/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 4 KB, 225x225, images-1..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:22:48 2011 No.2390080 [Reply] [Original]

No matter how much someone who is pro-choice tries to convince me, I still cannot bring myself to believe abortion is OK. For every single argument that is brought up, I can very easily, through scientific, logical, and non-religious arguments, refute them.

Examples:
>rape
You would kill an innocent person to relieve psychological tension?
>harmful to the mother
You would hold up an infant as a shield to deflect a bullet?
>It's part of the mother's body
And banana plants are just part of the tree they're stuck on, right? It's a new being of the DNA is different. Also, it has its own blood and bloodstream.
>It can't live on its own
Neither can a parasite or any other animal's fetus, yet they're considered different organisms than the being they're stuck on.
>They're not functioning
Neither are certain disabled people, should we kill them too?
>THEY'RE NOT HUMAN
again, DNA.

Well?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:24:48 2011 No.2390096 So my jizz, considering it contains DNA capable of making a human should be trapped every time I ejaculate and frozen so none of it is allowed to die?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:25:48 2011 No.2390101 Tell me again why questions of morality belong on a board dedicated to science and math?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:25:48 2011 No.2390104 Your "refutations" presuppose that whenever an abortion is performed, we're killing something equivalent to an "innocent person". Do you in fact have anything to offer other than begging the question?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:26:48 2011 No.2390107 OP, would you consider a single human cell a human person?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:26:48 2011 No.2390108 >>2390096 the republican christian white supremacists from /new/ are here now. moot likes it this way. >>2390080 cool dinosaur, Op.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:26:48 2011 No.2390110 >You would hold up an infant as a shield to deflect a bullet? To deflect a bullet from hitting me? Yes, I would.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:27:48 2011 No.2390111 >They're not functioning >Neither are certain disabled people, should we kill them too? >implying this is the wrong answer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:27:48 2011 No.2390112 >>2390107 According to his argument, it contains the DNA. So yes, it would be to OP.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:28:48 2011 No.2390123 >>2390112 EVERY SPERM IS SACRED

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:29:48 2011 No.2390125 >You would kill an innocent person to relieve psychological tension? >person I found the source of your problem, until you can define words properly you won't be able to get past this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:29:48 2011 No.2390127 >>2390096 That is the most shit argument ever. Semen itself is not capable of becoming a person. It is only half the ingredient. New life does not come into existence until conception.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:30:48 2011 No.2390133 File: 58 KB, 483x450, this is not a person.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:30:48 2011 No.2390138 Oh shit, since my body naturally recycles a hundred million sperm every few weeks, I am truly a mass murderer. I've killed more people than there exists on the entire planet...I'm a monster!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:30:48 2011 No.2390139 >>2390127 That's what you believe. It doesn't necessarily have to be true.

EK !D96TK2PSsI Fri Jan 21 21:30:48 2011 No.2390141
File: 2 KB, 97x126, zx4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

it isnt killing a person, as they arn't conscious/sentient yet.
they are a small lump of cells, its is lightyears away from 'murdering babies' or anything like that.
you use emotive examples, but it is still equating killing a baby with removing a blastocyst, which are 2 completely different things.
if you are talking about potential for life, then this guy has a point >>2390096
every single sperm not allowed to fertilise an egg is dying, and a potential future human being is lost to the world.
the blastocyst has no vervous system, it cannot feel pain and does not suffer when it is removed.

you are not losing a human, a blastocyst has the potential to eventually be a human, but it not really any closer than an individual skin cell, or sperm cell.

leave it to personal choice, if you dont like abortions, do not have one for yourself or your female partner (if you are male) but other people may think differently, and seeing as no suffering is caused, they should not be obstructed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:31:48 2011 No.2390142 >>2390096 Your DNA contains half a person's DNA, and is as you said only /capable/ of (helping to) create a life form. A fetus is already developing, and contains a full set of working DNA.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:31:48 2011 No.2390143 >Neither are certain disabled people, should we kill them too? Yes if they are not a net gain to sociality lets scrape them off our backs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:32:48 2011 No.2390145 >>2390127 Sperm is alive. Meanlingless living things die all the time. Your skin cells for instance. Bacteria. But is it a person? Is it a sentient, sapient being? Not until the brain starts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:32:48 2011 No.2390150 >>2390107 one that was in the process of developing into a human itself, yes. no cheek cells, no skin cells. nice try.

>>	EK !D96TK2PSsI Fri Jan 21 21:33:48 2011 No.2390154 >>2390127 >New life does not come into existence until conception. no. sperm and egg cells are very much alive. they are just not conscious or sentient as a seperate person until long into the pregnancy.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:33:48 2011 No.2390158

The embryo or fetus are not sentient. We give rights to human beings, because they are sentient (with the exception of children aged 1-2 years old). A fetus has the ability to become a completely sentient human being, but until then, it is not even close to being "alive" or "conscious" on the level of real human beings. Mentally retarded people, on the other hand, ARE sentient.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:35:48 2011 No.2390170

>>2390154
They are sex cells of the parent organisms. Their DNA is a subset of the DNA of the organism they belong to, just like all cells in every animal. A zygote after fertilization, is a different story. It is a new combination of DNA, and a new organism. It is not a cell belonging to any other organism.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:36:48 2011 No.2390174
File: 4 KB, 251x189, 1295238803387s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I can scrape some of my skin off, apply some magic in a chemical bath and turn them into pluripotent stem cells from those cells I can form a zygote and another human. So is allowing my scraped skin to die also abortion?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:37:48 2011 No.2390184 >>2390170 cells do not 'belong' to organisms, they are only needed to function. Sperm is seperate from their parent organisms, hence by your own definition individual people.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:37:48 2011 No.2390190

>>2390133
>egg
actually the chicken fetus feeds on the yolk and what we feed on. if you're talking about an actual chicken fetus, then yes that's a chicken. you sometimes see dead chickens in eggs.

>acorn
if it was planted in the ground and was growing, i'd consider it a sapling (child), yes.

>silk
no it's not. correct, because a bucket of fat, skin, muscle and bone material is not a person. this is like an undeveloping cell without DNA.

>person, fully developing, contains 100% of DNA, multiplying cells, alive
yup.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:37:48 2011 No.2390192 >THEY'RE NOT HUMAN >again, DNA. fullretard.jpg Not human if it isn't aware, now is it? protip: it isn't

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:37:48 2011 No.2390194 >>2390158 You're an idiot. All fetuses are sentient, as are embryos over a certain age.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:38:48 2011 No.2390204 >>2390194 Define "sentient"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:38:48 2011 No.2390206 >>2390192 lolwat? What species do you think it belongs to if it's not human.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:39:48 2011 No.2390210 >>2390194 >as are embryos over a certain age. Give me a number.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:39:48 2011 No.2390214 >>2390204 If you don't know what it means, look it up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:39:48 2011 No.2390217 >>2390141 at what point does consciousness enter the picture? Babies certainly aren't conscious.

EK !D96TK2PSsI Fri Jan 21 21:40:48 2011 No.2390221

>>2390170
so just because it is a new combination of genes, and distinguishable from either parent (keeping in mind it is still not a human, and not sentient, and has no nervous system, brain or metaphorical 'soul' ) you think that it has the same rights as a human?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:40:48 2011 No.2390222 >>2390206 it isn't a living mammal yet. It has the potential to be human though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:40:48 2011 No.2390223 >>2390170 Is cancer another human... I mean it's human cells that mutated so it's not the same as original while still being a human cell.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:40:48 2011 No.2390226

if you believe human - conscious, sentient, amazing, human - life exists in a foetus you're just wrong. maybe that doesn't matter to you, after all babies don't really have sentience in the strictest sense, but to me that's what makes something human. before then it has potential but as long as the mother is keeping it alive she should have the choice to prevent it from living if she wants.

it's not an easy call for anyone to make.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:40:48 2011 No.2390233

I grant the fetus complete status as a conscious being with full human rights. Yet, I argue abortion should be legal!

Why? Because no one should have the legal obligation to sacrifice their body and become a human life-support machine for another human being. Regardless if that other person is their friend, the president, a fetus, or Einstein. No one.

Such a law would destroy one's right to autonomy, power over their own body, movement, etc.

I'm sorry, but if I became attached to a woman's body as a means of life-support, I would not want the law to legally oblige her to carry me for 9months. Obviously I would appreciate it if she did and wish that she would carry me, I would find it repulsive to mandate a law to force women to do this all the time. It should be their choice, it is their body and life.

Problem?

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:40:48 2011 No.2390235

>>2390150

Regardless, you have answered my question the way I thought you would.

How about an egg cell that has just become fertilized? How about one that is less than one millionth of a second away from being fertilized? Or one second from being fertilized? Or one day? One week? Never? Miscarried?

Once you argue potential, you can argue a human life a far back as you please, which is absurd.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:40:48 2011 No.2390237 File: 58 KB, 533x401, 1295581233193.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390194

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:41:48 2011 No.2390241 >>2390210 I don't remember, and I don't feel like looking it up. It's toward the end of the 1st trimester, shortly before they are considered a fetus that the neural pathways are functional and brain waves are detected.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:41:48 2011 No.2390247 >>2390158 the problem is that were you to leave it alone, it would become sentient. you are aborting the process, and keeping it from its already-on-the-path development.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:41:48 2011 No.2390251 >>2390233 >>2390226 hivemind, in a way

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:41:48 2011 No.2390254 >>2390214 Well let's just look up whether abortion is legal. If so, there's nothing to debate right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:41:48 2011 No.2390255 I can't believe some people think zygotes should have the same rights as sentient humans. Seriously, if you had a choice between saving 5 zygotes and 1 post-birth human you'd pick the zygotes?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:42:48 2011 No.2390262 >>2390254 wat? fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:43:48 2011 No.2390264 >>2390247 Which brings us back to >>2390096 If you are arguing a "process" you can start at the very beginning.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:43:48 2011 No.2390273 >>2390233 Bullet proof. /thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:44:48 2011 No.2390274 >>2390264 This. If you kill a sperm, you are not only comitting murder, you are committing genocide of the entire line of potential descendants down to the heat death of the universe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:44:48 2011 No.2390275 >>2390222 you're confusing "has the potential" and "is acting on the potential and if left undisturbed will reach its potential completely and fully".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:44:48 2011 No.2390278 >>2390226 >it's not an easy call for anyone to make. Actually you'd be surprised how easy it is to decide to terminate a mass of cells with the potential to ruin you for the next couple decades.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:45:48 2011 No.2390279 >>2390223 cancer isn't in the process of creating a human.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:45:48 2011 No.2390282

>>2390235
I disagree with any definitions involving potential. That makes no sense. The biological definitions are perfectly clear. A new organism is formed the instant that the DNA of the two sex cells combine into a new set of DNA, and the cell is then called a zygote and starts down the path to division. That's when, biologically speaking, it is a new living human organism. Not a second before or after. It is no longer a component cell of another organism.

If you're going to talk about what rights we grant what organisms, that has nothing to do with science. Make up whatever you want. Just don't claim that a zygote is not alive or not human, because then you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:46:48 2011 No.2390286 >>2390275 By swimming my sperm are acting on their potential to become fetuses. Therefore you still fail.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:46:48 2011 No.2390292 Even if the fetus was a conscious human with rights, it wouldn't make any difference.

>>	EK !D96TK2PSsI Fri Jan 21 21:46:48 2011 No.2390293 >>2390233 applauds well said. ..seriously.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:46:48 2011 No.2390294 >>2390275 Yes that completely debunks my entire argument. oh wait it doesn't

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:46:48 2011 No.2390296 >>2390274 sperm are not in the process of creating a human being. killiing a sperm is preventing, killing a zygote is stopping, haltingm aborting, terminating, and murder.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:47:48 2011 No.2390299 File: 38 KB, 500x400, heart-attack-man-500x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:47:48 2011 No.2390301 File: 134 KB, 497x375, fap.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:47:48 2011 No.2390302 >>2390294 oh wait yes it does

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:48:48 2011 No.2390304 File: 15 KB, 196x257, mindblo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390233 >mfw mind blown

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:48:48 2011 No.2390307 File: 6 KB, 184x165, 1292077369718.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:48:48 2011 No.2390308

>>2390233
The thing is we're all attached as human life support to one another. The younger we are, the more so. College students definitely. Children more so. Infants more so. Fetuses more so. So I find your argument completely specious. We do have obligations to each other.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:48:48 2011 No.2390309 >>2390282 I agree that it is living I agree that it is human So are somatic cells.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:49:48 2011 No.2390310 >>2390302 really? my argument was that it isn't human yet. I guess you got told

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:49:48 2011 No.2390313 >>2390233 yup. if you're the one who through carelessness (or not) brought the life into the world, thus, it is your responsibility. that's a word this generation doesn't quite understand.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:49:48 2011 No.2390314 File: 11 KB, 864x216, EulerId.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:50:48 2011 No.2390318

>>2390282

Point is, sperm are alive, and human as well.

Zygotes can't feel.

This dealing with potential is ridiculous. If someone doesn't become alive, that is not the same as killing someone already alive. The former makes no change, the latter does.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:50:48 2011 No.2390321

>You would kill an innocent person to relieve psychological tension?
Is it a person?
>You would hold up an infant as a shield to deflect a bullet?
Is it an infant?
>And banana plants are just part of the tree they're stuck on, right? It's a new being of the DNA is different. Also, it has its own blood and bloodstream.
blood;no. bloodstream; no. If you say this, then ejaculate, and you've caused a mass genocide to sperm. What about the grass you step on? You've killed it too.
>Neither can a parasite or any other animal's fetus, yet they're considered different organisms than the being they're stuck on.
Not the same concept.
>Neither are certain disabled people, should we kill them too?
Again, different concept. It's been touched upon already.
>again, DNA.
See; sperm.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:50:48 2011 No.2390323 >>2390221 I didn't say anything about rights. We have to get the science right before we can even go there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:50:48 2011 No.2390324 >>2390310 oh wait but it is human. because it's in the process of forming a fully-formed human.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:51:48 2011 No.2390327 >>2390222 So a living mammal fetus is not a living mammal? Well, you're wrong and retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:51:48 2011 No.2390329 >>2390324 i am in the process of making a peanut butter sandwhich does that make is a sandwich? protip: it doesn't

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:51:48 2011 No.2390330 >>2390321 >see: sperm see: ten posts on this topic in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:51:48 2011 No.2390331 >>2390313 Then you better make unmarried sex illegal as well. That should work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:52:48 2011 No.2390334 >>2390223 A cell becomes cancerous because it mutates away from being a human cell. It's a cancer cell that was derived from a human cell.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:52:48 2011 No.2390337 >>2390308 You're comparing the obligations people in society to each other, to having to care for a baby? LOL god if you're the OP just quit now

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:53:48 2011 No.2390338 >>2390329 if you were in the process, and i came in and took your slices and through them onto the floor, you damn well wouldn't say "oh well it wasn't a sandwich yet".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:53:48 2011 No.2390341 >>2390296 >terminating, and murder. So when I'm turning off my computer I'm murdering processes?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:53:48 2011 No.2390344 >>2390226 Well, you're wrong. Sentient means it reacts and responds to sensory input. From before it becomes a fetus it does that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:53:48 2011 No.2390345 >>2390337 not op.

EK !D96TK2PSsI Fri Jan 21 21:54:48 2011 No.2390348

>>2390308
yes but speaking literally, a fetus directly NEEDS sustenance from the mother during pregnancy, wheras children/college student etc can fend for themselves if they have to.
also, keep in mind that the fetus isnt just growing itself, it needs help from the mother to develop.
the fetus is hijacking her blood supply and TWOCing nutrients for itself. what if we just clamp the umbilical chord? the mother is perfectly entitled to her own blood and nutrients, you cant demand that she feed the fetus and keep it alive.
and this way, she hasnt even killed it, she has just not directly kept it alive. it has died of natural causes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:55:48 2011 No.2390349 >>2390341 >herp derp if I breath that does mean that I kill oxygen?

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:55:48 2011 No.2390350

>rape
IT'S NOT SENTIENT
>harmful to the mother
IT'S NOT SENTIENT
>It's part of the mother's body
IT'S NOT SENTIENT
>It can't live on its own
IT'S NOT SENTIENT
>They're not functioning
IT'S NOT SENTIENT
>THEY'RE NOT HUMAN
IT'S NOT SENTIENT

I assume all pro-lifers are vegan?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:55:48 2011 No.2390351 >>2390331 no, just making killing a baby illegal will do fine.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:55:48 2011 No.2390352 File: 101 KB, 706x1069, babyshield.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >would you hold up a baby to deflect a bullet? Sure would!

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:55:48 2011 No.2390354

>>2390310
"Human" describes a species or genus. Your argument is stupid. What you're trying to say is that it's not a "person" yet. You can define "person" however you want. You can say that only whites are people if you want. You can't define "human" any way you want, because it is a scientific term.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:56:48 2011 No.2390358 >>2390345 Ridicule aside, will you provide a rebuttal?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:56:48 2011 No.2390363 >>2390338 Well, I didn't want you to take away my slices so it is bad. If one slice had mold on it that i didn't notice and i threw it out i would say "at least i didn't put the other piece on it yet!" con fucking crete

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:56:48 2011 No.2390364

>>2390309
The difference between a zygote and a somatic cell is that a somatic cell is a member cell of an organism it belongs to. A zygote is the the entire organism. You can kill a somatic cell without killing the organism. You can't with a zygote, because the cell is the organism.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:58:48 2011 No.2390367

>>2390308

The problem in this situation is "how" that connection exists.

No one is obliged to become a literal life-support machine for anyone else.

>>2390313

It is only your responsibility if you choose to support it.

The question in this case is, should it be legally necessary to support the other being? And the obvious answer is no, never.

One's right to autonomy and power over their body trumps the other person's "Desire" to be supported.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:58:48 2011 No.2390368 I draw the line at a zygote. Sperm is nothing, egg is nothing. Zygote is new life, neither father's nor mother's.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:59:48 2011 No.2390373

>>2390354

An extremely weak, and desperate argument.

I can define "faggot" anyway I want. Does that then mean its suddenly not applicable to you, because I've changed the meaning for myself? No, not in the least. Whether you like it or not, most words mean what the majority says they mean.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:59:48 2011 No.2390375

>>2390350
again, so what if it's not sentient? that isn't the point, as children aren't sentient and we sure dont kill them flippantly.

no, the reasoning is that anything currently in the process of becoming a fully-formed human being should be treated as such, for ending the process is the same as ending the end result.

my thumbs hurt, guys.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 21:59:48 2011 No.2390376

>>2390348

>the mother is perfectly entitled to her own blood and nutrients, you cant demand that she feed the fetus and keep it alive.
and this way, she hasnt even killed it, she has just not directly kept it alive. it has died of natural causes.

>died of natural causes

oh i like that line of thought :)

>>	EK !D96TK2PSsI Fri Jan 21 21:59:48 2011 No.2390378 File: 2 KB, 126x115, za1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] we still have a winrar >>2390233 can anyone refute this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:00:48 2011 No.2390381 >>2390368 Thanks, God.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:00:48 2011 No.2390382 >>2390375 >children aren't sentient You may want to rethink that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:00:48 2011 No.2390384 >>2390349 >greentext Why you mad though? >>2390350 >I assume all pro-lifers are vegan? You'd be wrong, they're all for eating meat, going to war, and killing doctors.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:00:48 2011 No.2390386 >>2390368 Would you use the morning-after pill?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:00:48 2011 No.2390387 ITT: People for abortion with logical, well thought out arguments People against abortion with shitty, teenager logic

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:00:48 2011 No.2390389 >>2390367 so if you gained autonomy over shooting someone, you would? my, this world sure is selfish. horrifyingly so. i think that's our main problem as a society.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:01:48 2011 No.2390394

>>2390337
I'm not comparing it, it is the same thing. The obligation to care for a newborn is a societal obligation. And there is really zero difference between the obligation to care for a newborn and a fetus. In terms of sentience and brain activity they are scarcely different. In fact we are the first culture in history to come down on opposite positions on abortion and infanticide. Lots of cultures have come down on different sides on those issues, but the two issues always went together before. Saying you can kill the fetus but not the newborn, or vise versa, is completely irrational.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:02:48 2011 No.2390396 >>2390387 >didn't read the thread at all it's quite the opposite. did I miss anyone?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:02:48 2011 No.2390398 >>2390389 Our main problem in society is that people like you have to sit on a high horse and think you know what is right and wrong. Life is a gray area, there is no black and white.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:02:48 2011 No.2390400

>One's right to autonomy and power over their body trumps the other person's "Desire" to be supported.

>the mother is perfectly entitled to her own blood and nutrients, you cant demand that she feed the fetus and keep it alive, and this way, she hasnt even killed it, she has just not directly kept it alive. it has died of natural causes.

These are very important points. The fetus/person is in a predicament. They can't continue living without dominating another person's body.

This situation has no comparison. It is basically unique. To compare this to a college kid in need of financial assistance is retarded and just plain trolling.

Seriously guys, think more before you post your derp and herps

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:02:48 2011 No.2390401 >It's the woman's body therefore it is her choice and only her choice as to whether or not she gives birth. What's your argument against that?

>>	EK !D96TK2PSsI Fri Jan 21 22:03:48 2011 No.2390402 >>2390387 >People for abortion with logical... ...can you say 'pro-choice' please? otherwise its like 'in favour of all abortions' ...no. also, you are right :)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:03:48 2011 No.2390403 >>2390384 >they're all for >killing doctors this is where i get mad at people perpetuating stereotypes(sp?)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:04:48 2011 No.2390408 >>2390389 >pro lifer >religious right >probably hates socialism >bitches about selfishness

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:04:48 2011 No.2390412

>>2390348
A newborn needs a mothers sustenance (or technical intervention). A 10-year-old can't survive if you just throw him in the woods either. Even an educated adult needs the rest of society... unless he's bear grylls and knows how to live on worms. It's a continuum of decreasing dependence from pregnancy to adulthood. But almost all the arguments made concerning pregnancy can be made for other stages of life as well.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:04:48 2011 No.2390413 >>2390401 did you not read OP post? it's not the mother's own body, it has its own blood, and most importantly its own DNA.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:05:48 2011 No.2390418 >>2390389 >so if you gained autonomy over shooting someone, you would? this makes no sense, do you even know what autonomy means? Why are you on 4chan. I imagine you being a really old, uninformed grandma who is stuck in her ways. GTFO

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:05:48 2011 No.2390419 >>2390375 >children are not sentient wat

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:05:48 2011 No.2390421 >>2390401 I'd say the man should have a say in the matter as well, since he's probably going to have to work to support the child, and furthermore it's his DNA too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:05:48 2011 No.2390424 >>2390350 >You still haven't looked up "sentient".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:05:48 2011 No.2390425 >>2390412 Nature and I would have to disagree about the 10 year old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:05:48 2011 No.2390426 >>2390408 >socialism is the only way to acheive selflessness

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:06:48 2011 No.2390428 >>2390375 children = post birth human sentient = able to react to stimuli, feel pain children are sentient.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:06:48 2011 No.2390430 >>2390419 look up the definition of sentient.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:06:48 2011 No.2390433 >>2390424 he still hasn't looked up sentient ,, or autonomy op is dumb as shit

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:07:48 2011 No.2390438

>>2390367
>No one is obliged to become a literal life-support machine for anyone else.
Says who? To be consistent, you need to support tossing newborns out with the trash, like the greeks and romans. I still won't agree with you, but at least you'll be consistent.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:07:48 2011 No.2390447 >>2390428 see >>2390375

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:08:48 2011 No.2390448 >>2390426 mfw you think libertarianism, conservativism, religious rule are not selfish.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:08:48 2011 No.2390449

>>2390421
this isn't an argument about the fathers having to support anyone... this is about the woman choosing to not give birth! If she aborts it then the father wont be having to pay anything.

Your argument failed. Please try again when you actually address the argument using relevant rebuttals.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:08:48 2011 No.2390451 /r/ archive

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:09:48 2011 No.2390456 >>2390413 The blood just magically appears from thin air and enters the baby's body huh?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:09:48 2011 No.2390457 >>2390378 The refutation to the assertion "you don't have an obligation to care for a child you bring into the world" is "yes you do".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:09:48 2011 No.2390458 >>2390430 sentient: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions don't know if troll..

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:09:48 2011 No.2390459 >>2390438 Not the one you're replying to but we're NOT arguing about throwing newborns in the trash after they're born we're arguing for aborting them while they're in the womb. IT'S A DIFFERENT and UNRELATED argument/topic! Stay on topic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:09:48 2011 No.2390461 it's pretty funny how the pro-choicers can't control their tempers. OP did a pretty good job at arguing peacefully, and everyone couldn't handle it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:10:48 2011 No.2390464

>>2390313
This and I think everyone is missing the point. The fertilised egg has the potential, like all of us, to become a real, proper human.
Who really has the right to say this newly formed human's life should be snuffed out due to the negligence of the parents?
Of course the aborted foetus feels no real pain, but it's sad to think of a life cut short no matter how logical (and I'm extremely logical and cynical) and "right" it may seem at the time.
If having a child due to rape or mental problems (define that) the mother should have the right to abort, in most other circumstances I believe the resulting child should be put up for adoption.
Come at me bros

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:10:48 2011 No.2390467 >>2390449 What, no man. I'm saying the father should have a chance to not have to support an unwanted child, via abortion or not concieving. In otherwords the pregnancy should go ahead only if BOTH parties want it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:10:48 2011 No.2390469 >>2390398 >nothing is wrong great argument, hitler

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:11:48 2011 No.2390471 >>2390363 knew it concrete

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:11:48 2011 No.2390475 >>2390456 lol you sure are uneducated about fetal development. the fetus creates its own blood, just like every other organ. they don't just pop into existence either, do they?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:11:48 2011 No.2390478 File: 44 KB, 787x387, Picture 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390430 Children can't feel things?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:12:48 2011 No.2390480 >>2390464 Using "sad" and "right or wrong" are not real arguments.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:12:48 2011 No.2390481

>>2390400
There is nothing unique about the fetus situation. How is it different from the infant or the 8yo? None of them asked to be brought into the world. They're all brought into it anyway. The obligation to care for them is on the people who made that happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:12:48 2011 No.2390482 >>2390461 Pro-lifers: >make retarded statements based on no/false evidence pro-choicers: >refute retarded statements based on no/false evidence pro-lifers: >WHY SO HOSTILE

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:12:48 2011 No.2390483

>>2390403
'All' wasn't referring to everyone of them it was referring to willingness in general. A stereotype is fine if I'm referring to a group in a general manner, so long as the stereotype is true.

And just for the sake of review...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:12:48 2011 No.2390484 >>2390363 that's like saying people with malformed DNA aren't human.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:13:48 2011 No.2390486 >>2390401 That's not an argument, it's retard-level rhetoric. By every definition, a fetus's body is distinct from the mother's body.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:14:48 2011 No.2390490 >>2390483 so all black people kill and rape and do poorly on SAT tests? all those are "true" steriotypes when it comes to documentation of statistics over the norm. /sci/ is like a drug. especially this thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:14:48 2011 No.2390492 >>2390484 Bread is the fetus Mold is the reason mother doesn't want to keep the baby tell me where this shit fits in

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:14:48 2011 No.2390494

>>2390378
>>2390378

You need to have sex to get pregnant. Everyone knows this. If you get pregnant becasue of poor birth control you should have to live with it. It's not like people are randomly selected and forced to host some sort of indiscriminant evil for 9 months. Killing a child because it would be inconvenient for your lifestyle is the worst form of crime. Don't have sex if you're not prepared for all of the conssequences.

If a women is raped she should be able to get an abortion. If the child faces serious medical conditions she should be able to get an abortion. These are the only circumstances under which I think abortion is acceptable.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:14:48 2011 No.2390495

>>2390438

>Says who? To be consistent, you need to support tossing newborns out with the trash, like the greeks and romans. I still won't agree with you, but at least you'll be consistent.

you offered no argument against my argument, I win by default.

you seem to only be able to make up poor analogies and scenarios that miss the point of the discussion.

in ancient times, it would be fine to disconnect the person if they were using your body as a life-support machine, if they happened to fall in the trash during the process, so be it.

you can't take over another being's body. Sorry. Not now, not ever. If you do, you are at the mercy of the other being, it is their choice (not the courts) if they should sacrifice their life and energy to support you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:15:48 2011 No.2390497 >>2390490 Try using logic next time you try to not look retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:15:48 2011 No.2390499 >>2390482 >implying you've refuted anything go read the thread again. this time: comprehension!

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:15:48 2011 No.2390500

>>2390402
>can you say 'pro-choice' please?
Kind of non-specific, isn't it? You can legalizing any atrocity "pro-choice". You could call legalizing slavery "pro-choice". Of course, it's not "pro-choice" for the slave or for the fetus. So... not the person you asked, but, no I can't use that term.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:15:48 2011 No.2390501 >>2390497 nice bottom-tier argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:16:48 2011 No.2390505 >>2390499 oh right, i forgot: logical arguments don't qualify as refutation for conservatives.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:16:48 2011 No.2390506 >>2390501 Nice expectations on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:17:48 2011 No.2390507 >>2390494 Does "not being wanted by parents" fit into the medical condition criteria?

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:17:48 2011 No.2390508

>>2390486
>>2390413
I'm not talking about the fetus' body as a separate entity I'm talking about the fetus existing inside the woman! Anything that exists inside the woman is a part of HER body and she has the right to do with it what she wants. Besides, abortions have been happening since people figured out you could kill the thing while still inside the womb, but if all else failed they'd kill it once it was born. You can't stop human nature with your "moral" religious arguments either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:18:48 2011 No.2390514 >>2390425 99% of the time a child will not survive in the wild. Of course, it depends on the environment and climate. Most feral children survive by stealing, living on the outskirts of civilization, so they're not really in the wild.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:19:48 2011 No.2390517 >>2390514 they're still surviving alone, therefor your argument means nothing.

Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU Fri Jan 21 22:20:48 2011 No.2390519
File: 3 KB, 137x103, JimSmoke13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

My problems with abortion.

1: Why is it a "personal decision"? Why is life and death a fucking personal decision?! Most people can't even wipe their God damn ass. Who the fuck are they to decide if a baby can fully form or be aborted? Fuck their righteous bullshit. Only doctors, judges, or at least several men's signature (such as the woman's father and the man who impregnated her) should get to decide.

2: We can regulate smoking, but not abortion? You have to wear a seatbelt, jaywalking is illegal, but God forbid someone tell a bitch she can't murder her baby without some kind of practical opposition!!!

We should do abortion like in other successful countries. Women don't decide on it AT ALL, and the state does. Preferably, we use it as a eugenics program to control the female and gay population.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:20:48 2011 No.2390521 >>2390430 sen·tient /ˈsɛnʃənt/ Show Spelled[sen-shuhnt] Show IPA –adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses This happens in the 1st trimester.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:21:48 2011 No.2390522 >>2390233 I would start a motion to sue every baby for infringing on human rights.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:21:48 2011 No.2390524 >>2390464 >but it's sad to think of a life cut short no matter how logical (and I'm extremely logical and cynical) and "right" it may seem at the time. Argument from emotion that you yourself say contradicts reason. You defeat yourself.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:21:48 2011 No.2390525

>>2390507
No. Why would it?

Like I said, if teh women getting pregnant is a result of two consenting people having sex, then you shouldn't be able to get an abortion.

All of you 'pro-choiceers' seem to be forgetting that this child is completely innocent. It has done nothing wrong. Why should he/she die just because the parents didn't want him/her?

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:21:48 2011 No.2390526

>And banana plants are just part of the tree they're stuck on, right?

Bananas do not grow on trees, they grow on herbs.

>It's a new being of the DNA is different.

Actually, all bananas you will find in the grocery store are genetic clones. The DNA is not different in any way from the other millions of bananas sold all over the world.

The point being, you can't even understand fucking bananas well enough to make an anlogy based on them so maybe your conclusions about a more complex issue are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:21:48 2011 No.2390527 >>2390519 This is almost too much fail for me to continue living.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:22:48 2011 No.2390528 >>2390456 Blood cells are manufactured by the fetus's marrow cells.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:22:48 2011 No.2390532 >>2390521 >This happens in the 1st trimester which is when 99% of abortions are done

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:24:48 2011 No.2390540

>>2390459
It's the same topic. That's the point. You're making an inconsistent argument if you're saying it's ok to kill fetuses and not newborns. Inconsistent arguments are irrational arguments. Come up with a consistent position and we can talk. As long as you're for protecting newborns and not fetuses, then all your reasons for protecting newborns defeat your position on fetuses. So there's no point in arguing with you because your positions are self-defeating.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:25:48 2011 No.2390541 >>2390526 >doesn't know a thing about banana development

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:25:48 2011 No.2390544 >>2390490 >all There's the keyword you've misplaced, had you said 'black people are all for rape' you'd be right as far as generalizations go.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:25:48 2011 No.2390545 >>2390464 If you think aborted fetuses feel no pain your are living in a fantasy. You should see some of the videos out there.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:25:48 2011 No.2390546

>>2390521
>This happens in the 1st trimester.
Please cite your source. I find that difficult to believe, considering:

>Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.full

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:26:48 2011 No.2390547 >>2390519 Define "life". Your statements mean nothing without it. You've obviously skipped over much of the thread, and don't deserve to even be addressed.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:26:48 2011 No.2390548

>>2390507
Do you think people should have indiscriminate sex without adequate protection and not have to deal with the consequences? They have created a potential life and maybe I'm too sentimental, but I think it's wrong for society to think killing them is right.

Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU Fri Jan 21 22:26:48 2011 No.2390550
File: 114 KB, 582x427, JimSmoke47.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's a good thing we don't have star gates. Pro choice be shooting aliens and people who they teleported into their house. Who cares it was their own damn fault for flipping the switch and allowing anything to come through the other transdimensional end? "It's my house HUUURRR!!!"

This is why we need to abolish property rights. The western whore has this tremendous narcissism like it's ENTITLED to being a dick to everyone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:26:48 2011 No.2390551 >>2390467 When is it to late to decide you don't want to support your child, and why then? Does a child ever obtain a right to be supported?

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:26:48 2011 No.2390553

>>2390494

>If you get pregnant becasue of poor birth control you should have to live with it. It's not like people are randomly selected and forced to host some sort of indiscriminant evil for 9 months.

just because it occurs naturally doesn't mean we should be oppressed by it.

If the person wants to support the life, that is their choice. That's how it should be.

>>2390494

>Killing a child because it would be inconvenient for your lifestyle is the worst form of crime.

Again you make false analogies and miss the point.

You can't force people to move around. You can't force people to do things with their body they don't want to do. Do you understand how a free society works? We have a right to control our own bodies.

This is a very unique situation. One in which a being is obstructing another beings autonomy, quality of life, freedom of movement, well-being, etc, for 9months.

While it would be nice of the person to support the other being, it is absurd to make it legally necessary.
Sorry, you don't get to control other people's bodies and lives just because you exist in a parasitic lifeless state.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:26:48 2011 No.2390555 >>2390545 see>>2390546

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:29:48 2011 No.2390566 >Sorry, you don't get to control other people's bodies and lives just because you exist in a parasitic lifeless state. im ok with this

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:29:48 2011 No.2390568 >>2390494 Whether it's spermicide or abortion it's all the same result. There's no meaningful, non-symbolic reason for your argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:29:48 2011 No.2390569 >>2390495 >you can't take over another being's body You certainly can. The negroes on the welfare have taken over my body. I am forced to work part of every day to feed and clothe them. Am I justified in killing negroes?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:30:48 2011 No.2390571 I had a 3 egg omlet. Did I just eat 3 whole chickens?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:30:48 2011 No.2390576 >>2390548 They do it all the time with the morning after pill. Whether the pro-life proponents like it or not, the morning-after pill is fundamentally the same process, but it will NEVER go away. NEVER.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:34:48 2011 No.2390578

I took the morning after pill about 2 days after having unprotected sex and the guy came inside me. Did I kill a fetus? No. Because it takes over a week to actually become pregnant if you even do. More often than not I would most likely not have gotten pregnant but I didn't want to have to pay for an abortion and I personally don't want to ever have to have one yet I'm pro-choice. Hell, I'm even a volunteer for Planned Parenthood. I have to deal with retarded protesters more than I would like.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:35:48 2011 No.2390579

>>2390569

Are they literally, LITERALLY, taking over your body?

If yes, then you can use force to get them off.
If they still stick to you, you can use more force.

You are legally allowed to defend yourself, even if it results in their deaths.

If they literally strap themselves to your body and start sucking nutrients out of you and cause you pain and suffering, you are allowed to disconnect them. If they happen to die, so be it.

No man has to become a life-support machine for another.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:35:48 2011 No.2390581

>You would kill an innocent person to relieve psychological tension?
First we must define what a person is. Typically, a full grown person has both a personality and DNA that compose them. However, the problem here is discerning whether or not it is the DNA or the personality that creates the person.

If someone had just the personality and is considered a person, they would be a ghost or a floating entity that lacked a physical form. So we can say that the personality alone does not make the person.

If someone had just the DNA and is considered a person, then we can say that a dead body is a person and requires all of the moral consideration and rights that a living person deserves and receives.

>You would hold up an infant as a shield to deflect a bullet?
The infant both has DNA and a personality, however small and dependent it is. A fetus does not have a personality nor does it have any awareness as far as we know.

Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU Fri Jan 21 22:35:48 2011 No.2390584
File: 50 KB, 500x400, JimSmoke108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2390576
>>Morning after pill

You're such a fucking lying pig. We should DDoS all the prochoice just for being sociopaths and pathological liars...

Roe vs Wade was founded on PREJURY, but that isn't enough. No, you've got to lie about the medical semantics too. You're such a fucking scumbag. You should be the one with a coathanger jammed in your head. You make me sick.

For those who don't know. The morning after pill basically creates a coating in your oval, preventing fertilization. It's nothing more then a force field. It's not an abortion pill. Do not listen to these serial killers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:36:48 2011 No.2390585 >>2390519 You seem to have a mental defect, it is in our best interest as men to have women aborting children instead of getting hit with child support. >inb4 religious right passing on genetics justification

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:36:48 2011 No.2390586 >>2390522 Too bad there are no independently wealthy fetuses, or you would be on to something.

Christian Scientist !1QuhZGRiz. Fri Jan 21 22:36:48 2011 No.2390588
File: 28 KB, 499x356, pf1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2390550
Being an anti-abortion "cuz god said so" Christian might be bad, but it's common. Now you are telling me you are against liberalism in general? Take your communism somewhere else.

In Soviet Russia, fetus aborts YOU!

>>	Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU Fri Jan 21 22:36:48 2011 No.2390590 File: 15 KB, 163x236, JimSmoke53.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390571 If they had been fertilized eggs, then yes. You ate three itty bitty baby chickens. Also you're fat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:36:48 2011 No.2390592 >>2390568 I don't have a problem with contraception. I encourage it if you and your partner aren't ready for a child. Contraception =/= abortion

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:37:48 2011 No.2390595 >>2390584 I've seen you around here, and I fear you may be mentally retarded. Please, go back to /b/. You aren't intelligent enough to argue with the big kids here.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:37:48 2011 No.2390596

>>2390553
>You can't force people to move around. You can't force people to do things with their body they don't want to do. Do you understand how a free society works? We have a right to control our own bodies.

You seem to be missing my point. They knew that pregnancy can only result from sex. They had sex. She got pregnant. I understand the points you are making, and appreciate your response, but if you make a decision, knowing full well what the consequences are, you should have to live with it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:37:48 2011 No.2390599

Here's some questions for the OP and anyone who agrees with the OP:

Have you ever been pregnant?

Have you ever raped or been raped? I'm seriously asking this because rape is not something you can easily dismiss though there are people who do so.

Would you adopt? Will you ever adopt? If not, why not?

Do you care about babies after they're born? Do you do anything to help the welfare of babies and children?

Do you hate women?

Reproductive decisions are personal. Whether it's an abortion, sterilization, adoption or similar situation, then it should be legal and it's not bad. There are always going to be idiots who abuse and/or misunderstand choices like abortion, but that's not universal. Sometimes a hard choice like abortion needs to be made.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:37:48 2011 No.2390602 >>2390532 If you're talking about fetuses as opposed to embryos, you're talking about something already sentient.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:38:48 2011 No.2390604 File: 149 KB, 288x442, Eleventh_Doctor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390584 >mfw PREJURY

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:38:48 2011 No.2390605 >>2390080 I mad. I THOUGHT /NEW/ WAS DEAD.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:38:48 2011 No.2390606 File: 4 KB, 119x126, opfag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i'm going to stop masturbating now OP.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:38:48 2011 No.2390610 >>2390596 Unfortunately, faggot, sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation is not the only purpose of sex anymore. Please go and get molested by a priest.

Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU Fri Jan 21 22:39:48 2011 No.2390614
File: 142 KB, 600x395, JimSmoke41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2390588
Well thank you for noticing I'm a communist. You liberals are more detrimental to any revolution then all the republicans and religious right wingers COMBINED.

They're just terribly misinformed, brainwashed, and scared. You... are actively evil.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:39:48 2011 No.2390619

>>2390596
When you decide to have sex you understand you can have a child, and if your birth control fails or your condom breaks then you are left with a SECOND choice. To keep this baby, or let it ruin your life. Life is decisions, you're pretending like only some of them should be made.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:40:48 2011 No.2390620 >>2390614 confirmed for not-scientist. whatcha doin on /sci/, Jim?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:41:48 2011 No.2390623 >>2390546 http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp Evidence of fetal pain at 8 weeks. Nervous system in place and and brain waves detected around 6 weeks. http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:41:48 2011 No.2390628 Why should abortion be legal? Because killing babies is hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:42:48 2011 No.2390629 File: 310 KB, 560x320, samuel l jackson angry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390610 Did you even read my argument? I never said that sex was only for procreation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:42:48 2011 No.2390631 >>2390568 Not him, but one case kills a human being, the other doesn't. It's not rocket surgery.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:42:48 2011 No.2390632 abortion is just early emancipation

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:42:48 2011 No.2390633 >>2390584 Are you kidding? Learn about the pill, douche. Fertilization still happens, the fetus just isn't harbored within the uterus because of the release of the endometrium. Fail harder.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:43:48 2011 No.2390636 >>2390623 >abortionfacts.com Try harder.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:43:48 2011 No.2390638

But Feminism OP.

If you disagree with Abortion then clearly you are an evil misogynist probably rapist pig member of the patriarchy new world order designed to make sure women are payed less and kept under social control.

All of your valid arguments are rendered invalid. All a person has to do is pull the misogyny victim card and suddenly legions of politically correct idiots stand behind them no matter how stupid their counter argument may be.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:43:48 2011 No.2390639 >>2390571 Those eggs are unfertilized

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:45:48 2011 No.2390652

>>2390579
Yes they are literally using force. If I don't work for the warefare negroes, the IRS and police come and put me in jail, I can try to use force against them, but that would greatly increase my punishment, if not end in my death. I have none of the rights you claim I have.

>>	Christian Scientist !1QuhZGRiz. Fri Jan 21 22:45:48 2011 No.2390656 >>2390614 1) Ideologies are by definition unscientific. 2) Communism is a utopian pipe dream that only hurt humanity's prospects of long term survival, at least Marx take on communism.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:46:48 2011 No.2390658

>>2390545
Fair enough, but pain's subjective, without the realization or understanding of cruelty and unfairness I think it's fair to say our perception of pain is a lot different than a foetus. My wife and I had a child stillborn at eight months and she was a perfect little baby so I "get it".

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:48:48 2011 No.2390665

>>2390233
>>Why? Because no one should have the legal obligation to sacrifice their body and become a human life-support machine for another human being. Regardless if that other person is their friend, the president, a fetus, or Einstein. No one.

So we should also abolish child support and Paternal obligations?

Not saying you are wrong, just pointing out the hypocrisy in todays laws. If women are allowed to bail out of responsibility men should be allowed the same.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:48:48 2011 No.2390668 >>2390592 >Contraception =/= abortion Different process same result. 2+2=4 2*2=4 How is one result less acceptable than the other?

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:48:48 2011 No.2390669

>>2390656

Syndicalist here. Not all forms of socialism are authoritarian. You can have collective ownership of the means of production without vesting all that power in a state.

I think businesses should simply be run as democracies, with all profits not going to expansion capital shared out among the workers.

It worked in Catalonia.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:49:48 2011 No.2390672 >>2390584 The morning after pill can work in 3 ways. 1) prevent ovulation, 2) prevent fertilization, 3) prevent implantation of the fertilized zygote in the uterus. In the 3rd case, the new organism is formed, but it starves to death.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:49:48 2011 No.2390677

>>2390658
>our perception of pain is a lot different than a foetus.

My youngest son was born at 24 weeks, he reacted vigorously to painful stimuli, about what a person would expect of someone experiencing pain.

I don't know that abortions are allowed at that gestational age though, I kinda doubt it in most cases.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:50:48 2011 No.2390678 >>2390080 Who says abortion is okay? Do you think pro-choice people are for abortions? All we want is the government not being able to interfere with these types of decisions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:50:48 2011 No.2390680 >>2390668 One kills a potential human, the other prevents fertilization.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:51:48 2011 No.2390682

>>2390665

this really has no close substitutes or analogies, it's a unique case

ppl shouldn't compare it to college kids needing financial assistance or child support paid by fathers

lol...neither of those cases involve another being literally being used as a life support machine by another being who will die without such life support

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:51:48 2011 No.2390684 >>2390596 You're one step short because there are ways to nullify the consequences, people can take risks because of this.

Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU Fri Jan 21 22:51:48 2011 No.2390685
File: 35 KB, 512x343, JimProfitScientist22.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2390656
You're only on the computer right now thanks to the soviets. Be it the motivation by the west cause they were scared shitless of the USSR, or because communism makes the most since if you want to pursue technological advancement.

Private ownership slows down progress. It's that simple. All production and material should be oriented toward constructive purposes that build up society and the human species. This is why we cannot afford to have fuzzy minded liberals in the revolution who only think about their fucking selves.

What the fuck are you doing in /sci/ unless you want the absolute best for humanity?

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:52:48 2011 No.2390688

>>2390599
I'm pro-life. I've never been pregnant as I'm not a woman. I've never raped or been raped. I would adopt, and I probably will adopt. I've cared for several of my own children both before and after birth, and continue to raise them. I love women to a fault.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:52:48 2011 No.2390689 >Who says abortion is okay? Do you think pro-choice people are for abortions? All we want is the government not being able to interfere with these types of decisions. This is a very very good point

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:52:48 2011 No.2390691 >>2390682 A closer one is this: should you be forced to give up a kidney to someone who needs it?

>>	sage sage Fri Jan 21 22:52:48 2011 No.2390692 File: 228 KB, 570x610, gtfo_take_fail_GTFO-s570x610-78516-580.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] FYI: Sperm and human eggs have human DNA as well So you purpose a no jacking off and menstration policy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:54:48 2011 No.2390697 >>2390684 That's true, but I think when 'nullifying the consequences' involves killing an innocent child, things are a little more complicated than what you are >implying.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:54:48 2011 No.2390701 how many posts can you get before a thread caps out?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:56:48 2011 No.2390709 >>2390668 Contraception, abortion, wait till it's grown, and then rape it and kill it with an ax. Different process same result. Not moral equivalents.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:56:48 2011 No.2390711 >>2390692 READ THE THREAD

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:56:48 2011 No.2390715 >>2390697 When does the fetus turn into a child? Clarify definitions and technicalities people, please.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:57:48 2011 No.2390718 >A closer one is this: should you be forced to give up a kidney to someone who needs it? Good point ^ And no, no one should be legally forced to do this. We control our bodies, not the government. Fuck you Christian Biblethumpers

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:57:48 2011 No.2390719 >>2390682 You've obviously never had to support children. You are literally a life support machine for all your children, fetal, infant, or child.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:58:48 2011 No.2390721 report religion threads, move along

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:58:48 2011 No.2390722 >>2390719 >literally No, you are not literally a life support machine.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:58:48 2011 No.2390726 The fact that this thread has gotten so huge proves this is not as cut and dry as those who are pro-abortion would have us beleive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:59:48 2011 No.2390729 >>2390524 Emotion is the driving force behind abortions. We are humans with hardwired brains for these emotions. Problem?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:59:48 2011 No.2390734 >>2390709 Precisely, but that's redundant. Contraception and abortion only affect a non-sentient substance.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:59:48 2011 No.2390737

>>2390691
One doesn't typically lose organs in the process of childbearing. Legal obligations for caring for one's children are generally limited to foot, shelter, clothing, and (more recently) education. If your child needs an organ, you're not obligated to give it one of yours, though most parents would.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 22:59:48 2011 No.2390739 File: 47 KB, 400x298, opsiafag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390080 Alright, so if the girl is 12, get raped and is pregnant, I'm pretty sure she should get an abortion. hm?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:00:48 2011 No.2390740 >>2390692 read the fucking thread before saying something that's been tread over a dozen times.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:00:48 2011 No.2390742 File: 262 KB, 563x853, 607_1273755309974.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390680 >potential I see we've gone back to that line of reasoning... as such you should be saying that one kills and infinite amount of potential humans.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:00:48 2011 No.2390743 >>2390739 </thread>

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:00:48 2011 No.2390744 >>2390726 >The fact that this thread has gotten so huge proves that /sci/ is the easiest board to troll. fix'd

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:02:48 2011 No.2390755

>>2390688
Fair enough.

You sound like a good man who cares about women and children. I can appreciate that.

However, you do realize that most women who get abortions don't do it for shits and giggles though, right?

I understand you want babies to be born, but sadly there do exist circumstances where pregnancy isn't desirable.

It's especially cruel to force all rape victims to carry babies they didn't consetn to conceiving. If you disapprove of rape, then you shouldn't be callous on this point. Granted there are rape victims who do give birth to their babies, and that's fine. It's a personal decision.

I'm glad you want to adopt. You're consistent and I respect that. Do understand though that creating more orphans isn't a good thing either.

Personally I think abortion is a gross and sad process, but I accept that it happens. Not every woman's pregnancy is a miracle or consensual choice.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:02:48 2011 No.2390757 >>2390737 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta

Christian Scientist !1QuhZGRiz. Fri Jan 21 23:03:24 2011 No.2390763 [DELETED]

>>2390685
>You're only on the computer right now thanks to the soviets.
Nazi rocketry got us to the Moon. Your argument is invalid.

>Private ownership slows down progress
Personal liberties are the issue. Government having absolute control over the populace is always a bad idea. I'll assume you are aware of this and forgo arguing it.

>All production and material should be oriented toward constructive purposes that build up society and the human species.
1) You use the Soviets as an example for what is good about Communism, but you know as well as I do the Soviet leadership were not the pinnacles of selfless anthropocentrism you make them out to be. The regimes are good at surviving are the regimes that are most likely to persist. The Soviets cared about the Soviet party, not humanity.

It seems we agree on one thing, that the survival of humanity should be put above all other goals. The problem with communism is that it relies on humans with power in the government to actually give a fuck. The best thing about democratic capitalism is that it doesn't rely on such high hopes to make progress. It benefits from good in humanity but progresses none the less using the negative qualities like greed and general selfishness.

Providing everyone with coca-cola and flat screen TV's plus giving them a ballot and telling them they have a voice also creates a stable society, and stability is as important as productivity.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:03:48 2011 No.2390762

>>2390715
The legal definition is when the child is completely clear of the birth canal. Biologically, compared to other mammals human infants are essentially still fetuses for the first 6 months or more. Our big heads require we're born before we're as developed as a newborn generally is.

That underscores the whole stupidity of "okay to kill them inside"/"bad to kill them outside". Make up your fucking minds. Try some consistency.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:04:48 2011 No.2390767 >>2390722 Yes, I literally am.

Christian Scientist !1QuhZGRiz. Fri Jan 21 23:04:48 2011 No.2390768

>>2390685
>You're only on the computer right now thanks to the soviets.
Nazi rocketry got us to the Moon. Your argument is invalid.

>Private ownership slows down progress
Personal liberties are the issue. Government having absolute control over the populace is always a bad idea. I'll assume you are aware of this and forgo arguing it.

>All production and material should be oriented toward constructive purposes that build up society and the human species.
You use the Soviets as an example for what is good about Communism, but you know as well as I do the Soviet leadership were not the pinnacles of selfless anthropocentrism you make them out to be. The regimes are good at surviving are the regimes that are most likely to persist. The Soviets cared about the Soviet party, not humanity.

It seems we agree on one thing, that the survival of humanity should be put above all other goals. The problem with communism is that it relies on humans with power in the government to actually give a fuck. The best thing about democratic capitalism is that it doesn't rely on such high hopes to make progress. It benefits from good in humanity but progresses none the less using the negative qualities like greed and general selfishness.

Providing everyone with coca-cola and flat screen TV's plus giving them a ballot and telling them they have a voice also creates a stable society, and stability is as important as productivity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:04:48 2011 No.2390773 >>2390734 That depends on how early the abortion is done, as has been demonstrated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:05:48 2011 No.2390776 >>2390767 Then get back to the hospital, they paid a lot of money for you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:06:48 2011 No.2390785 >>2390697 >innocent child If we're going to argue fictions you should know that by definition of potential you have no guarantee that child is or will be an innocent.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:06:48 2011 No.2390787 >>2390742 I think any argument involving potential is a bad one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:07:48 2011 No.2390796 >>2390709 One is grossly farther down the timeline and gone past mere 'potential' into 'near certainty'. Nice try though.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:10:48 2011 No.2390809

>You would kill an innocent person to relieve psychological tension?
Not a person. One must have all necessary organs, functionality, and consciousness to be considered that.
>You would hold up an infant as a shield to deflect a bullet?
Not even an infant. Once again, it's not a person.
>And banana plants are just part of the tree they're stuck on, right? It's a new being of the DNA is different. Also, it has its own blood and bloodstream.
The tree is more important.
>Neither can a parasite or any other animal's fetus, yet they're considered different organisms than the being they're stuck on.
I have no problem with killing parasites. If you don't want to kill the tapeworms living inside you, that's fine by me. But the government should stay out of my body.
>Neither are certain disabled people, should we kill them too?
Not to the extent of disabled people. At the very least, disabled people have some consciousness. Bugs have more of a life-conscious than fetuses.
>again, DNA.
Everything has DNA. Bugs, parasites, humans, everything. By your standards, men aren't allowed to jack off and women must freeze their eggs after their periods because it'd be considered "killing babies" if they don't.

So much for your "perfect logical" thinking. Get a grip.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:10:48 2011 No.2390810 >>2390677 Babies have no concept of death, things get fucked up and they die. They have no understanding of life so death is just what happens after the pain. Humans spend their lives fearing death which makes the idea of not "being" difficult.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:11:48 2011 No.2390814

>>2390755
I have daughters and I can easily imagine scenarios where abortion might seem highly desirable. I've been around and I know the realities and why people get abortions. I'm just looking for logical and consistent positions. I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm not callous on the point of rape. I can't say "there's nothing wrong with killing your kid if it came from rape", but I wouldn't make a law about that either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:11:48 2011 No.2390816 >>2390785 >implying an unborn child can be guilty of anything. It doesn't matter if the child goes on to be a mass murderer, in the womb it is innocent. Unless you are proposing abortions, Minority Report style.

Rainbow Dash !!pGgXu8jfKhv Fri Jan 21 23:12:48 2011 No.2390823

>>2390080
On their way to being human =/= human.

Different DNA. Identical twins have virtually identical DNA, are they technically one person now? DNA means nothing other than a blueprint to determine how it will physically develop.

Just because it has the DNA of a human, doesn't mean it's a human being yet. It is a FETUS on its way to becoming a human being.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:13:48 2011 No.2390828 bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:13:48 2011 No.2390829 >>2390816 >It doesn't matter if the fetus goes on to be a child, in the womb it is not a person. Either you deal in eventualities or you don't, you can't have it both ways.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:16:48 2011 No.2390850 File: 10 KB, 218x232, opisafag2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390080 You're probably a man so SHUT THE FUCK UP. You can't understand, asshole

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:17:48 2011 No.2390854

>rape
You would kill an innocent person to relieve psychological tension?
#Yes, if that innocent person was a baby which could be duplicated almost exactly at a later time
>harmful to the mother
You would hold up an infant as a shield to deflect a bullet?
#Yes, if that innocent person was a baby which could be duplicated almost exactly at a later time
>It's part of the mother's body
And banana plants are just part of the tree they're stuck on, right? It's a new being of the DNA is different. Also, it has its own blood and bloodstream.
And I eat bananas because they gather energy from the sun for me to consume, I eat baby cows because the mother consumed energy from grass. I don't eat baby humans because female humans aren't cattle.
>It can't live on its own
Neither can a parasite or any other animal's fetus, yet they're considered different organisms than the being they're stuck on.
Ok, kill the parasite.
>They're not functioning
Neither are certain disabled people, should we kill them too?
Yes.
>THEY'RE NOT HUMAN
again, DNA.

All in all, all that matters is the sum of societies emotional attachment towards the thing we are planning on killing. A parent is more attached to their 5 year old child than their 1 year old baby than their just born baby than their zygote

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:17:48 2011 No.2390856

People who claim to be against abortion are also the same people that are first in line at the abortion clinic once their girlfriend is pregnant.

People like fucking, and sometimes shit happens.
I'd rather unwanted children just aren't born into their shitty lives.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:18:48 2011 No.2390863 bumpity

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:18:48 2011 No.2390867

>>2390729
>Problem?
Not for me, I can just mark you down as a chimp and move on to people more worth my time if you're going to stand behind arguments from emotion. Besides that emotion would weigh against abortion instinctually so I can reasonably say those who chose to have abortions do it with less emotional bias.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:19:48 2011 No.2390869

OP here is obviously retarded. the DNA argument used by you morons refers to humans being human due to DNA. this is different from INTELLIGENT people's definition of a human, as being one who can make moral decisions and impose upon themselves an order of morality and conciousness. fetuses cannot do these things, therefore they are not human in the same way that animals are not human.

also, the parasite argument is weak, because your argument against it does not in any way say that we still can't get rid of the fetus as if it were a parasite. in fact, it only benefits our argument to consider this thing as a separate organism from the mother, that way she has absolute moral right to get rid of it the way you would remove a parasite.

here's a question for you OP: lets say the world's greatest violinist was suffering form a medical condition that destorys his kidneys. in an attempt to save his life, his fans have drugged you, taken you to the hospital, and has hooked the violinist up to your kidneys so that he may live until his condition is cured. This will only take 9 months. So here's the question: do you have a moral right to remove him from your kidney system since he was placed there without your permission, knowing that this will kill him, or is it moral for you to be bed-ridden for 9 months with a stranger attached to you?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:20:48 2011 No.2390875 bump for science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:20:48 2011 No.2390877 >>2390869 /thread

>>	Rainbow Dash !!pGgXu8jfKhv Fri Jan 21 23:21:48 2011 No.2390878 >>2390869 I like you, we're friends now

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:22:48 2011 No.2390887 If I had the choice to not exist I would have taken it. Mothers who have abortions prevent their children from living a painful life and then dying tragically.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:22:48 2011 No.2390889 >>2390869 Ok, but >>2390233 already made that argument

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:23:48 2011 No.2390895 bumping for math

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:25:48 2011 No.2390905

Do you honestly support women being able to kill a new life for as trivial a reason as they want?
There's always the rape argument, "I'll destroy my child's life so I don't have to be reminded lol". It's a selfish attitude.
I'm not a fucking christian, but there's nothing right about the process or ideology of abortion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:25:48 2011 No.2390907 File: 19 KB, 320x502, 6a00d83451dfaa69e20120a685d278970b-320wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2390887 Hear, hear

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:26:48 2011 No.2390908 File: 14 KB, 300x330, duty_calls.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:26:48 2011 No.2390911

>>2390816
I'm not the one arguing potential, this i merely the logical extension of doing it though.

However I don't even have to go to a Minority Report situation. Let's look at rape, a child resulting here is essentially a part of a weapon that was left inside the victim. Some would argue the child wasn't at fault but socially we punish anyone who directly benefits from commission of a crime regardless of if they were responsible. (receiving stolen goods for example)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:26:48 2011 No.2390914 >>2390889 sry, my bad, i just read OP's post and immediately wanted to explain to him why he was retarded. and while this person made the same argument, he didn't give an interesting hypothetical like I did.

Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:27:48 2011 No.2390915

THEY'RE NOT HUMAN
THEY'RE NOT HUMAN
THEY'RE NOT HUMAN
THEY'RE NOT HUMAN
THEY'RE NOT HUMAN

>but there's dna lol
DNA DOES NOT MAKE THEM HUMAN, EVERY NON-HUMAN LIVING THING HAS DNA AS WELL

How about this, OP? The decisions of whether or not the obortion happens or not will be upon the victim to decide. After all, she was violated. It would not be fair to take EVEN MORE RIGHTS AWAY from the person who's already suffered. If they want an abortion to get that NOT EVEN A HUMAN out, then so be it. Otherwise, fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:34:48 2011 No.2390937 >>2390887 For you my friend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2ImyQjzyc

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:36:48 2011 No.2390945 It is always the womens choice. your an insensitive fagot if you force a women to keep the baby.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:36:48 2011 No.2390948 You seem to have posted a non-/sci/ related topic here, here are some options: >>>/b/ or GTFO or B&

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:37:28 2011 No.2390950 File: 43 KB, 511x577, face65.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OK /sci/ducks, convince me of your position. Why would allowing abortion or banning it be beneficial to society or detrimental to society?

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 21 23:38:48 2011 No.2390958 File: 43 KB, 511x577, face65.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OK /sci/ducks, convince me of your position. Why would allowing abortion or banning it be beneficial to society or detrimental to society?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:38:48 2011 No.2390959 >>2390950 fuck off. get the fuck off my /sci/ and don't come back. and please die in a fire.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:38:48 2011 No.2390961 Im okay with abortion, as long as they havent reached the 18-year stage

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 21 23:39:48 2011 No.2390967 >>2390958 die.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 22 00:04:48 2011 No.2391063 >>2390080 >innocent person >infant >new being >you answered to yourself >comparing fetuses to disabled people. >Implying fetuses are alive persons >Comparing infants to fetuses >Comparing fetuses to disabled people troll harder

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 22 01:37:48 2011 No.2391517 People claiming that human fetuses are not human are obviously refugees from a former board which shall remain nameless. This is /sci/. If you're going to say things that are scientifically retarded, please leave.

Anonymous Sat Jan 22 01:45:48 2011 No.2391544

Is your thumb alive? Yes, yes it is. Is your thumb a conscious being with rights? No, but you are. If it has yet to develop thought of any kind, it is simply a conglomerate of cells. If PREVENTING (not ending) a life can promote the well being and happiness of a life form that is already alive is possible then I really don't see the problem. Besides, we are 6.4billion+, the last thing we need is MORE humans. In fact, getting MORE humans might result in the deaths and suffering of countless alive, conscious humans through the strife of overpopulation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 22 01:49:48 2011 No.2391556 File: 20 KB, 320x320, 1zn4byh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] check my pro abortion doubles

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 22 01:51:48 2011 No.2391564 >>2390080 ...so keep the baby already!

Anonymous Sat Jan 22 01:57:10 2011 No.2391578

>You would kill an innocent person to relieve psychological tension?

Define person. I see none.

>You would hold up an infant as a shield to deflect a bullet?

Infants have usually already developed a bond with their parents, which an unwanted fetus doesn't have - even in waned ones, the bond is one sided. It's a fucking fetus.

>It's part of the mother's body

Not part of the mother's body, no, but no one's got a righ to be inside someone else if the person in question doesn't want to. Not even a fetus. Or baby, whatever.

For the rest of the questions, it's the same thing. I don't care that it's an innocent human being. It's definitely not a person during early stages of development, and even the arguable person it becomes during the last of the pregnancy doesn't have a right to be inside someone else without their consent.

Simple as that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 22 01:57:52 2011 No.2391580 >>2391544 Abortion ends a life. It kills the entire organism. Removing your thumb does not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 22 02:01:21 2011 No.2391589 Hundreds upon hundreds of my skin cells are dying every second. I must be some sort of genocidist!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 22 02:02:24 2011 No.2391593 >>2391580 Anon is being inconsisten, but you say "killing" as if it's a bad thing. Better suppres that murderous immune system of yours. They're inside you! They're alive! They're not your body! They have a right to liiiiiiiife!

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]