/sci/ - Science & Math

im for abotion bcuz it comes from science.

>>3946185
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29#Human_chimeras

>>3946189
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 consentual 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.

Have you seen what a fucking fetus looks like? Get that shit out of me.

Pic related, it's me getting a fetus out of me.

Interesting thoughts there, Scientist.

>>3946191
You're an idiot if you agree with that trolling garbage.

>>3946342
Scientist has never had interesting thoughts.

>>3946352
I agree. All his opinions are autism driven rants. If scientist was involved in politics he would want to create a totalitarian regime.

>First, it's faith and religion, which makes it stupid.
Stopped reading there. Ad hominem attacks are a terrible way to refute a point

>>3946185

For early-term, against late-term abortion.

>>3946385
Ridicule seems to be the only way forward against the religious. If you have alternate means to argue for axioms, please be my guest.

>>3946389
Wow....what a butthurt atheist....

>>3946400
? kay...

>>3946385
reasoned refutation only works against reasoned argument. religious thought is lacking reason and so is best just mocked.

For abortion, up until the ten-thousandth trimester.

>>3946407
>derp wat is logic

Scientists, that copypasta was pretty good. The only thing I'd disagree with is that sentence, "First, it's faith and religion, which makes it stupid." Faith and religion are stupid a lot of the time, but they are not necessarily stupid. Also, the sentence was a waste of pixels on my screen; it contributed nothing to the issue of abortion.

>>3946389
>>3946407
pic related

>>3946414
*Scientist; not "scientists".

>>3946414
Yay atheist/theism derailment.

Claim 1- Believing in factual claims without a basis in evidence is retarded.

Thus follows claim 2: faith is retarded, and thus basically all religion.

I am not being overly mean. I use the same language for laissez faire asshats, and Venus Project asshats. You're going to have to get used to having your sacred values questions and challenged using the same language of discourse as other human inquiry.

>>3946414
faith is stupid. faith is holding a belief without evidence, or with evidence to the contrary. pretty good definition of stupid.

>>3946423
Faith is necessarily irrational; religion is not. You'd be surprised how many theists believe that their religion is supported by evidence.

Besides, we philosophers know that all beliefs lack an objective factual basis.

>>3946431
>Besides, we philosophers know that all beliefs lack an objective factual basis.
You're doing one of two things. You're either 1- arguing for a lack of objective reality and that science is not the gold standard of discerning factual truth, or 2- you're being contrary for no other reason than to be contrary. I'm not sure which is more annoying.

Science is the only acceptable method for learning about factual things. This is not open to discussion.

>>3946431
theists usually make faith, that is irrational belief, a requirement. which kind of undermines their evidential justification

>>3946431
>we philosophers

there are about a million different ontologies in philosophy. thinking there is a consensus about this means you are probably 15 yrs old.

>>3946450
I was being facetious.

>>3946441
But, like I said, religion is not necessarily faith-based. Many believe that their religion is based on evidence, and the fact that they are wrong does not affect the fact that they are not making a faith-based decision to believe.

>>3946458
>But, like I said, religion is not necessarily faith-based. Many believe that their religion is based on evidence, and the fact that they are wrong does not affect the fact that they are not making a faith-based decision to believe.
Acceptable argument in theory, but I believe this is a red herring. Some may accept that the evidence is in their favor at some level, but they also know that it's falsifiable, which means they really don't have any evidence. If you ask the average religious person if they could make a simple observation that might falsify their religion, I would imagine almost all would say that they cannot. Thus not evidence based, and not science.

However, I accept that this is wandering into a war of definitions.

>>3946458
>But, like I said, religion is not necessarily faith-based. Many believe that their religion is based on evidence, and the fact that they are wrong does not affect the fact that they are not making a faith-based decision to believe.
Acceptable argument in theory, but I believe this is a red herring. Some may accept that the evidence is in their favor at some level, but they also know that it's **not** falsifiable, which means they really don't have any evidence. If you ask the average religious person if they could make a simple observation that might falsify their religion, I would imagine almost all would say that they cannot. Thus not evidence based, and not science.

However, I accept that this is wandering into a war of definitions.

>>3946458
you'll find in christianity and islam, faith is a requirement. necessary to enter heaven, be saved, etc

>>3946472
Yes; faith as in fidelity and trust in God: NOT faith as in belief lacking a rational basis.

>>3946467
Perhaps.. regardless, you're right. We don't want a war of definitions of faith in an abortion thread. Like I said, nice copypasta.

>>3946490
fidelity and trust in god precisely lacks a rational basis.

>>3946490
>Yes; faith as in fidelity and trust in God: NOT faith as in belief lacking a rational basis.
That is our point of contention. If they are unable to provide a falsifying experiment which they have performed, or which someone else they know (directly or indirectly) has performed, or otherwise /trust/ - not take on faith - that someone else has performed the experiment, then their beliefs are /not/ evidence based. As such, it is /not/ rational. That is my contention.

>>3946494
Apply this amount of rigour in your examinations to every belief you ever consider in life and you will get absolutely nowhere. I presume you don't refuse fidelity to your wife/partner because that would "lack a rational basis"?

>>3946507
I apply this same standard to all of my life. There is a failure though for some people to distinguish between faith and trust. Faith is not evidence based. Trust is. Dennett explains it better than I here:

Dan Dennet: Award & Speech at AAI 07 pt1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyyRAE7PDvw

>>3946507
>>3946510
>I presume you don't refuse fidelity to your wife/partner because that would "lack a rational basis"?

To continue, I would have a rational basis for believing that my partner wouldn't cheat on me. They haven't yet, or at least I haven't discovered them cheating on me yet. I also have knowledge of their psychology and mind. This allows me to infer future actions based on previous actions. Aka trust. Trust is evidence based.

A falsifying observation would be the figurative walking in while she's banging the neighbor. Then I would know that she's actually not being loyal to me.

>>3946507
you are comparing trust and fidelity in someone i have good evidence exists and whose behaviour is real and knowable with trust and fidelity in god?

hahaha

>>3946515
Really, that's what he was doing? Oh wow. I didn't see it because I thought he wasn't being that retarded. Too much benefit of the doubt apparently. I guess I'm back to ridicule now.

>>3946515
>missing the point entirely


>>3946472 said "you'll find in christianity and islam, faith is a requirement. necessary to enter heaven, be saved, etc"

My point was that this person is confusing two meanings of faith and faithfulness. In the Abrahamic religions, a believer must be faithful to God i.e. not go 'round flirting with idols and other "gods". This is completely different from faith as in an irrational belief.

Scientist, I'm not talking about whether or not one believes that one's wife is being faithful or not; I'm talking about whether or not one remains faithful to one's wife. This is not a belief! And this is the sort of faith required by scriptural Abrahamic doctrine; NOT believing without evidence.
That video is ~40 minutes long, where should I start listening?

>>3946539
Scientist, I'm not talking about whether or not one believes that one's wife is being faithful or not; I'm talking about whether or not one remains faithful to one's wife. This is not a belief! And this is the sort of faith required by scriptural Abrahamic doctrine; NOT believing without evidence.
That video is ~40 minutes long, where should I start listening?

As the comment suggests, around 17 min in IIRC. He gets to the point within 10-15 minutes. Sorry don't remember better offhand.

I'm lost as to what you're trying to get it. Thus far, I've suggested the standard that ought to be applied to factual claims. You are disputing this claim, but I am not quite following what you are saying. Please rephrase or be more clear with your comments / questions.

>>3946539
>missing the point

what you actually mean by that is "can we limit our argument to these few points because if you stray from them you'll see my thinking is built on sand."

the point that there is no evidence god exists cannot be off limits to a discussion about faith

>>3946539
>This is completely different from faith as in an irrational belief.

not so. as all the gods one could flirt with probably don't exist, irrational belief is required prior to faith (as in fidelity) in one particular god.

>>3946539
>>3946543
To continue, I have given an evidence based justification for one might believe that your wife is being loyal, and have contrasted this with religion and faith which is not evidence based. I'm not sure if you tried to make an opposing claim.

>>3946543
Thanks.

My apologies for not being clearer. Basically, >>3946472 claimed that faith was a requirement to get to heaven for the Abrahamic religions, and I believe he was misunderstanding the issue. The Abrahamic religions require that one is faithful towards God i.e. one doesn't "cheat" on him with other gods or with atheism. This isn't the same as the religions commanding that one holds faith-based beliefs. While religions may command this, there is no link between faith and fidelity/faithfulness in a religious context. My point, I suppose, is that there is a significant difference between faith and faithfulness: faith is an irrational belief, and faithfulness is simply showing fidelity.
I stopped discussing whether or not religion required faith (irrational belief) a few posts back, sorry if that was confusing.

>>3946185


It's not black and white. Women can't be allowed to abort every time they get prego because they didn't care about contraception. There needs to be rules and limits.

Being against abortion entirely is retarded, though.

I think abortion should be fully legal.

However, I also think anyone who would actually get an abortion (other than to save their own life) is an indescribably large piece of human garbage and that ridicule and scorn should be heaped on them by everyone around them.

So what does that make me? Besides an asshole, I mean.

>>3946572
>claimed that faith was a requirement to get to heaven for the Abrahamic religions, and I believe he was misunderstanding the issue. The Abrahamic religions require that one is faithful towards God i.e. one doesn't "cheat" on him with other gods or with atheism. This isn't the same as the religions commanding that one holds faith-based beliefs.
I must disagree. This necessarily entails a factual belief. The belief is "If I am failthful / loyal towards god, then I will get into heaven". This belief is without evidence, and thus bullshit.

Stop discussing religion on /sci/, if you're not all "atheists" then go somewhere else.

>>3946572
showing fidelity also requires irrational belief if what you are showing fidelity to doesn't appear to exist.

>>3946579
It makes you an agreeable person, I'm tired of the infantility of newer generations.

>>3946579
I think you are an incredibly immoral person. You obviously believe it to be like murder if not murder outright, but you don't want to stop it.

I think abortion should be mandatory.

>>3946579

An idiot.

>be against X
>let it happen anyways

And a beta faggot now that I think of it.

it's a real dilemma. Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of killing babies, but the notion to give women more rights just doesn't sit well with me.

>>3946595
>You obviously believe it to be like murder if not murder outright, but you don't want to stop it.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to keep your head from exploding, go right ahead, but you could not be more wrong.

It's intellectually dishonest to say flushing a blob of cells is the same as murdering a grown human being.

But that doesn't mean it's not abhorrent.

And abortion becomes exponentially more abhorrent the closer the embryo/fetus/whatever gets to viability, but it still isn't murder.

Lots of behaviors and actions are abhorrent without being as bad as outright murder, you simple-minded motherfucker.

>>3946581
But the requirement of irrational belief is an implicit requirement and only exists because we are assuming no evidence. If, hypothetically, God existed and we could somehow be 100% sure of this, faithfulness would still be an explicit requirement whilst faith would not be necessary.

All I was trying to do was make the distinction between faith and faithfulness clear to anon, as he seemed to be misunderstanding Abrahamic doctrine.

>>3946606
>If, hypothetically, God existed and we could somehow be 100% sure of this, faithfulness would still be an explicit requirement whilst faith would not be necessary.
Sure.

However, your earlier claim was incorrect. In practice, all religious people, more or less, hold large and important factual claims without an evidence basis.

>>3946610
You haven't addressed my point at all. You obviously feel this is some vile act, but refuse to act to prevent it. You are scum.

>>3946600
>be against X
>let it happen anyways

Hey dipshit. I think racism is pretty shitty, too. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.

It's okay. You're obviously just asspained at the idea that someone doesn't agree with just exactly what you believe. You'll grow up and get over it--or not.

Mother has higher priority over foetus. Regretably, t's just the way it has to work

>>3946606

that difference is well known to anon, but without your "hypothetically" both require irrational belief, which was the original issue. you, or someone, claimed you could be rational and religious.

>>3946616
>>3946617
Ok, I have to retract my point. You made a good argument.

Maybe.

For racism, I presume you mean like racist speech. The problem is that by restricting speech, you do more harm than good as the argument usually goes. Also slippery slope argument.

Now, do you have some similar argument for abortion? How does banning abortion do more harm than good? Or are you advocating that one should stand by instead of prevent harm?

>>3946616
not that guy

but i think many vile acts should not be illegal.

adultery, for instance.

limiting the state's role in enforcing morality is not the same as being immoral.

>>3946616
>You obviously feel this is some vile act, but refuse to act to prevent it. You are scum.

Nope, you're engaging in a logical fallacy there, Mr. Simple-minded.

It's perfectly rational to think some behaviors are vile but should be legal.

I think self-mutilation and drug addiction are pretty fucking abhorrent behavior worthy of scorn and ridicule by the general public, but I don't believe society has the right to tell someone else what they can't do to their own body (or in the case of abortion, force them to ALLOW something to happen to their own body against their will).

But hey man, enjoy your juvenile thinking. I bet the world is beautiful in black and white.

>>3946617

By let it happen I meant be okay with it.

I am not okay with racism and if you are you need a hard kick in the balls.

>>3946626
>Now, do you have some similar argument for abortion? How does banning abortion do more harm than good?

Okay, now I feel bad for being a prick, since you conceded my point.

And yes I do have one for that.

I don't think you can argue that banning abortion specifically does more harm than good. I think abortion is pretty fucking heinous, in my own opinion.

But banning abortion IS telling someone: You have to allow your body to undergo radical physical and permanent changes whether you want it or not.

I don't think you can logically say that about one thing, abortion, but then permit about a whole host of other things: alcoholism, obesity, etc.

People have a right to do what they want with their bodies, and to protect them from things they don't want to happen to them.

But again, I think anybody that would flush a fetus to prevent 9 months of pregnancy is a human piece of shit.

>>3946629
Ok, that's another good example. We have two cases where one shouldn't prevent "harm". In the first, trying to prevent it will cause more harm than just letting it be. The second is really just a subcase of the first - by attempting to restrict one's freedom of choice to harm oneself, we'd cause him demonstrable harm.

Are you arguing that abortions are vile because the woman harms herself in some way? What way would that be?

Or are you arguing that it is vile because it is harm against the unborn baby, but attempting to restrict it would cause more harm than not?

Or maybe some other argument that saves you from being scum? I'm really stretching here.

>>3946639

Oh and before anybody even brings it up, yes, I know drug use is illegal even though that's someone's choice what they do with their body, and I'm for full drug legalization because of it, even though I despise meth users and the like.

>>3946639
I'm still not quite clear on this. Are you arguing that it's vile because it harms the fetus, or because it harms the woman? Or both?

>>3946639
>>3946626

People who are against abortion never are pricks with no empathy for other human beings. Having a baby is a very serious thing and if the conditions aren't right then the baby could suffer and not be loved. How is that better than it simply never existing?

Death is part of life.

>>3946652

Also I am aware of my broken english.

>>3946652
by that logic we should kill the poor and people diagnosed with incurable and painful illnesses

trick question OP. I can ask you the same.

for or against freedom?

>>3946644
>Or are you arguing that it is vile because it is harm against the unborn baby, but attempting to restrict it would cause more harm than not?

It's pure opinion on my part, but I personally think abortion is vile because of the harm to the fetus/embryo/whatever.

It's NOT a human being yet (it's a blob of cells, usually), but it's on an increasing course to becoming a human being (and becomes "closer" to becoming a human being every day) and I don't feel like destroying what is basically a lesser developed human being is something people ought to feel good about doing.

And I think the further along it is in development, the worse it is, since the further it is the more "human" it is, sort of.

Like I said. Opinion. Flushing a blob of cells with consciousness shouldn't logically be any more reprehensible than killing an amoeba or even a mouse or something, but I'd like to think we ought to have separate standards for our own species at least.

But that's all just opinion my part, which also plays into me not wanting abortion banned. Can't ban abortion just because the idea of killing something with human DNA bothers me personally.

>>3946652
>people who see things in black and white are ignorant
>seeing things in black and white
>irony

>>3946650
>I'm still not quite clear on this. Are you arguing that it's vile because it harms the fetus, or because it harms the woman? Or both?

My last post probably answered it, but I think it shouldn't be illegal because it harms the right of everyone to do what they want with and to protect their own bodies, but I think it's vile because of the the death of the fetus/embryo/whatever.

>>3946667

What are you doing on /sci/? I thought there was a minimum IQ requirement to enter.

The poor are already self aware and suffer emotionally and physically. A much different case from fetuses.

>>3946675
you must get your bum in a jimmy every time someone ejaculate anywhere not inside a vagina.

>>3946675
>It's pure opinion on my part, but I personally think abortion is vile because of the harm to the fetus/embryo/whatever.
>It's NOT a human being yet (it's a blob of cells, usually), but it's on an increasing course to becoming a human being (and becomes "closer" to becoming a human being every day) and I don't feel like destroying what is basically a lesser developed human being is something people ought to feel good about doing.

Ok, then I fail to see the relevance of the analogies to drug users. Please explain again what harm would be visited by banning abortions? Just the Roe V Wade argument of the conscription of the mother's body?

I guess that's a consistent approach, though I'll have to disagree.

>>3946679

How was that black and white? Do you know what empathy is? Do you realize if people had empathy for women wanting to abort instead of being judgmental that they would agree with abortion?

Of course there's a lot of human trash using abortion as a "contraceptive" method and these people are better off being infertile.

>>3946652
>Having a baby is a very serious thing and if the conditions aren't right then the baby could suffer and not be loved. How is that better than it simply never existing?

I'm the guy who thinks it should be legal, even though I think it's abhorrent.

And I do think being born into less-than-ideal circumstances is preferable to destroying them after they're already made. At that point, they already exist, in a sense, and I think it's pretty shitty to unilaterally decide what's best for them. In my mind, that's kind of trying to shut the barn door after the horse has run away.

I fully agree that it's better to not create someone, through pregnancy, in the first place if they're just going to have a shitty unhappy life.

And for what it's worth, my parents were train wreck substance abusers and I had a horrible fucking childhood. I'm a textbook case for what's usually argued as better off aborted, and as bad as my childhood was, I'm pretty fucking glad I exist.

>>3946683
>Ok, then I fail to see the relevance of the analogies to drug users. Please explain again what harm would be visited by banning abortions?

Well, to the person who wants an abortion, it would be harm. Their body would undergo 9 months of permanent physiological changes and pain and suffering.

Someone who wants that might not consider that harm. But if you didn't want that to happen to your body, you probably would.

And it also just damages the idea that someone has the right to do what they want with their own body (or to protect from things happening to it).

>>3946708

It's more of a cultural thing and how people think. Spartans forced natural selection by killing defective born babies and they were a ok with it.

Abortion kills off cells that have the potential to become a human being. But so do spermatozoids and ovulums and only religious pricks are against masturbation.

>>3946707
>Do you realize if people had empathy for women wanting to abort instead of being judgmental that they would agree with abortion?

I'm not the guy you're arguing with (I'm the one that thinks it should be legal even though it's abhorrent).

I can understand why someone wouldn't want a pregnancy--lack of money to raise it, not wanting your body to undergo the permanent changes of pregnancy, simply not wanting a child, etc.

But it's still a perfectly valid opinion for me to think that those are shitty reasons to destroy whatever pre-human blob already exists inside them and that it's an incredibly vile and selfish decision.

You can disagree with that, but there's nothing illogical about it.

>>3946708

Also, even if you turned out to be okay, a lot of kids don't. And there's no way to predict the future. Also women that want to abort could feel uncomfortable for having a baby because today society doesn't really promote having babies much.

>>3946721

You have no empathy for teenage moms, raped women, etc.

Well, now that I've made a fool of myself, time for bed. At least this thread turned out better than that shithole thread where they're going to argue over the definition of agnosticism for 300+ posts.

>>3946725
>typical feminist logic
theres a huge difference between not wanting to carry your underage rape baby to term because itll ruin both of your lives and not wanting to have a kid because you dont want to fuck up your body and have the time commitment

>>3946722
>Also, even if you turned out to be okay, a lot of kids don't. And there's no way to predict the future.

But that's partly why I think abortion is abhorrent. You don't have any way of knowing what the outcome will be. It seems more reasonable to me in that situation to err on the side of caution and NOT unilaterally decide to destroy that "life" that's already been created when they aren't developed enough to have any kind of say in it.

I think those arguments are totally fine in favor of not getting pregnant in the first place, though.

Listen up sheeps because I'm about to enlighten you. All abortion discussion are shitfest of people telling each other what to do. Instead of actually doing anything. The problem with abortion isn't abortion.

For one, this is not black and white. all cases should be reviewed over independent of each other. Once again, abortion as an issue is none existent because it's not a single issue but rather a world view that encompasses many factors.

Secondly, you do not have the right to tell someone what to do with their body. As much as you love your democracy where you can whine and bitch about every little thing. Something just don't happen.

Lastly, most of you aren't even qualified to talk about abortion.90% of you are not women. None of you are related to anybody that has ever faced this choice in real life. But hey, you know what they say about assh.. I mean opinions.

Now lets talk about abortion. Here's my stance. Abortion should be illegal. All mothers who doesn't have the means or isn't unwilling to take care of the unborn can give it up for adoption. Adoption standards needs to be lowered to accompany the sudden influx of supply. Their are no problems with this as nobody gets to choose their parents anyway. Obviously hardened criminals and niggers shouldn't get babies, but you get the point.

But hey, progress that makes sense is never made just for the sake of making them. Personally I'm hoping for World War III. Then maybe something will happen.

>>3946725
>You have no empathy for teenage moms, raped women, etc.

That's not true, bro.

I can't imagine how awful it would be to be 15 and realize you're pregnant and your childhood is cut short and you're going to have to raise a baby when you're not even fully matured yourself and you won't be able to do all the things you planned for you life and you'll be broke and have to rely on your parents and what a crappy life your kid will have because it was too soon, etc. etc. etc.

I am sympathetic for all of that. I really am.

I just personally don't think those reasons are good enough to terminate whatever is growing inside of them. I don't think those are good enough reasons to outweigh that thing inside them's right to become whatever it's going to become now that it already exists.

But it's their body and I don't think we have the right to force them to undergo a physically-altering pregnancy on behalf of that fetus/embryo/whatever. But I do think it makes them a shitty, selfish person if they're unwilling to do so.

>>3946749
>freedom is not a good enough reason

terrorist detected

to all the people saying abortion is bad, why don't you adopt all the kids instead, since ya know - YOU want them.

>>3946754
>terrorist detected

Sorry, but I don't think a 9 month time commitment and gaining stretch marks and baby weight are good enough reasons to destroy something that's some varying degree of "almost human."

I think doing it to save your own life is entirely reasonable, though.

And again, so no one misunderstands me, I still think it should be legal.

>>3946766
>almost human

I heard human. good enough for me. you are a terrorist.

100% for abortion. I'm not fucking up my life for a collection of cells with no brain activity.

>>3946756
it's not their responsibility.
it's the parents'

Good thing it doesn't fucking matter what crazy Turbo-Christians think. Eventually abortion will be a rather common practice, especially as population control becomes a problem in the US, which it ostensibly will.

>>3946774
>I heard human. good enough for me. you are a terrorist.

No I'm not.

I would be if I wanted to force someone to undergo 9 months of physically-altering changes on behalf of a blob of cells, but, again, I DON'T.

I just think that anyone who would do it is a piece of human garbage that the rest of society should look down on as such.

But at this point I don't think you're really reading what I'm writing anyway and just going "HURR DURR ABORTION BAD = BODY FASCIST."

>>3946766
And how about sperm/eggs? The are exactly half of one fertilized egg. One fertilized egg is not even a millionth of a person.
We simply cannot count 'potential future self-aware being' as a self-aware being. I agree that we should be on the safe side, and should try our very best not to terminate the life of any self-aware being. But I hope that we can both agree that the fetusses in week 18 are not self-aware.

>>3946785
>going through hardship for someone else

we call that being an american hero. you are a terrorist.