Should abortion be legal? >pic unrelated and keep it civil

File: 118 KB, 494x402, 494px-Average_prokaryote_cell-_en_svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:41:58 2011 No.3472491 [Reply] [Original]

Should abortion be legal?

>pic unrelated and keep it civil

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:43:58 2011 No.3472496 yes

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:43:58 2011 No.3472498 ofc killing other lumps of cells isn't legal. the issue is establishing when something stops being a lump of cells and becomes a separate conscious being. when it develops a nervous system seems like a good point.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:44:58 2011 No.3472500 >>3472498 *illegal obv

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:45:58 2011 No.3472503 >>3472498 Agree with, can 'kill' the organism as long as it hasn't achieved consciousness

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:45:58 2011 No.3472504 >>3472491 killing joos in germany in 1941 was legal

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:45:58 2011 No.3472505 File: 35 KB, 768x576, 1306490843549.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I think women should pay for their stupidity unless it was rape.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:47:34 2011 No.3472510 >IMMA HAVE SEX LOL >OH NOES I PREGNANT >I TAEK EGG BEATER AND SHOVE UP CUNT LOL >BABY DEAD Do people not realize the babies that are being aborted could have ended up being the ones who cure cancer, become a president, etc.?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:49:58 2011 No.3472518 >>3472510 so why are you not outside right now raping every woman you meet? you are failing to create future presidents therefore you are going to hell.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:51:58 2011 No.3472525 >>3472510 Yeah, or they could end up being uneducated hoodrat petty criminals who's mothers drop out of school at 16 to take care of them. We have a lot more of those then we have future presidents and cancer-curers

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:51:58 2011 No.3472528

>>3472510
Or could be the next Hitler or Stalin. Troll harder.

The problem of liberty aside, there is no logical reason for abortion to be illegal until at least 20 weeks in, when hints of consciousness start to creep in and the ability to feel pain through the nervous system is almost functional.

Before that, it is a lump of cells incapable of thought and cannot, in any sense, feel pain or discomfort.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:52:34 2011 No.3472532 no, the sanctity of life is not overwritten by some dumb cunt's inability to support a baby. the kid can be given up for adoption if needed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:53:58 2011 No.3472534 >>3472528 there is a logical reason. global birth rates has been on the decline for years.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:53:58 2011 No.3472536 File: 1.01 MB, 3000x3420, Obama.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3472525 >>3472528 Hey, I would like to remember this fellow came out of a white stripper who got knocked up in Kenya. <---

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:55:58 2011 No.3472542 >>3472536 So? Nice strawman. You could win a medal with that thing. Or a fucking blue ribbon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:55:58 2011 No.3472544 >>3472536 Yes, you would like to remember that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:57:58 2011 No.3472551 This isn't /politics/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:57:58 2011 No.3472553 >>3472528 >at least 20 weeks in, when hints of consciousness start to creep in Not saying I disagree, but what evidence have you for this claim? The nervous system starts to develop way before then. At 3 weeks the neural plate is already there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 17:59:58 2011 No.3472561 >>3472553 any point other than conception is arbitrary

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:02:34 2011 No.3472577 I support women so yes

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:02:58 2011 No.3472573 >>3472561 you're arbitrary

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:03:58 2011 No.3472580 >>3472561 why?

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 18:04:58 2011 No.3472587
File: 25 KB, 385x402, GC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The reason abortion is legal is because women have a the right to have control over their own bodies. This why it is legal and should remain legal.

I will now quote George Carlin.
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life... pro-life... These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state."

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:09:58 2011 No.3472608

Early term abortion is morally equivalent to pulling the plug on a brain dead relative. It is not good, it is not fun, it is nothing to be proud of, but it's not murder. It's something you should avoid, but you have the option. You see, whatever person-ness we value is not there in either case. This is not arbitrary, we know for a fact that the first trimester fetus has less going on than a brain dead patient. Now, if you think it's not okay to pull the plug on a permanently vegetative coma patient, then you may disagree. But you would have to at least explain why.

Late term abortion is infanticide. If the mother is in danger, then fine. No other reason. It's simple, we can be sure that the fetus is not a person in the early term, and we can be sure that you are a person when you are an adult; but in between in a huge grey area. So we should just leave it alone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:12:58 2011 No.3472618 File: 11 KB, 300x300, 41QF8N8PVKL__SL500_AA300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3472587 This must be your favorite object.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:16:58 2011 No.3472638 >>3472587 we're not talking about the cumdumpster's body, dipshit, we're talking about the baby attached to the cumdumpster via an umbilical cord

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:16:58 2011 No.3472639 >>3472587 Should parents have the right to not feed their kids? It is of course, their money, their food, their bodys. >>3472608 This is, IMO the best post in the thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:17:58 2011 No.3472645 >>3472580 because conception is the earliest time that two haploid cells become a diploid cell that eventually posts "why?" on the internet

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:17:58 2011 No.3472646 Yes, PROVIDED the father will never legally owe one penny towards raising the child is he does want an abortion but the woman refuses. If women want to "control their bodies", then they should bear 100% of the responsibility for that decision.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:19:58 2011 No.3472657 >>3472553 The neural plate is not a nervous system, and has little to do with one. Please do some research before leaping to conclusions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:21:58 2011 No.3472664 >>3472645 Various medical authorities deem implantation into the uterine wall as the beginning of pregnancy. Without implantation, a conceptus is not viable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:22:58 2011 No.3472668 >>3472646 Fucking this. The "right to choose" should not include choosing the money from my wallet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:23:58 2011 No.3472671 >>3472503 Well you can "kill" it, it just wouldn't be immoral to do so. No more so than killing a fish anyway. Now if the fish has reached a level of self awareness and sentience, then killing it would probably be immoral.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:24:58 2011 No.3472673 >>3472668 u jelly?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:25:58 2011 No.3472683 >>3472646 It's an accident of biology. Once the male pill arrives on the scene, though, we won't need to worry about this stuff.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:26:58 2011 No.3472685 >>3472498 The problem is that this partivular clump of cells are going to evolve to a sentient being. It's is murder in the way that you're stopping this development

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:27:18 2011 No.3472689 <span class="math">\large f(s_{q})=[\frac{((\Psi\cdot10^{-1})+(p\cdot10^{2}))GPA}{(f+1)(h+1)}]^{d+1} + r[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:28:04 2011 No.3472694 >Killing children because you don't want to support them I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:28:58 2011 No.3472695
File: 12 KB, 300x300, 1295148979769.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3472685
>evolve

>It's is murder in the way that you're stopping this development

Then it must be divorce if someone refuses to go out with me. Why can't I take them to court for half their income?!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:28:58 2011 No.3472696 >>3472608 Not it's not. The dead brain will not evolve into an intelligent being again. Those cells are

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:29:04 2011 No.3472705 >>3472694 >killing fetuses because you don't want to support them I seriously hope you guys do this. Seriously.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:29:58 2011 No.3472701 >>3472685 Is preventing a person from existing tantamount to murder? Unless you pick some arbitrary point of no return, then this view has some serious implications.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:30:58 2011 No.3472709

>>3472685

you can't factor in potentials, that's a slippery slope argument.

Otherwise punching someone in the face, could potentially kill them, and they could potentially have children, and those children could have had future generations, and so forth.

A punch to the face could potentially kill someone which could potentially be genocide of an entire blood line, 1000generations into the future.

That's not how the law works and that's not how morality works either.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:31:58 2011 No.3472715

>>3472608
You know the difference between the two.
If you knew your brain dead relative was going to regain consciousness in 9 months would it still be okay to kill them.
Why don't we just kill everyone who has been in a coma for over a week. Its not murder right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:31:58 2011 No.3472716 >>3472695 Are you joking right ? When you date there's no garantee that it will evolve to marriage. The zygote naturally will (unless something very bad happens)

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:31:58 2011 No.3472720

>>3472696

But the thing that is absent from one is also absent from the other. If ending a biological life after a person has left it is appropriate, why not ending a biological life before a person has entered it? If the person is what we are interested in protecting, that is.

And again, is preventing a person from coming into being tantamount to murder? If so, why place the limit at conception and not some other arbitrary point?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:33:04 2011 No.3472729 >>3472705 >allowing people to starve because you don't want to support them I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:33:58 2011 No.3472733 A woman should be able to do whatever they want with the human spawn inside of them. ANYTHING. Once its out and breathing air it's a different story.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:34:58 2011 No.3472735 >>3472716 That's not a guarantee. Miscarriages are not uncommon. And just as choice in involved in marrying, it is also involved in reproducing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:35:58 2011 No.3472745 >>3472716 So the partner in question has the right to terminate the progress towards marriage at any time?

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:36:58 2011 No.3472749

>>3472709
Come on, thats's the worst and sloppy argument ever. What is the probability of killing someone with a face punch?

What is the probability of correct fetal development into neural formation?

Truth is, unless you stop it, the baby development is the natural way.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:38:58 2011 No.3472764

>>3472749
Probabilities don't matter with that argument.

If I give someone a poison that will kill them 2% of the time instead of one that kills them 12% of the time...it makes no difference, my intent is there and the actions speak for themselves

it's just silly to do a probability/potential analysis in anything, you deal with the facts or you don't, otherwise you get really stupid scenarios.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:39:58 2011 No.3472775 >>3472749 sounds like the Catholic argument against contraception, it's just as slippery.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:40:58 2011 No.3472783 >>3472733 A parent should be able to do anything to the child while its under their house. ANYTHING. Once its out of the house its a different story. Who gives a shit about child rights.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:41:58 2011 No.3472789 >>3472764 it's just silly to do a probability/potential analysis in anything Thank you for killing modern physics

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:42:58 2011 No.3472799

Yes it should. See, whether or not it really is murder to kill a baby while it's incubating does not matter. Death is not, in itself, a bad thing, unless you look at it from a religious standpoint. I believe that aborting a baby is effectually the same as never having had the baby, so if abortion is illegal then not constantly having babies all the time should also be illegal. However, if you are religious, and you believe that aborted babies go to hell, then I understand where you are coming from.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:46:58 2011 No.3472832 >>3472783 A governing power should be able to do anything to the humans within its territory. ANYTHING. Once its out of the country its a different story.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:46:58 2011 No.3472837 >>3472799 Death is not a bad thing. But killing without just cause is. Stealing the childs future. Can you justify that. You basically said that because killing people is illegal not saving people should also be illegal.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 18:46:58 2011 No.3472838
File: 15 KB, 300x300, CARLINcover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3472638
Were you trying to prove my point or was that unintentional?

>>3472639
Once the person is born it is no longer and issue of ones right to control their body so yes is should be illegal to no feed a child if you are its guardian. By having a child you agree that you will take adequate care of it. Let me ask you this. The government decides that the appendix is causing to many deaths each year and that it would be better if they just forced everyone to have their appendix removed as it would lead to a larger population. Do you agree with this ruling or do you believe people have the right to control their own bodies?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:47:58 2011 No.3472844 >>3472664 so, the beginning of the beginning of life changes as technology advances? ponderous

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:49:58 2011 No.3472854 >>3472837 If you abort the baby it will not have a future. If you never have a baby it will not have a future. What I was saying is that abortion is no less moral then not constantly having babies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:50:58 2011 No.3472861 >>3472701 yes, this is the debate that has been raging for 40 years in the US. and by slaughtering millions of babies in the womb, we are judged

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:50:58 2011 No.3472867 >>3472838 You are the guardian of the to be born child. The womb is its home. Are you saying its okay to kill the child because you dont want it in you house. I mean, its your property.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:51:58 2011 No.3472872 >>3472709 punch a guy in the face: misdemeanor assault punch a guy in the face and he dies: involuntary manslaughter we already take into account the results

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:52:58 2011 No.3472883 File: 3 KB, 199x176, 20110128203738.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3472861 Whom can we expect to be judged by, may I ask?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:52:58 2011 No.3472884 >>3472733 can she inject the fetus with heroin? no? so we do place limits on what females can do with "their" bodies already?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:53:58 2011 No.3472891 >>3472854 A child never conceived never had a future. The aborted child did. but ignoring that are you saying that theres no difference between not saving someone and killing someone.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:53:58 2011 No.3472892

>>3472735
yes, miscarriages. ask a woman who just had a miscarriage why they are crying, if they only lost a couple of cells, somewhat akin to a toenail or a booger.

odd how traumatizing a miscarriage is. oh, and an abortion is, too, while we're at it. so odd.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:54:58 2011 No.3472898

>>3472837
Also I have two more questions:

>But killing without just cause is.
Why?

>Stealing the childs future.
The childs future hasn't happened yet. It is no more determined then it was before you even had sex. It's not stealing it's future, it's simply deciding to not give it a future, which is the same as choosing abstinence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:54:58 2011 No.3472902 >>3472884 Sure she can. There are consequences to those actions in modern society, however.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:54:58 2011 No.3472903

>>3472749
you mean, my punch or yours? me punching your nasal bones into your brains or you sissy-punching someone in the cheek?

different outcomes are treated differently; not even biblical levitical standards held a man guilty of murder for killing someone that was still of child bearing age and intent.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:54:58 2011 No.3472904

Boring. Spice this shit up. Should abortion be a woman's right if there are artificial wombs available that can deliver the Zygote/Fetus? Even if the father of the potential child wants to see it born?

How about in a world of infinite resources, would denying existence be ethical then?

I really want to know what the fundamental issue is with abortion, why is it a right and what would it take technologically to qualify that right.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:55:58 2011 No.3472913

>>3472861

They are babies after they are born. In the womb, they are a fetus.

The point being, why is okay to pull the plug on a brain-dead relative, but not okay to pull the plug on a brainless fetus?

And if it's potential you're arguing, then why put it at conception? Why not implantation? Why not each gamete? It's arbitrary, for one thing. Any point before there is some doubt over whether the fetus has person-level thoughts going on is arbitrary.

And finally, making abortion illegal has effects on society. Bad effects. For one thing, it barely reduce abortions, it only makes the consequences for women who get them worse, both medically and legally. And for another thing, it limits family planning options, which is a huge factor in poverty and crime levels.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:56:58 2011 No.3472920

>>3472891
If the child is going to be conceived then it is going to have a future. If you are going to kill the child then it is not going to have a future.

And I'm saying that if you allow a man to die, he experiences the same result then he would if you decided to kill him. Either way, he's dead. So if you never have a baby, or you abort it, it's not alive either way and it's effectually the same.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:57:58 2011 No.3472929

>>3472838
oh, you really are that stupid. let me try to explain.

you see, when a mommy and a daddy have a special love for each other, they have a special hug they do together. the daddy places his penis inside the mommy's vagina, and some happy juice comes out. then, if they are blessed by God, a baby forms in the mommy's tummy.

you see, now there is a mommy, a daddy, and a baby. three people. two of whom share an umbilical cord.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:58:58 2011 No.3472935

>>3472898
For starters
>The childs future hasn't happened yet.
>future hasn't happened yet.
I don't think you understand what the future is. Of course its not determined.
And you ask why killing without just cause is wrong. Because its taking the life of another. Something you have no right to claim.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 18:59:58 2011 No.3472942

>>3472913
i would not say that pulling the plug on a brain dead person is okay. i would say that it is killing, and in some instances, murder.

i would equate it to an abortion. killing, and in some instances, murder.

it is a position of the sanctity of life, not the convenience of the relatives, or the pregnant woman.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:00:58 2011 No.3472944

>>3472904

>Should abortion be a woman's right if there are artificial wombs available that can deliver the Zygote/Fetus? Even if the father of the potential child wants to see it born?

If the father wants it, otherwise abortion is fine.

>How about in a world of infinite resources, would denying existence be ethical then?

It would be as morally neutral as it is here and now. Denying existence makes it sound like the child is destined to be born but this chance is being revoked. It isn't. Once it exists, in a world of infinite resources, it would be unethical to do things that would end its life.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:00:58 2011 No.3472951
File: 332 KB, 753x1024, GeorgeCarlinNYT.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3472867
That's some extremely bizarre logic. First of all the womb is not a home its a part of woman's body which is a little different from property. You seem to be confused in that you believe a home is the same is a womb. No one here is saying someone should be able to kick a fiver year old out of the home they live in because their parents decided to kick them out. That has nothing to do with a woman's right to have control over her body. You're argument is a very pathetic example of appeal to emotion combined with slippery slope.

You never answered my question from my last point still stands. Do you believe people have the right to control their bodies?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:01:58 2011 No.3472955 >>3472920 You cant be killed if you never were never conceived. Youre cant die if you arent alive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:01:58 2011 No.3472959 >>3472941 why do you keep insisting that the baby is not its own body connected to its mother by an umbilical cord? i mean, lolbiology, but seriously; do you understand how human beings procreate?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:02:58 2011 No.3472970 >>3472942 In what instances is pulling the plug murder? And in what instances is abortion murder? Both are predicated on the same thing; there is no person there to be murdered.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:02:58 2011 No.3472971 >>3472942 >sanctity of life in other words, it's religion.

>>	Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs Fri Jul 29 19:02:58 2011 No.3472967 > 2011 > thinking government should be involved in medical procedures > I hope you guys are not doing this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:02:58 2011 No.3472968 >>3472920 Are you saying the ends justifies the means. Please don't tell me you are one of these people. If i kill you now whats the difference as you were going to die one day either way. From an objective perspective its all the same.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:03:58 2011 No.3472972

>>3472935
Please explain how I do not understand what 'future' means.

"Taking" someone's like is just a way of saying ending theirs, you do not actually take anything from them. And are you implying that if you do not have a right to do something then it is wrong to do it? I would argue that rights as a whole are merely a human invention and there is no such thing as an inherent right, merely what we humans desire for ourselves or others.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:03:58 2011 No.3472973 I think yes. And at any stage of a pregnancy.(But being indecisive up until 8 months is fucking retarded ofc)

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:03:58 2011 No.3472975 >>3472884 That's because heroine is illegal not because you can't harm a fetus. You can drink alcohol when you are pregnant even though the government recommends you don't.

>>	Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs Fri Jul 29 19:04:58 2011 No.3472982 >>3472975 > That's because heroine is illegal > heroine is illegal > heroine sigh

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:05:58 2011 No.3472985 >>3472903 superman detected...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:06:58 2011 No.3472993 >>3472941 the home is the same as the womb. the womb is the home for the child. Just like my hand is property of me, so is a house or a car. Its more valuable but that doesnt change the analogy.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:06:58 2011 No.3472999

>>3472968
I believe that if the end is the same, the means are unimportant. And that's not my opinion, I believe that it is a fact.

And if you kill me today when I was going to die tomorrow then the mean is unimportant because the end is different, in two ways:
*I am dead one day earlier, thus what I would have done in that day will not happen.
*You killed me. This is not necessarily important but it can make a difference as far as legal prosecution goes, since you're still likely to go to jail even if I was going to die the next day.

Otherwise you're right, it's the same thing.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:07:58 2011 No.3473000

>>3472970
intent

if the woman has been told and believes that she is only "terminating a pregnancy", and that her baby is only tissue, it would be heartless to accuse her of murder. on the other hand, the baby is just as dead.

if pulling the plug is the expressed intent of the vegetable via a healthcare power of attorney, you would kill them according to their wishes by depriving them of heroic measures and life sustaining technology

if you pull the plug because you stand to inherit their fortune, that's murder

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:07:58 2011 No.3473005 >>3472971 you can hold life sacred without a belief in God. i don't but i assume someone else could, especially out of self-preservation.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:08:58 2011 No.3473007
File: 16 KB, 245x266, george_carlin1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3472959
This is completely avoiding the point. DO PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR BODIES? This is about rights not morality, I live in a free country not one controlled by religious dogma or so I thought.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:09:58 2011 No.3473015 >>3473007 Do baby bodies have a right to live? It's not so cut-and-dried.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:09:58 2011 No.3473016

>>3472975
can she sell the baby? no?
can she drink herself stupid and kill the baby via alcohol poisoning? no?
can she sex it, take pics, and post? no?
can she sell parts of the baby? no?
can she inject the baby with insulin if it doesn't need it? no?

isn't there a slew of things we already tell women they can't do to their body or the body of their babbies?

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:10:58 2011 No.3473018

>>3472972
No rights exist. The human invention was created to give a name to the concept. You are free to do whatever you want. You are free to steal, kill, slaughter, lie, etc. Just as I am free to stop you. Oppress you. Remove your existence from my presence.
What I am talking about is rights we give each other in order to mutually coexist. Killing is not a right that you were given in that sense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:10:58 2011 No.3473022 >>3472999 dude, if i shot you as you jumped off of a 100 story building to your death, they will still convict me of murder, because i shot you to death.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:11:58 2011 No.3473023 >>3472903 Says the man who never actually punched anyone

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:11:58 2011 No.3473025 >>3473018 which is why our founding fathers specifically referred to our rights as inalienable rights granted by our Creator

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:12:58 2011 No.3473027 >>3473022 No they will charge you. But you wont be convicted unless they can determine if the person died from the shots or the fall. You're still going to jail either way though.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:13:58 2011 No.3473033

>>3473018
Ah, so then you agree that by "rights" what you mean is what we humans mutually agree is okay. And you're right that most humans agree that murder is not okay.

Keep in mind then, that you are arguing that the reason that murder is not okay is simply because most people believe that murder is not okay. I would understand that from a practical sense, as I do not want to get on the wrong side of the law, but in a logical sense it is an argument without substance.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:13:58 2011 No.3473034

>>3473023
it's a stretch, but it could happen. people have died from being punched in the face. the point is, if the outcome of the same action harms one person more than the other, you don't get a pass. just because your victim has an eggshell skull doesn't mean your punch that killed him would have bounced off of my titanium carapace.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:14:58 2011 No.3473037

>>3473000

Obviously the will would have to be taken into account, when dealing with how to handle the body. If they want it to be kept alive for as long as possible, then that is their will, and if they want it to be terminated or donated, then that is their will. We have means in place to dispute unreasonable wills.

But the unborn child has made no will, because they were never the kind of thing that could make a will. They do not exist yet, in any kind of meaningful sense. if an adult had the same brain activity as a fetus in the first trimester, there would be no hesitation in declaring it legally and medically (brain) dead. It is ending a life, if you want to get technical, but it is never murder.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:14:58 2011 No.3473038 >>3473027 indeed. and let us say for argument's sake that the man would have had a "come to Jesus moment" on the way down, but was prevented from doing so by my gunshot. so now i'm in jail, and he's in hell, because of my act.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:15:58 2011 No.3473040 >>3473022 You're right, and that's why I would warn you to not shoot me, so that you don't go to jail. In that sense, the end is very different, so your case does not apply to my statement: If the end is the same, the means are unimportant.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:15:58 2011 No.3473043

>>3473007
i simply do not understand how you fail to miss the point.

people do not have absolute rights over their bodies. they cannot sell them, parts of them, inject them with certain substances, act in certain ways, operate motor vehicles under the influence, etc., etc., etc.

it's a babby in there. deal with it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:16:58 2011 No.3473047

>>3472944
>Denying existence makes it sound like the child is destined to be born but this chance is being revoked. It isn't

I don't understand this line of logic. If you do nothing, the child will be born. You do something to revoke the chance of it being born.

The potential for life has some value to me, not 1 to 1 with a living person nor infinity to 1, but I am not against abortion in our current circumstances. I am trying to find out what technological advances or circumstances would need to be present to dissociate abortion from women's rights and , if possible, develop a hypothetical scenario where there is no ethical grounds for it.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:16:58 2011 No.3473048

>>3473016
Actually, provided she didn't kill herself doing it should could kill the baby with alcohol or insulin but that's very hard to do.

>>3473015
A baby is alive in its own right. We are talking about a fetus that is biologically dependent on the womb of a woman to support it. That woman has the right to control her body and her reproductive organs are as part of her body. Its non of the governments business. I'll ask my question again because you won't answer it and until you do nothing you say can argue against my point. DO YOU BELIEVE A PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR BODY?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:16:58 2011 No.3473049 >>3473037 were you once a first trimester fetus?

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:17:58 2011 No.3473056

>>3473034
wow .... this is so bizarre and distorted I don't even know the train of thought anymore...
We were talking about probabilities, of course a punch can kill someone, but comparing that probability with correct fetal development is just wrong.
But I agree with your last post, different results have different penalties....

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:18:58 2011 No.3473057 >>3473018 I am referring to the rights of the people written in US constitution. These words are law. This is not about right or wrong its about legality.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:18:58 2011 No.3473058

>>3473040
um, no; the end would not be the same. i could have let you jump to your death, and die. but i chose to shoot you on the way down. so although the end of you is the same, the means will be treated differently. i will now be in jail, while you will still be dead.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:18:58 2011 No.3473062 >>3473048 so, it's your position that a woman could give birth, cut the umbilical cord, and leave the baby to fend for itself? lol urine idiot

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:19:58 2011 No.3473065

>>3473033
>you are arguing that the reason that murder is not okay is simply because most people believe that murder is not okay
No. I dont care what the general opinion on murder is. I am arguing its wrong because someone elses life is not yours to take.
You are free to disagree. But if you ignore mutual rights we give each other then the only possible outcome would be war. I dont care either way.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:20:58 2011 No.3473068 >>3473057 did that make sense when it was still inside your head? no? why tripfag? wouldn't it be smarter not to tripfag, and thus not remove all doubt as to your intelligence deficit?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:20:58 2011 No.3473071 >>3472491 Why dojn't you just mind your own fucking business for a achange? Are you pregnant? Can you be? No? THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:20:58 2011 No.3473074 >>3473058 The end regarding my life is the same. But if in one situation you are in jail and in another, you are not, then obviously the ends are not the same.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:21:58 2011 No.3473079 >>3473071 we should leave all the law writing to women? u serious?

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:21:58 2011 No.3473080

>>3473048
> DO YOU BELIEVE A PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR BODY?
Why is your logic so childish. By your argument I could say I have the right the use my hand stab you to death. Its my hand. Why cant i swing it in the air with a knife. Is it because you just happen to be there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:22:58 2011 No.3473082 >>3473047 Never coming into existence, no matter what led to that state of affairs, is not the same as being murdered. There is nothing to murder.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:22:58 2011 No.3473083
File: 68 KB, 469x554, george carlin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3473043
In the US they do actually. Heroin is illegal not your ability to inject it in to your body. The substance not the act.

lol you think that's an argument? Here I'll do it too.

Its a lump of cells, deal with it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:23:58 2011 No.3473092

>>3473074
you said that the means were unimportant so long as the end was the same. off the cuff, i had a scenario where i killed you as you were committing suicide.

this was to demonstrate that the law does indeed consider the means important. i don't get to shoot suicidal people for kicks. they lock you up for stuff like that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:23:58 2011 No.3473094 >>3473079 This one, clearly. Men should have no say at all. Or write a law that declares women as second rate human beings, living baby factories. But don't be hypocrites .

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:24:58 2011 No.3473099 >>3473068 Kettle calling the pot black. Do you go back and read the things you right? Did you see the original post? It said "should abortion be legal?"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:24:58 2011 No.3473103 >>3473082 this is an unsupported position. the opposite position would be to say that the babby at all stages of its life is a life, and that it is really its dependency level that changes, not its value as a human life.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:24:58 2011 No.3473100 >>3473080 You argue like a metanlly challenged kid.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:25:58 2011 No.3473107

>>3473065
I'm going to take time answering this and then I have to go, so I am sorry but I will not read your response.

>No. I dont care what the general opinion on murder is. I am arguing its wrong because someone elses life is not yours to take.
I already told you that "take a life" is merely an expression and that all you do is end the life. And if you say that your life is not mine to end, then I end you life, I just ended your life so I guess that blows a huge hole right in your theory eh?

>You are free to disagree. But if you ignore mutual rights we give each other then the only possible outcome would be war. I dont care either way.

Not necessarily, but w/e, if you're only point is that we should not randomly kill other adults for fear that we, ourselves, will be killed then I'd like to point out that this does not apply to killing an unborn baby.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:25:58 2011 No.3473108 >>3473057 >These words are law. I dont think you understand what sovereignty is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:26:58 2011 No.3473109 >>3473083 yay, you're starting to understand. the law does restrict people's use of their own bodies. so no, a citizen cannot do whatever they please in the eyes of the law, as the many examples in this thread have demonstrated.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:26:58 2011 No.3473111

>>3473049

I was also once a zygote, and two gametes, and then could be traced back through the germ line to the origins of life.

Who knows when I first had some spark of self-awareness? But I am 100% certain that this was not in the first trimester. And when the last spark of self-awareness leaves me, what happens to my body is none of my business because I won't be there anymore. Just as what would have happened to my fetal self would have been none of my business, because I wasn't around to have any business.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:26:58 2011 No.3473116

This is my view, and the view of most people I talk to:

Abortion should definitely be legal when the mother's life is in danger (unless she wants to go ahead with it, anyway). We have no guarantees about the baby, whereas we do about the mother.

In cases of rape et al., i.e. "forced" pregnancies, the woman should be allowed to abort, but we should advise against it. There's no reason to prevent a potential life just because of the sins of the father. Incest would fall under the same umbrella.

Now. About stupid, retarded whores who made a mistake at a party while drunk (let's admit it, most non-life threatening abortions are done on teens), or couldn't be bothered to use contraception, abortion should be refused to them, since it's clear that the only reason they want an abortion is because of not wanting to "ruin" their body or face embarrassment (aka a true whore). It wouldn't even be a burden upon them, since they can just as easily give the child to a couple who can't conceive, or give it to foster care.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:27:58 2011 No.3473120 >>3473099 the constitution is the basis for the law that makes abortion legal for now in the US, or at least that is what the abortionists claim. so yeah, having the constitution decide laws in the country is kind of relevant

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:28:58 2011 No.3473127

>>3473111
indeed. i have no first trimester memories either. many years passed before i was self aware, or at least could form memories of being self aware.

yet, at one time, i was two haploid cells becoming a diploid cell. time passed, now this pointless arguing on 4chan. not sure if progress has been made.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:28:58 2011 No.3473128 >>3473080 A baby its not her body. Its a different one. It's a life. Even in the early stages, the zygote is protected by the uterus and not part of it. Just f*ck with a pregnant progesterone level and see what happens

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:29:58 2011 No.3473131

>>3473103

Of course it's alive, But all ending of life is not murder. We routinely end the lives of animals, and lives with more brain activity than a fetus are routinely declared dead.

Unless there is some special quality assigned at the very moment of conception, there is no reason to consider the fetus as specially protected.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:29:58 2011 No.3473133 >>3473116 Perfect

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:29:58 2011 No.3473134

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FIRST WE HAVE TO DEFINE "LIFE"

And there you have it : fucking christians and their unability to think rationally, and fucking pro-choice who are unable to understand they don't even speak the same language

christians "life is herp derp from God, the soul, herp hell, heaven, derp must save life must save souls !! -and i fucking HATE women- but that's not related-"

pro-choice : what do you mean you're retarded a lump of cells is not a person derp herp

You're tiring people.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:30:58 2011 No.3473137 >>3473131 so, we're agreed then that it is either killing or murder? that does seem like progress...

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:31:58 2011 No.3473144

>>3473116
>In cases of rape et al., i.e. "forced" pregnancies, the woman should be allowed to abort,
There is no reason excuse. Policies should not be established on extreme conditions. Its still wrong but its more understandable. Instead policies should crack down harder on rapist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:31:58 2011 No.3473145 >>3473134 lol you got some issues bro

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:31:58 2011 No.3473147 >>3473127 You now have the capacity to think, which I would say makes your a different manner of thing from a zygote or an early term fetus or a brain-dead patient.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:31:58 2011 No.3473152 >>3473128 Just as the man I stabbed is not part of my body.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:32:58 2011 No.3473154

>>3473080
That's different than a persons right to control their body. That's trying to control another biologically independent beings body. The point of having control over you're body is that you control it and whats in it not things that are outside of it.

If the government decided in addition to abortion being illegal that everyone should have their appendix removed to prevent deaths in relation to appendicitis would you agree?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:32:58 2011 No.3473155 >>3473147 indeed. had i been aborted, i would not have that capacity. it would have been taken from me. as would my life. against my will.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:32:58 2011 No.3473157

>>3473133

Thank you. I find it stupid to either be in a Catholic-like camp where abortion is a HELL NAW in ALL cases, conversely it's just as stupid to be in the opposite camp who see all circumstances surrounding abortion as irrelevant. We must judge according to context, otherwise, we might as well put all those convicted of murder on death row instead of a life sentence -- which is all relative to the circumstances of the case.

Same principles with abortion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:33:58 2011 No.3473159 >>3473094 back in the kitchen, make sammiches, adults are talking here

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:33:58 2011 No.3473161 >>3473116 >whores "I hate women, I'm a little frustrated man" I take it you weren't invited huh

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:33:58 2011 No.3473162

>>3473137

Nobody ever said it's not killing. If you cut out a tumor, you kill it.

But it's not murder, for the reasons I stated. But if you think there is some special quality, that is unrelated to the level of brain activity, which makes killing into murder, then I think we have a basic disagreement here.

I have to go anyway, I have work tomorrow.

Laters.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:34:58 2011 No.3473165

>>3473147
For the last time, a fetus and braind-dead person are not the seame biologically speaking.
The first still has the potentials of brain cell division and development, the latter does NOT.

If you saw them in a microscope, they would look completely different.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:34:58 2011 No.3473167 >>3473162 ciao

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:35:58 2011 No.3473171 >>3473154 My appendix is my property. A childs life is not. >biologically independent You say that as if it matters. The child is still dependent.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:35:58 2011 No.3473172 >>3473161 You don't even know me. Well done for making an ad hominem because you can't argue intellectually. If you're a woman, well done for reaffirming the stereotypes. If you're a man, stop trolling.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:35:58 2011 No.3473175

>>3472904
>>3473047
here

>>3473082
>>3473103
I never said it was murder, and I honestly am uninterested if it meets the criteria for murder. I'm focusing more on ethics than legal definitions. Black and white perceptions on current legal positions isn't my thing. An ethical position that only considered the current scenario is as sturdy as a wingback chair with one leg. "Is the denial of possible life, in and of itself, wrong? under what circumstances is this qualified?" "What technological advances, if any, would it take to make abortion illegal?" Is closer to the question I'm asking.

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:36:58 2011 No.3473178 >>3473109 lol are you going to start the some mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you "won" the argument now?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:37:58 2011 No.3473181 If it were made illegal how would you enforce it? Who would you hold responsible for performing abortions and how would they be punished? Would it be better that women who want abortions get them illegally and unsafely if it were made illegal?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:37:58 2011 No.3473183 >>3473175 >"Is the denial of possible life, in and of itself, wrong? yes >under what circumstances is this qualified?" when it is in conflict with realized life >"What technological advances, if any, would it take to make abortion illegal?" nonsequiter

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:38:58 2011 No.3473187 >>3473178 dude, i've been on the internet too long to expect to "win" anything specialolympicretard.jpg

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:40:58 2011 No.3473194
File: 9 KB, 250x249, georgecarlin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3473062
I already addressed this. By having a child you agree to care for it or arrange for the child's care.

Make an argument instead of these retarded slippery slope falsifies you keep spewing out. Do you have an argument that isn't slippery slope or some sort of retarded appeal to emotion? Do you have any facts to bring to the discussion?

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:40:58 2011 No.3473196

>>3473181
>If it were made illegal how would you enforce it?
strip doctors of medical license to practice for starters

>Who would you hold responsible for performing abortions and how would they be punished?
the person with the vacuum, and voluntary manslaughter charges

>Would it be better that women who want abortions get them illegally and unsafely if it were made illegal?
the goal is for no woman to get an abortion under any circumstances other than to literally and medically and physically save her own life.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:41:58 2011 No.3473205

>>3473172
I know you. I know the part of yourself you are exhibiting here. Do you really think your opinions is not a mirror of your so called "soul"?
Retard.
Face it, you hate women who can control their pussy, you wish to punish them, because you couldn't have them.
You're a pathetic creature.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:42:58 2011 No.3473208
File: 14 KB, 259x306, george_carlin_0203.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3473187
We can turn this in to a bunch of personnel insults f you'd like. This is one of my favorites.

I hope one day you'll realize what an idiot you've been.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:42:58 2011 No.3473213

>>3473194
i've presented many opinions, not facts. it was your definition of "dependent" that cracked me up.

it's like you've never been around a newborn babby in your life

protip: babbies are the same inside as they are outside, but for the whole breathing liquid, eating through their belly buttons, etc. see, premies

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:42:58 2011 No.3473214 for god's sakes yes YES YES

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:42:58 2011 No.3473215 >>3473196 Hope you never come to power.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:43:58 2011 No.3473218 >>3473205 um, where's my sammich

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:44:58 2011 No.3473222 why putting so much effort into protecting unbirthed people while we couldn't less care about grown one?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:44:58 2011 No.3473225 >>3473208 i kinda said we were both idiots for arguing on the interwebz, but ok. your collection of george carlin .jpg are just too much for me. you win.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:45:58 2011 No.3473227 >>3473222 Because one error does not justify other

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:45:58 2011 No.3473230

>>3473181
>Would it be better that women who want abortions get them illegally and unsafely if it were made illegal?
Expecting the population to consent in order to condone you own weakness simply because you are weak.
Is seriously hope you guys dont do this.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:46:58 2011 No.3473235

>>3473215
wish the people in power didn't want to kill babbies, mostly because of an inherently racist view of abortions (i.e., disproportionately african-american women abort their babbies, so fewer african-americans would be the goal of, say, the founder of Planned Parenthood).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:47:58 2011 No.3473238 >>3473222 Because they dont have to ability to protect themselves yet. At least give them a fighting chance.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:47:58 2011 No.3473240
File: 155 KB, 546x394, GeorgeCwhat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3473213
Do you not see how insane what you are saying is?
You acknowledge differences but claim they are the same? Third term abortions are illegal anyway, we are talking earlier than that when the differences are very clear for if they were not why would you just not remove the "baby" from the womb and allow it to live on its own?

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:47:58 2011 No.3473241

>>3472935
Why not, who the fuck decides those rights?

Don't you realize you try to adapt the world to your moral values with no real arguments to support these?

You don't give a fuck about life, you want to make sure people dont do things you think are wrong.

USA is worrying about imaginary debt, meanwhile 10 million people might die of dehydration and famine in the Horn of Africa.

Stop using those morally charged expressions, they mean nothing. There's no such thing as rights.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:48:58 2011 No.3473244

>>3473235
oops, somebody told the dirty little secret:

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide?

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:49:58 2011 No.3473255

I hate how one sided these discussions usually are.

It takes TWO, a MAN and a WOMAN to have a child! What is all this bullshit about "dumb bitches who get pregnant on parties". Really guys? Really? And how is this not also HIS fault then? Why is it the only womans responsibility to have safe sex? Because there is birth control for women? There are condoms as well, as well as pulling out, as well as using your brain to consider for 3 seconds that this drunk chick might not be thinking straight at the moment. Take some responsibility.

This also means; its not only a womans choice wether or not to keep it. It is also HIS child

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:49:58 2011 No.3473256

>>3473205

Awww, either I'm talking to a whore (which only serves my point), or a fat, ugly landwhale who couldn't get onto the cheerleading squad. How cute.
In fact, I love women; my best friends are female. Just because I'm AGAINST women demeaning themselves, I'm suddenly a repressed, sexually frustrated guy? But I don't have to rationalise myself to you, you already look like an idiot, I'm only just helping to accentuate idiocy for others to see. u mad?

>Also: implying renting out your pussy to any and everyone with functioning genitalia is "control".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:50:58 2011 No.3473257 >>3473240 yes, a babby is different from a full grown human nobody killed the full grown human when it was a babby you are a silly man :p

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 19:50:58 2011 No.3473259 >>3473225 This thread is actually why my collection of George Carlin jpgs exist. I like them though so I think I will continue to use them in the future so this argument has been useful to me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:50:58 2011 No.3473260 >>3473240 Remove the baby? What are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:51:58 2011 No.3473265 >>3473255 The man doesnt have the right to abort the child without the womens consent yet the women can without informing the man. Its once sides because the WOMAN argue for it to be that way.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:51:58 2011 No.3473266 >>3473255 lol@choo for thinking the man has a say in whether or not his child is killed. protip: he doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:51:58 2011 No.3473272 >>3473256 this, plus i still do not have my sammich, which i consider a total failure on "her" part

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:54:58 2011 No.3473289

>>3473255

What a fucking hypocrite. You're the kind of person who says it's also the guy's fault; you're right, but it's not the guy's decision. Your hypocrisy come in when a guy actually does say he wants to abort/keep the baby, suddenly he's trying to control the woman and tell her what to do!

Yes, the guy is to blame. But if you let kids play around in your house, knowing the risks, and someone breaks something, it's YOUR fault since you let the kids in in the first place. Harsh truth, huh?

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:54:58 2011 No.3473295

>>3473183
This supports one of the viewpoints I am drawn to. The "You want it to be one way, but it ain't" view, where people are inherently selfish beings who exert their will to better themselves with ethics being discarded or used only in times when it benefits certain agendas rather than fundamentally governing them. Abortion is legal/illegal because people want it that way, right or wrong is an afterthought or considered irrelevant. People are animals, etc.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:55:58 2011 No.3473298

>>3473256
>n fact, I love women
You don't
>; my best friends are female
let me guess, biggots like you? They hate themselves and they DREAM of being whores. That's why they hate "whores". Christianity leads people to think that sex is a sin, is a crime.
Christians hate human nature, they were raised top hate themselves and to live in a delusion that make them hate everybody that isn't a little frustrated piece of shit like themselves.

There is nothing related to Life or God, it's only about how frustrated they are to Christians and the jealousy and hatred it generates.

Fuck off /sci/ , this isn't "theology" or "politics".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:56:58 2011 No.3473304 >>3473256 >implying doing what the fuck you want for what the fuck reason isn't control What are you, a fascist?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:57:58 2011 No.3473313 >>3473298 i love how you guys assume he's a christian, when his viewpoint was solidly fact based

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:57:58 2011 No.3473315 >>3473298 I think you, just like me, like when Nietzsche ridicules Christians

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:58:58 2011 No.3473317 >>3473265 Man shoots sperm Woman provides egg Responsibility is shared. Woman carries child , get sick etc man..... ? Woman has last word. I see no point to be argued here

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 19:58:58 2011 No.3473318 >>3473255 see>>3473265 >>3473266 Status [ ]Told [ ]infinite Toldos [X]Lord of the tellings: The Fellowship of the Told

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 20:00:58 2011 No.3473329
File: 19 KB, 400x500, george-carlin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3473260
Remove the baby from the womb as in perform a cesarean section. If it can live on its own its a baby, if it can't then it was never alive in its own right.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:00:58 2011 No.3473333 >>3473317 >Parents get a divorce. >Mother gets the child because lol the law >Mother kills the child >You want to blame the father as well. Typical bitches and whores.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:01:58 2011 No.3473337 File: 108 KB, 600x805, get out.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3473313 >solidly fact based

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:01:58 2011 No.3473339

>>3473298

>You don't
No way! They must've invented mind-reading machines, because you're trying to tell ME what I think! Show me your degree in psychology, that's your only redemption for being such an idiot, fuckin' slut/landwhale.

>let me guess, biggots like you? They hate themselves and they DREAM of being whores. That's why they hate "whores". Christianity leads people to think that sex is a sin, is a crime.
Christians hate human nature, they were raised top hate themselves and to live in a delusion that make them hate everybody that isn't a little frustrated piece of shit like themselves.
Nope.jpg
One is a girl who used to sleep around quite a bit after a breakup, the other is just your normal, average girl. Both are staunch atheists; the former being very anti-religion. u mad?

>There is nothing related to Life or God, it's only about how frustrated they are to Christians and the jealousy and hatred it generates.
And you just keep showing your stupidity. Too much cum/cake down your throat? I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN. I THINK THE RELIGION IS STUPID. NONE OF MY BELIEFS ARE BASED ON CHRISTIANITY.

You narrow-minded, sorry excuse for a human whore/hippo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:01:58 2011 No.3473341 File: 23 KB, 500x375, funny-pictures-cat-offers-fist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3473329

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:02:58 2011 No.3473344 >>3473333 You don't even make sense.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:02:58 2011 No.3473349

>>3473265

Truth is, I am a woman. Another truth is, many other women agree with me. Just because its the way it is now, doesnt mean it should remain that way.

>>3473266

My point exactly; they should have that right.

>>3473289

And you are a fucking moron, try to actually read my post next time before you comment bullshit like this, idiot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:03:58 2011 No.3473353 >>3473339 You are a judeo-christian infused moron, that's what you are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:03:58 2011 No.3473354 >>3473317 Gives the woman the last word in killing my child but doesnt want her to take responsibility. You cant be serious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:03:58 2011 No.3473355 >>3473304 >implying doing a stupid thing for no reason IS control. What are YOU? Inbred?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:04:58 2011 No.3473365 >>3473353 Ahahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha. I win. >feelsgoodman.jpg

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:05:58 2011 No.3473374 >>3473349 Until it changes it will be your fault. The man can't be held responsible because he is given no power. Share the power, share the responsibility.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jul 29 20:06:58 2011 No.3473379

I see an argument for both sides. Abortion is useful to society but the act of "killing" at one age but not another is a slippery slope that if fallen down would lead to greater and greater dehumanizing of humans. If 4 weeks isn't too much then why not 4 months? Why not 4 years? Why not 40 year? Overpopulation may be an increasing problem but sooner or later an arbitrary line must be drawn in the sand to maintain the biological predisposition towards and the societal necessity of respect for human life.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:08:58 2011 No.3473389 >>3473379 Pure bullshit >Abortion is useful to society Just like Hitler thought the killing jews was useful to society.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:08:58 2011 No.3473390 >>3473329 So it is ok to kill a 6 month premature?

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:09:58 2011 No.3473399

>>3473374

Well, I disagree. That is just childish, and as long as you're being childish this shit wont change. Shared responsibility, now that I agree on, so why are you saying this? Dont get me wrong, I can see where you are coming from, but this attitude simply will not solve the problem.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:10:58 2011 No.3473407

>>3473349

>And you are a fucking moron, try to actually read my post next time before you comment bullshit like this, idiot.

I did read it. In a nutshell, it's:
>takes two to make a baby
>guy is one half of the two
>ergo, both share responsibility.
I agreed with that. BOTH parties DO share responsibility.

But the hypocrisy comes in when women start condemning men for wanting a part in the baby's abortion or lack thereof. Men are virtually scorned when they try to give an opinion on whether the child should be aborted or not. In other words, as another poster said: share the power, THEN you share the responsibility. The former is lacking, hence the latter is invalid.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:11:58 2011 No.3473417

>>3473389

No point in bringing children into a world when they won't and can't be cared for. That's just neglect and setting someone (and many people) up for failure. Killing the Jews was different in that many of those people could care for themselves and were productive to society.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:11:58 2011 No.3473418 >>3473399 In what way is it childish. How can you expect someone to take action when you strip them to the power to do so.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:12:58 2011 No.3473420 >>3473407 And that is exaclty what I am arguing for. So why are you calling me a hypocrit? I argue FOR the power of men in this situation. "Share power, share responsibility" is EXACTLY what I mean

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:14:58 2011 No.3473439

>>3473417
>No point in bringing children into a world when they won't and can't be cared for.
I have a suggest. How about to take care of them. Quit trying to kill children because youre a lazy bastard.
>care for themselves and were productive to society
How many two year olds fall under this category.
Why dont we just kill all children. Theyre a burden to society right.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 20:14:58 2011 No.3473442
File: 232 KB, 2400x3000, George_Carlin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3473379
Slippery slope is a fallacy. For instance, If we let people have anonymous image boards on the internet it could lead to people posting cp. If people see cp they could become pedophiles and start raping children therefore if image boards are allowed every child in the world will raped. Doesn't make sense does it? Neither does you're crazy 40 year old abortion argument. Hers another one. If we allow people to have consensual sex they may as well as have non consensual sex... with minors... who are mentally challenged. With artificial insemination being an option in the modern day we should just outlaw sexual intercourse entirely.

SLIPPERY SLOPE IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:15:58 2011 No.3473449

>>3473420

If that's the case, then I apologise.

But in a more general position, it would be hypocritical for women to expect men to share the responsibility (indeed, men hold ALL the responsibility in extreme cases such as rape) when you'd be called a raging sexist for telling the woman whom HE knocked up to NOT get an abortion. Sadly, this is the current state of affairs now.

At least you're more reasonable than that crazy bitch who could apparently read my mind and accused me of being a closet-Christian.

>bro-femfist.jpg

>>	Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 20:16:58 2011 No.3473452 File: 50 KB, 460x345, segment_6297_460x345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3473390 You can't kill what was never alive and as I said it was never alive in its own right.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:18:58 2011 No.3473465

>>3473442

But that's assuming that ALL people who do see CP WILL inevitably turn into paedos, yours is a fallacious argument on grounds of being improbable. Likewise, all your examples are exaggerations.

Whereas the Anon whom you replied to created a valid and realistic scenario and points.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:19:58 2011 No.3473469

>>3473418

It is childish because basically you already know you wont have any say in the matter, you know what it will turn out to be, but you will do it anyway. That is why I think it is childish. Just as childish as women who demand alimony from a guy who never wanted the child in the first place.

All Im trying to say is; be the better man, even if it is unfair; because continueing like this will only make matters worse. Women will just feel more and more as if men take no responsibility at all, "so why would they even give men any say in it at all?" Do you see my point? Its a vicious circle that needs to be stopped. Not saying it is the mans job; it would just be nice if everybody would try this all together. And childish behviour has no place in this, from neither gender.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:19:58 2011 No.3473471 >>3473449 How about you go after the rapist and stop trying to create excuses to kill children

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:21:58 2011 No.3473480

>>3473452
a 6-month baby is NOT alive?
Too bad this is just the interwebs.... I wish I could show you a real 6-month fetus at an anatomy lab and see if you had the courage of telling it's not alive.

Or a 7-month one in a hospital, lead to their parents and ask you to tell them not to worry...
It's not alive afterall

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:22:58 2011 No.3473489

>>3473471

Huh? I'm, for the most part, pro-life. How sick do you have to be in order to say that it's a woman's fault she got pregnant via forced sex she never wanted? The circumstances CHANGE when it's rape.

Just like how it was ok to execute the Nazis in the Nuremberg trials, but not ok to execute any randomer on the street. NOTHING is ever black and white; all ethical dilemmas must be looked at within their context, which was my original point all along until some psycho bitch derailed my points.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:23:58 2011 No.3473492

>>3473449

Then I would also like to apologize for calling you an idiot. I just get fed up real quick with these discussions, because I have tried to explain it to both men and women so many times and they never quit seem to understand it. My bad, so I am sorry

And yes, the general view of this problem is very fucked up and unfair. So here I am hoping to change this a little by supporting this shared power as a woman.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:23:58 2011 No.3473498

Not only do I think it should be legal, I think it should be enforced.

The population enforcement officer is all, "I'm sorry but there's too many people. The last thing the world needs a shitting, helpless tiny version of what will ultimately become a consumer in our ill-conceived capitalist society. So if you want this child to come to term, you're gonna have to kill someone during your pregnancy."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:23:58 2011 No.3473495 >>3473480 >I wish I could show you a real 6-month fetus at an anatomy lab and see if you had the courage of telling it's not alive. Appeal to emotion mang, fallacious

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jul 29 20:24:58 2011 No.3473499 >>3473439 You are obviously letting some political or cultural bias in to your argument. There are any number of situations where an individual isn't equipped to raise a child.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:24:58 2011 No.3473501 >>3473489 Life hands you lemons. Doesnt give you the right to run around killing children.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:24:58 2011 No.3473503 >>3473495 Not emotion, pure biology Which I believe you lack any knowledge of

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:25:58 2011 No.3473506 >>3473495 In ethical dilemmas, emotions are all you can really go on. If the facts unequivocally said one thing, it wouldn't be a dilemma in the first place.

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 20:25:58 2011 No.3473507
File: 28 KB, 340x419, 340x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3473465
No what wrote isn't different. If we allow first and second term abortions how does that lead to killing a 4 year old or 40 year old? How does that lead to euthanasia programs to control population? How does it lead to dehumanization of those who are alive in their own right and are conscious individuals with distinct personalities and thoughts. This is complete bullshit, like the idiots who used to say allowing people to be openly gay will lead to increasing acceptance of sexual deviation being legal until pedophilia is an accepted norm. The slope is not that slippery and it never has been.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:29:58 2011 No.3473527 >>3473499 Do you know how many unfit parents are out there. Why don't you go up to the children and say youre going to kill them because their parent cant raise them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:30:58 2011 No.3473534 >>3473469 Holding men to a higher standard and yet you still argue for equality... Just not for him. >typical feminist bullshit

Sc0tch !!I69sCMpVFUu Fri Jul 29 20:31:58 2011 No.3473537

>>3473480
I looked it up and 6 months is a viable life. So if it lives its a baby if not its not. At that point you might have a valid argument for it, let it have a chance by forcing "birth" rather then abortion and if it lives its a baby if not it was a still fetal.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:33:58 2011 No.3473546 >>3473534 Tell me, how am I holding men to a higher standard? Please read my post again, and if you still dont understand it, then please do explain

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:35:58 2011 No.3473556

>>3473507

Clearly, the whole 4 week/40 years thing is a hyperbole which was meant to demonstrate that you can't just draw a line on where one becomes a human worthy of the same human rights as you or I. The simple fact of the matter is that even if all science unequivocally said that a fetus is not a human at x number of weeks, by terminating it you're PREVENTING something from becoming a human in the first place. That's just a fallacious argument: "it's ok, it wasn't human yet so we terminated it before it became a human so it wouldn't technically be the same as killing a human" Do you see the simple problem?

Just because a seed hasn't set its roots down yet, doesn't mean it won't grow into a plant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:35:58 2011 No.3473559 Yep, it should be legal. No point in arguing against it. Religiousfags: not everyone believes what you do, so keep your mouth shut and stop trying to impose your will. Moralfags: What about rape babies?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:35:58 2011 No.3473560 >>3473534 You do realise that she was arguing FOR men having more power in the decision, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:36:58 2011 No.3473564 >>3473559 see: >>3473116

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:39:58 2011 No.3473576 File: 24 KB, 360x355, kitten.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hurr

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:41:58 2011 No.3473588

>>3473564
Ok, what about broken condom babies then?
Regarding stupid whore bitches.
They tend to be poor
They tend to not make good parents
A combination of these results it governmental resources being drained into helping the poor. This is then carried on by the children of stupid whores, because general people struggle to break class.
If you can't afford to have a kid but you like sex and for some stupid reason you didn't use a condom, then you are a retard, but I still don't think you should HAVE to keep the baby. I am pro choice 100%.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:43:58 2011 No.3473594 >>3473546 Youre trying to hold someone with zero power equally accountable as someone with the power to change the situation. You might as well blame the the children the mother does have for having their little sibling aborted.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:44:58 2011 No.3473604 >>3473560 No shes saying that men should have the power but even though they don't its still equally their fault. Illogical.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jul 29 20:48:58 2011 No.3473621 >>3473527 Now you are intentionally, or stupidly, ignoring my initial post. My initial post already discussed the concept of a slippery slope. Is this how you usually make arguments?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:50:58 2011 No.3473625 >>3473621 Its not a slope. Its on an equal platform. There is no difference.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:52:58 2011 No.3473629

>>3473594

No. I am kindly asking you to do something for the greater good, even if it is unfair - so that we can make it fair. Men give up their irresponsible attitude, women give up half of the power. We all have to give and take to solve the problem, if you cant handle this, I guess your ego is in the way, and I suggest you start by solving your personal problems first.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:53:58 2011 No.3473639 File: 36 KB, 481x360, 1311070800875.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:56:58 2011 No.3473646 >>3473629 I can't give you something I don't have. How can I have a responsible attitude with no responsibility. I'd be more than happy to take responsibility but you have to give it first.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:57:58 2011 No.3473651 File: 149 KB, 250x250, 1307795262048.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 20:57:58 2011 No.3473653

I'm pro-life, but I think abortion should still be legal. The reasoning is quite simple.

No matter what I think, or how we legislate, abortion is going to happen. I'd rather have the women abort their children in a safe and sterile environment rather than inviting a "doctor" with questionable credentials to do an abortion procedure illicitly in her own home. Women have, and can, bleed to death over illicit and unsafe abortions.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:00:58 2011 No.3473666

>>3473646

Yes you can, you can stop having unsafe sex without the intention of actually reproducing. I dont have to give you any power for you to do that.

And I would be more than happy to give it to you, but I am only one person and I cannot change the laws on my own, so I go out and do my best to convince other women. What more do you want from me?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:01:58 2011 No.3473668 Abortion should be legal and an effort should be made to harvest stem cells from the foetus. If you are going to terminate something, don't let it go to waste.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:02:58 2011 No.3473676 File: 26 KB, 318x250, 1307901374544.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:07:58 2011 No.3473694 >>3473666 You talk as if my intention matters. Whether I want to reproduce or not means nothing. Who's fault is that. Its not like I stripped myself of the responsibility. If my intention means nothing then how can you say my ill will is responsible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:10:58 2011 No.3473710 >>3473668 Why don't I just kill you know and harvest your body for science without any consent for you will. Youre going to die one day. Why not now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:16:58 2011 No.3473740 >>3473710 A foetus has no thought, your argument is invalid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:18:58 2011 No.3473754 >>3473740 It has a will. I never said anything about thoughts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:18:58 2011 No.3473760 File: 38 KB, 482x335, 1255101723904.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >keep it civil >this thread >pic related

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:20:58 2011 No.3473772 >>3473740 Trees dont think. They are still alive. Is it okay to kill a child before it learns to walk because you feel its life is inferior to yours.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:20:58 2011 No.3473780

>>3473694

So because you cannot decide wether or not the girl is gonna keep the baby, you are just going to go around potentially impregnating girls? You dont care, because you will not end up making the decision anyway? That is pretty harsh and stupid. Were talking about your offspring and another persons life that you are about to turn upside down. Laws have nothing to do with this, it is purely a matter of morality.

And before you rage, no this is not only your responsibility and / or fault. The girl should make clear wether or not she is on birth control or whatever, it is her responsibility just the same. I am just tired of seeing all these guys calling the women dumb sluts, while there are 2 to blame.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:23:58 2011 No.3473794 >>3473754 One needs sentience to have will, a foetus lacks sentience.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:24:58 2011 No.3473802 >>3473794 No, the will to live is part of everything that is alive. Otherwise they just die.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:28:58 2011 No.3473840

>>3473772
Foetus =/= child.

If the foetus's parents wish to not have the child and it is still early in the pregnancy (whenever the nervous system forms sounds like a good time) they should be able to terminate the pregnancy. It has nothing to do with me feeling superior to a foetus.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:29:58 2011 No.3473845

>>3473780
Potentially impregnating girls.
What does that mean. Nothing. If she doesnt want the child she will kill it. If she didnt want to be potentially impregnated she wouldnt have had sex with me. I am not responsible for your choices and I have been removed of my responsibility in my childs life. I have zero responsibility. My morals mean nothing if i cant even choose for my child to live.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:29:58 2011 No.3473851 >>3473802 You forgot your [bullshit][/bullshit] tags

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:31:58 2011 No.3473862 >>3473851 Says the person whos trying to excuse killing children.

Icarus !!16JAfj4/vQJ Fri Jul 29 21:31:58 2011 No.3473863

My view on this debate? The fetus has no attachment to society, and no one to mourn them. They don't even exist as a person with a personality yet. So there's no loss when you kill them. Meanwhile there are plenty of benefits to abortion, such as not having poor, unwanted, unloved children to live on welfare or become criminals.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:33:58 2011 No.3473872 >>3473863 So if you found a man on an isolated island supporting himself with no attachment to society is it okay to kill him. I mean you could take his resources and use it to benefit society.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:35:58 2011 No.3473881 File: 2.37 MB, 320x240, 1311962101358.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3473802 >the will to live

>>	Icarus !!16JAfj4/vQJ Fri Jul 29 21:35:58 2011 No.3473882 >>3473872 What do you mean by okay? Morally? I've never understood morality. But yes, you have nothing to lose by killing him, and you benefit from doing so.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:37:58 2011 No.3473889 File: 242 KB, 800x600, 1311563445250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.2think dot org/abortion.shtml like most things, sagan has a great view on abortion

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:38:58 2011 No.3473899 >>3473862 Fetus=/=Child A Child is a human being A Fetus is a potential human being.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:39:58 2011 No.3473901

>>3473845

Okay, this will be my last attempt to explain, because I feel like Im not getting anywhere at all. Ill break it down REALLY simple. We take a not too uncommon scenario:

teens at party
girl and guy get drunk
girl and guy get horny
neither one bothers to ask about birth prevention measures
girl gets pregnant

Now for the love of god, tell me how that is not the fault of both? Tell me how one is more to blame than the other?

The laws have nothing to do with what I ask of you; to behave like a decent person. How can you NOT see this?

And if you think girls only have sex because they potentially want to be impregnated, you need to go out more. Its enjoyable and nice, thats why teens do it. Not because they want to have babies. I absolutely dont understand how you fail to see this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:39:58 2011 No.3473902 File: 10 KB, 360x240, 1252284782010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3473802 >No, the will to live is part of everything that is alive. functionally consistent with >No, the magic is part of everything that is alive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:48:58 2011 No.3473959 >>3473899 No an egg and sperm is a potential human being. A fetus is a human being

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:49:58 2011 No.3473964 >>3473902 Has science created life yet. Sounds magical to me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 21:53:58 2011 No.3473986 >>3473901 Pregnancy means nothing since she can just kill the child if she so chooses which shouldnt even be a choice. The guy can't. How can you fail to see that the responsibility of her pregnancy has been removed from him.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 22:01:58 2011 No.3474017

>>3473986

Pregnancy means nothing? Really? You think women just decide to abort their babies as if its a matter of choosing what colours to wear today? Pffffffff. You act as if being pregnant is a joke, and you are selfish enough to not even care about her or your kid.

If you truly think like this, I hope you will never have to care for any children for the sake of the world. You are exactly the kind of person that is the core of this problem, and I hope that one day you will realise this. Now Im going to leave this thread because you have just proven yourself to be an absolute dumbass, and its 4 in the morning so Im going to bed. A good day/night to you.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 22:10:58 2011 No.3474061

I would draw the line at self-awareness (which certainly doesn't happen in the womb) and potential for intelligence.
If someone's brain contains enough information and structure to be self-aware, his right to life and freedom should be inalienable (unfortunately in our current physical universe we cannot guarantee this and have to resort to law to maintain society).
Other people can draw the line earlier at consciousnes, which may or may not be fine, but it's trickier there - abstract this enough and even ants would be conscious, but you wouldn't particularily care if someone murdered an ant.
Either way, abortion should be legal.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 22:37:58 2011 No.3474161 >>3474061 Dude I wasn't self aware till the 7th grade.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 22:53:58 2011 No.3474223 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66VsbouZSes&feature=related

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 23:11:58 2011 No.3474290 >>3474161 You... never used the word "I", or thought yourself as an individual or recognized yourself in the mirror before seventh grade? What were you? A vegetable? Even a young baby recognizes itself in the mirror.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 23:18:58 2011 No.3474306 >>3474290 Even spiders and snakes recognize their reflection on water.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 23:23:58 2011 No.3474324 >>3474306 And people think it's ethical to experimenta on (conscious) animals (it's not). We do it because we need to, but in the long run we're causing more suffering than all abortions put together.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 23:31:58 2011 No.3474344 I just came back from work, and I don't want this thread to be 404'd, there is a lot of interesting opinions and questions here. How do we archive this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 23:37:58 2011 No.3474363 >>3474324 So spiders are self aware, okay.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 29 23:43:58 2011 No.3474388 >>3474363 I didn't claim that, but it does apply to enough mammals.

Anonymous Fri Jul 29 23:51:58 2011 No.3474407

I'm for abortion by all means. I think we should abort more babies to acquire more perfect stem cells, though it is much easier to use shit like nasal cells, teeth, tons of other things.

Society functions towards the improvement of the future society. The more we hold people back, force other people to take care of kids nobody wants, to be against abortion but for rape and unintentional pregnancy, to leave the decision of destroying someone you have complete biological control over to a small group of people who will never be in your interest, the slower society progresses.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 03:11:58 2011 No.3475253 >>3472891 Omission bias.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 03:13:58 2011 No.3475265 Abortion is wrong and we should ban it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 30 04:09:58 2011 No.3475473 This is not even remotely a scientific question.

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 ]

/sci/ - Science & Math