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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 136 KB, 653x475, abortion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3894626 No.3894626 [Reply] [Original]

Killing of unborn children is wrong. There's really no debating about it. The moment the woman gets pregnant, and there's life inside her, it's a human being.

The only reason it's supported is because women are all whores who get knocked up by a nigger and can't afford to pay for the baby. It's disgusting that we have to pass laws that legalize abortion, just so these sluts can go on with their lives like nothing happened. You say that they would just raise their child shitty, and he/she would have a shitty life? I'm sure he/she would prefer A LIFE at all, instead of being killing as a fetus.

>> No.3894634

please restate your point as a scientific or mathematical question or assertion.

>> No.3894633

0/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

See me at the end of class

>> No.3894638

Yep but the mother's life is significant when both lives are threatened.

>> No.3894650

>>3894626
Perhaps an organic solvent would work better.

>> No.3894665

thats not really how they do abortion is it?

>> No.3894666

I fail to understand the problem with your question. You seem to classify an unborn (IE: non living as of yet) fetus as a whole organism catagorized as both alive, and having rights of some sort. Could you please clarify whether you view the fetus as a zombie citizen, or a parasite? Thank you.

>> No.3894667

>>3894665

bump for an answer to this man's question

>> No.3894673

I agree. Adoption.

The price you pay for being a loose whore and having unprotected sex several times a week without thinking of the future is the possibility of having a pregnancy.

Deal with it and don't kill your child you despicable whore.

>> No.3894675

>>3894666
It's a human being.

>> No.3894681

>>3894667

EK where are you. Tell me how abortion.

>> No.3894683

Abortion is just a tool used by fucking retarded whores who don't know how to use a god damn condom, or birth control which has a 99% success rate. If they make a mistake and have unprotected sex with a random guy in a parking lot they should have to pay the consequences, it's a learning experience. I'm sure she'll think twice before she does anything like that ever again. People have to make mistakes in order to learn from them, that's why these kids these days are such fucking lazy phaggots, everything has an auto-fix.

BRB MONTHLY VISIT TO THE ABORTION CLINIC

>> No.3894680

>>3894666
I'm certain if you did a DNA test it'd come out human.

>> No.3894678
File: 33 KB, 194x264, Swap.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3894678

>>3894665
Brutal.

>> No.3894677

>>3894675

and a real hero

>> No.3894687

I think mass sterilization is the only solution I would feel 100% happy with.

>> No.3894700

1) Definition of a fetus states that it's a fetus after two months.
Abortion laws cover the beginning two.
2) By the definition stated in 1, you can easily imply that a growing organism in your body is just as easily a parasite.
Thus, you can flush that bitch.

And you never abort at 23 weeks. That's just a stupid over-dramatization.

>> No.3894708

>>3894681
>>3894667
>>3894665

Holy fucking shit balls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

It's real.

>> No.3894713

>>3894708

It's real and illegal.

>> No.3894717

>>3894626
>objective morality
>/sci/ence
>FTL travel
Pick one.

>> No.3894719

>>3894700
And to add salt to the wound.
What did Bush do when he made it harder to abort fetuses? No Child Left Behind and Faith-Based Initiatives.
You see the Religious Right trying to provide jobs and financial security in the ghettos? Hell no.

>> No.3894727

People saying that the child would live a shitty life are retarded. Let's say abortion was made illegal, and all the kids got born instead of aborted, do you really think they would say that they wish they were killed as a fetus?

That argument doesn't even make sense.

>> No.3894734

If it's okay to pull the plug on someone once they are brain-dead, then it's okay to pull the plug on someone before they are brain-alive.

For the unborn child, just to be safe, the limit should be at the first trimester.

>> No.3894732

>Killing of unborn children is wrong. There's really no debating about it.

LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!

(also, logical fallacy detected in sentence two. too obvious)

>> No.3894742

>>3894727
You're killing a blank sheet of cells, bro.
They have no personalities until age 2.

>> No.3894744

>>3894700

see

>>3894708

That picture is 100% factually correct.

>> No.3894750
File: 72 KB, 698x658, 1318206845585.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3894750

>>3894742
>children have no personality until age 2
>this is what you ACTUALLY believe

>> No.3894752

If pro-lifers spent the same amount of effort on promoting safe-sex, and realistic sex education as they do on campaigning against abortion, they would stop so many more abortions from ever happening it's ridiculous.

Just admit you're interested in punishing sexual immorality already.

>> No.3894765

IF MY TAXES DIDNT HELP PAY TO RAISE THIS BUM ARSED KID, THEN FINE, MAKE HER KEEP IT, BUT WE ARE ALL PAYING TO BE THE KIDS FATHER WITH OUR TAXES COZ THAT BITCH IS A SLUT

= ABORT

>> No.3894766

>>3894744

I'm not sure which is worse. The description in the picture or Wikipedia's clinical description:

Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[5]

>> No.3894769

>>3894752
>hurr women should be able to take black cocks in every hole then kill the baby and avoid any responsibilty at all

>> No.3894776

>>3894744
See:
>>3894713

>> No.3894778

>>3894766
The fetus is fucking dead before they do any of this. Stop being a bitch

>> No.3894780

>see people protesting abortion at the street corner the hospital in my town is on
>mfw its mostly MEN, not women, protesting abortion

Isn't that something?

>> No.3894782

>>3894734
>But what if it isn't okay?
JK, I don't want to argue humanity (different morality schools and whatnot) and I in fact like your point. Goodnight /sci/, more enjoyable than what I'm used to.

>> No.3894784

fuck it just remove everyone's genitals and sterilize them all. it will stop a lot of unneeded angst and babbies.

>> No.3894787

>>3894780
Why would women protest it? They love being able to get cocks in every oriface then abort unwanted children.

>> No.3894789

>>3894769

They should be on birth control and using condoms. Then I don't care how many cocks they're taking.

>> No.3894795

>>3894789
But they aren't. That's the point. If they were, abortion wouldn't be necessary.

>> No.3894796
File: 271 KB, 752x1000, 3dc80cba6ff325132f12c8bba87861d3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3894796

>>3894784
I need my genitals to masturbate.

>> No.3894798

>>3894795
Note that most of the people who decry abortion are also staunchly against condoms, the pill, etc.

>> No.3894805

>>3894796

you will have no desire to once you have your testicles removed.

>> No.3894808

>>3894782

Good point. Is it okay to pull the plug? When is it not, and when is it?

The counter I hear is that, if the patient was almost certainly going to wake up again in nine months, you wouldn't pull the plug.

That's true. But a person already exists there. A person does not yet exist where the fetus is concerned. One will yet exist, sure, but none is there yet. Is it okay to prevent a person from existing? This argument quickly reduces itself to absurdity. The answer is either yes, it is okay, or no, it isn't, and we commit holocausts every day of our lives that we choose not to expend our gametes on reproduction.

>> No.3894817

>>3894795

thatsthejoke.jpg

And how do you get people to use condoms and go on birth control? By teaching abstinence? By teaching nothing?

No, you spend your efforts on teaching responsible, safe sex, and providing unbiased, realistic sex education. This stuff works.

>> No.3894820

I would be all for that bitch having 1000 un-loved babies if my taxes didnt have to feed this 99%

lets face it, i hear slags say "i am raising little tax payers"

no your not, the apple wont fall far from the tree. they'll just be slags with lots of kids that live of the governement too.

>> No.3894821

/sci/ will never get laid so who cares

>> No.3894822

>>3894805

What if they just removed your dick and left your testicles?

Would a person go mad being horny but unable to do anything about it?

>> No.3894837

It doesn't matter whether anyone likes abortion or not.

Females will resort to back alley operations. In the case that they don't want the baby and don't get an abortion they can still kill it after birth or abuse it.

>> No.3894839

>>3894834
Testes are a weakpoint allowing an attacker to do massive damage.

>> No.3894856

Hey bro, abortions are a way to keep minority populations from growing at an even faster rate.

This is sufficient enough reason to keep them legalized.

I will say that abortions should be performed prior to significant development of the fetus.

>> No.3894866

Might not be entirely relevant, but I just find it funny pro-lifers will fight tooth and nail for an unborn child. But once it's born they want nothing to do with it.

Three months in my limit on abortions, and if you do this shit often, you get punished unless you have proof it was from a rape.

>> No.3894878

>>3894856

As a Catholic (though obviously an atheist, all that means is that I'm not a great Catholic), I have the very, very strong feeling that abortions are wrong, they are simple infanticide. But I know too much about fetal development to consider the first trimester to be in that category, under that protection. There's no person, no child, in the womb at that time. No brain activity. If an adult had that level of brain activity, the doctors would immediately, unambiguously, declare the patient dead.

After the first trimester, no elective abortions. Not because of rape, not because of Downs, no reason is good enough. Only if the life of the mother is in danger, and only then if she wants it that way.

But before that, go ahead. Just don't make a habit of it.

>> No.3894886

>>3894822

yes, make sure you get them both removed.

>> No.3894888

>>3894866
I could definitely get behind a strict limit on lifetime abortions

>> No.3894890

>>3894866

It's more about punishing sex than protecting innocents.

If it weren't, you'd hardly see any children in the system, they'd be adopted right away.

>> No.3894905

Why would any of the utilitarians on /sci/ be pro-life?

>> No.3894911

>>3894905

/sci/ just wants to punish whores

>> No.3894918

>>3894911
>implying vengeance is on the utilitarian agenda
>implying the promiscuity of women affects /sci/'s agenda

>> No.3894934

>>3894918

>implying /sci/ has a utilitarian agenda
>implying /sci/'s agenda isn't vengeance

>> No.3894953

>>3894911
whores that aren't fucking /sci/, save EK

>> No.3894968

I would love to oppose abortion as long as the mother is give birth safely and there's guaranteed adoption.

>> No.3894972

allowing others to have abortions makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. some guy named chaz knocks up that girl you want to impregnate. you vote for the party that supports abortions. the girl aborts and now that chaz doesn't get his spawn. time to move in for your impregnation chance.

>> No.3894974

>>3894878

Atheist here. I really agree with your logic.

>> No.3894986

OP, if an abortion kills the human being in a woman's body, would you advocate classifying abortion under first degree murder? Because if you really believe that the fetus is legally equivalent to a human, this is exactly the kind of legislation that you should be pushing for to prevent abortions.

>> No.3894988

I AGREE OP.
YOU DON'T NEED TO BE RELIGIOUS TO REALIZE THAT.
THE FETUS HAS ITS **OWN** DNA, SO IT IS *NOT* THE MOTHER.

HOW CAN YOU BE AGAINST DEATH PENALTY AND PRO ABORTION!?!??!

HOPEFULLY NEW GENERATIONS WILL REALIZE THAT AND ABOLISH ABORTION JUST LIKE WE ABOLISHED SLAVERY.

ABORTION IS MURDER, USE A FUCKING CONDOM.

>> No.3894992

>>3894878
But life is still life no matter how you draw the line.

>> No.3895002

>>3894988

>implying murder is wrong

>> No.3895012

>>3894934
>/sci/ isn't utilitarian
Science is cold and apathetic. All that matters is knowledge. All actions are judged by their utility in respect to that goal.

inb4projecting

>> No.3895018

>>3894878
Abortions are useful to society.
/thread

>> No.3895026

>>3895002

>inb4 he tries to argue that murder is wrong, then justifies it when to do otherwise would result in deaths (war), but purposefully fails to make the connection between that justification and abortion

Absolute morality is stupid.

>> No.3895064

>>3894992

You draw the line at the inception of a new genetic code. I draw the line at the start of consciousness, but with sufficient grey area to allow for our limited knowledge in this area.

The life of a person ends if their consciousness is ended, even if the biological functions of their body may be continued. Legally, morally, and medically, we all agree on this. When it comes to the start of life, though, you use a different definition.

>> No.3895078

>>3894992
There you go again with this moral code of yours. Drop it. It subjective and it makes your arguments absurd, "it's wrong cuz it's wrong!".

>> No.3895100

Kill babby, move on with life, who gives a shit.

>> No.3895119

reported and saged

>> No.3895162

this is /sci/.
Luckily most of us realize there is no "either you're for or you're against" solution to this. Also there is no strict definition for life as far as I know. I would personally consider active cells and anything made of active cells to be alive. By that definition I'm engaging in a holocaust every time i scratch my skin or throw a condom away. But there is issues with intelligence, pain recognition, estimated development capacity, conditions with relatives, plans ahead, etc, etc. That being said though, I believe a generalized model for how and when to end a life can be made. As ethics is a product of humanity and subject to human opinion so must this model be. An immediate thought comes to mind: As ethics is subjective, one could argue that (although participation in a society requires submitting under a common code) others opinions does not have effect on you.
A quick reality check of societies moral development tells me it won't happen anytime soon.

>> No.3895384

Children should have a return policy until age 18 at least.