Also cringe general
A lot of Christians are 100% seriously against abortion. I've known some online and off.
>>28451342
I am an atheist and I am against abortion.
No clue what you're on about.
>>28451376
>muh morals
Why care? You don't even have a religious justification for being against abortion. The only possible benefit you have to gain is that you wish to appear more "morally superior" than people who are in favour of abortion.
>>28451406
Not really. I just dislike the hypocrisy. I mean, usually, killing people is, you know, against the rules. Sure, there are plenty ways to get away with it. Young women drive plenty desperate virgins to suicide every year, but that is also one of the points I wish to make: it is well enough that they get away with that. A group of people getting away with two types of covert murder - now that is just too much.
Sorry if this sounds weird, I have had a glass after a hard day of work, but I think the general point got across.
>>28451311
That has to be satire. Please.
>>28451376
>on a board where the people often wish they were never born
>aware that many people hate life and see it as suffering
>the human population's increasing expansion is bad for the environment
>obsticles
>>28451311
>Understand, I am a big guy
>>28451406
You don't need a religious justification against abortion. A secular one will do just fine.
Scientifically the zygote formed by a male gamete and female gamete is a different organism from the mother it is inside because it has different DNA from her.
So no, it is not her body, her choice. there is a distinct life form inside her. When she kills that life form she is making the choice on its behalf.
Furthermore that lifeform is human.
So if you accept as most os society does that you are not allowed to kill other human beings at will, then why would you be allowed to kill a zygote?
It's pretty obvious from a scientific perspective that life begins at conception and so abortion is murder.
there is literally no counter-argument to this
>>28451846
The only counterargument is women wanting to ride more cocks more easily with less consequence, while also being able to use their ability to reproduce as a snare for their future husband.
>>28451846
Well there is the fact that babys are parasites from contraception to about 2 years of age.
>>28452173
then if your argument is that all "parasites" should be allowed to be killed by those looking after them then you should be arguing that it is ok to kill infants and the heavily disabled.
obviously society would not accept that it be ok for young children or the disabled to be killed at will by their guardians so neither should they accept that it is ok to murder humans still inside their mothers.
>>28451311
i have no idea what the shit he's saying, pretty sure it is just a joek
>>28451846
You could start by telling me why killing a foetus is worse than killing a prawn of the same size... the world needs more prawns than it does miserable human beings
>>28452352
Does not mean i am not ok with it. I also believe the disabled have the choice to die of their own accord.
>>28452352
I believe this though. I think what makes human life valuable is a personality formed by experiences. Heavily disabled people and infants don't have this. I think society will one day come around to the same viewpoint
It's funny because pro-life people are usually the violent ones.
>>28452439
the principle that it is not allowed to kill humans at will except in a small set of circumstances comes from general society , not from me.
If you reject the above principle then that's fine, you've already accepted such an absurd position that has nothing to do with society that I am happy to leave you alone.
I am concerned with normal members of society that accept this conventional, standard principle yet think that murdering humans still inside their mothers is ok, such as most people who are pro-abortion.
freaks who argue that it should be ok to murder humans because "the world doesn't need tehm as much as prawns" don't concern me.
>>28452352
I don't know if you're baiting but I hope you aren't because I've never had a good, serious conversation about this.
I'm a Christian myself and I'm afraid of all the reasons i can find to back up why abortion isn't bad, objectively. Population growth, the fact that it'll probably be raised by a crappy single mother, the fact that there are too many kids without parents anyway, how people with mental or physical disabilities are of very little contribution to society, etc
I don't want to feel like this, because it IS a human being, and we aren't so mighty that we can judge the worth of a human before it's ever gotten a chance to speak... however, in the back of my mind, I find myself going "why does it matter if no one has met the baby?"
Like those frog babies that used to get posted here. It really makes me sick to see. Like a click-bait article. "Has science gone too far? These baby girls would have died and not had to suffer through life if the parents weren't so desperate to keep them alive- despite clearly not being suited for this world!"
>>28451798
If "the Rock" punched him, would he die?
>>28452498
>I think what makes human life valuable is a personality formed by experiences.
>babys are parasites from contraception to about 2 years of age.
These are two different arguments.
In the top argument you would accept that humans who become heavily disabled but maintain their mental faculties are valuable.
In the bottom you would accept taht it is ok to kill them both because they are both parasites, i.e. unable to feed or support themselves and so necessarily require other people's labour in order to continue living.
So you've shifted the goalposts.
But it doesn't matter to me though because in either case you have already rejected the cnventional principle of society that it is not ok to kill young children at will , so if you want to argue that abortion is ok you already have to do so at teh same time as claiming that other forms of killing are ok, forms of killing that society -pro or anti abortion- rejects.
So you've already alienated from society yourself and aren't really part of my concern.
>>28451311
That comparison was so stretched he could've led the Fantastic 4.
>>28452612
can you explain how any of those reasons refute that
>there is a distinct life form inside her. [...] Furthermore that lifeform is human.
>So if you accept as most of society does that you are not allowed to kill other human beings at will, then why would you be allowed to kill a zygote?
?
>>28452619
It would be extremely painful.
13579
>>28452865
I don't think pro-choice people think about the morality of it very much. The zygote is not seen, it has no name, no history, and no one who loves it, so it is very easy to dehumanize it. That might be a testament to their morality, where, if you can convince yourself that it isn't human, it can't feel, then it doesn't matter.
But my argument is a little different. I see it as human, but I think that under all the circumstances I've mentioned, it seems like it's in everybody's best interest to give the baby a mercy killing. Very much like pulling the plug on a vegetable.
>>28453429
can you explain how it is in the baby's interests?
euthanasia for people who appear braindead is not unanimous in the current society but I believe the moral principle is that since it is believed with some degree of confidence that the person will never regain consciousness because their brain activity has reduced to such a degree, and since the person will never be conscious again they are not in a position to experience life and so are not missing out on anything.
On the other hand a person who is asleep is also unconscious, however because it is expected that that person will regain consciousness in the future it is considered not ok to kill a sleeping person because they will miss out on the experience of life in teh future.
An unborn baby is clearly analogous to a sleeping person in this case rather than a vegetable.
>>28451311
>cringe
I'll show u some fucking cringe
>>28452763
Ok fine you don't like me pointing out parasites. How about this. In Romania About the 60's there was a major rise in berth after a dictator illegalized abortion. Most of the births where from poor wemon, and thay where to poor to raise them. So thay where given to the state to be looked after. Put in massive state run penitentiarys with high concrete walls to be molded into workers. Or thats what thay hoped intell he mafia had a good idea to sell the kids for sex or to be trained to be killers. So yeah im pro abortion.
>>28451406
There are many philosophical reasons. For instance there are people who were saved from abortion and none of them are pro abortion, they are usually not religious or I guess conservative or whatever, they just know they would have been dead if their mother went through with it but did not change their mind last second.
I know an extremely liberal and open women who had a junkie mom who decided to abort, her parents said no, and she is against abortion.
i'm not done yet u fukin autists
retards kys pls
>>28453659
In the baby's interest because in many cases, I can't imagine the child being happy. A mother who considers an abortion is not one who is fit to raise a child. But the only other option is adoption, which will no doubt be an incredibly damaging experience for the child, unless a family adopts the child at a VERY young age.
Like many people on this site, I find myself facing depression, even though I have it great compared to the people who have to face the hell I just mentioned. Where you are forced to be raised to expect no one to love you. Because of this, I don't think life is worth it a lot of the time, and besides, a zygote won't even know what it's missing if it's killed.
And then there are retarded people and other disabled people, where it just seems like so much of their life is pain and confusion... and they totally consume the lives of those having to care for them.
>>28451406
>implying abortion doesn't contradict the categorical imperative.
Have fun in your kingdom of means.
>>28453729
the point isn't that I don't like the argument, it's that by adopting that principle you're obliged to say that it's ok to kill at will:
-young children
-disabled people
and possibly anyone who is not a net contributor depending on how you define parasite.
But all of these are beliefs that society rejects because society adopts the principle that
> you are not allowed to kill other human beings at will outside a very narrow set of circumstances e.g. self defense
as for the romanian example, the principle you seem to be aluding to is that it is ok to murder people at will as long as it on average benefits society . IT's permissible to allow babies to be murdered because those babies would probably become criminals who would damage society.
In that case it must also be ok to murder people who are a net drain on society e.g. lifelong social welfare recipients , or women who you expect will be mothers to families of criminals.
A very vague and messy criteria that would allow for the killing at will of a wide range of people who society deems it is unacceptable to kill at will.
Our society does not accept the principle that it is ok to kill someone as long as it benefits society.
>>28453900
If growing up in an orphanage is a fate worse than living then why do far less than 50% of children taken into care kill themselves? the rates I can find by quickly googling are 10-15%
Incredibly weak, stupid proposition.
>a zygote won't even know what it's missing if it's killed.
A sleeping person won't either.
but it's widely considered unnaccetable to kill a sleeping person because we expect that they will become conscious again.
As opposed to a vegetable or brain dead person, who we expect will never be conscious.
would you care to explain either how a zygote is logically analogous to a vegetable rather than a sleeping person?
>>28453900
>being adopted is a fate worse than death
>killing the unconscious is okay because they don't realise it
>if someone is a burden to you, you should be allowed to kill them.
>>28454101
Ok here is the funny thing about what you are saying. Nobody here said it is ok to kill small kids. It like saying "here you can bring my keys to my car" then going. "Oh if its ok to take the key to the car then it is ok to start the car and mabey even drive it." . In other words jest because its ok to kill a fetus does not mean its ok to kill a baby. Here is how i see it. If you can remove the baby from the mom and it does not die in 1 hour dont kill it. But in all seriousness a quadriplegic should have the rights to call it quits.
>>28454354
>Nobody here said it is ok to kill small kids.
What the person I was replying to said was that it was ok to kill unborn babies because they'er "parasites".
Andi nfact earlier in the same reply chain it was was said
>Well there is the fact that babies are parasites from contraception to about 2 years of age.
implying that he does indeed believe that young kids up to two years of age should be killed at will.
>. If you can remove the baby from the mom and it does not die in 1 hour dont kill it
What moral principle guides you to think that it is not ok to kill babies who CAN survive by themselves for more than an hour outside the mother?
>>28451311
An alpha
>>28454484
Ima actually the same person who said babys are parasites. But if you look closely i never said kill all babys at will. All i said is that thay are leeches by definition. What the fuck is a moral guide? A religion? A teaching from society? I have no moral guides from anyone other than my self because surprise i can think for my self. Also Don't try to find hidden implementations of what im saying. If i ment kill all baby i would have said so..
>>28454714
a parasite by definition cannot belong to the same species you deluded cunt.
>>28451311
A traditional and morally consistent one, I guess.
The only problem with abortion is if the fetus has a brain/body capable of experiencing suffering. Any pregnant woman in early term is morally obligated to abort, rather than bring another poor creature into the world. But if it's late term then she's obligated to keep it, because death is the most horrifying aspect of the nightmare of life, and murder is wrong.
>>28454714
>But if you look closely i never said kill all babys at will.
your implication was that abortion is ok because the unborn baby is a parasite was it not?
IF so then by saying that babies are parasites up until 2 years old then according to your logic it is also ok to kill children below the age of 2 because they are also parasites, according to you.
If you are not claiming that it is ok to kill unborn babies because they are parasites, then you aren't disagreeing with my original post.
>>28451846
I don't consider zygotes to be on par with a person.
Ultimately though, I just don't care about other peoples chidlren. I'd rather they not have children and then fail in life and leech off the government.
But no way in hell would I ever kill my chidl, fetus or otherwise. Unless they have some significant defect and would suffermore than normal
>>28451311
>abortion is a big guy
>>28455061
>I don't consider zygotes to be on par with a person.
Is there some principle or reasoning behind this judgment? For example do you think that the younger an organism is the less value it has as a human life?
>>28451406
You need to have a religious reason to be against abortion?
Can't people have their own ethical opposition to it?
I hope you're not one of those people who thinks you need religion to have morals.
>>28455143
I look at it this way.
If I had to choose between saving a single new born baby or 100 zygotes, I'd pick the baby.
Thats the best way I can explain it.
>>28455026
Dude i never agreed or disagreed in that first post. I was jest saying it was a parasite thats all. Then you started to talk about genocide of babys and cripples to defend your point.
>>28454220
I think that there are a lot of things worse than death and killing the child before it has the chance to face these things can be seen as an act of mercy.
The difference between a zygote and a sleeping person is that the sleeping person is still conscious of the world, what life holds, and has made an active desicion to keep living.
A zygote has not made the active desicion to live, or even to be born. Life was forced upon them. They have no frame of reference, I don't think they care if they die.
>>28455174
that is literally not an argument
>>28455215
>all these assumptions
Even if every single one of your assumptions was true, it still doesn't condone murder
Stop memeing that life is fucking worse than death, thats literally an impossible position
>>28455229
Thats the point dipshit, there is no argument.
Its all an opinion.
Just like its an opinion to believe animals are lesser than humans. You could easily argue otherwise, but still not convince people. Not everything can be logical.
Now let me ask you. Would you save the zygotes, or the baby?
>>28455174
>>28455229
yeah , the closest thing to reasoning I can extract is along the lines that a baby is closer to surviving to adult hood than 100 zyogtes so the baby should be prioritised the same way a doctor should prioritise saving the patient who, if he operated on, he'd have the best chance of saving from death.
However it doesn't work in this case because miscariage rates are not so high that the expected number of fertilised zygotes who make it to being newborns out of 100 zygotes is anywhere near as low as 1.
So 100 zygotes in average mothers are definietly more human life than a single newborn baby.
So it sounds like you value newborn babies over zygotes just because babies look cuter and more relatable, which isn't a very good moral principle.
>>28455283
>the death experienced by a zygote is comparable to the death of a mature human
LOL
>>28455297
you can have principles and examine where they lead though and whether they're consistent.
>>28455297
>its all an opinion
You should seriously reevaluate this idea.
Not trying to be patronizing or sarcastic, but that is a terribly boring and fucked up way to live.
These are questions of morality and ethics. If you say its all just opinion and relative, you are endorsing moral relativism.
Also I would claim the conundrum you present is not helpful in debating this.
I value human life, I consider zygotes human, thats all I need to say.
>>28455368
Prove that death experienced by a zygote is different than a mature human
>>28455357
You people are like robots.
Are you telling me that you wouldn't save a live baby instead of fucking zygotes?
I imagine most people would choose the baby, because a living human has more intrinsic value than a clump of cells.
>>28455368
what do you mean by "experienced by" ?
Are you referring to the fact that zygotes do not have sense organs so are unaware of their own death?
If that is what matters then feeding changing the atmosphere of someone's room replacing oxygen with carbon monoxide so that they die of lack of oxygen without ever realising or feeling anything should be fine too?
otherwise what are you actually saying?
Can you explain how killing an adult human organism is bad but a developing human organism is ok?
>>28455432
Thats actually an argument from emotion you just presented
Sure it sounds cold blooded but its a hypothetical situation
Also the "clump of cells" is also a living human, so they share the same intrinsic value. I would guess you meant to say something like a human being who is independent. I would agree that humans who are independent have more value, but that metric for deciding who lives and who dies is immoral obviously, because you could say execute all retarded or disabled people because they are not independent
ALL BABIES WANT TO GET BORNED
original
>>28455432
a zygote is a living human. It is a distinct human organism from its mother because it has different DNA from its mother.
I refer you to >>28451846
100 zygotes will in 9 months be lets say 50 newborn babies (ertainly more than 1), each of which has been alive since fertilisation.
>>28451311
god thats a fucking lunatic, you probably know this person so whats wrong with YOU
>>28451311
>cringe general
Kill yourself
>>28455521
Obviously the post sounds like it was written by a fucking white trash piece of shit but if you think being against is abortion is seriously that wrong I feel bad for you
>>28455488
Exactly, it is cold hearted.
There is no concrete answer to your question though.
To me, a zygote simply is not a human. Just like a pig is not a human.
This is why its rare to change minds on abortion. Its more about feelings, and less about facts.
>>28455569
Am I getting trolled here.
A zygote is 100% human, there is no possible way you can ignore this.
It has human DNA, it grows and develops just like a human.
A pig has pig DNA, it will never be a human.
There are objective differences between those examples.
>>28455670
Whats so great about human dna?
Physically a grown pig can do more than a zygote.
Yet you say a zygote is greater than a grown animal, because of dna?
Wheres the "logic" there. There is none. Its your opinion. And its my opinion that a zygote is not comparable to myself or a human baby.
>>28455713
I value human life.
If you want to disagree with this then, sure abortion is permissible within your worldview, and theres literally nothing we can agree on.
These are not logical arguments, but MORAL arguments. They depend on principles that you either uphold or disregard, but you have to be willing to live with the consequences of disregarding certain principles.
Disregarding the principle that we should not kill humans (or more what your saying, we should value life at its ability to do "work"?) is going to have a lot of repercussions that you probably wouldn't endorse, like killing of innocent people for resources or any reason.
Therefore your system is contradictory
>>28455713
so you have to start off with a moral principle or axiom.
the main moral principle being invoked in this thread is that it is not ok to kill humans at will.
This is a standard moral principle in society.
The productive thing isn't to assert which principles themselves are correct but whether they're consistent with other principles and whether other beliefs are consistent with moral principles.
The main argument that has been shown in this thread is that the belief that it is inconsistent to accept the normal principle accepted in society that it is not ok to kill humans at will, but it is ok to abort unborn babies.
>>28451510
>implying you dont want millenials dead
pathetic
>>28451311
>"The Rock" (Dwayne Johnson)
>>28455670
I'll take the secular argument bait, at the risk of sounding like a sperg.
Zygotes are not humans. They are zygotes. They are made of human cells and are made of human DNA, and can grow into humans with the right environment, but they are not humans. Therefore, they do not deserve the same rights as humans. They're indistinguishable from other zygotes until later stages of development. Zygote does not equal human.
You make an argument about how they're their own organism because they share DNA from both Mom and Dad. But this argument resting on DNA is invalid because DNA changes all the time due to mutations. Furthermore, we have bacteria with unique DNA and all sorts of shit in us that is "its own organism" but we aren't up in arms when it dies.
I'm in favor of the supreme court's ruling because we can't prove when consciousness starts in the brain, and if I had my way I would probably outlaw abortion after a month, because that's when a baby's brain develops. We know that the brain starts to form folds after three months, and these folds form complex structures that make us human (frontal/temporal lobe).
I don't understand how you can make a secular argument for constitutional rights at conception. Should we outlaw the morning-after pill, too?Unrelated, but I can promise that conscious or unconscious channeling of women-hate fuels a ton of anti-abortion people on here. Please recognize if it's affecting you and don't be that way, guys
>>28456235
>Zygotes are not humans.
In your own words, please briefly but firmly define what you mean by "human".
>>28456235
Finally an actual argument
First of all, not sure how the morning pill works, but if it prevents the gametes from merging and actually creating the zygote, then go ahead.
As soon as the zygote is formed, its human life and cannot be killed.
The reason I say this is because, morally, I would rather be on the safe side than speculating about consciousness or sentience or complex structures or anything else.
I like my systems to be based around actual objective and definable principles. Basing it on wishy washy things about possible sentience or w/e is just another way to base it on feelings. (and even it was based on scientific evidence, that doesn't mean its actually true morally)
I mean there could never be an actual consensus on when we should be able to abort if we endorsed your idea. There would always be doubt if, maybe the fetus was a few days ahead and we just accidentally killed a human, oh well. Things shouldn't be so reckless when it comes to terminating humans, potential humans in your case.
Also for your spoilered part, yes I do see the fight for abortion as an act to free women from responsibility.
>>28456318
I use (in my secular opinion) the brain as a method of gauging humanity. A human has a brain; all humans have brains. An embryo develops a brain after 28 days. Therefore, after 28 days, the embryo is a human and gets constitutional rights. There's your brief, firm explanation for the purposes of this online argument.
>>28456504
>I use (in my secular opinion) the brain as a method of gauging humanity. A human has a brain; all humans have brains.
But are all brain-havers humans?
I mean, a chimp has a brain.
>>28456504
But this zygote is going to have a brain.
You are preventing a brain from forming
You are taking action to prevent a human from existing (that would exist as per the laws of biology)
Also define a brain, these cells have nuclei, these early fetuses certainly have nerve structures that resemble/become brains.
What if the fetus grows a day early for some reason, or a day late, not every fetus grows at the same rate.
These are the inconsistencies that make me argue against abortion
>>28451311
>I am a big guy
btw abortion is great. less niglets and white trash
>>28456235
the grounds for being human are belonging to the human species , so yes they are human.
From zygote to embryo to foetus to infant to adolescent to adult is clearly one continuous organism, and that organism's species is human, so how is a zygote any less human than any other stage of the human life cycle?
That's nonsense.
>But this argument resting on DNA is invalid because DNA changes all the time due to mutations.
Not to the extent that literally half your DNA changes.
A zygote has genetic material from the female gamete from the mother, making up half the zygote and eventaul foetus and eventual baby's genetic material, and genetic material from the male gamete from the father making up the other half.
when a cell's DNA mutates it does so nucletide by neucleotide, while DNA machinery constantly checks for these changes and rectifies most of them. You'd never get literally half of the DNA suddenly changing unrecognisably.
>Furthermore, we have bacteria with unique DNA and all sorts of shit in us that is "its own organism"
They aren't human organisms. The principle of society is that it is not ok to kill except in a limited set of circumstnaces like self defense. So this is not a counter example.
>Should we outlaw the morning-after pill, too?
Yes actually. because scientifically life starts at conception because at that point you have created a new human organism, so if it's wrong and illegal to kill human life then it should be wrong and illegal to prevent a zygote from attaching to the fallopian tube the way it would have if you hadn't intentionally taken a massive dose of hormones.
>>28456442
>not sure how the morning pill works
It works in two ways: 1) prevent sperm from attaching to the egg, but if you're too late (aka if it's the morning after) 2) it prevents the zygote from attaching to the uterine lining.
>as soon as the zygote is formed, it's human life and cannot be killed
It's life, for sure. But our "human lives" are made up of systems of microorganisms that aren't our own. Bacteria that aren't human cells are like 40% of our biomass. I take issue with your idea of "human life." I'm trying to make an argument that we have all sorts of "human life" cells in us, comparable to a zygote, that die all the time. Our skin cells, cheek cells, etc. Zygotes have different DNA, but all of the cells in our body due, due to mutations and such.
>I like my systems to based around actual objective and definable principles
Who doesn't? I sure do too. It's the soundest argument. But you have to realize that by "morally" "being on the safe side," you yourself are bestowing feelings on a subject too. It's a two-way street.
I know that you won't believe me because it's the internet, but the neuroscientific community's (of which I'm a part of) consensus on humanity is in line with my argument. The brain is responsible for everything.
>>28456624
>you are preventing a brain from forming
So should we say the same thing every time a woman has a successful period and sheds her egg? How about every time you masturbate? You're preventing human life from developing there too.
Defining a brain under your guidelines defines stem cells as "cells with nuclei" in neural positions. But isolated stem cells are not brain cells.
Also, preventing human life is definitely not the same as taking human life.
>>28456235
about 45% of american women are anti-abortion so that underhanded accusation doesn't work.
>>28456857
the zygote is alive, spermcells and ova are not. why? Because zygotes are diploid and spermcells/ova are haploid.
sperm and eggs by themselves have half the DNA they need to start the human life cycle, while a zygote has just begun the human life cycle.
>>28456752
was hoping you wouldn't get me on the safe side argument lol
Your point about the bacteria and dying cells is meaningless, those deaths do not constitute the death of an organism.
A growing zygote is a living organism with human DNA, terminating the pregnancy is not like killing some skin cells.
I think basing an argument on fetus brain formation is not the soundest position.
How can you reconcile the differences between fetus brain formation? Or the inevitable evidence that says complex brain structure forms say, 3 days eariler than previously believed?
Theres just no way one can objectively point at a fetus and be 100% confident that it has a brain.
I admit, I don't know much about fetal brain development, but even if I did I would be hesitant to say "This fetus is safe to kill, it doesn't have a brain", because thats not how the scientific method works. You are never certain of anything you learn inductively (through scientific method). I simply feel its logical to cut off the point for human killing at a point where I can be sure that it exists.
>>28456857
My parentheses point after that should have been more clear, I meant that the zygote is sucessfully formed and growing in a womb.
Obviously preventing humans from forming by preventing teens from having sex is not what I meant.
>>28456930
>spermcells and ova are not alive
take a biology class lmao!
>>28456720
Let's take your argument back further. Since a zygote is two organisms becoming one, it can be argued that the egg and sperm are components that fall under your definition. They're "human" organisms too, belonging to the human species, and they're continuous organisms. So you tell me: how are sperm and eggs separately less human than any other stage of the life cycle? Yet we shed these every time we (the human race) climax or have our periods.
>"That's nonsense."
>They aren't human organisms.
Well, we'd die without them, thus ending a human life. If we have a mutualistic relationship with an organism, it is an inalienable, immutable part of us. It is a counter example because human life cannot exist without non-human life accompanying us.
Your argument rests on an idea that life starts at conception because of its newness. But the issue is that sperm and eggs --> zygote are indistinguishable from each other (same biomass) but you don't see people arguing for the preservation of these things.
>>28456865
>fuels a ton of anti-abortion people on here
>on here
way to ignore words lmao
>>28457023
Im the other anon but can you really say humans would die with eggs/sperm?
Not sure if you actually know this, I suspect you meant the 40% biomass bacteria
Genuinely curious if you can tell me humans would die without eggs/sperm
>>28457023
see >>28456930
That covers the gametes query.
>Well, we'd die without them,
not true.
we get more nutrition than we would otherwise and our immune system is somewhat stronger with them, but we would hardly die without them.
>Your argument rests on an idea that life starts at conception because of its newness.
no, it's because at that point a new organism with hte diploid DNA necessary to begin the lifecycle exists.
>>28457002
>A growing zygote is a living organism with human DNA
So is every somatic cell in your body.
>These deaths do not constitute the death of an organism
But they DO, Anon. The bacterium is an organism. It dies. They don't cause the death of a human, but they are a "death of an organism."
>This fetus is safe to kill, it doesn't have a brain
Fetuses have brains. It's a fetus when it gets a brain.
I'll admit, you have a good point in the scientific method and deaths of organisms there. The issue is whether an abortion is a HUMAN death (human in caps because defining "human" has its own connotations), entitled to the same constitutional rights, for which deductive proof doesn't go in either direction simply because we don't know enough about human development, agency, etc.
The issue is we've compromised the scientific method with moral responsibility. A hard and rigid abiding to "life at conception" would result in millions of babies with shitty lives and be shit for society. (This is not my argument, this is a reflection on society); so it seems society has compromised for abortions
>there's no way one can objectively point at a fetus and be 100% confident
But with technology we can: ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, etc.
DAILY REMINDER that since 1973 over 15 million black babies have been aborted
>>28457260
>we'd hardly die without them
Alright Anon. That's just wrong, sorry. Bacteria are responsible for fricking everything necessary to human functioning. We would die if we had no bacteria and JUST our human cells.
>diploid
You know what else is diploid?
Somatic cells.
Necessary to begin the life cycle? Somatic cells are life. Stem cells have the same DNA as somatic cells: an environment dictates which DNA is expressed. A cell's potential to begin life is where you are arguing, but the issue is there isn't a rational basis between somatic cells, stem cells, and an embryo. Anti-abortion arguments are in potential of cells, but the truth is a cell's potential is strictly dictated by an environment, with "environment" having a very very loose definition. The cell won't develop of its own accord without an environment
>>28457410
the first source I found about bacteria in humans understated their importance. nevertheless I don't think it's safe to say that bacteria are strictly necessary to humans remaining alive since germ-free mice for example can be bred.
Leaving this aside because I don't think it's very relevent to the main argument about whether abortion is murder,
Your somatic cells have the same (to within a very, very small degree of error) DNA as you. The zygote growing inside a mother does not have the same DNA as her, infact 50% of its DNA is different, a degree of error that one of her body's cells would not be able achieve through genetic mutation. that is why it is a different organism to her.
>>28457403
>Only 15 million
>>28457403
good
I'm black and even I think we need fewer niggers
>>28451406
>You have to be Christian to care about the living
a great cringe thread derailed by meaningless chatter.
>>support abortion because as a sexless beta way too much of my tax money goes to those failed pull outs and fuck trophies
>>28455409
a zygote doesn't have the fucking brain capacity (or a fucking brain AT ALL for that matter) to understand that it is dying. what kind of retard thinks this? people like you should be gassed honestly, further our society a bit.
>>28451594
Lmfao. One of the best.
>>28457989
So what about person who is sleeping then someone fills his room gradually with carbon monoxide so he never regains consciousness?
That person does not understand nor is conscious to his death either.
>>28451311
The sort that should have been aborted
>>28451846
By this standard, we shouldn't let families decide to pull the plug on the comatose/vegetables.
Honestly, whatever we can do to lower the number of single mothers raising kids in poverty and growing up to be shit heads, and lower the speed at which we are over-populating the planet is a-okay with me.
>>28457989
>a zygote doesn't have the fucking brain capacity (or a fucking brain AT ALL for that matter) to understand that it is dying.
It's a cell. Any thing that alive will be aware that it's dying.
>>28458434
No possible way you could no that. I'd argue that anything less than a human might experience pain, but has no concept of death at all. It's also arguable that organisms much more advanced than single cells are even conscious. Cells are not conscious.
>>28458310
See >>28453659
For rebuttal on the topic of brain dead people
>>28458511
The baby has no interests. It is not aware of it's surrounding at that point.
/r9k/ - Bioethics
>>28451311
But if this girl had been raped and got pregnant...too bad. No one to defend her then.
>>28458526
A sleeping person is not aware of their surrounding.
But it is considered not ok to kill sleeping people because we expect they will become conscious.
Similarly we expect unborn babies to become conscious so we should consider killing them to be not ok too.
Speaking of which I'm going to sleep now.
Well, his certainly turned into a cringe thread. Nice job, assholes. Take this somewhere else.
>>28451594
>>28455779
fugg, this is good
>>28453741
what's her name, that sounds exactly like someone I knew
>>28451846
Society does allow murder to happen, so who cares if its a zygote or a criminal. An unwanted child is more likely to become a criminal anyway. Be against abortion all you want, just accept the consequences of more people on the streets, in the system, left to fend for themselves.
Just like we dont want stray dogs and cats running the streets, we dont want stray children.
>>28453741
>there are people who were saved from abortion and none of them are pro abortion
[citation needed]
>>28451311
I'm very confused as to how he made that about abortion
>I can tie any two ideas together and pretend they're equivalent to each other
???
One time I bought a pack of ramen at the grocery store, and I thought I was just like the pack of ramen, I wanted to be carried away from my dismal life, pulled off the shelf, and taken to a comfy NEET's home.
>>28451311
a self proclaimed white knight
>>28451376
>atheism
get a world view that maybe doesn't rely hopelessness and awfully constricted autism.
atheism belongs in the trash and is cancer.
>>28451376
If you are nonreligious and against abortion, then you pretty much have to be a vegetarian to be morally consistent. A fetus is less of a sentient being than a chicken or lamb, let alone a pig or cow.
>>28460761
though I am pro-abortion, what you said is simply not true. It is perfectly plausible that one value only human life, and not the lives of any other creatures
>>28460693
>Just like we dont want stray dogs and cats running the streets, we dont want stray children.
exactly
this is why i wish the government would start sterilizing all these worthless poorfucks (trailer trash, spics, etc.), just like stray dogs they need to be spayed and neutered so we don't have more worthless copies of them mooching off government welfare
took a first plat dose. feels aight. what should i do?
/fit/ it's finest
>faggot gets decked
>passes out immediately
>surge of testosterone powers up the alpha
>rapes the girl
congrats you saved her anon
>>28461259
listen to music using headphones in the dark
i'd recommend ambient, shoegaze, or something drone-y
if you have any weed smoke it once the comeup is done
that's what i like to do on DXM at least
>>28451594
I was there for that, I even see my post :D
Just saw this on Craig's list in the STRICTLY PLATONIC section. Would you?
>>28451342
i do not know a single fucking christian that is against abortion,
must ve some american thing
>>28451311
muh soapbox
