[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 42 KB, 404x505, 15854_1158967693530_1207912419_30388519_4376179_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2533510 No.2533510 [Reply] [Original]

Why's everyone still so caught up over abortion? The reasoning's easy:

1. Science is clear that a fetus is a human being.
2. Human beings deserve human rights.
3. Human rights include the right to life.

There. That settles it. The End. We can all stop protesting and arguing about it now.

>> No.2533516

>>2533510
abortion is not a science or math. saged reported hidden

>> No.2533526

>>2533510
Sweet, you solved it. Thanks, bro. Now we never have to worry about that ever again.

>> No.2533533

>1. Science is clear that a fetus is a human being.

Science says nothing on the matter. We could answer scientifically whether or not a foetus has the genetic identity of H. sapiens, but if that's enough to be a human being then minute flakes of skin and HeLa cells deserve human rights.

FWIW, I'm against abortion in most cases, but this "argument" is a pile of shit.

>> No.2533538

Sageing, but first this:

There are cases where abortion is universally permissible (such as when it threatens the life of the mother).

Because it is obviously permissible in some cases, then it is a private matter contained within the doctor/patient relationship and the government has no business violating that privacy.

So, regardless of your personal morality of it, there is no legal justification for interference.

If conservatives oppose universal healthcare because they don't want the "government between you and your doctor", then they should be pro-choice for the exact same reason.

The abortion debate is NOT about morality (a personal matter), it is about legality (a societal matter), and society does not have any say when it comes to the privacy of you and your doctor deciding what is best for you.

>> No.2533573

>>2533538
I'm >>2533533, but your post is just as dumb as the OP.

>There are cases where abortion is universally permissible (such as when it threatens the life of the mother).
I don't agree that abortion should be permitted in every case when the life of the mother is threatened. There are different degrees of "threatened" and different degrees of maturity for a foetus. What you've claimed as a universal principle is not actually universal.

>Because it is obviously permissible in some cases, then it is a private matter
non sequitur

>there is no legal justification for interference.
That turns entirely upon the question of agency and person-hood. If there's a legal justification for anything, then there is a justification for the government to protect the rights of people. It's the most fundamental of all government activities. You have not successfully escaped the question of how to define the boundaries of person-hood.

>> No.2533577

Abortion is sad. Every human life, or the potential to be a life, should not be wasted. However, a fetus has negligible cognitive development, and if it means saving the life of a fully developed adult that has a purpose in society, or preventing the birth of a child that may go through life suffering an ailment, then abortion may be necessary. I'm pro choice though.

>> No.2533670

>>2533533
A skin cell is hardly a human being. Of course, the conclusion you're trying to reach is that a lump of cells in a fetus isn't a human being either. Are we sure about that, though? I mean, this isn't like a living liver cell in a uterus. This is an independent thing with its own genetic makeup. It may not seem like much to the casual observer - but it is clearly something quite more than the equivalent of a liver cell.

>> No.2533675

>>2533510
Arguments for both side are valid

I say appeal roe v wade and I'll be happy

>> No.2533684

>>2533670
You're taking what I said out of context. I was specifically refuting OP's bullshit "logic" by asking what is scientifically cognizable. The question "What is a person?" is a moral question, not a scientific one. I was pointing out that mere genetic identity doesn't resolve the issue.

>> No.2533688

Well... a baby is definitely a human that deserves human rights. An unfertilized egg is not. So SOMEWHERE in between there, it becomes human. Exactly when, of course, is the point of discussion... Personally, I say to err on the cautious side, and not allow abortions at all, except in life or death situations.

>> No.2533693

Human "rights" are mostly luxuries. In the next century they'll come to be seen as a disease.

this is the golden age of man, enjoy debating who to save, soon enough we'll be deciding who to kill.

>> No.2533712

>>2533693
You haven't said anything that bears on the validity of human rights. Your post is an argumentum ad baculum.

>> No.2533722

>>2533693

this

GTFO with your "human rights" lib-tardery OP

>> No.2533726

>>2533712
I said that human rights are contextual, a veblen good. I make no threats, I merely point out that things change.

>> No.2533732

>>2533712

not all lives are equal,god damn liberal idiots

>> No.2533736

>no legal justification for interference.
wtf, for this to work in any way every law to do with marriage, defacto relationship etc would have to burned as well, get out of your fucking fantasy world

>> No.2533738

>>2533732
yours for instance, is probably worthless.

>> No.2533739

>>2533726
You merely assert that "things" change. Even granting your own assumption, that people in the future will disregard human rights as we think of them, that proves nothing. Maybe those future people are wrong.

>> No.2533744

>>2533712

if you don't kill the babies in the womb, you end up having to arrest them, put them in jail, waste hundreds of thousand of dollars feeding, educating, caring for them, then arrest them a few more times, and then kill them

what about my right not to piss money and resources and productivity away on wastes of human life?

>> No.2533749

>>2533739
I'm not speaking of wrong or right, I don't dare Hume's guillotine.

morality has no place in reason.

>> No.2533756

>2. Human beings deserve human rights.

I disagree with this point.

What now, moraltards?

>> No.2533764

to everyone that thinks a fetus is a human being, it is not, a fetus is a fucking parasite feeding of the mothers body, it cannot survive without the mother

>> No.2533766

>>2533764

your an idiot

>> No.2533768

>>2533764
A newborn can't survive without parents, either.

I'd say children don't become human until at least five, maybe seven. Who is with me?

>> No.2533769

wait until the OP realizes that embryos self-abort quite frequently and most of the time without the mothers knowledge.

>> No.2533773

>>2533749
Reason is a method. When one reasons about a situation, one takes as input what is the desirability of each outcome and reason determines the correct course of action that will best satisfy the provided goals. Your claim that "morality has no place in reason" has no basis. I can say I want to act morally, and reason can help me satisfy that goal just as it would any other. Reason is a boatman who asks no questions.

>> No.2533777

>>2533769
or that my single ejaculation earlier this evening contained enough viable sperm to impregnate most of the women in the world... and I tossed it into a tube sock.

>> No.2533780

>>2533764
>>2533764
Pretty much all life on planet Earth relies on other things to survive.

>> No.2533781

>>2533768
a newborn can be raised by someone who isn't the biological mother, an unwanted fetus in the womb is just a mass of worthless cells

>> No.2533783

>>2533781

again, for everyone playing at home:

your an idiot

>> No.2533787

>>2533780
pffft, you know that crack of shit in the context of this discussion

>> No.2533791

>>2533773
only works if you plug in an a priori goal, it does absolutely nothing to support the goal you prefer.

You cannot use reason to argue how things should be, without first making some unsupported assumptions.

>> No.2533792

>>2533781
Blacks are also a mass of worthless cells, but we're not allowed to kill them.

>> No.2533799

>>2533769
So? WTF significance is that supposed to have?

>> No.2533800

>>2533791
Isn't that what I said? I was arguing against his claim that morality is incompatible with reason.

>> No.2533801

>2. Human beings deserve human rights.
Why can't 8-year-olds vote? Or fuck?

You statement is false, vague, or a gross generalisation. Fix it.

>> No.2533803

>>2533766
I second this sentiment. The proof that I'm not a samefag is that I can spell "sentiment", but he can't spell "you're". However the commonly acknowledged idiot is far worse, in that he can't reason his way towards understanding that a human fetus is human.

>> No.2533804

>>2533792
except that there are a huge amount of humans that disagree with you

>> No.2533815

>>2533799
If by definition pro-life advocates think a egg is a human being once fertilized with a sperm, then spontaneous abortions = death of a human.

Whose to blame for this or are they going to call it a fetal suicide?

>> No.2533816

>>2533803
urgh, literal mother-fuckers, yes the cells are human, how could they not be human...?

just because they are human does not give them intrinsic worth

>> No.2533818

>>2533800
I am the same anon you're arguing with.

If you wish to invent unicorns and arguments for why they exist, feel free. Deductive reason from a subjective basis isn't illegal, just an excercise in futility.

>> No.2533821

>>2533803

you're missing the point in the title: your an idiot, but yea

>> No.2533827

>>2533815

sure is fetal suicide or many times maternal homicide, but nature is a bitch and its a cruel world once you realize it

>> No.2533836

>>2533818
>If you wish to invent unicorns and arguments for why they exist, feel free.
False analogy, as a unicorn is a thing, whereas morality answers "What should I do? what considerations should have bearing on my actions? What should motivate me?" and is not an object or entity.

>Deductive reason from a subjective basis isn't illegal, just an excercise in futility.
Every basis for deciding how to act is a subjective basis.

To top it off, you're shifting the burden of proof. I never actually made any positive moral claims, I only refuted your arguments against morality.

>> No.2533838

>>2533533
No.

What you're trying to say is that science has no say on who is a "person."
Big difference. And true.

But let's think back in history to other times when we arbitrarily decided who counted as a person and who doesn't. The argument is pretty sound.

>> No.2533839

>>2533804
There are a huge number of humans who disagree with you that fetal humans are worthless. So why is one legal and one illegal?

>> No.2533843

>>2533815
It's a natural death. It's a miscarriage. It's not fucking complicated to understand.

>> No.2533844

>>2533827
By definition spontaneous abortions are not the mothers fault. Those are called self induced abortions and can be quite dangerous.
Anyways, nature can indeed be a cruel world as can the world be a cruel world. By world I mean modern day society.

>> No.2533845

>>2533732
No one has ever said that. Most of us, though, agree that everyone should be equal before the law.

That's what we're talking about.

>> No.2533848

>>2533816
Okay so you mean to say that a fetus has no worth, and you accidentally said a fetus is not a human being. Okay, got it. Anyone can claim any other person has no worth, I suppose. It doesn't mean much to claim it.

>> No.2533852

>>2533836
I have no arguments of my own.

I'm just waiting for you to refute the is-ought problem, curious if you can. so far you're dissapointing me.

there is no uniform logical basis for looking at how things are and then determining how they ought to be. thus far you've agreed with this.

since there is no basis for deciding how things should be aside from personal preference, on what does morality stand? Desire? my desires are not the same as yours.

I'm not interested in what people think is right, I'm interested in why they think it is. there is no reasonable basis for morality, unless perhaps you care to offer one?

>> No.2533854

>>2533852
There is no reasonable basis for anything except solipsism.

There may even be no reasonable basis for that.

>> No.2533855

>>2533845

GTFO with your every is equal lib-tardery

EVERYONE IS NOT EQUAL

>> No.2533859

>>2533854
agreed.

I'm curious if the anon arguing that morality has reasonable basis can actually support that, or if it's just a baseless ass-ertion.

>> No.2533861

>>2533855
Lol. I'm an extremely conservative, completely orthodox Roman Catholic. Not a libtard.

And both liberals and conservatives agree that everyone should be equal before the law.

2/10, I replied.

>> No.2533866

>>2533855
Equal protection under the law, not "everyone is equal".

>> No.2533868

>>2533852

the basis for determining how things should be is what actually happened (in the US and several other countries) when abortion was illegal and when it was illegal

look at the stats, legal abortions reduce crime more than anything, but it takes 10-20 years to kick in, but it works better than anything we've ever tried

illegal abortion kills many healthy and otherwise productive women

its fucking obvious that abortion has to be legal

a fetus is still a human, but laws can't protect everyone and they can't control everyone's behavior...deal with it

>> No.2533874

>>2533868
I wasn't arguing abortion, I don't care about it. this thread is troll shit.

you haven't addressed the is-ought problem at all. are you 12 or just stupid?

>> No.2533876

>>2533861

bullshit, whatever you call yourself and whatever your religion don't mean shit

if you ever say the phrase "everyone is equal" no matter what qualifiers you wrap around it, you're not just a liberal, but a full blown lib-tard

>> No.2533879

>>2533839
same guy, thank-you for responding, this is why i come to /sci/

>> No.2533884

>>2533874

you just stepped out of philoso-tard class, because i clearly answered that problem here>>2533868

but i'll make it more simple for the pathetic drivel of cellular waste you call brain

what OUGHT to be is what IS best for society, we have real observations about abortion and we know it OUGHT to be legal because it IS vital for a productive society

>> No.2533886

>>2533868
Sure, but anything that kills a lot of black will reduce crime, not just abortion. But actually crime skyrocketed for 20 years after abortion was made legal, and then plateaued.

>> No.2533893

>>2533884
I'm against abortion, >>2533861 is me,
but unfortunately >>2533874 is correct.

There are several flaws in your post.

I don't think you understand the is/ought problem.

>> No.2533895

>>2533852
>I'm just waiting for you to refute the is-ought problem, curious if you can. so far you're dissapointing me.
You are the one committing is-ought reasoning by implying that morality cannot be a guide to action just because you cannot physically locate or observe it. Nobody has ever claimed that morality is a physical thing but you have demanded it.

>there is no uniform logical basis for looking at how things are and then determining how they ought to be. thus far you've agreed with this.
There is no uniform logical basis for anything, because logic itself is a form of reasoning involving symbolic manipulations. If there are no assumptions, no symbols, or no permissible transformations of the same, then there is no logic of those symbols.

>since there is no basis for deciding how things should be aside from personal preference
Prove it. This is outside a scientific context, so there's no principle of convenience about "proving negatives." You assert it, even a negative claim, then you must justify it.

>on what does morality stand? Desire?
Perhaps. I'm not committing to it, but let's momentarily entertain this assumption.

>my desires are not the same as yours.
That's irrelevant. If morality is based on my desires, then you too should conform to my desires for moral behaviour. Your desires do not enter this picture.

>I'm not interested in what people think is right, I'm interested in why they think it is.
a valid line of inquiry, but beware genetic fallacy

>there is no reasonable basis for morality, unless perhaps you care to offer one?
This statement could be applied mutatis mutandis to any action. There is no reasonable basis for eating food. If you do not eat food, you will starve, but there is no reasonable basis for avoidance of starvation.

>> No.2533899

>>2533884
It's ok, you'll get it someday and it really doesn't matter if you don't.

I agree with your opinion, but I also know there is no logical basis for it. You can't define "best" in any way that isn't subject to change as peoples' goals change. In a different context what is "best" now could easily be worst.

your morality is an artifact of your culture, it has no logical basis. Cultures change.

>> No.2533900

>1. Science is clear that a fetus is a human being.

Just like skin cells.

Abortion is good because the fewer humans the better. More stuff for the rest of us.

>> No.2533901

>>2533893

one more time, because you're fucking dumb

descriptive statement:society suffers when abortion is illegal

prescriptive statement:abortion must be legal

we get from one to the other by the SIMPLEST, MOST DIRECT POSSIBLE DEDUCTIVVE REASONING, wtf drugs are you on?

>> No.2533902

>>2533899

so now things have to be permanent?

somehow you've managed to be both a lib-tard and a conserva-tard in the same god-damn conversation

I APPLAUD YOU, SIR

>> No.2533903

>>2533900

your an idiot

>> No.2533904

>Should abortion be allowed in the case of rape?

Discuss.

>> No.2533906

It doesn't matter if the fetus is a human being or not. Think about it's quality of life if it were to be born. A good amount of abortions will come from teenagers and/or lower income people who cannot afford to have a baby. Growing up in a damaged household will only destroy that person's life, thus adding to crime, poverty, and education gap. Abortion should stay legal to get prevent useless humans from being born.

>> No.2533910

>>2533900
I like how you responded to a fallacy with a fallacy. It's like a form of dramatic irony, and we, the audience can see through your folly and have a jolly good laugh. Oh shit, I shouldn't have informed you of it.

>> No.2533918

>>2533910
The mad is strong with this one.

>> No.2533924

>>2533902
I never called you any kind of tard.

your politics don't interest me, your reasoning does.

I like your arguments, but you keep saying things like "best," and "benefit," without defining them and then stating why they actually are best or beneficial. It doesn't matter, /sci/ would argue with a stump if it couldn't find anything else. I'm off for now, having seen the is-ought problem ignored, misunderstood and incorrectly defined. This isn't exactly a board of sophisticated moralists though.

>> No.2533928

>>2533924

your an idiot

>> No.2533930

>>2533924
The guy you're now responding to is a different person. Care to reply to >>2533895? That was the original line of discussion.

>> No.2533943

>>2533930

sorry, but the original line of discussion was about abortion...that whole post is way too vague to discuss, but i don't think i disagree with anything you said

>> No.2533955

>>2533918
wut

I'm pro-abortion. Why would I be mad that someone I agree with has reached the same conclusions as me, with the only difference being that I was logically consistent throughout, and avoided fallacies?

Wait, you're on them shitty trolls I heard so much about? Get your shit together, son. Find a troll-sensei and learn the ways of the Lulz. Only then can you honestly look yourself straight in the eye and call yourself a troll.

>> No.2533964

>>2533930
no, I found little to disagree with in your post.

I ask for a logical basis for morality because I have none, morality that is. I'm a sociopath, I'm curious if you can point to an objective morality. You didn't, you merely implied that I had no basis for demanding one. That's fair, so long as we agree there is also no basis for producing one.

I don't see how my demand constitutes is-ought reasoning, but I have time to think about it, and I'm pretty sure I will.

I can't prove that morality has no logical basis without falling back on Hume, and if that interests you I'm certain you can google it. Somehow I doubt it does.

the rest of your post was impressive, but not anything I didn't already know. Not out of line with my prior opinions on morality. Interesting in that it confirmed my views, but not surprising. Your analogy to hunger implies perhaps that you consider morality to be innate, something I wouldn't necessarily disagree with, though as I mentioned, it's not something I experience. That which is innate had historical value, though of course traits that were valuable won't necessarily always be. Also nature is not always the best arbiter of what's best. Ultimately I think you just managed to disagree with me without actually disagreeing. fun but pedantic.

>> No.2534011

>>2533964
>Your analogy to hunger implies perhaps that you consider morality to be innate, something I wouldn't necessarily disagree with, though as I mentioned, it's not something I experience. That which is innate had historical value, though of course traits that were valuable won't necessarily always be. Also nature is not always the best arbiter of what's best. Ultimately I think you just managed to disagree with me without actually disagreeing. fun but pedantic.

I don't think you got my meaning in this part. I intended it to point out that your criticism that morality lacks a "basis" can be applied to any course of action. Morality argues that certain actions should be performed, and others not performed. If actions in conformance with morality lack a basis, then where do other kinds of actions get their justification? In this way, the action of eating food would also seem to lack a basis. You might say that eating is "innate" but why should we do what is innate? That's just is/ought all over again. Doing what is innate also lacks a basis in reason.

>> No.2534025

>>2533684
Nobody asked what a "person" was.

>> No.2534026
File: 31 KB, 450x338, whydoesgod_450x338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2534026

>>2533675
> I say appeal roe v wade and I'll be happy

To who? Are you unclear on the concept of SUPREME court? As in the last say in courts? The Chuck Norris of courts? The "This is how it is, deal with it" court?

The 14th Amendment guarantees rights to all PEOPLE BORN on American soil. Not born? No rights. Why is this concept so hard for religionfags to accept?

>> No.2534035

>>2534026
I agree that his "appeal it" statement was stupid, but:

>The 14th Amendment guarantees rights to all PEOPLE BORN on American soil. Not born? No rights. Why is this concept so hard for religionfags to accept?

"Religionfags," which is apparently your word for anyone who morally objects to abortion regardless of their religion or lack thereof, do not base their morality on the "14th Amendment" or its interpretation. You're making a fallacious appeal to law. You haven't really presented any argument against them, because the law could be simply wrong.

>> No.2534039

>>2534011
I agree, an appeal to nature is is-ought all over again. I just thought that you were perhaps making an analogy beyond the obvious.

I'm not sure how demonstrating that there is no reasonable basis for any action argues against my assertion that there is no reasonable basis for morality, in fact it would seem to support my assertion.

>> No.2534042

>>2534026

are you unaware of the fact that you are no better than a japanese fisherman killing dolphins?

>> No.2534045

>>2534035
>implying anyone besides theists are dumb enough to think forcing people to go through with a pregnancy is moral

>> No.2534047
File: 58 KB, 483x450, notaperson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2534047

>>2533510

haha, no.

>> No.2534051

>>2533684
So what, are you saying that the point at which human life begins is relative?

...you do know this is the board for "science," not "scientology," right?

>> No.2534058

>>2534047

your an idiot

>> No.2534063

>>2533684

if its not genetic identity, then the next scientific answer is you're not a person until somewhere between the ages of 4-6 years old

>> No.2534066

>>2534039
>I'm not sure how demonstrating that there is no reasonable basis for any action argues against my assertion that there is no reasonable basis for morality, in fact it would seem to support my assertion.

It doesn't argue against your claim directly, but needless to say, people take actions all the time. You are taking the action of posting in this thread, after you've taken the action of navigating your browser to /sci/, after you've taken the action of opening a browser, after you've taken the action of coming to the computer, etc. There would seem to be no basis for any of that. Why then should we be so concerned if there is no basis for morality in the sense you describe? Let's say in disregarding morality for its lack of a basis, you come to some immoral action. If this action lacks a basis, then just as there is no basis for morality, there is none for immorality either. The entire criticism would seem to fail in particularity, because no matter what you do, you cannot avoid it. Morality does not suffer uniquely.

>> No.2534072
File: 48 KB, 400x373, small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2534072

>>2534047
haha, yes.

>> No.2534075

Alright following scenario.

you are kidnapped by a group of people of art lovers. They attach you to a famous violinist and tell you. You have to stay here for 9 months otherwise he will die. Most people will argue that you do not have an obligation to save the violinists life. -Judith Jarvis Thompson.

OP knows nothing of moral philosophy or how the abortion debate is structured.

>> No.2534078

0/10 but I'll throw my 2 cents on the matter.
Who the fuck cares if you want to kill a baby for any fucking reason, a woman should choose if she wants to raise a baby.
This planets becoming overpopulated anyways
Fucking republicans

>> No.2534081

>>2534075

rape scenario detected, obvious out logically and legally, this is pretty close to your an idiot, but i withhold that judgment for the time being

>> No.2534102

a carbon atom has potential to be an important part of a human one day
----->
carbon atoms are human
----->
supernovae kill humans

>> No.2534105

>>2534066
still not disagreeing with you.

I see logic as a description of causality, nothing more than an attempt to justify the actions we're going to take either way. As a posteriori explanation it's all good, but I'm not seeing how we can jump from inductive observations to deductive proofs. Just because all human actions lack reasonable basis doesn't mean that one human action doesn't. It merely implies that the action is as justifiable as any. Not particularly strong argument in my opinion.

I don't mind taking as given certain assumptions, e.g. existence, but I do mind things that aren't commonly agreed upon, such as morality, or what to eat for breakfast.

>> No.2534106

>>2534102

i wanna say your an idiot, but its just not appropiate, hmmmmm, something else, hmmmmm

how about

your an libgineer-tard?

not the same ring is it?

>> No.2534172
File: 4 KB, 195x300, daigo_hive.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2534172

Science is retarded,

>> No.2534189
File: 312 KB, 487x322, 1278193262917.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2534189

>>2533510
>Science is clear that a fetus is a human being

>> No.2534200

>>2534189

your an idiot

>> No.2534202

>2. Human beings deserve human rights.
Prove it.

>> No.2534203

>>2534202

you still dumb, but his ops statement is incorrect

>> No.2534209

What about a zygote?

Is a blastocyst a human being?

>> No.2534226

>>2534209

your an idiot

lame scifagging dismissed, there is a relevant question as to the exact moment a new individual is created, but after the first cell division all science is very clear this is a new human being

>> No.2534228

>>2533510
There are so many methods of birth control nowadays that you need to be a fucking idiot to need an abortion. Just spend the minute amount of cash needed for a condom. There, problem solved.
I'm not against abortion, I'm against idiots who were too stupid to consider the consequences. I guess it's fine for rape victims, but no other case.

>> No.2534229

>>2534106
a human is is unique among the animals because of our minds
--->
a mind defines humanity
1--->
a mindless foetus is not a human yet
2--->
a braindead body is not a human anymore

>> No.2534232

>>2534229

your arguing person hood, which is the realm of philosophy and psychology, your argument is entirely invalid for determining what a member of our species is,

one cell division=new human being....deal with it

>> No.2534240

>>2534232
Why didn't you tell me earlier that my body is producing billions of new human beings all the time!

Oh no! Millions of them keep dying all the time!

Oh the huge manatee!

>> No.2534246

>>2534240

your an idiot

>> No.2534252

1. Science is clear that OP is a troll
2. Science is clear that OP comes from /b/
2. /b/ is clear that OP is a faggot

There. That settles it. The End. We can all stop protesting and arguing about it now.

>> No.2534255

your an idiot

>> No.2534256

>>2534252

this is all true,

your an idiot is never to be saged, clearly a false your an idiot from an anon who doesn't understand the point of satirical and ironic ridicule that is the your an idiot

>> No.2534260

Your an idiot!

>> No.2534270

>>2534260

you should never be happy about using the your an idiot and if you capitalize you lose the quality of drawing equal attention to all the words

>> No.2534271

"But I'm only 15 and I had this child by an accident! It would destroy my life to become a mother now and not finish my studies!"

"SORRY BITCH, BUT YOU NOW CARRY A HUMAN BEING INSIDE YOU AND IT GOT THE RIGHT TO LIVE. TOUGH LUCK."

I personally believe that abortion is the choice of the persons involved in creating the baby. If they don't want it, it's cool´. And if they want it, it's cool.

People are just mad about abortions because people always need something to be mad about.

>> No.2534299

The entire point isn't about what a fetus is at conception or shortly after; it's about its POTENTIAL of life. A women who gets pregnant and goes through her pregnancy will in a very high percentage give birth to a human with a mind just like your own.

To deprive this being of life is selfish, immature, immoral and murder.

>> No.2534303

>>2534299

maybe, but murder is necessary in many cases, lots of people who argue against abortion are for increased death penalty....well nothing has ever decreased crime as much as legalized abortion, except it take 10-20 years to kick in, because fact is, the kids being murdered were very likely to become criminals, especially the violent type of criminal

>> No.2534309

>>2534303
preventative death penalty, I like it.

>> No.2534316

>>2534299
Same can be said of the millions of sperm-cells that are wasted. The logical action is to clone enough women that each and every one of ever man's sperm can be used for impregnation. Several times each day.

>> No.2534327

>>2534252

your an idiot

>> No.2534350

>1. Science is clear that a fetus is a human being.
Almost correct. Science is clear that a fetus, or any combination of sperm and egg from conception to birth is a separate alive entity (it has its own genetic code clearly different from its parents and follows the five basic checkmarks for life).
>2. Human beings deserve human rights.
Debatable.
>3. Human rights include the right to life.
Also debatable.

Does a government have a moral obligation to protect unborn citizens?
Does simply having "life" entitle you to rights?
Who's rights supercede whos? Does the mother have a larger right to control over her body (even though she was fucktarded by getting pregnant in the first place) than the child has a right to life?

It's a moral question, not a scientific one.

>> No.2534352
File: 44 KB, 454x432, 1242906334587.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2534352

>> No.2534400

anyone who takes the 'side of caution' by banning all abortion aside form life threatening issues misses a key piece of the puzzle.

if the mother wants it gone, are you doing a good thing by forcing her to carry what is arguably a clump of cells? it takes a cold hearted sociopath to idly force that on someone. it would be like having a lottery and saying 'every adult who likes chocolate gets to risk a 9month hike through the Australian outback or equivalent harsh wilderness'. it's totally fucked and marginalizes just what a HUGE fucking deal having a child is. if you not completely fucking ready don't fuck up some poor kid to appease some small minded fuckwits.

to re-illiterate. having a child is a HUGE FUCKING DEAL. you do not go into that lightly and you NEVER should go into it by fucking accident. i mean my god people? you claim to care about the child?! "condom broke, looks like we are parents now" is shockingly a-moral considering soon a human life is going to start off on that note.

i will take 1000 4 month old and perfectly viable fetuses and put them through a garbage disposal sooner then kill a single child and you know you would too. now don't fucking tell me they are the same god dam thing. THEY ARE NOT.

>> No.2534437
File: 12 KB, 360x360, 1295702874870.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2534437

>>2534047
>>2534072

On another note,
1. Science is clear that a fetus is an undeveloped human being, not a human being exactly
2. Human beings deserve human rights, fetuses aren't human beings technically
3. Human rights include the right to life. Fetuses don't have rights, as well as your mother

>> No.2534486

>>2533510
>1. Science is clear that a fetus is a human being.
Not at all. Defining something or someone as a "human being" is an entirely arbitrary denomination, more dependant on social convention than science. If we wanted we could define "human being" and anyone over the age of 16 (or other random number).

>2. Human beings deserve human rights.
I realize that this might come as a surprise, but the concept of "human rights" is entirely a human construct. To be absolutely logical, there is no such thing as "natural rights". If there were children in africa would be unable to starve to death. But as they do, you are proven to be at fault.

"Human rights" is a construct that varies over time and from culture to culture (generally depending on and correlating to, the amount of resources available to the culture).

I for one would say that every child (should) have the right to have at least one loving parent. I also think that every child (should) have the right to grow up in a house with sufficient economical funds to afford a wholesome upbringing and suitable education.

Forcing uneducated teens and victims of rape to give birth to unwanted children and children they cannot reasonably take care of violates those "rights". Ergo -> abortion must be a "human right".

>> No.2534524

What science actually tells us is that life is a continuous process that has no clear beginning, and that an individual human being is something that emerges gradually, not at one specific point.

Ultimately you have to draw a line somewhere, but that line is arbitrary. I've never heard a good argument for why conception is a good place, let alone the ONLY place. The things that I value about human life are not things that are possessed by any single celled organism, and that includes a human zygote.

>> No.2534525

>>2533510
could someone explain to me why someone is granted rights just for beeing alive? the way i grew up, rights is something you earn. seems to me that geting squeezed out of someones vag is not much of an achievement.

>> No.2535212

>>2534400
>if the mother wants it gone, are you doing a good thing by forcing her to carry what is arguably a clump of cells?

The parasite argument is an interesting one, but I would argue that the mother be forced to carry it for being retarded. The fetus is hardly uninvited, because if you do things like sex, you know the consequences and accept them when you perform the act.
If you're going to have sex, take as many precautions as you can. Don't just say "hurr we only used a condom cause we're dumb," you have other options.

>i will take 1000 4 month old and perfectly viable fetuses and put them through a garbage disposal sooner then kill a single child and you know you would too. now don't fucking tell me they are the same god dam thing. THEY ARE NOT.

When do they become the same thing? At what exact moment does a fetus become a child? At what exact second? Just so that we know exactly when it's safe to grind them and when it's murder.

>> No.2535243

>>2535212
Well I suppose then, if a car slams into my car, the other driver could not be prosecuted because I went driving knowing well that this might happen. What about rape or stupidity? If a stupid person gets pregnant, then I say, kill the baby, we don't need more morons. Same with rape.

>> No.2537319

Lime > Coconut > Feel better.

>> No.2537359

what about all the delicious stem cells

>> No.2538619

An acorn is not a tree.
A piece of wood is not a coffee table.
Food isn't shit.

\thread.

>> No.2538650
File: 74 KB, 500x375, 3091837394_4d9d94338d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2538650

>>2538619
> Food isn't shit.

I see you've never been in the Army.

Captcha: 10-4 spert

>> No.2538670

>>2537359
we don't need embryonic tissue for those now. it's old tech.

>> No.2539190

>>2538619

I love you.

>> No.2539203

>>2533510
fuck you OP, why are shit-heads so often correct?

>> No.2539222

Human beings don't deserve "Human" rights.

>> No.2539281

>>2537359
There has been success in using regular cells and somatic stem cells instead of embryonic. Embryonic stem cells grow too quickly and can easily turn into cancerous cells.

>> No.2539291

>>2534525
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

If we didn't have inherents rights, the world would be even shittier than it is now.

>> No.2539305

>>2539222
Enjoy the widespread support for your theory.