The Stoics believed the fetus to be plantlike in nature, and not an animal until the moment of birth, when it finally breathed air. They therefore found abortion morally acceptable.
Aristotle wrote that, "The line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive." Before that point was reached, Aristotle did not regard abortion as the killing of something human.
Why do you want to force the belief that abortion is morally unacceptable even when the glob of cells is basically a potato even at the expense of the mother's life and quality of life?
>>727362
I just want to force abortion.
>>727362
Addendum, at the expense of the child's life as well, since there's no maternal bond with something that is hated.
As much as I love ye olden Greek philosophers, I don't get my science from them.
If they had ultrasonography back in the day, for example, they would have seen a fetus moving and reacting to stimuli for themselves, so they wouldn't have described it as a plant or otherwise so far away from a human being.
>>727382
Actually a formed fetus is already past the potato stage.
>fetus moving and reacting to stimuli for themselves
Can they detect the mother's hate? If I punch my pregnant belly and call it an unwanted piece of shit that should not exist, will it detect that? I do not want it to exist, its existence is an offense against my body and it deserves to be punished for that.
Source for your statement on the Stoics?
I imagine they would be against abortion, since they were mostly against recreational sex.
>>727394
Yes, actually. The fetus will release chemicals into your blood stream that will not only make you no longer want to be a faulty human and actually take care of said fetus, but it will ALSO release hormones that will prevent you from hurting said fetus, much like how you can't willingly drown yourself by holding your head underwater.
If you want to be a petty and childish piece of shit, that's perfectly fine. Your body doesn't want you to however, and will stop you from doing so.
[citation needed]
>>727394
If you have such strong feelings of hate towards your unborn child there's probably something wrong with you, not the child.
>>728238
>The fetus will release chemicals into your blood stream that will not only make you no longer want to be a faulty human and actually take care of said fetus, but it will ALSO release hormones that will prevent you from hurting said fetus
Except that doesn't work with unwanted children. That's why rape victims who end up pregnant kill themselves while pregnant or kill their children after birth, or become depressed abusive mothers. An unwanted baby is an alien stranger that the the host does not recognize as welcome.
>Your body doesn't want you to however, and will stop you from doing so.
My body will reject it even more. Unwanted pregnancy also lead to depression which skyrockets the possibility of miscarriage, the body literally does not want the parasitic shit.
>>728257
I don't want to be pregnant now. If it were forced on me the the child deserves all my hatred for being such a piece of shit burden on me.
>>727362
Because a fetus isn't a fucking plant you fucking idiot, which means the Stoics are starting from a completely ridiculous premise.
>>728339
It is like a plant though in its first 3 months. That's why you can abort it.
>>727362
>Why do you want to force the belief that abortion is morally unacceptable even when the glob of cells is basically a potato even at the expense of the mother's life and quality of life?
If you can prove to me that most abortions are because of a threat to the mother's life, I would agree with you, but I don't think they are. I think most abortions happen because people are sloppy with using birth-control and condoms, i.e because they are irresponsible people.
Now, the real question is: Should people have their lives ruined because of an irresponsible choice when they are young? Not necessarily, and I think abortion should remain legal, however, this does not mean that abortion is completely morally neutral either.
The idea that specific kinds of behavior becomes ethical simply because they are legal to do, is too Kantian for my tastes.
>>728342
No it isn't. Its cells don't have walls. There's no chlorophyll, and the developing neural structure bears 0 resemblance to a plant.
Furthermore, the resemblance to a plant, based on whatever stupid criteria, is not the primary issue in abortion. If I walk up to a pregnant woman in the first 3 months of pregnancy, kick her in the stomach hard enough to cause a miscarriage, by your logic, all I've committed is a simple assault, and I should get no further penalty besides a fine and maybe a month or two in the slammer.
Go look up actual codes of law, see how that's not followed anywhere.
Man and woman get married. Wife wants no more than one child, and only when she is ready for it, husband wants sex. If you deprive the wife of her birth control pills to control her not getting pregnant and the husband is a dick or a douchebag or worse and gets her pregnant against her will, how was she "asking for it"?
Should women just never get married?
Should men just be forced to accept they get to have sex one time in 30 years of marriage and that's it?
>>728339
It may as well be in the early stages. Just a sack of cells controlled by growth regulators.
>>728351
That's because you're a stranger interefering. The body is the woman's and she has full autonomy and ownership over it. Do you want to deprive women of their bodies?
>>728357
Not him, but this is a bad argument.
I could use the same argument as you are using, just exchanging woman for a man, and say, by what right does a woman have to make a man a father against his will? He does own his body does he not?
>>728363
Women don't have the right to make a man a father against his will, that's why the father can not recognize the child if he doesn't want it and opt out of child support. Deadbeat dads do just that.
But in reality it's man who in the vast majority force pregnancy on women.
>>728357
If the fundamental right at issue is the woman's body, then why is the development of the fetus relevant at all?
You should simply be honest and say that your right to bodily integrity trumps the fetus's right to life, regardless of its development; and that you think you should have a blank check to murder in those circumstances.
Whether the initiator of the abortion is the mother or some random stranger has 0 bearing as to whether or not the fetus is considered a person. It is equally either a person or a non-person regardless of who is initiating.
>>728373
>Women don't have the right to make a man a father against his will, that's why the father can not recognize the child if he doesn't want it and opt out of child support. Deadbeat dads do just that.
In what country? In all Western countries I know of, there is no "legal abortion" for men, and if you try to opt out of paying child support, you will go to jail.
So no, you are so wrong you do not even have the faintest idea.
>>728377
>If the fundamental right at issue is the woman's body, then why is the development of the fetus relevant at all?
Moralfag argument is the babby feels it omg it's cruel to inflict pain well there's a stage where the baby is a potato that does not feel pain, so moralfag argument doesn't hold water.
If you argument is all life is sacred, then the life of the mother should be sacred to you but it clearly is not since you are willing to destroy it.
>>728379
That's because child support is defined as the man wanting the baby since you got her pregnant against her will.
If you didn't want to get your wife pregnant, you shouldn't have stuck your bare dick into her while sabotaging her birth control.
I'm usually not someone that cares much about abortion as an issue, but every time I hear the arguments of the pro-abortion crowd, I become more and more inclined to become pro-life.
Women calling their own unborn child a parasite make me feel disgusted.
>>728386
So because you feel disgusted you'd force women and their children to poverty, misery, depression and abuse?
>>728385
>If you didn't want to get your wife pregnant, you shouldn't have stuck your bare dick into her while sabotaging her birth control.
Why doesn't this apply to women? If women don't want to have children, why don't they stop letting men put their dick in them?
Why are men hold to a higher standard of responsibility for their actions than women in this instance?
>>728380
>Moralfag argument is the babby feels it omg it's cruel to inflict pain well there's a stage where the baby is a potato that does not feel pain, so moralfag argument doesn't hold water.
Uhm, no, that is not the "moralfag" argument at all. The argument is that at some stage in development (where exactly is under pretty fierce debate itself) the fetus is a human being, and therefore destroying it is murder, which most of us are against. It has nothing to do with the ability to feel pain, it has to do with the right to life that we generally recognize in humans.
>If you argument is all life is sacred,
It isn't. My argument would be that human life is sacred.
>then the life of the mother should be sacred to you but it clearly is not since you are willing to destroy it.
This isn't the middle ages anymore. Odds of death in pregnancy in America are 14/100,000
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT
A woman's life might be complicated due to an unwanted pregnancy, and she might not want it for a host of relevant factors to her own life, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, her own life is not balanced against that of the fetus. In those cases, I don't know anyone who has a problem with abortion.
>>728391
Because men do this thing called rape where they don't care if the woman doesn't want it or doesn't want it under these circumstances they're going to force it on her regardless.
This is Musonius Rufus, leader of the Stoics and master of Epictetus.
>Is it not true that the lawgivers, whose special function it was by careful search to discern what is good for the state and what is bad, what promotes and what is detrimental to the common good, all considered the increase of the homes of the citizens the most fortunate thing for the cities and the decrease of them the most shameful thing? And when the citizens had few or no children did they not regard it as a loss, but when they had children, yes, plenty of them, did they not regard it as a gain?
>So it was for this reason that they forbade women to suffer abortions and imposed a penalty upon those who disobeyed; for this reason they discouraged them from choosing childlessness and avoiding parenthood, and for this reason they gave to both husband and wife a reward for large families, and set a penalty upon childlessness.
>How, then, can we avoid doing wrong and breaking the law if we do the opposite of the wish of the lawgivers, godlike men and dear to the gods, whom it is considered good and advantageous to follow? And certainly we do the opposite if we avoid having many children. How can we help committing a sin against the gods of our fathers and against Zeus, guardian of the race, if we do this?
>For just as the man who is unjust to strangers sins against Zeus, god of hospitality, and one who is unjust to friends sins against Zeus, god of friendship, so whoever is unjust to his own family sins against the gods of his fathers and against Zeus, guardian of the family, from whom wrongs done to the family are not hidden, and surely one who sins against the gods is impious. And that raising many children is an honorable and profitable thing one may gather from the fact that a man who has many children is honored in the city, that he has the respect of his neighbors, that he has more influence than his equals if they are not equally blest with children.
>It's a "I'm a pre-op Tranny, that makes me a REAL WOMYN GUYS!" thread
Fuck off Constantine.
>>728403
Rapes are minority of pregnancies m8.
It's retarded to argue with such a low hanging fruit.
>>728390
Yes. Abortion supporters are pieces of shit. Maybe the best solution would be to send the kids to be raised by actually decent people. Plenty of gay couples would love to have a baby.
>>728395
It is not a human being when it's still a glob of cells.
>My argument would be that human life is sacred.
Then you have no right to disrupt the woman's life and force her to slavery or disrespect her will.
>A woman's life might be complicated due to an unwanted pregnancy, and she might not want it for a host of relevant factors to her own life, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, her own life is not balanced against that of the fetus
Proof please. That is not for you but for the woman to decide. If the wife gets pregnant when she doesn't want to because her husband sabotaged her birth control or threatened violence and other such consequences against her if she did not comply, she is a rape victim and should not be forced to go through the trauma of pregnancy from rape.
>>728424
>It is not a human being when it's still a glob of cells.
You currently are a glob of cells. Does that mean you're not a human being?
>Then you have no right to disrupt the woman's life and force her to slavery or disrespect her will.
Being an adult is not slavery. Raising a child does not "disrespect your will".
>Proof please. That is not for you but for the woman to decide. If the wife gets pregnant when she doesn't want to because her husband sabotaged her birth control or threatened violence and other such consequences against her if she did not comply, she is a rape victim and should not be forced to go through the trauma of pregnancy from rape.
You're making a pretty loaded claim there. Are you certain that the majority of pregnancies are the result of this? Because if they aren't, I don't see how that's relevant as no one would disagree with a woman getting an abortion in that case. But again, you'd first have to demonstrate that the majority of pregnancies are caused by birth control sabotage. Otherwise you're just using a very poorly constructed strawman.
>>728424
>It is not a human being when it's still a glob of cells.
If it's not a human being, then anyone, mother or outsider, should have the right to destroy it with minimal consequence.
>Then you have no right to disrupt the woman's life and force her to slavery or disrespect her will.
That is not a right to life, that's a right to freedom or some sort of property interest. While important, those are usually considered less than the right to life, i.e. to actually live.
>Proof please.
Quite literally in the last post. I will repeat the link. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT
If you live in the U.S., odds of death due to pregnancy related causes are 14/100,000
That is considerably less risky than say, driving an automobile.
>That is not for you but for the woman to decide.
No, the odds of dying due to pregnancy are an objective, measureable thing.
>. If the wife gets pregnant when she doesn't want to because her husband sabotaged her birth control or threatened violence and other such consequences against her if she did not comply, she is a rape victim and should not be forced to go through the trauma of pregnancy from rape.
Completely irrelevant point. Try to stay on topic. It also fails to address numerous alternative possibilities. What if she doesn't want to get pregnant, but she's a stupid teenager with poor sex ed and simply never takes any birth control? Did her boyfriend rape her then?
>>728430
At least I'm better than someone who calls her own kid a parasite and wants to kill him/her. Murderer.
>>728430
>Rape isn't just violent m8.
I don't care. You are just moving the goalposts.
You are creating a scenario where the only person responsible for getting a woman pregnant is the man, which means he shouldn't have ANY say in the process of being a father or not.
And this is clearly retarded because women have far more ways to get out of the situation than a man, they can use birth-control, they can decide if they want to be fucked by a man, they can take a morning after pill, and they can have an abortion.
A man has 3 choices. Wear a condom, or fuck women and become a father regardless if he wants to or not.
This is clearly not an equitable scenario, and it's ironic to me that people who claim to be feminists don't see that massive discrepancy in power, while maintaining that they are for equality between men and women.
>>728434
>You currently are a glob of cells.
I am quite different from pre-fetus glob of cells.
>Being an adult is not slavery.
What is being an adult to you? Being forced to do something against your will? Having your will disrespected? Why do you want to force people to pregnancies they don't want?
>Raising a child does not "disrespect your will".
Yes it does, because I do not want to raise that child. It is completely against my will.
>No one would disagree with a woman getting an abortion in that case
Weren't you calling for depriving women of their agency over birth control by banning oral contraceptives which are the birth control they can use and control themselves in another thread because muh fertilized egg?
>>728457
>This is clearly not an equitable scenario, and it's ironic to me that people who claim to be feminists don't see that massive discrepancy in power, while maintaining that they are for equality between men and women.
This is, ironically, why Gossypol was shot down.
A chemical in cotton essentially causes temporary male sterility. Dr. Coutinho (Who, coincidentally, had an essential role in the creation of female birth control pills) suggested the idea to the Chinese at a World Population Summit, attended by several scientists, philanthropists, and government officials from China and the USSR. He was shot down by Betty Friedan, who had also attended the summit, who proclaimed that women had worked too hard to have control over male reproduction and that Coutinho was a sexist for threatening that power. The summit had to be closed after Friedan and her followers began to riot and try to attack Coutinho.
Gossypol itself isn't used because the "temporary" part of "temporary sterility" are really unreliable and in some cases sterility never returned at all, or took several months to return. The Chinese of course did not give a damn about this.
>>728465
Your argument would also work for a negligent woman that don't feed her 6 years month baby because she wants to play a MMO.
Or for someone that doesn't want to pay taxes.
>>728320
>I don't want to be pregnant now.
>If it were forced on me the the child deserves all my hatred
I don't even know is this bait or not
>>728465
>I am quite different from pre-fetus glob of cells.
So the number of cells makes the difference? And what exactly is that number?
>What is being an adult to you? Being forced to do something against your will? Having your will disrespected? Why do you want to force people to pregnancies they don't want?
Being an adult is accepting that there are consequences for your actions.
>Yes it does, because I do not want to raise that child. It is completely against my will.
Then don't get pregnant, or get an abortion? I don't see what the issue here is.
>Weren't you calling for depriving women of their agency over birth control by banning oral contraceptives which are the birth control they can use and control themselves in another thread because muh fertilized egg?
This is the second time I've ever talked about abortion on /his/. I know it's shocking Ms. Dworkin, but there are other people, some of whom are women, that disagree with you.
You still haven't demonstrated that the majority of pregnancies are caused by rape or birth control sabotage, by the way.
Plebs keep bumping this asinine shit.
>having a discussion about ethics without having read its history up until at least Nietzsche
Why argue you both likely have different, invisible criteria and values? Why feel so convicted about an issue when you haven't questioned everything up from the basics?
>>728442
>If it's not a human being, then anyone, mother or outsider, should have the right to destroy it with minimal consequence.
Not really since it's her glob of cells inside her body, not yours. You don't kill someone else's dog and you don't put the owner in danger.
>That is not a right to life, that's a right to freedom or some sort of property interest. While important, those are usually considered less than the right to life, i.e. to actually live.
Arbitrary of you to say, especially since for the woman her right to freedom is more important than the unwanted life that threatens to disrupt it.
>That is considerably less risky than say, driving an automobile.
I'm not talking about mere death. I'm talking about quality of life being disrupted. As I've said, poverty, misery, depression and abuse with come with forced pregnancies.
>No, the odds of dying due to pregnancy are an objective, measureable thing.
That's not the only thing we're talking about.
>Completely irrelevant point.
Rape is irrelevant to you? That's a scenario that happens in abusive relationships.
>What if she doesn't want to get pregnant, but she's a stupid teenager with poor sex ed and simply never takes any birth control? Did her boyfriend rape her then?
Why did her boyfriend have sex with her if she doesn't take birth control? He should be responsible and not stick his dick in her if he knows it might lead to an unwanted baby. Your scenario btw is what leads to the most common situations of povery, abuse and depression, since a baby is a burden teens cannot take. Technically if a teen gets pregnant the parents can command an abortion for her since she is clearly unable to take care of the baby being still a minor herself.
>>728489
Her "right to freedom" is more important than the life of another person?
>>727362
>Why do you want to force the belief that abortion is morally unacceptable even when the glob of cells is basically a potato even at the expense of the mother's life and quality of life?
explain to me what objectively makes a fetus, but not a mother, a glob of cells
>>727362
>The Stoics believed the fetus to be plantlike in nature, and not an animal until the moment of birth, when it finally breathed air.
Is this why Greek vegetarians thought beans were too animallike to consume?
>>728489
>Arbitrary of you to say, especially since for the woman her right to freedom is more important than the unwanted life that threatens to disrupt it.
So every pregnancy is unwanted? Do you have a citation for that?
>I'm not talking about mere death. I'm talking about quality of life being disrupted. As I've said, poverty, misery, depression and abuse with come with forced pregnancies.
So every pregnancy is forced? Do you have a citation for that?
>Why did her boyfriend have sex with her if she doesn't take birth control? He should be responsible and not stick his dick in her if he knows it might lead to an unwanted baby.
Why did she have sex with him if she wasn't on birth control? If she does not want to be pregnant, she could have easily taken birth control, told him to use a condom (or used one herself), or not had sex just as easily as he could have used a condom or told her to get on birth control. Why should the man be solely responsible for whether pregnancy occurs or not?
>>728486
Why don't you enlighten us then, instead of shitposting?
Oh wait, this is 4chan, of course you won't do that.
>>728477
Mothers who just want to plays MMOs can hand their kids to foster care and people that don't want to pay taxes can move to another country.
>>728480
>So the number of cells makes the difference?
The structure of it too, unless you think you are a potato.
>Being an adult is accepting that there are consequences for your actions.
Which consequences? The ones one can chooses for herself or the ones you'd want to arbitrarily impose on others regardless of their will?
>This is the second time I've ever talked about abortion on /his/. I know it's shocking Ms. Dworkin, but there are other people, some of whom are women, that disagree with you.
So you want to force women to slavery and deny them their basic human rights?
You have also evaded the question. Weren't you calling for depriving women of their agency over birth control by banning oral contraceptives which are the birth control women can use and control themselves in another thread because muh fertilized egg?
>>728489
>Not really since it's her glob of cells inside her body, not yours. You don't kill someone else's dog and you don't put the owner in danger.
So then feticide should be a property matter. If I end the pregnancy of a woman, I should have to pay a small fine based on the worth of the clump of cells.
Why is it then, that in most western countries, feticide carries near murder penalties?
>Arbitrary of you to say, especially since for the woman her right to freedom is more important than the unwanted life that threatens to disrupt it.
It is equally arbitrary of you to say the reverse. However, at least my logic is consistent. Life>Property/security. Yours is Life>Property/Security except the mother's Property/Security>Fetus's life but not in other circumstances.
Furthermore, if you assert that the woman's right to freedom is more important than an unwanted life that disrupts it, why stop at abortion? Why shouldn't women be permitted infanticide? Or in fact the murder of anyone whose existence threatens her freedom?
>I'm not talking about mere death. I'm talking about quality of life being disrupted. As I've said, poverty, misery, depression and abuse with come with forced pregnancies.
Which isn't life. I don't know how I can make this any simpler.
>That's not the only thing we're talking about.
I was under the impression we were talking about the morals and ethics surrounding abortion and the status of "humanity" attributed to fetuses.
>Rape is irrelevant to you? That's a scenario that happens in abusive relationships.
Extreme strawmanning. I'm saying that a singular incidence of pregnancy by some kind of deception from her husband bears no impact on the general exploration as to whether fetuses are human at what if any point.
>>728489
>Why did her boyfriend have sex with her if she doesn't take birth control?
Because she's stupid and didn't understand or plan ahead with the risks involved.
>He should be responsible and not stick his dick in her if he knows it might lead to an unwanted baby.
Why shouldn't she be responsible and not take a dick when she doesn't want a baby?
>Your scenario btw is what leads to the most common situations of povery, abuse and depression, since a baby is a burden teens cannot take.
Yes, that's terrible. Now tell me something. Suppose you have a teen pregnancy, and the mother's going to keep the child, risks and all. They're looking at poverty, depression, possible escape to drugs to get out of it. But, the mother has the opportunity to murder a Nigerian prince and seize the 2 million dollars he has in cash, and completely get away with it, securing enough money to more than care for the child, or hire someone else to do it in her stead. Is it ethical for her to kill the guy for his dosh?
> Technically if a teen gets pregnant the parents can command an abortion for her since she is clearly unable to take care of the baby being still a minor herself.
I have literally never heard of this anywhere. Source, please.
>>728512
Killing your own kid is not a human right. If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex.
>>728512
>The structure of it too, unless you think you are a potato.
Which structures? What structures make a "glob of cells" different from a "human being with a will"?
>Which consequences? The ones one can chooses for herself
Yes. Like getting an abortion, giving the child up for adoption, or raising it. This is the basics of accepting the consequences of having a child. Try to keep up.
>So you want to force women to slavery and deny them their basic human rights?
No one has ever said anything about turning women into property. Try to keep up.
>You have also evaded the question. Weren't you calling for depriving women of their agency over birth control by banning oral contraceptives which are the birth control women can use and control themselves in another thread because muh fertilized egg?
I already said I did not. Again, try to keep up.
The stoics had similar but different theory of mind/soul to the skandhas of the india. They believed the nature of a human lies with their soul. The soul is separated into multiple parts, the senses, the memory, the conception, reason, etc. They considered the heart to be the center of the soul. Thus to a stoic, the fetus with a developed heart would be a human-like being. So they wouldn't say abortion is morally acceptable.
Aristotle believed in a soul that exists based on functionality of a living being. So a human that can't see, talk, hear, sense wouldn't have a soul in Aristotle's mind. Even he would be offput by killing an unborn baby thats been developed enough.
In either case, they would recognized the potential for change and potential of the fetus.
OP doesn't even understand their beliefs.
>>728496
Yes, when the life of a on-person (you are not a person until you're born) threatens her own.
>>728508
>So every pregnancy is unwanted?
Why are you putting words into mouth? Unwanted pregnancies are unwanted.
>So every pregnancy is forced?
Again, why are you putting words into mouth? Forced pregnancies are forced.
>Why did she have sex with him if she wasn't on birth control?
>poor sex ed
There's your answer. A teen raised by religious nuts against birth control will not be taught the dangers of unsafe sex and how to protect herself but just be fed a bunch of bullshit. Even more so if her upbringing demonizes the pill which is common among conservatives. Not her fault in either case.
>she could have easily taken birth control, told him to use a condom
>poor sex ed
Pick one.
>not had sex just as easily
Sure only then it would've been rape with her boyfriend forcing himself on her.
>>728539
Not him, but why are you consistently refusing to answer the question to why only men should be responsible for if women get pregnant?
Wouldn't those pro abortions argument also work for men that don't want to pay child support? It goes against their will, they could say.
>>728565
Absolutely. But the modern Western state panders to women.
>>728521
>So then feticide should be a property matter. If I end the pregnancy of a woman, I should have to pay a small fine based on the worth of the clump of cells.
>small worth
That's not how the market works.
>Why is it then, that in most western countries, feticide carries near murder penalties?
Because the market makes the clump of cells very expensive and worth a fortune. You can try though in some nigger country, there it shouldn't matter much since life is cheap there.
>It is equally arbitrary of you to say the reverse. However, at least my logic is consistent. Life>Property/security. Yours is Life>Property/Security except the mother's Property/Security>Fetus's life but not in other circumstances.
Your "logic" is merely a blind generalization that does not care about the woman's circumstances and well-being.
>Why stop at abortion?
Because society has decided that human rights start after birth, so post-birth it's a person, while pre-birth it is not. That makes sense since post-birth the child can be physically removed from the mother without it dying immediately.
>Which isn't life.
So life to you is being a mere vegetable and the quality of it doesn't matter? Quality of life is related to life.
>I was under the impression we were talking about the morals and ethics surrounding abortion and the status of "humanity" attributed to fetuses.
No, you are attempting to force that.
>Extreme strawmanning.
Factual truth.
>I'm saying that a singular incidence of pregnancy by some kind of deception from her husband bears no impact on the general exploration as to whether fetuses are human at what if any point.
Yes it does because it the mother's life that is at stake and you are going to impact and infringe here.
>>728527
A fetus is not a kid.
>>728539
You know that you were a fetus once, right?
>>728573
The fetus is your son or daughter. You are basically killing your son/daughter for selfish reasons, be it your career or that you want to continue sleeping with Chads.
>>728522
So the boyfriend is criminal of exploiting another person?
>Why shouldn't she be responsible and not take a dick when she doesn't want a baby?
>poor sex ed
You cannot be responsible if you've had poor sex ed. You've just been made to believe bullshit.
>Is it ethical for her to kill the guy for his dosh?
Well it's a nigger.
>I have literally never heard of this anywhere
I have. Will post a link when I find a good source.
>>728532
>What structures make a "glob of cells" different from a "human being with a will"?
Can the glob of cell do what I do? No? Can it feel anything? No. Is it aware it's alive? No. It is an unformed mass without body or brain. Can you really not see the difference with a human?
>Yes. Like getting an abortion, giving the child up for adoption, or raising it. This is the basics of accepting the consequences of having a child.
But you want to deprive women of the option of abortion?
>I already said I did not.
Sounds very hypocritical of you. If you think all human life is sacred, why let fertilized eggs have the chance of not implementing in the uterus and have therefore someone killed? The only way to ensure that is to ban birth control for women.
>>728553
I have answered.
>>728598
>I have answered.
No you haven't. You just bring up rape or "forced pregnancies", which is not what we are talking about.
>>728609
>You just bring up rape or "forced pregnancies", which is not what we are talking about.
Yes it is, since and pregnancy that the woman doesn't want to have is a forced pregnancy.
>>728573
>That's not how the market works.
That is entirely how trespass to property law works. If I tortiously shoot your dog, I pay the market value of a dog. If the fetus is a clump of cells, the penalty should be whatever a clump of cells goes for. It should not be 20-life.
>Your "logic" is merely a blind generalization that does not care about the woman's circumstances and well-being.
What makes the woman's circumstances and well being more important than another person's life?
>Because society has decided that human rights start after birth, so post-birth it's a person, while pre-birth it is not. That makes sense since post-birth the child can be physically removed from the mother without it dying immediately.
No, they actually don't. I take it you've never actaully heard of Roe vs Wade? How they were balancing the mother's right to bodily integrity against the fetus's right to life?
>So life to you is being a mere vegetable and the quality of it doesn't matter? Quality of life is related to life.
No it is related to freedom and security, which is a separate bundle of rights. But you can't have any of those if you're dead, which is why the assertion of a right to life trumps the others.
>No, you are attempting to force that.
That's what the question started in the OP was about. That's what my first response was about. You're the one bringing up new factors, not I.
>Factual truth.
It is a factual truth that most relationships are abusive? That most pregnancies are unwanted? I'd like a citation or that.
>Yes it does because it the mother's life that is at stake and you are going to impact and infringe here.
Did you even read what I wrote? Whether or not the fetus infringes the mother's security, and whether or not that should be tucked into her right to life has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not the fetus is human, and if so at what point.
>>728609
>You just bring up rape or "forced pregnancies", which is not what we are talking about.
Yes it is, since any pregnancy that the woman doesn't want to have is a forced pregnancy and the result of rape. Rape is sex someone doesn't want. If you have unprotected sex with your gf while tricking her into thinking it's safe, or you get her consent via coercion, violence, drugs, alcohol or trickery, that is not valid consent and that makes it rape.
>>728619
>since and pregnancy that the woman doesn't want to have is a forced pregnancy.
A woman that doesn't want to be pregnant can do several things do STOP the pregnancy from happening in the first place, or end it the moment it happens.
A man cannot.
>>728627
>>728598
>So the boyfriend is criminal of exploiting another person?
How did he exploit her? In my hypothetical, a stupid person made a stupid choice. How does that make exploitation?
>You cannot be responsible if you've had poor sex ed. You've just been made to believe bullshit.
So then, men who also have had poor sex ed are also not responsible for their sexual decisions? Every time a horny teenager has sex without thinking of the consequences, he's been raped?
>Well it's a nigger.
Oh, you're from /pol/ Well, now I can feel justified in ignoring you. Good day.
>>728612
>I have no recollection of that.
You also have no recollection of when you were a baby. Or of when you are sleeping. Were you less of a person in those two cases?
>>728320
> If it were forced on me the the child deserves all my hatred for being such a piece of shit burden on me.
Are you for real?
If it was rape, your rapist deserves it. If it was your own fucking irresponsibility resulting in an unwanted pregnancy, you fucking deserve it. The baby had nothing to do with it.
I'm pro choice and I still think you're a shitty human being for your justifications.
>>728612
>And you are appealing to emotions to force me to care for a son or daughter I don't want, that I hate for being an unwanted disruption of my own life, that deserves all my hate and vengeance an punishment for that.
Your son and daughter are completely innocent and deserve no hate.
Wouldn't your argument support infanticide by a father that doesn't want to pay child support?
>>728624
>whatever a clump of cells goes for
A clump of cells goes 20-life for people who are not the owners of said cells (ie people who are not the mother). The market has decided this, deal with it.
>What makes the woman's circumstances and well being more important than another person's life?
The fact that another person's life disrupts her own circumstances and well-being. I'll ask again, are you advocating for forcing misery, poverty, depression and abuse on others?
>No it is related to freedom and security, which is a separate bundle of rights. But you can't have any of those if you're dead, which is why the assertion of a right to life trumps the others.
A right to life does not trump any other rights when the right to life of the fetus trespasses the freedom and rights of the mother, or you are advocating for slavery and abuse of people who are rendered unable to enjoy their own rights.
>Roe vs Wade?
I'm not american.
>It is a factual truth that most relationships are abusive? That most pregnancies are unwanted?
Why do you keep saying "most"? Do you think if one woman were forced to pregnancy against her will she should be denied abortion because she's only one so who cares?
>Whether or not the fetus infringes the mother's security, and whether or not that should be tucked into her right to life has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not the fetus is human
Yes it does, because you cannot deny the consequences the fetus has on the mother's life. It is not an abstract removed thing like you seem to treat it.
>>728628
>A woman that doesn't want to be pregnant can do several things do STOP the pregnancy
That's why you want to bad women's birth control and sex ed, yes?
>How did he exploit her?
If he know he would get her pregnant and did not warn her, it is exploitation of her goodwill and innocence.
>So then, men who also have had poor sex ed are also not responsible for their sexual decisions? Every time a horny teenager has sex without thinking of the consequences, he's been raped?
Not since he's the one who wanted to stick his dick into a vagina. Also boys tend to receive better sex ed than girls.
>>728647
Why do you keep trying to move goal-posts?
>>728648
>The baby had nothing to do with it
The baby is a reminder of the trauma and a trauma in itself. It may have nothing to do with it but its existence is a an undue trauma to the mother. Do you feel justified in making the mother suffer?
>>728656
>Your son and daughter are completely innocent and deserve no hate
They deserve all my hate for existing and making my life shit. They should go away or shut up and not exist so that they do not cause me stress with their existence anymore.
>>728656
>Your son and daughter are completely innocent and deserve no hate
Maternal bond does not exist with unwanted children. Mothers who did not want the pregnancy typically do not have a close relationship with the child. They are more likely to suffer from post-partum depression or other mental health problems and less likely to breast feed. The baby is a burden and a source of stress, anger, misery and depression.
>>728635
>Well, now I can feel justified in ignoring you
You won't be able to ignore people like him forever, as they are growing in political power every day thanks to people like you who relentlessly marginalize and persecute those you disagree with.
Your kind hounded true racists from the face of society decades ago but rather than turn in and retire your Words of Power, you began to use them as a bludgeon to bully your political opponents.
So now we find ourselves in the amusing situation where since you have overused the accusation of "you're a racist" so much that the knee jerk response to the accusation is increasingly "so what?". Once that sentiment becomes wide spread your Words of Power lose all potency and the REAL racists are free to come back, at which point all bets are off for your future.
>>728672
>A clump of cells goes 20-life for people who are not the owners of said cells (ie people who are not the mother). The market has decided this, deal with it.
No, the criminal justice system has decided this. That is not the market. Please educate yourself on the differences. Penalties for assaults on other people are not based on economic factors.
>The fact that another person's life disrupts her own circumstances and well-being. I'll ask again, are you advocating for forcing misery, poverty, depression and abuse on others?
Oh look, an appeal to emotion. I can do that too. I"ll ask again, why are you advocating for murder, in fact, not just murder of the unborn, but of anyone whom it would be convenient to murder? >>728598
>A right to life does not trump any other rights when the right to life of the fetus trespasses the freedom and rights of the mother, or you are advocating for slavery and abuse of people who are rendered unable to enjoy their own rights.
You are advocating the murder of people who are unable to defend their own rights! Aren't appeals to emotion fun!
>I'm not american.
Read and learn.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
>Why do you keep saying "most"? Do you think if one woman were forced to pregnancy against her will she should be denied abortion because she's only one so who cares?
When you assert that ALL abortions are justified because ONE pregnancy is forced, you're being retarded. That's like saying I can kill you in self defense because somewhere out there a woman is mugging a guy.
>Yes it does, because you cannot deny the consequences the fetus has on the mother's life. It is not an abstract removed thing like you seem to treat it.
And those consequences would be the same whether or not the fetus is considered a person or isn't considered a person.
Therefore, they are separate concepts.
Go back to /pol/ the level of discourse is more suited for your double-digit IQ there.
>>728725
I could argue that the market influences criminal justice but I don't want to broadent the topic too much.
>Oh look, an appeal to emotion.
You started it with your appeal to human life is sacred for no reason other than emotion.
>I"ll ask again, why are you advocating for murder, in fact, not just murder of the unborn, but of anyone whom it would be convenient to murder?
Are you talking about the nigger? Well it's a nigger.
>You are advocating the murder of people who are unable to defend their own rights!
Fetuses aren't people and don't really have rights like you intend it.
>Read and learn
Pretty irrelevant to a global discourse.
>When you assert that ALL abortions are justified because ONE pregnancy is forced
I'm saying all abortions of forced pregnancies are justified, and for it to be a forced pregnancy the only requirement is the woman did not want to be pregnant.
>And those consequences would be the same whether or not the fetus is considered a person or isn't considered a person.
So your whole discourse is meaningless erraneous bullshit? How is it murder if it's not a person?
The ancient Greeks also threw unwanted children off cliffs. I don't know if I want to take my moral cues from them regarding child rearing.
>>728510
fine,
>If they had ultrasonography back in the day, for example, they would have seen a fetus moving and reacting to stimuli for themselves, so they wouldn't have described it as a plant
Plants move and react to stimuli.
>>728705
Your rationale implies some sort of traumatic experience in your past that you may or may have not personally experienced. If you got some friends, I recommend talking to them about your repressed memories instead of arguing with other losers on an anonymous tibetan basket weaving forum
>>727394
I think youre missing the point... An unwanted child or one for whom a mother is not financially/emotionally equipped to provide will probably be put up for adoption or have a not so good life.
>>728553
>>728598
>>728385
>If you didn't want to get your wife pregnant, you shouldn't have stuck your bare dick into her while sabotaging her birth control.
alright, how about this
I personally knew teenage girls in middle and high school who punctured condoms and fucked their boyfriends with them, with the intent of getting pregnant and binding their boyfriends to them
the guy here is stuck for 18 years paying child support, has no legal way to avoid this or even know it was a conscious action on her part, has no say in whether she has an abortion or not, and is just generally fucked
what possible defense do you have for this?
