[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 61 KB, 600x450, sIEHqaHRLDAk73csjsBCbmNEMTLRfmy6_lg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10939412 No.10939412[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What's the scientific answer to the abortion debate?

>> No.10939415

The answer is that you should have been aborted

>> No.10939417

>>10939412
>not murder, isnt sentient (no brainwaves normal of conscious individuals).
>most studies say a child being well adjusted/happy, the number one factor is having a supportive environment, of which "being planned for and wanted" are necessities. A child who is not wanted will be neglected in some way and be worse for society than no child at all, taking into account other wanted babies being born as well.

>> No.10939418

>>10939412
Physical stasis and artificial wombs.

>> No.10939419

>>10939412
I support abortion but do acknowledge that fetuses are life. I just value some lives more than others. I wish a democratic candidate had the balls to say that.

>> No.10939425

The scientific answer is a how-to manual. Every other aspect is a political one driven by semantics.

>> No.10939432

>>10939417
>>10939419
If we're discussing non-post-scarce "solutions" then the scientific answer is realism about the orphanage crisis.

>> No.10939440

>>10939412
>scientific answer
abort very low iq parent babies

>> No.10939443

>>10939432
I have no idea what you are trying to say, and I'm really trying

>> No.10939449

>>10939443
there are too many kids in foster care. lets kill some

>> No.10939458

>>10939443
The idea of an unwanted child is the determining factor. Society's abreaction is to say the child is wanted by default, but in practice gets sent to an orphanage. They don't tend to be run well, due to people entrusting their priorities to ???. This factor is known to be unreliable. See: Current evidence.

>> No.10939464

A damn shame if the child would have bern blond/blue eyed. Those aryan babies would fly off the shelf like hot cakes.

>> No.10939468

>>10939412
force abortions on non whites and low iq and everything will sort it self out

>> No.10939471

>>10939464
All white babies are born blonde and blue eyed.. it's a defense mechanism.

>> No.10939473 [DELETED] 

>>10939412
Its murder

>> No.10939476

>>10939412
If you don't want an abortion, then don't get one.

>> No.10939478

>>10939417
>not murder, isnt sentient (no brainwaves normal of conscious individuals).
Then why will you be charged with 2 murders if you kill a pregnant woman?
If the fetus is viable outside of the womb, what point does it become murder?
Should abortion be legal all the way until the baby is born?
>A child who is not wanted will be neglected in some way and be worse for society than no child at all, taking into account other wanted babies being born as well.
Why not kill all unwanted children then?

>> No.10939483

>>10939478
>Then why will you be charged with 2 murders if you kill a pregnant woman?
Because the law isn't scientific.
>what point does it become murder?
When it is sentient and has the brainwaves of conscious individuals.
>If the fetus is viable outside of the womb, what point does it become murder?
Just because a seed can grow without soil doesn't make it a sapling.
>Should abortion be legal all the way until the baby is born?
Until it is sentient and has the brainwaves of conscious individuals.
>Why not kill all unwanted children then?
Because they are conscious individuals.

>> No.10939619

>>10939412
>What's the scientific answer to the abortion debate?
There isn't one. This debate is exclusive to the field of law. No other opinions matter.

>> No.10939630

>>10939417
>>10939483
Sleeping or unconscious individuals don't show exact brainwave functions to conscious folk either. That doesn't change their right to exist.

>> No.10939694

>>10939412
There isn't one it's something for moralists and the legal system to answer

>> No.10939709

>>10939412
morals =/= science
consensus is that fetus is clearly alive and I should have been aborted because I failed to get into one of the top 5 colleges.

>> No.10939714

Legally in America you cannot consent to sex under the age of 18 (or 17 in some states). If this is the case how can an individual who cannot consent to something as simple as sex consent to living, a much more complex condition?

Therefore it should be legal to kill your children until they turn 18 or are emancipated.

>> No.10939736

>>10939412
Only if it's jewish

>> No.10939750

This is a topic for moral philosophy/ethics which is its own field with an extremely large and dense literature. You will have to get really good at sentential/deductive logic in order to understand the contemporary literature. Science can provide variables to reference within moral arguments, but the scientific method does not include the capability to make a moral argument (because morality is not a matter of experimentation). Best you can do is survey moral opinions, you won't be provided with an objectively correct answer for moral questions by testing or retesting.

>> No.10939757

>>10939412
People always want someone else to answer so that they are not responsible, truth is if you think whatever thing is going to suffer eternally you should kill it. and if there is even a chance that itll make it, thats up to you to decide, its on you at the end of the day so it better sit right you fucking squirming maggots. make a decision!! if you dont like it well then, thats life and thats death coward, youll get their too one day i guarantee it

>> No.10939770

>>10939412
"life" isn't enough
"human" is more than life
It'll always be a fuzzy border, probably around 3 months old should be the limit. But giving out cheap contraceptives, RU-486, etc. is the other side of the scale. Women must have the right to control their own body. Society can choose at what point that happens, easy prevention or abortion.

>> No.10939780

>>10939770
it's easy to prevent by not getting jizzed in.
maybe start there if you dont want kids, sluts.
>Women must have the right to control their own body
when the woman is pregnant, the she isn't only controlling her own body.

>> No.10939818

>>10939476
If you don't want to pay child support then just don't pay it bro

>> No.10940056

>>10939412
>debate
L0Lno fgt pls
Lrn2debate

>> No.10940064

>>10940056
>fgt
Why the homophobia?

>> No.10940067

>>10939412
Unwanted fetii should be put on ice until the artificial womb is developed and then they should be auctioned off to whichever space corporation can pay for them.

>> No.10940075

>>10939412
i think this is a question for women, or biologists, but 99% of biologists are women now, and being as though no biologists or women come to this board, the correct answer is “tits or GTFO”

>> No.10940080
File: 303 KB, 642x705, 1527438056534.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10940080

>>10939417
>not murder, isnt sentient (no brainwaves normal of conscious individuals).
It was and would have continued to grow to be. He or she was put an end to it through a deliberate, callous murder where of a defenseless life.
>most studies say a child being well adjusted/happy, the number one factor is having a supportive environment, of which "being planned for and wanted" are necessities. A child who is not wanted will be neglected in some way and be worse for society than no child at all, taking into account other wanted babies being born as well.
If they didn't want a child, then they should have abstained from sex. It's that simple. They neglected their roles to society by hedonistically feeding their animal impulses, yet are in denial about the consequence of them.

>> No.10940177

>>10939780
>maybe start there if you dont want kids, sluts.
Sex is fun.

>> No.10940460

>>10939417
>let's kill all coma patients
>let's kill unwanted children after birth
Nice science you got there, Mr Sociopath

>> No.10940466

>>10939412
science alone cannot answer moral questions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>> No.10940467

>>10939417
This.

>> No.10940471

>>10940460
>>let's kill all coma patients

Comma patients still have some higher brain left. We do kill braindead patients, yes.

>> No.10940473

>>10939417
>can also kill braindead people like the veggie twins
>Use morality to make a scientific argument

>> No.10940481

>>10939412
no higher brain -> no mind -> no victim -> no crime

>> No.10940488

>>10939412
It's got the dna of a human, it's human
It's replicating, its life
You're ending a human life no matter how you cut it.

Don't get me wrong, there's way too many people and I'm all about ending some, but I'm not trying to kid myself to feel better about making my life easier. You see all those starving kids in Africa while i drive to the store for one bag of my favorite chips? Fuck em. I'm an asshole who's not kidding himself. That's all. The rest of you are too weak to deal with it mentally and are finding any excuse to help you sleep better while ignoring the countless atrocities you contribute to on a daily basis. Faggots.

That being said, shouldn't we be promoting abortion in places like Bangladesh and Africa instead of countries that contribute to the progression of mankind?

>> No.10940490

>>10940481
tell it to a vegan

>> No.10940495

>>10940080
priestanon gets it

>> No.10940502

>>10940488
"ending a human life" is not the same as murder. We routinely end the lives of braindead but biologically alive patients, some of which could live on live support for decades. An embryo may be human life but it is not a person.

>> No.10940504
File: 59 KB, 483x450, this-is-not-a-person[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10940504

>>10940502

>> No.10940724

>>10939419
>I support abortion but do acknowledge that fetuses are life. I just value some lives more than others. I wish a democratic candidate had the balls to say that.

This. My position on abortion hinges on who the parents are.

>> No.10940752

>>10939412
>the abortion debate
Lrn2debate fgt pls

>> No.10941184

>>10939630
they have the capacity to though, an under developed brain does not

>> No.10941202

>>10939780
Futher proof the abortion debate isnt about morality, just disgusting pigs trying to control women.

>> No.10941209

>>10940080
thanks, Father

>> No.10941542

>>10941202
I'd prefer not to see future women or men being murdered by their mothers, you disgusting cunt.

>> No.10942225

>>10939412
The probability of scientific discovery goes up as the number of educated individuals go up. Thus, given that having children increases economic output of a country, thus increasing the standard of living, abortion inadvertently reduced both the rate of discovery and standard of living since it was introduced and adopted in mass.

>> No.10942315

>>10941184
They have the potential though just as a sleeping person has the potential to wake up it's just a matter of time frame or when someone is in a coma they might eventually wake up just as an undeveloped human can eventually grow and obtain the capacity to think

>> No.10942319

>>10942315
You are legally allowed to take a person in a coma off life support.

>> No.10942467

>>10939417
it WILL be sentient. If you leave it be.Just like if you live you life you will eventually die and be not sentient any more. You are still taking away a life, before it even gets to start

>> No.10942472

>>10942319
I wasn't aware this was about legality and more about the morality of something

>> No.10942597

>>10939412
Unnecessary surgeries are bad for your health.
>>10939417
Retards aren't sentient and parasites (to society) but we don't kill them either. But you're right in that it is not murder, solely because of 1 U.S. Code §8. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
>>10939818
>t. dave chappelle
>>10939714
Age of consent, drinking, driving, etc are all restrictions of human sovereignty
>>10940504
>chicken egg
>tree seed
>dress silk
>person sperm

>> No.10944255
File: 566 KB, 960x952, 42228890_2511348565658528_557020218493239296_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10944255

>>10939412
The central argument most anti-abortion and pro-abortion people argue over is, 'Is it a foetus a person'

The scientific answer is - i dont care what a person is, human life objectively begins at conception. (which everyone already knows)

After that it becomes a question of simply, at what point in a human life do we give them moral value?

I find that the most consistent moral view (which i dont follow because im a hypocrite and meat eater) is that once something is capable of suffering you should give it moral consideration: this removes arbitrary human centric ideals such as intelligence - which while im here is a very self destructive ideal to hold, because one day AI will make us all seem like severly disabled mouth breathers, so suffering as a prerequisite of moral consideration is also self preserving down the line. Of course that's all philosophy.

>> No.10944260

not sure but there is some kind of one
kind of makes me sick to think about a bit that's why there's ethical standards for science

>> No.10944276

>>10939425
based

>> No.10944279

>>10939412
Science doesn’t answer ethical questions.
Fuck off

>> No.10944286

>>10944279
yeah but bioethics is pretty science heavy I would think
So I think there's an argument for science answering ethical questions