not this life support BS. Because if the fetus *is* a person your BS life support argument falls apart since it is immoral to kill people because you're bored from holding their rope.

>>3111388
Well I'd say that the best time to kill a man is when he's unconcious, that's when i'd like to die. However grown humans make impacts on the earth, even if they're as small as having someone care about them.
But I think this all comes down to what you'd be alright having done to you. I personally would not like someone to kill me in my sleep, so i'm against that, but if I were a fetus i'd have no problem being aborted, so i'm all for that.

>>3111384
> Why would the rights of some unborn child supercede the mother's?
But the fundamental fucking question (dumb one) of this entire issue is. WHY DOES THE MOTHER HAVE THAT RIGHT?

>>3111388
Your sperm is a future human.

My eggs are future humans.

To date, i've killed over 100 future humans. Knowing the people on /sci/, they've killed millions.

Peoplez! Stop killing innocent human beings! Masturbation is a sin! You kill millions in the shower, you evil, evil people! God says to make this world abundant with fundies because fundies have real smarz unlike stupid scientists! They use their brain instead of faith! How foolish!

>>3111411
Well if you're going to keep pushing the rock climbing analogy, then lets say it's a unconscious fetus on the end of that rope. I say let it go if you don't want to carry it, it wont be bothered in the slightest.

Because unborn fetuses have not people.

They may be human, but they're not part of society and they have the potential to burden a country if not wanted.

They should only be born into a family who can provide, love and aid them in benefiting society.

Reasons for abortion:
Too young, rape, casual sex, poor, abusive family.

I believe there should be mandatory abortions for those who live in ghettos, slums, etc, unless significant financial progress is made with the family.
Though it may be rather hard to regulate.

Human rights issue, nothing really to do with science.

>>3111386
>How do you know that? Are you authorized to decide moral law? Morality is abstract and relative.

I figured that everyone agrees you don't get to drop your friend's rope because your bored. If someone thinks abortion is OK because it's moral to kill people if they depend on you, well... we could discuss that I guess.

>>3111415
Because she has the power. What can the fetus do? It's a bit of cells that are living off her body.
If I were squatting in someone's house, living off their electricity and water, would it be wrong of them to kick me out?

>>3111427
>Friend on rope
>fetus in belly

>implying these two situations are even remotely similar.

>>3111421
>wet dreams abort your semen when it gets too much
>women menstruate to get rid of da egg
your argument is invalid as fuck.

ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO FUCKING INVITED EVERYONE TO ACTUALLY READ THE FUCKING QUOTE IN OP.

>>3111423
I apologize if I'm uncivil but your argument (not you) is just so dumb that I have a hard time not insulting you.

That's my whole point. It matters if the fetus is a person or not. Not whether the fetus depends on you for life. It's immoral to drop your friend since he is a person but OK to drop a non-person. The whole "life-support" argument is irrelevant and obfuscating.

By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present in every cell.

SO WHY DO YOU ALLOW APOPTOSIS????????

>>3111432
I think they were referring to the father.

>>3111427
Actually, you get to do whatever you want. Morality is something humans invented to justify their emotional opinions. There's no tangible difference between something being morally good or bad. Morals differ across cultures and especially across species. Infanticide is common in some cultures and there are animals that routinely eat their young. It just happens. The only moral part is whatever moral value you arbitrarily decide to assign to it.

That being said, there are real, tangible problems associated with unwanted pregnancies. These can be avoided with a timely abortion. The benefits of abortion are real. Choosing not to have an abortion, just to satisfy some abstract philosophical value, doesn't really help anyone, except possibly the child, who would not exist in the alternative case, and thus would not be around to care.

Abortion can prevent a lot of suffering.

>>3111449
Well hey, if the father is willing to carry the fetus in his womb for 9 months and then push it out of his vag he can feel free.

>>3111432
If you engaged in activities where it seemed likely that someone would as a consequence become a squatter in your house then I'd make you take your shit and lie in it if you know what i mean.

>>3111454
Yeah, I don't care about the father - just pointing out a different interpretation to what that person wrote.

>>3111447
HES RIGHT! SURGERY FOR TUMOR REMOVAL IS MURDER!

I don't. Sure is lonely out here

>>3111457
Well fair enough, but the government says I can kick that squatter out of my house, so i'm gonna do that.

>>3111464
TUMORS HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE!
SO DO MOSQUITOES!

Staph has a right to live! People who take antibiotics for their staph infections are cold-blooded murderers!

>>3111469
The Nazi government murdered Jews by the thousands. What the government thinks is right though right?
>>3111454
Okay...Okay. Wiomen have vaginas and wombs for having babies. Does it ever occur to you fucking women that you should THINK before you act. Sure sometiems the condom breaks or whatever but Im sure a lot of times its plain fucking stupidity that causes unwanted pregnancy.

Also, a little off topic but another thing I love is that a man almost never has the choice when it comes to a child. If she wants to keep it he WILL be paying child support.

Your skin cells die every minute. A fetus is not sentient, no matter what bullshit you may want to propagate. A fetus will not learn, communicate, or do any of the things a sentient life will do. It is a conglomerate of cells. A conglomerate of cells that are often naturally destroyed during a miscarriage in 1/3 of women.

The people who are getting an abortion are more important than a non-sentient conglomerate of cells. That's why you can clean your hands with anti-bacterial soap, eat meat or vegetables, and shower without the slightest bit of regret.

The feelings of empathy you may feel about this procedure are purely imaginary. A reaction either to the form of the cell structure resembling humanity, or some misplaced sense of superiority over people's decisions involving their own bodies and bodily processes.

TL;DR Fuck off, it isn't anyone but the patient's decision. REAL, and ACTUALLY COMPASSIONATE humans don't force people to live through their mistakes the rest of their lives to prove an irrelevant point about a non-sentient group of cells that people kill off the likes of everyday while washing their hands.

>>3111473
And I suppose you think people have the "right to live"

>>3111452
Do you even see the contradiction in rejecting doing stuff for arbitrary morality but then espousing that we should prevent suffering? Guess what, you're advocating a moral system. If you want to go all nihilist and talk about morality just being a product of emotions, that's fine. But then don't come to me with some sob story about preventing suffering, which *you* claim is arbitrary.

>Choosing not to have an abortion, just to satisfy some abstract philosophical value, doesn't really help anyone, except possibly the child, who would not exist in the alternative case, and thus would not be around to care.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? If I kill you and take your stuff, you do not exist or are around to care. This is something common to any death. There are good arguments in favor of abortion. Please refrain from making these arguments for abortion that would also justify murder of adults.

ITT middle class white kids who were lucky enough to be born into a family that planned for them.

Try never getting anything for Christmas or your birthday. Having to eat government provided corn flakes with water everyday while your parents are working their 10 hour minimum wage jobs just to get by simply because they had an accident.

If you truly care about people you are pro-choice.
inb4 poor people shouldn't be allowed to have sex.

>>3111504
If you truly care about people you are pro-suicide.
Is what you sound like to me. That is SERIOUSLY what i fucking hear from you people.
"Life is hard, it is better to be dead."
And your whole bullshit argument is made even more bullshit by the fact that people in third world countries are HAPPIER than us "middle class white kids."
Abortion has always been and will forever be a last refuge for people (mostly women) who cant handle responsibility.

>>3111504
>>3111504

0/10

>>3111452
This this this this this.

Abortion is one of the few instances in which people want to take a solved problem (unwanted pregnancies) and turn it BACK into a problem again. Fact of the matter is, and a couple of anti-abortion posters itt have said as much, that there's still a lingering fundie mindset that says sex is dirty and bad and there ought to be more punishment for people who engage in it.

Nobody bats and eye over the many spontaneous abortions that happen within a woman's body, unknown to anyone. Why? Because the loss of a potential human being does not equate to the loss of an actual one. If we were all up at arms over the death of semen cells/egg cells/naturally aborted embryos I might think the "but it could have been a person!!" argument would make more sense. But it's not about the embryos, it's about feeling that women who engage in sex incautiously deserve not to have the easily avoided consequences of their actions. It's as if people are saying that fatties should be denied liposuction because they *deserve* to be fat. (And aren't fat cells living too, on the cellular level? Oh dear.)

Not precisely relevant to the topic, but Romans used to just drop their unwanted newborns at the trash dump. It was an extremely common method of birth control. I for one am very fucking glad we have more sane methods for reducing the population.

>>3111497
I was not espousing a moral system. In fact, I denounced such a system. However, abortion can prevent real suffering. People generally dislike suffering, so it makes sense that the people involved might want to choose an outcome that benefits them.

>Please refrain from making these arguments for abortion that would also justify murder of adults.
I did not say anything that condones the murder of adults. I am personally against it, but I understand that this is an emotional decision on my own part.

You are still clinging to this idea that some things are somehow morally wrong and must be avoided without exception. Morals are relative. Did you know it was once considered morally awful to eat meat on a Friday? Nowadays, who the fuck cares? Evaluating things morally is a waste of time, as you're essentially just determining how emotionally attached you are to the possible outcomes. However, we can measure real, tangible events, and we can make decisions that let us be happier. In the case of abortions, they can prevent a lot of suffering.

>>3111519
>fact that people in third world countries are HAPPIER than us "middle class white kids."
>fact
>happier

[citation needed]
Sure is science in here.

>>3111519
U mad because your mother aborted your only chance of having a sibling?

>>3111527
>> But it's not about the embryos, it's about feeling that women who engage in sex incautiously deserve TO SUFFER the easily avoided consequences of their actions

Derp, fixed.

Reality check. Nature kills babies all the time. If you believe in God, then, God kills babies.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html

Now GTFO! This topic is getting old.

>>3111504
Your argument is pure appeal to emotion. Should the parents be allowed to kill the child because they're tired of being poor because they have to spend their money on him? I'd tend to call that immoral. Hopefully you agree. I'd say in general it is immoral to kill others for money.

sage for poorly veiled religious thread

>>3111550
I'd say theres a huge difference between a fetus and a child. Hopefully you would agree.

I wont tell the fetus if you wont.

>>3111538
google is jackass.
>>3111527
>Romans used to just drop their unwanted newborns at the trash dump
Romans also got baboons to rape young women to death as punishment. PROTIP: never use Rome as a comparison for anything good. But on your main topic- I see it as something else. That we're heading (well everyone says we are) to an age with greater morals and "political correctness" than ever before, yet we still engage in fucking baby-killing like its cool. I see it as a bunch of people who had a chance at life dispensing their own selfish justice and DENYING someone else the right to life. If its naturally aborted so fucking be it. I mean if a man has a fucking heart attack so be it. But I dont fucking compare that to someone having a heart attack from being stabbed in the heart. out of CURIOSITY when do you think its okay to make the fetus killing illegal (age of fetus wise)?

>>3111573
We also encourage people not to be retards. Stop calling unborn fetus' "babies".

>Women is 5 months into pregnancy
>Man harms her kills fetus
>gets dome for murder
CAN WE ALL SAY DOUBLE FUCKING STANDARDS EVERYONE!?
POINT FUCKING IS, BABY KILLING IS OKAY WHEN IT SUITS YOU CANT YOU SEE HOW SELFISH AND EVIL THAT IS HOLY FUCK AM I THE ONLY SANE ONE LEFT?

>>3111573
It should be illegal once the fetus fully develops it's first sense, and I believe that's already the case. Infact I believe it's already illegal well before the full development of touch.

>>3111581
Semantics. I hope I'm not causing you too much anal-pain =3, and thanks for responding to what I actually said BRUH.

>>3111587
Man damages his own body = nobody cares
Man damages someone elses body = everybody cares

HERP DERP DOUBLE STANDARDS

>>3111587
>CANT YOU SEE HOW SELFISH
Sure. Everyone's selfish.
>AND EVIL
Hold on a minute. Who are you to decide what's evil? The entire concept of evilness is a human construction. I don't really care if you interpret something to be evil, as it has no effect on reality.

>>3111587

You are stupid! It's not a FUCKING BABY!!!!

<-- THAT IS A FUCKING BABY! COMPRENDE????

>>3111598

Uh, laws and ethics....herp, derp.....

>>3111595
>fetus is alive when I want it to be
>its not alive if i don't want it to be
hurr durr

Next time my wife has a baby, and I don't want it. I'm shoving it right back up her vag and cutting it up.

>>3111530
>I was not espousing a moral system. In fact, I denounced such a system. However, abortion can prevent real suffering.

Then your moral system is to prevent suffering.

>Morals are relative. Did you know it was once considered morally awful to eat meat on a Friday? Nowadays, who the fuck cares?

This is *terrible*. You're confusing change over time with relativity. Physics aren't relative but have changed a great deal over the past century.

Not that you should judge the value of something by how much it changes over time. Updating in the face of new data is *good* not bad. Science is constantly refining it's explanations on where life came from and how the universe began. Christianity has said "God did it" for a few thousand years. That doesn't make the Christian explanation better.

>However, we can measure real, tangible events, and we can make decisions that let us be happier. In the case of abortions, they can prevent a lot of suffering.

You seem to be working off your own personal definition of "morality". "Moral systems" are just your rules for determining what's right and what's wrong. A moral system can say that murder is wrong in X set of cases and OK in Y set. Your moral system seems to be prevent suffering. And I can't think of a moral systems that isn't based off of "real, tangible events".

>>3111604
Laws and ethics vary across cultures. In traditional Inuit society, infanticide was common and expected. You're just biased towards your own moral values, which are a product of your emotions and the society that raised you. That's understandable, but it doesn't make it true. Your moral system is just as relative as anyone else's.

>>3111606
For the time the fetus is living off a woman's body it remains apart of her body, anybody that damages that against her will is in the wrong.
Don't be such a fucking drool sponge retard.

>>3111608

You could just feed it to Sarah Palin instead.

Conservative, Christians are heartless baby eaters after all.

>>3111612

Yet, we can compare morality through objective means. For example, murder is almost universally accepted as immoral because it's self-destructive to the concept of safety and a productive society.

You need to read some of Sam Harris's stuff or get some common sense.

>>3111614
but why would he get murder (which he just might) was the entire fucking point if you're not too thick.

>>3111631
>For example, murder is almost universally accepted as immoral because it's self-destructive to the concept of safety and a productive society.
But thats wrong you fucking retard.
If you murder a proven pedophile you will get done for murder.

It seems that a newborn baby is every bit as helpless and dependent on the mother as he/she was several months before he was born. It doesn't know shit, it won't remember shit. Without a vast (and arguably greater) amount of assistance from the mother, he/she will die. If abortion is ok, I think mothers should be allowed to toss their young children in the dumpster if they get too upset and can't handle all the "dependance".

>>3111612
>>Laws and ethics vary across cultures.
>>Your moral system is just as relative as anyone else's.

1. If all laws and ethics are equal than abortion being illegal is equal to a system where it is legal. Moral relativism does not imply abortion should be legal.

2. "Beliefs about the origin of the world vary across cultures. You are just biased toward your own beliefs that it was created in the big bang."

Disagreement does not imply that all beliefs are equal.

>>3111611
>Then your moral system is to prevent suffering.
Not quite. And saying it multiple times doesn't make it true. Morality is relative, as has been stated previously.

However, I enjoy my happiness, as do most people. If I am ever in a situation in which I am faced with the possibility of an unwanted child, I would like to be able to abort it to preserve my happiness.

There is also a certain value to being fair. If I tell other people that they cannot have abortions, then they will understandably give me trouble if I try to have one. Thus, everyone can be happy if we all allow abortions, and since 'everyone' includes me, I am for this. I like being happy, as do other people. I am not making any sort of moral argument, as morals are irrelevant.

>>3111655
Young children can actually suffer though. Something a fetus doesn't.

>>3111655
OP here. THAT is my problem. Not the abortion or anything of the sort really. Its how people chop and fucking chose when and when not to enforce the law and their morals. I mean to all the women in this thread who support the government supporting abortion, 100 fucking years ago you couldnt even VOTE for such a government. NO GOVERNMENT IS IN THE RIGHT WHEN YOU WANT IT TO BE FUCKING HELL I HATE PEOPLE

>>3111641
Oh I missed the point. Well I agree that he shouldn't be charged with murder. Then what sentence does someone that forces abortion recieve? I'd say something similar to a rape charge.

>>3111668
>Disagreement does not imply that all beliefs are equal.
Sure, but there's a difference between something objective and something subjective. Morals are totally subjective, as they have no effect on reality. Moral variation across cultures is a demonstration of this.

>>3111679
A baby who is a week old "suffers" no differently than a fetus "suffers" 2 weeks prior to birth. Take the scale down even closer to the point of birth and it becomes even more clear. The both "suffer" the same, but won't remember a thing for quite some time, therefore it should be legal put an end to both of their existences.

>>3111573
Take a couple deep breaths, and read a little further where I said that I'm glad we have more sane ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies now. It was trivia.

If fetuses were genuinely babies we would sue mothers for involuntary manslaughter/negligence when their bodies abort fetuses naturally. And I personally think humans who have never been conscious, or will never be conscious again, do not have full rights in the same way a sentient human being does. I'd rather not cause suffering to animals but their rights do not supercede human rights, and they're actually sentient, functional autonomous creatures in many ways that a fetus is not.

I think as we become more politically "correct" we'll be able to drop a lot of antiquated ideas about human existence in general. Moral codes are wonderfully malleable, where killing people becomes a horrible sin or a holy purpose depending on what your parents taught you. Morals are purely functional things, they are not governed by reality and do not exist anywhere externally.

To answer your question I think abortions prior to any sort of pain sensitivity should be the most preferable (and birth control much more encouraged than it is today.) I think it's a fine idea to sterilize those who carry a pregnancy past four months and then want an abortion unless they have a damn good reason for waiting so long.

>>3111681

> I mean to all the women in this thread
> women in this thread
> women

On 4chan? Well, now we know you are out of your mind. Shut the fuck up stupid.

It's a simple concept, but your brain is too small to comprehend.

Move along now tard.

>>3111679
An average dog is a smart as a four year old.
A new born baby is NOT as smart as a 4 year old.
A new born baby is not as self-aware/intelligent as a fucking dog.
A fucking 2 year old isn't for that matter. So where do you fucking people draw the line of what is okay to kill? I mean, I'm sure you'd argue you;'d rather a dog dead than a two year old right?....RIGHT? But see If you said that, your entire "worthiness as a person through consciousness etc." bullshit argument turns to dust.

>>3111694

Morality is a side effect of biological and social evolution. Instead of berating you with stuff you aren't going to listen to, why don't you just watch some Sam Harris:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

>>3111698
>2 weeks prior to birth

Yeah, but it's illegal to abort after a certain amount WEEKS, the only places you can get an abortion two weeks before giving birth in some illegal back alley abortionist.
If we're talking about the difference between a fetus during the legal time to abort and a fully grown born child the difference is pretty damn obvious.

>>3111681
Umm, pro-choice isn't enforcing morals. It's protecting them.

Your morals are against abortons? Don't get one. As long as nobody is hurting you and your family what is the problem? Oh yeah, normative thinking.

>>3111669
>Not quite. And saying it multiple times doesn't make it true. Morality is relative, as has been stated previously.

I can't help but smile at the supreme irony of this statement. Do you even read what you type?

But I wasn't trying to claim that I know what your moral system is. I can't read your mind. Morals are just a big list of the actions you are in favor of , don't care about, and the actions you are against. So your repeated claim that you don't believe in morals but are in favor of abortion because it creates happiness is silly, because that is a moral statement.

You're afraid of applying the word "morals" to your moral beliefs.

>>3111706
Well I don't argue that. Killing is bad when something suffers in the process. It's simple.

>>3111706

I'm just going to constantly make fun of your stupidity with humorous images.

<-- You since you haven't even provided a definition of "human"

>>3110714
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 wholly apart 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. Let's not even start talking about chimeras.

>>3111734
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.

>>3111722
>future man with potential for curing cancer forms
>mum "cant be fucked" to take care of a kid
>dies
But I guess we'll never know.

>>3111722
>Umm, pro-choice isn't enforcing morals. It's protecting them.

Are you kidding me? "Enforcing" versus "protecting" are meaningless buzzwords.

>Your morals are against abortons? Don't get one. As long as nobody is hurting you and your family what is the problem? Oh yeah, normative thinking.

Why am I only allowed to care about my family being hurt but not allowed to care about others who are not my family being hurt?

>>3111734
>>3111739
>entire copy-pasta doesn't work for OPs simple argument.

>>3111739
>>3111734

>secular humanism

laughinggirls.jpg

>>3111740
>future hitler with potential to kill 6 million people
>mom: LOL PRO LIFE
>Stupid argument

>>3111722
>pro-choice isn't enforcing morals. It's protecting them.

I'm not going to say which side of the debate I'm on, but I must say I've never understood Orwell as well as I have after reading your post.

>Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

>>3111740

<-- You because you forgot to mention that it could have been Hitler instead of a genius doctor. Not to mention that you also didn't consider the sperm's potential as you killed millions of them masturbating.

>>3111722
Your morals are against chopping your neighbor into 8 pieces? Don't do it. But I will. And his wife too. As long as nobody is hurting you and your family what is the problem? Oh yeah, there is a probem with that.

NEXT

>>3111728
I am pro-happiness, not because I consider it to be 'morally right,' but because I enjoy being happy. Is it really that hard to understand?

Also, you are stating my point when you say
>Morals are just a big list of the actions you are in favor of , don't care about, and the actions you are against.
If you feel this way, why were you making a moral argument at all? You've just admitted that morals are equivalent to opinions. Yet you said
>But you are never morally allowed to kill the person whose rope you're holding up because you're tired of being used to keep him alive.

Sounds like you're the one being inconsistent.

>>3111751
HAHAHA
I FUCKING KNEW YOU'D SAY THAT
LIKE USE THE ACTUAL WORDS "FUTURE HITLER"
Christ
>>3111729
I'm sorry what are you saying? You seem to have missed my point completely.

>>3111757
You're still pushing the argument that developed humans are equal to fetus'.
Jesus fucking Christ.

>>3111740
>future man with potential for committing genocide to millions forms

>mum aborts

hurr durr that door swings both ways dumbass

>>3111762
So you knew your argument was flawed but still used it? You're a really smart person.

>>3111757

<-- You because you think cells are "neighbors"

>>3111756
The problem with this stupid fucking argument is there wont be any "future Hitlers" because of the way the world is. At least not for the time being. So i consider it a non-issue.

>>3111772
>>3111770
no
>>3111779

>>3111762
You seemed to miss the entire pro-choice argument. Dogs and infants can suffer, fetus', having no thought, memory, or senses and literally can't suffer. That is the difference between killing a born child and a fetus, suffering makes all the difference.

>>3111762

<-- You because of what this guy said >>3111772

>>3111744
Theres a fucking huge difference between the government saying "It's your choice" and saying "You must do it this way"

Calling that a meaningless buzzword? Yeah okay.

So for those of you who dont know what an abortion is, do some research on it. Sorry /sci/ im to lazy to look up references, but google with give some answers also.

"Abortion" is only allowed during the first trimester. Past that and its a no-no, for good reasons.
During the first trimester the egg and sperm obviously come together and start dividing into stem cells. That collection of cells that forms is called a Blastocyst.(look it up)
http://elinow-bioreview2.wikispaces.com/file/view/1214776232_blastocyst.jpg/192595476/1214776232_bla
stocyst.jpg
pic related

While a Blastocyst is living cells, note i said "cells", it is not a human being. After the first trimester is when the stem cells form human cells/organs etc and in which it becomes unethical to abort.

So one could say aborting a blastocyst is equivalent to fapping or every month when a woman has her period. And as said before if it was a human people would be convicted of manslaughter etc, as stated before.

>>3111779
Maybe not a future hitler, but what about a future serial killer? It's just as likely as the child becoming some kind of future sucess.

>>3111787
A big bullet to the head will not make anything "suffer".
...your move..

>>3111751

That is the point. We don't know whether its going to be Beethoven or fucking Hitler, but who are we to prophecy and assume it's gonna be a shithead. You got your chance, so should everyone else. Poor circumstances and lack of parental upbringing suck. But they don't suck as bad as getting fucking chopped. All the arguments in favor of abortion make sense. They are important. The quality of life, the trouble of motherhood, etc.... What it boils down to is do those issues outweigh the life of a child, the potential and chance to exist. I always see the life as more important. Shit sucks, but ending a life always sucks more.

>>3111795

<-- You because you apparently think killing a human is equivalent to killing cells.

>A big bullet to the head will not make anything "suffer".

>>3111795
Giving something to someone and taking it away creates more suffering than not giving it to them at all.
Besides being alive you going to affect other people socially, somebody might become attached to you so it's not just the individual that suffers. Fetus' make no impact on the earth, untill they're born they remain nothing more than an idea for anybody other than the mother.

>>3111749
Yes it does. I claim that human life is insufficient for moral rights. I tried to demonstrate how this is clearly true for death. Moral rights end when the brain ends, not when the human life ends. Similarly, it makes sense to start attributing rights when the brain begins.

>>3111799
So the fetus gets "chopped" up like you said. You think it's going to fucking sit in limbo and be sad that it never got a chance?

Stop saying the equivalent of "it would suck to be a fetus that was getting aborted" when fetuses aren't even sentient.

>>3111799

<-- You because you think a fetus is a child

> the life of a child

>>3111805
"Cells" that will eventually die of natural causes unless you intervene. Intervening with natural death is killing. doh

>>3111799
Exactly. I bet the same pro-choice free thinking hippy faggots in this thread would tell you on another occasion that you should feel happy and lucky to be alive. If someone came at them with suicidal thoughts the people ITT would be all "daww life is speshul and cherish it and you're alive make the most of it" while at the same time, arguing to deny others the chance at life.
I mean fucking HONESTLY. Even the most low fucking income families in a first world country live better than people did even 100 years ago, theres NO reason anyone couldnt raise a child in this day and age.

>>3111799
>You got your chance, so should everyone else.
Bullshit. I was earned this chance. I was conceived due to my own strong genes. Do I feel any pity for my millions of brothers and sisters I outswam? Hell no.

And if I was aborted? Why the fuck would I give a shit. Death is pleasant as fuck. Would I care If my mum wanted to abort me, fuck she can try now if she wants. Shes got crazy ninja skills and shit.

So are the issues worth more than the life of a few thousand cells in a clump. FUCK YEAH

>>3111739
>Thus if babies are aware at 3 months or later, abortions ought to be illegal after 3 months.

If this is honestly your opinion, you should be in favor of most state legislation that restricts abortions, as they almost always do so in the 3-6 month period.

Also, babies are aware of touch by 8 weeks. Other senses follow later.

Life is supposed to be a fucking struggle.

All animals are constantly struggling to subordinate eachother.

Abortion is showing that mothers are stronger than their perspective children.

Seems natural to me

>>3111820

<-- You because you think killing is the same think as murdering

>>3111826
Sounds good to me then.

>>3111821
>Assuming what people think
If somebody actually wanted to commit suicide I'm all for it, i'm pro-euthanasia aswell.

>>3111811
>Giving something to someone and taking it away creates more suffering than not giving it to them at all.

No it doesn't, you don't feel a thing.

>Besides being alive you going to affect other people socially, somebody might become attached to you so it's not just the individual that suffers

I get pretty sad that fetuses die. People protest it. Does that not count for you?

>>3111828
Life is supposed to be a fucking struggle.

All animals are constantly struggling to subordinate eachother.

Rape is showing that men are stronger than women.

Seems natural to me.

>See why all pro-arguments seem to fail with me?

>>3111842
True rape is about power.

>>3111818

a newborn child isn't gonna give a shit if you kill it either. neither is a person who isn't looking or expecting it. you draw a strange line my friend.

>>3111826
>babies are aware of touch by 8 weeks
So? Their entire sense of touch doesn't just appear at 8 weeks, senses develop slowly. By 8 weeks the fetus only STARTS to develop a sense of pressure.
It doesn't fully develop a sense of pain untill about 26-30 weeks.

>>3111841
>I get sad that fetus' die

Boo fucking hoo. You have no emotional attachment to them, if you say you do you're lying. So people are suppose to spend the next 18 years raising a child because you get a little sad when a fetus is aborted? Fuck you.

>>3111847
wow
>>3111854
And a child doesn't develop *proper* memory and self awareness till about 4. So what?

>>3111854
I was merely responding to the "awareness" criteria the copypasta said to give proof of awareness.

However, pain is irrelevant. Some people never experience the ability to perceive pain. Does that mean its OK to kill them? In addition, is killing someone instantly with a bullet to the head OK since it causes no pain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

A fetus is less developed than a 1 month old newborn. A 2 week old is less developed than a 3 year old. A 10 year old is less developed than his father. The point is all of these will die of their own accord unless somebody intervenes, and kills them. If you say otherwise, at all, you must draw an EXACT specific line. Draw that line, then sit back and think about it. Whats so different about 2 seconds on either side of it? a minute? a week? i'm pretty sure being "sentient" doesn't matter to a 2 week old baby. It won't know what happened to it. It doesn't matter to a fetus in the womb. human is human is human. intervention of human life(ending it) at any point= killing.

>>3111875
Would you keep an obviously and undeniably braindead man on life support? I wouldn't. When do I take him off life support? When the doctor declares him braindead. 2 seconds earlier? He might still be alive.

Dittos for fetuses. We'll have doctors do what they're good at doing, and figure out when the baby is aware.

You also ignored the entire Roe v Wade argument. Are you a big fan of requiring forced kidney donations?

>>3111870
Hey man, i'm all for euthanasia. Depending on the case I think it should be alright to put humans and animals down. But I think abortion is way too over blown. It really isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be.

>>3111865
Boo fucking hoo. You have no emotional attachment to random 2 week old babies. if you say you do you're lying. So people are suppose to spend the next 18 years raising a child because you get a little sad when a 2 week old baby is chopped up? Fuck you.

>>3111875
Also, I'm betting in my lifetime that we'll construct a fully artificial cell. Where does your bright line fit in here? We've already constructed artificial DNA strands from non-organic components.

Does "human life" begin when we construct the DNA? When we put the DNA into the cell? When we put the cell into the mother? Sorry, there is no "bright line", not even yours.

>>3111884

really? if you leave an elderly braindead person alone, sure they might stay braindead. if you leave a fetus alone, you get.......*drum rolllll* a NOT braindead person.
lolololol

>assholes abort the perfectly good children
>nice people have children with cerebral palsy/downs/ a million other problem and keep their kids
>people think the current abortion system is good
>my pants when

>>3111900
That's not true. There have been reported cases of comatose women getting pregnant, sexed without their consent, of course.

Just like I have some carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and some other misc elements lying around. It's not alive now, but give me a while in the lab, and I'll make a human out of it.

Potential for life exists in f'ing rocks, but rocks aren't alive. A brain is.

>>3111894


a fully functioning artificial cell. do you have any idea the level of complexity your speak of? good luck chuck.

all such things aside. life is life is life. we created it by sex, we create it by science. we should be aware of what we are doing.

>>3111904
You know, if you went into a lab with all those elements and came out with a human being in the next ten thousand years I would immediately concede any shadow of a doubt in your being absolutely right, but you wouldn't and that analogy is absolutely fucking retarded.

>>3111908
>a fully functioning artificial cell. do you have any idea the level of complexity your speak of? good luck chuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cell

Stop putting your foot in your mouth, and you might learn a thing or two.

So, why do moral rights begin at a single functional cell? Why shouldn't bacteria or shit have rights then? I'm sorry, bacteria have no rights, and single celled humans have no rights either.

>>3111913
lawls i agree. well said sir.

>>3111916
>I'm sorry, bacteria have no rights, and single celled humans have no rights either.
>single celled humans have no rights either.
>single celled humans have no rights
>humans

Protip: When your entire argument is absolutely dependent on avoiding the most natural terminology to not sound like a total fucktard, it's probably not very sound.

>>3111916

hahahahha. an article on wikipedia that is 6 sentences long. some artificial cell you have there hombre. O SHIT IT CAN DELIVER DRUGS?, dude no way, its obviously going to become a fully functioning person any day now lol amirite?

>>3111929
Consciousness is the result of physical processes in the brain. I claim that moral rights are given to agents, conscious things. Things without brains likely do not have consciousness. Single cells do not have brains, and are not conscious. Thus it follows from my moral claim that single cells, even human single cells, have no rights.

You're welcome to disagree with my assertion that moral rights come from being conscious, from being an agent, but the science is rather indisputable.

>>3111916
Hahaha you hoped that page would help your argument?
But seriously, I cant wait till Shi'a law finally takes over the west and makes abortion illegal for all time. Maybe then women will finally be put in their place again as well.

>>3111931
Best I could find on 5 seconds of google. Sorry that I don't have the actual article available, nor the BBC page where I found out about it. Here's 1 minute's worth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.me
dicine.mcgill.ca%2Fartcell%2Finvent.pdf&rct=j&q=The%20first%20artificial%20cell%20was%20crea
ted%20by%20Thomas%20Chang[2]%20at%20McGill%20University.&ei=aVfbTeW8KJKWsgPHtumnDg&usg=AFQjC
NE3nYmziNb-2jGl0LseHssXCc6x8w&sig2=SZ8xlgEUTdTeO6fM3Vuo9A&cad=rja

>>3111935

I'm gonna knock you the fuck out so you aren't conscious of my nice little dissection of you.

single celled my ass. this is abortion fucktard.

>>3111935
Okay, I see that your logic is consistent but your moral claim is groundless and painfully simplistic, it just fails to account for so many factors that it's a worthless platitude.

>>3111946
You just changed the argument. Are you going to post shock value pictures, or take part in an adult discussion. We were discussing how single cells have no moral rights.

>>3111950
That's nice.jpg

>>3111951
>Are you going to post shock value pictures
Not him but I''m sorry...shock value? Why would anyone be shocked at such a worthless pile of cells? Thats all it is after all right?

>>3111937
Also,
>shi'a law
Oh, I missed that the first time. Allow me to share what I think of your beliefs.

(Lol if I get banned for this. Whatever.)

>>3111958
So, no. You're not going to take part in an adult discussion.

>>3111951
Actually, I showed you exactly what we're arguing about. Abortion. It doesn't look very single celled to me, but whats the point? Consciousness? If somebody is not conscious of their death it doesn't matter? If its not a big deal, why are you flipping shit? we're on 4chan, and if this is the most shocking thing you've ever seen, i'd be very surprised.

>>3111951
that's one of the downsides of 4chan. pictures make it so much easier for idiots to try to propagate their retarded rhetoric.

i dont because those retards should donate those fetuses to stem cell researchs or genetical engineering

>>3111946
>post a bloody lump of flesh
>thinks that helps his "fetus = person" argument
hurr

>>3111968
so where's your line of when i can and when i can't abort a fetus? discuss.

Abortion. Use responsibly.

>>3111978
I already gave it. Look up to my massive copypasta.

>>3111977
"likes to use sacrasm/ cast blame for using, o shit, a picture of what we're talking about"
wont actually make anymore of an argument than bitch about a picture

I guess we should start having funerals for discharged placentas.

>>3111969
That looks like an anthropomorphically-shaped puddle of ketchup. Thanks for helping me care even less.

>>3111987
im lazy. it should take you like 5 words max. you must have a line. it must be exact. because apparently you believe there is one somewhere.

>>3111988
>have no argument, post shock pictures instead
>someone calls you out on it
>get mad
lol ok buddy

>>3111995
And if I'm lazy too?

Well, I'll take the high road. In short, a woman knows if she's pregnant after ~3 months, and thus she morally must make the decision to carry the baby to term before that date. The longer she tarries the more she risks killing an aware human being.

For the time of 0 to 3 months, if the baby is aware, then I am undecided. To disallow abortions would mean the moral equivalent of forced kidney donations to strangers, but the opposite would be to allow people to capriciously create new human life and kill it.

>>3111997

wut

>>3111988
No clue what you're trying to say here but it's almost certainly retarded.

>>3111990

placenta's don't have hands and feet, and left alone they won't make an impact on anybody's life. It really doesn't look much different than if i chopped up a newborn baby. id post a picture, but for some strange reason our society doesn't do that

OP here.

>>3112003

>its really not that shocking
>people still bitched about it
>they bitch about "shock" and don't address whats actually in the picture
>people don't like it when people bitch, in fact, it leads to more bitching, kind of like now.
>the bitching started with a bitch response to the picture, not a factual argument.

troll vs. troll goes on forever!

>>3112009
So, a headless torso has moral rights in your world view? It could easily have an impact in someone's life, like Terri Schiavo. Pic related.

>>3112031
Look man. We were discussing whether single cells have moral rights, not later abortions. Want to get back on track or not?

/sci - the place where people who are barely adults, come to tell all the grown ups how to live their lives.

Here's a clue, have children of your own, perhaps even experience the complexities involved in coping with a child with a severe or complex disability then get back to me on who gets to choose what for whom.

>>3112038
Why shouldn't they have rights? The right to life at any rate.

>>3112042
>You can't decide until you live through it.
I've heard this argument before, usually from the pro-choice side. It goes something like "Men can't decide because they can't get pregnant". Usually it's from some rabid feminazi or something.

Sorry. We adults have to make decisions all the time for things which we haven't personally experienced. Deal with it.

>>3112035
it wouldn't be headless if it wasn't killed. given time a fetus is almost guaranteed to impact peoples lives.

terri schiavo, who knows dude. different story. leave her alone and she might still be inresponsive. leave the fetus alone, and i guarantee you itll be just fine. you were.

still hungry?

>>3112045
Why shouldn't they have rights? Dunno. I think they ought not. I think only conscious aware things should have rights. And giving rights to single cells royally fucks with me, and with lots of other people, for IMHO no good reason.

>>3112052
Given enough time and scientists will construct a human being from rocks. Do the rocks have moral rights? Come on, we've covered this before.

>>3112061

surely you've gotta be getting fully by now........ unless you're bulimic

>>3112056
The cells of a human fetus should have rights. Why shouldn't they? Forget germs, bacteria etc.

>>3112052
>leave the fetus alone
It would die instantly.

>>3112078
No. I won't forget bacteria. It's quite relevant. Why should one cell have moral rights when another which is quite similar, differing only in a few pieces of DNA, does not. Makes no sense. It's also inconsistent with end of life. End of life is not body death. It's not when the DNA breaks down and the cells die. It's when the brain dies.

>>3112050

>Feminazi

Are you fucking kidding me?

I'm actually in agreement with the majority of points you have made, but I am somewhat tired of hearing from people with zero life experience treating a complex issue as a false dilemma.

Suggesting that my argument is pro-choice is fair to some extent, but I do feel that limitations in non-medically related termination should exist with special regard to infant viability.

>>3112086
Because no other single celled thing has the potential to become a human OTHER THAN a blastocysts or whatever its called. What other reason do you need? Seriously I can't fathom it. You wouldn't consider a helicopter different to a plane because they can both fly?

>>3112091
I never called you a feminazi. Read it again. I said it sounded like feminazi arguments that "Oh no, men don't know what it's like. They can't make decisions."

I reject such reasoning entirely. You often are required in the real world to make judgments for others without being in their shoes. You ought to try your best to understand their position, but it is not morally required to abstain simply if you've never been in their exact situation before. That's just childish.

>>3112096
Why should potential to become human matter? By that argument, all matter in the universe has moral rights. Those pieces of hydrogen in that gas cloud might eventually come together, form a star, through nucleosynthesis become various elements like carbon and oxygen, and over billions of years of evolution, those same atoms might eventually become an aware human being.

This "potential" argument is just asinine. Does that mean if I chose to use contraception, or not have sex, then suddenly I'm committing genocide of all of my potential offspring?

>>3110714

>>"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

Semantic bullshit argument that I'm so utterly sick of.

>>3112096
>Because no other single celled thing has the potential to become a human OTHER THAN a blastocysts or whatever its called
but stem cells can become human too with the appropriate technology

>>3112096
Why are you not getting his point?
Being a human is not what gives someone moral rights, it's consciousness and ability to feel.
I assume you're not ok would torturing non-human animals, so there must be some underlining reason that both humans and for example dogs share.

>>3112111
so you're okay with torturing humans by forcing a miserable life upon him/her?

>>3112114
You need to slow down, follow the quote chain, and take a moment to think before posting son.

>>3112106
Why SHOULDN'T it matter? The potentials of the two things you listed are so far apart I'm disgusted you even consider them an analogy. If a woman falls pregnant theres a good chance she will have a kid. End of fucking story.

>>3112114
wut?
I'm for abortions.

>>3112116
And if I choose to have sex, that's a huge potential to have a child, and thus by choosing to not have sex I reduced the probability of offspring from very high to very low. How is that different in your argument? It's the same thing.

>Abortion thread

>287 posts and 34 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

Jesus fucking christ /sci/

>>3112116
You need to more clarify your argument. Just now you qualified it, perhaps not intentionally. Now you qualified it as "must have a high probability and high potential to become human". This is a very different claim from your earlier claim. Don't act all high and mighty, dismissing my position, when you're subtly changing yours.

For a reply, see here:
>>3112120

>>3112116
>If a woman falls pregnant theres a good chance she will have a kid.
So fucking what?
What are you trying to argue for with this point?

>>3112120
No its not. The success rate of the pill is somewhat like 99%. Condoms are in the 90% area for prevention of pregnancy. If you had sex and a child came from it, chances are you dun goofed.
I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say now.

>>3112115
it's going to take forever to read this whole thread

>>3112129
As far as I can tell, your argument is now "Matter which has a high probability or high likelihood of becoming a full aware human being has moral rights". Thus, my sperm, moments before I'm about to have sex, and the woman's egg, have nearly the same probability of becoming a full aware human being that a fertilized egg does. (Ok, let's pretend humans are more fertile than they really are.)

Thus, by choosing right then to use contraception, or to not have sex, I committed something equivalent to abortion, according to your argument.

Do you wish to clarify your position again?

>>3112130
I was saying sex /without/ contraception.

>>3112129
That was just an argument that stars forming life versus a pregnant fucking woman forming life aren't really fucking related genius.

>>3112133
At least one or two post citation clicks would help make sure that you didn't post a complete non-sequitur.

>>3112140
And I'm trying to determine why not, or at least why that anon thinks why not. The best I have thus far is now probabilities of becoming a full potential human being. I will now endeavor to show that that position is equally untenable.

>>3112138
Well you should use contraception then.
In my few is that sperm+egg life. Wood is wood and nails are nails until you build a fucking house out of them, you dig? Personally I cant stand the "masturbating is like abortion" bullshit because it's not at all and no anti-abortion people think it is (except maybe stupid Christians)

>>3112140
They are if you're trying to prove the "potential" argument as bullshit, building moral foundations on "potentials" leads to some seriously shaky and arbitrary shit.

>>3112152
>In my few is that sperm+egg life
MY VIEW***
i am drunk

>>3112152
You're really lost now. I was trying to argue that choosing to use contraception takes something which otherwise has a high probability of becoming a full human being, and "ending" it. By that criterion, it is indistinguishable from abortion.

Presumably the anti-abortion anon arguing with me will want to qualify his position again. I am awaiting that qualification.

>>3112103

>I never called you a feminazi

You didn't, but then why would you allude to that idea, unless you wanted to discredit my viewpoint?

Enlighten me.

While I may have inferred that people might actually benefit from a real-world understanding of the debate, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's essential to a complete understanding.

However it's clear to see that the majority of what is taking place in this discussion is not, as you would hope, adults relying upon their own appreciation and understanding of the facts, in order to form a balanced opinion. Its a huge truck full of confirmation bias.

As for asking what special place should be given to human matter, I feel somewhat biased towards my fellow man, emotional being that I am, you would probably refer to my preference as baseless anthropocentrism.

>>3112155
And MY fucking point is the potentials can't even compare. What don't you understand? The chance of an impregnated women forming life are about 75%. Starts are what? 0.000000000000001% as far as we know? lol Come off it please.

>>3112160
>You didn't, but then why would you allude to that idea, unless you wanted to discredit my viewpoint?
>Enlighten me.
Well, yes. I did want to discredit your viewpoint, because I think it's wrong.

I didn't mean to ad hominem. Sorry.

>>3112159
You're really lost now. I'm arguing that choosing to use contraception just about nullifies the possibility of the life forming in the first place, life by the definition of OP. Which was the whole fucking point of the thread. HOWEVER, if said life IS formed it must take its course.

>>3112160
The facts lead to perfectly reasonable contradictory positions based on what issues individuals are focused on.

It's a moral gray area, the only possible solution for which is to choose the compromise solution which neither side is satisfied with and to work energetically towards eliminating the necessity of the necessary evil.


Of course, this thread accomplishes neither since it's just lots of (ostensibly drunken) trolling.

>>3112166

Fair enough. Quid pro quo.

Please appreciate that my initial argument doesn't present an accurate analysis of the issue because having dragged myself through the entire thread hoping for some insight or sign of rationality, I was frayed to the point where only my own irrationality remained.

>>3112163
>Starts
Stars**
I think I'm just typing too fast huehuehue

>>3112172
>HOWEVER, if said life IS formed it must take its course.
Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. This is the first time you've made this moral claim. Please note that you have been making wildly different moral claims up until this point.

This moral claim is perhaps internally consistent. I don't see anything obviously wrong with it, unlike the other propositions.

I think it's morally wrong though. I think that simply having human DNA doesn't give you moral rights. I think that letting life takes it course is a bullshit argument. It sounds almost like social Darwinism.

Of course, now that I've argued you to this point, I doubt I'll get anywhere further.

>>3112163
So how high must the chance be then?

>>3112187
75%?
Obviously? As much as a pregnant woman? (though not sure what you're asking)
>>3112183
I have no "moral claims" I simply argue that if abortion is okay, why isn't euthanising the severely handicapped?
Why don't men ever have a say in the issue?
Who is to decide when life is life?
THEY are the issues I am troubled with (among others).

>>3112197
>75%?
>Obviously? As much as a pregnant woman? (though not sure what you're asking)
And what if you're a man with low sperm count (which lowers the odd)?

>>3112203
What? I think we're at different ends of the ballpark.

>>3112197
>I have no "moral claims" I simply argue that if abortion is okay, why isn't euthanising the severely handicapped?
I have no problems with euthanasia on a moral basis, but I do see many practical problems with it (how can we _really_ tell what someone wants, who should decide, etc).
>Why don't men ever have a say in the issue?
It's not their body.
>Who is to decide when life is life?
No one is arguing that a fetus isn't life, just that being alive is a non-sequitur to the moral debate, we have no problems eating plants and other animals (which are alive) - so obviously just being alive isn't any guarantee for moral rights.

>>3112211
Yeah, actually I don't really know what this odds shit is suppose to argue for/against.

>>3112197
>I have no "moral claims" I simply argue that if abortion is okay, why isn't euthanising the severely handicapped?
Because the severely handicapped have a brain, and the very young fetuses do not.

>Why don't men ever have a say in the issue?
Dunno. I never claimed that men shouldn't have a say. As a matter of practicality, I agree there's some thorny issues in here around child support, but apart from that I see no reason why a man has any relevant say in the affairs of a woman's body and the child's body.

>Who is to decide when life is life?
We do, collectively, just like we decide all moral issues. I hope that we can collectively agree on brain birth and brain death as the end points of moral rights.

>THEY are the issues I am troubled with (among others).
Ok. Long as we can discuss them.

>>3112197
>I have no "moral claims" I simply argue that if abortion is okay, why isn't euthanising the severely handicapped?

Look dude. This is a moral claim:
>HOWEVER, if said life IS formed it must take its course.

Either you are that anon, and you're an asshat, or you're not that anon and you replied as though you were, and you're still an asshat. Conclusion? Asshat.

>>3112226
Why does the allowance of life indicate morals? What the fuck ever gave you that idea?

>>3112267
A must statement is a moral claim. Get used to it.

>>3112216
>It's not their body.
But it IS their child. And if they don't want a child but a woman does the man WILL end up paying support. Thats some fucked up shit.
>>3112222
>As a matter of practicality, I agree there's some thorny issues in here around child support, but apart from that I see no reason why a man has any relevant say in the affairs of a woman's body and the child's body.
Ahh but why not take it this way. As soon a women lets a man inside him she is ACKNOWLEDGING a part of him in her life. I cant really word this right lol but i hope you get what I'm saying. If you dont get it i'll try reword it better.

>>3112272
Not its not. How is it?
I *must* eat to live.

>>3112273
You raise some interesting points. I agree. However, I think the main issues of abortion are the rights of the fetus to live (if aware), and the rights of the woman to not have her body conscripted by the state to take care of another individual. I don't see how the man enters into that equation.

Child support, sure, but that's different.

>>3112275
Ok. Let me try it this way.

Proscriptive claims, like:
>HOWEVER, if said life IS formed it must take its course.
are moral claims.

Descriptive claims, like:
>I *must* eat to live.
Are not moral claims.

>>3112279
But see ALL the woman has to do is carry the child for 9 months then give birth to it. haha I hear thats not the easiest thing but as soon as the child is born the woman can fuck off and do what she likes. But then theres the whole issue of the child feeling unloved etc. God its so complicated. You see i CAN see how abortion is helpful, don't get me wrong but I could also see how nuking North Korea could be helpful. Thats my real issue with people. Like i said before, everyone keeps their high end fucking morals with almost every issue but when abortion comes up it goes the other w3ay and the act of killing becomes the rightful and "modern" way of doing things. I really don't get it, maybe I never will. Damn free thought.

>>3112290
No No No. EITHER- if the life is formed, it must take its course OR damn all life and make murder legal. I cant really see the middle ground.

>>3112307
The middle ground is that life does not give moral rights. Being conscious with a mind gives moral rights.

>>3112347
And the point is- says you.

>>3112347
I cant wait to see people with your angle when AI comes about lul

>>3112377
Can't wait to see you enslave them, Cylon style.

>>3112399
I'd love to fuck Cortana.