ABORTION IS DIFFERENT THAN MURDER

What about plugging a hospital into a brain dead person?

And a mother can’t make that decision for an unborn fetus that is not alive?

You sick fuck

What about plugging a dead person into a brain while at a hospital?

Is the fetus brain dead? What were it's wishes prior to becoming so?

And kids can't live on their own. So we should kill them when they're inconvenient because they can't take care of themselves?

and a nigger isn't living on it's own, it lives off of welfare, does this mean they're not yet people either?

All fetuses start brain dead, part of why most doctors think abortion is fine.

A corporation

Plug in a USB flash drive. Then just upload it its old brain. Wait, that might just work!

Killing in war is different than murder.

Sure, a collection of cells resulting in sperm and egg cells merging is brain dead, but when does the fetus become not brain dead?

Also it's a shitty analogy because ostensibly the braid dead adult in the hospital was previously not braid dead, might have a chance to recover, has people who already have a connection about them etc.

>most doctors think abortion is fine
What data do you have for this?

>got 'em!

someone who can live outside the body of another person

Attached: nDwrN4F.jpg (960x886, 344K)

So supposing we get technologically advanced enough to support an egg and sperm artificially then life begins at conception.

OP, if you eat meat, you better get off your high horse. I have some news for you about where beef comes from.

And we wouldn't have to worry about abortion anymore.

You solved the debate.

You used the word in your definition, therefore creating a logical and grammatical loop.

"brain death is irreversible and is legally and medically recognized as death"

Why are pro-lifers totally okay with fertility clinics throwing away unused embryos? What makes them different from a fetus in a woman?

And why wouldn't we have to worry about abortion? It's a false assumption to believe people will still want to pay to have the baby incubated or adopted or keep it. Unless we get to a post-scarcity world where there are virtually no costs there will still be a burden on the mother.

If it's in the body it's an abortion if you end it. It not in the body is murder if ended

That part of the debate is solved by your thought experiment

remember demmycats,the pic of the kid dead on the beach,5 year old butt up,,pappy sobbing by his side?
it got millions of hits on every democrat run platform,,repubs fault,,not the fathers for dragging the kid away from ma & the home hovel where likely there was enough to eat,a hovel with a roof,place to poop
like every cause every human who made his life a mess,every kid & broad holding his hand under duress because of the gueros,,they bury the lie,,on to the next one,
abortion,,the kids they talk about,life not making a case for 'the cause' is FUCKING WORTHLESS
to you Dcrats
fucking liars

That is a really semantic approach. "It's not pulling the plug if we just shoot 'em!"

The result and morality are the same, only the terminology has changed.

You need to say specifically where life starts for the fetus. Right now, it seems like your perception is that a fetus is not a human life until the mother shoots it out of the baby cannon.

Not murder

Not that poster but I say 11 weeks, the prefrontal cortex begins to develop at 12 weeks so I give an extra week to be safe.

why?

Attached: Im_sure_ive_got_a_reaction.jpg (884x764, 30K)

If I somehow went inside your body, is it not your right to have me out?

If I trespass on your property, is shooting me murder?

So... A specific brain formation? Because there are adults with conditions that render them unable to develop many parts of the brain, such as the prefrontal cortex. So are these adults with underdeveloped brains morally fine to abort?

BAN ALL AIRPLANES

EVERYONE SHOULD RIDE IN TRAINS

Attached: 147856455215.jpg (690x769, 166K)

Go on..

Attached: eeeeeexcellent.jpg (900x506, 55K)

This isnt even bait about aoc now, just unrefined retardation...

saged

Both of your examples, the second more than the first, don't account for the lack of agency that a fetus has, in the former example if someone pushed you into my property and forced you there I think it would be morally wrong to shoot you for it.

People are culpable for their actions, and their actions can create a child that makes their life uncomfortable for a long time. We are discussing the morality of ending that life.

The example of supertech isn't supposed to invalidate the argument, it's supposed to highlight that viability isn't a good metric for life, because it eventually leads to the conclusion that life begins at conception.

Sure in the future with post scarcity and robot nannies it won't be a problem but we aren't exactly there yet.

Are these adults autonomous? It's my understanding that having a prefrontal cortex is a requirement for consciousness. I'm happy to be corrected on that fact though.

In the case of people who are essentially vegetables from birth I don't think they have what you would call a human experience and the morality of destroying them lies more with their caretakers who put value in them than the usual inherent value indicated by sapience and consciousness.

It is. Literally by law.
Just because you've never had sex and never will, and are fucking bitter about it, doesnt mean women cant have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want.
>rrrrreeeeeeee I want you to pay for not having casual sex with me, and suffer by being a single mom!
What a colossal fucking faggot. Lol

Attached: 1551974719396.jpg (852x660, 79K)

In the future, all dissent will be quelled by our robot overlords.

Attached: 1526835649432.jpg (530x511, 86K)

We can work to change laws once we agree on certain concepts.

>change the law to be more ambiguous
Progress.

Have you ever had to deal with spoiled brats and tarded kids?

Why does it have to be more ambiguous? I'd prefer it to be more specific if possible. Ideally there would be some neural test to determine if the fetus was far enough along with brain development or not.

It would have to be more ambiguous, because the implication was that at some point everyone would agree on certain concepts. Certain concepts are not all concepts, and you will never find a realistic scenario where everyone agrees on even one thing without technicalities.

This is a terrible way to make laws.

Guess you going to pay for that welfare and school for that redneck and nigger kids

Thanks for taking my argument with charity.
We can work to change laws once we agree on specific concepts.

Man abortion helps guys out. Imagine the amount of child support this broches would of been receiving.

IF YOU THINK ABORTION IS MURDER

why arent you guys all for contraceptives like condoms and the pill? Abortion doesnt have to be a thing if we have abundant access to those things

We are, you stupid fuck.

well, good. the right is largely against this, you realize.

if you ban abortion though, you have to be okay with paying for the massive amounts of poor children that will be born.

The left is too retarded to pick a good spot to stop aborting, so they aren't any better. Both sides fuck this entire concept up and prevent any conversation about it by being hyper emotional and hyperbolic.

Honestly the right is closer to being correct because if they stop all abortions then no one dies wheras the left seems to be fine with a pretty wide range.

If i kick a pregnant woman in the gut and kill the fetus should i be done with assault or murder?

Jesus Christ
Underrated Postus Maximus

Attached: 2482D95A-F596-4604-9A18-D7EC7E188C60.gif (360x202, 1.35M)

No, that introduces the same problem. We need to work to make laws less ambiguous and capable of operating on various scopes. Agreement upon concepts is pointless, because if there is a quality of being allowed to deny the validity of the law based on a personal bias or opinion, the remainder of the technical or legal rigor within said law goes out the window. The entire purpose of the law can be made redundant with
>I don't like it
>it's wrong
>I interpret it this way
as opposed to
>it doesn't make any sense
>it contradicts laws that are meant to work with it and complicates things
not withstanding the point at which laws cease to be made because of the endless, unassailable myriad of interpretations and levels of argument for semantics. One of the only significant agreements that must follow, is the one acknowledging a certain degree of jurisprudence, sufficient enough to erase the least significant and otherwise trivial moral doubts that stem from fearmongering and bad faith.

>if they stop all abortions then no one dies
Incorrect. Many women die from childbirth.

holy shit, Batman! finally one of these bullshit AOC posts that is legitimately correct! Will wonder's never cease?

Still saging you, op, because your fascination with liberal goddess of the universe is a little creepy.

A white girl? Brown girl? Black girl?
You know depending, you could be a hero

If you don't want to actually discuss the issue you don't have to, but pretending to while maintaining a supposed intellectual high ground is an absurd tactic.

>Rather than take you charitably, I'm going to semantically argue with you and not get anywhere.

This is what you are doing. In the context of a moral argument about when abortion is permissible and then using a conclusion from that to define a law - which is the only logical way to draft such a law - you instead decide to go to the specifics of how to draft such a law rather than talk about the actual contextual subject at hand. Furthermore, pointing out that women die in childbirth is the same tactic, semantics without substance.

You get nowhere, risk nothing, yet get to enjoy feeling superior. How wasteful and self-aggrandizing.

You'd likely be tried for assault, murder would be added unless the baby was far along enough where doctors wouldn't chemically or surgically remove it from the woman just because.

>If you don't want to actually discuss the issue you don't have to
but pretending to while maintaining a supposed intellectual high ground is an absurd tactic
Okay. That's not what I'm doing. I've laid it out, not as clearly as I could, but clearly enough if you're going to give that kind of reply.

>This is what you are doing
That is not what I am doing. Jurisprudence. Just ask me to elaborate on that word and why it makes the most of what I'd typed.

>In the context of a moral argument about when abortion is permissible and then using a conclusion from that to define a law - which is the only logical way to draft such a law - you instead decide to go to the specifics of how to draft such a law rather than talk about the actual contextual subject at hand
That is not the only logical way to draft such a law. To say so is either ignorant or disingenuous. Again, jurisprudence. Remember that the last few replies we've exchanged deal with that very specific instance of addressing how to draft said laws, of which you did not object to until this moment, and actively regarded in its entirety such that you attempted to offer a rectification of the statement I took issue with.

The actual contextual subject at hand was not something I was discussing with you yet. There's no reason for me to need to have done that when that is not something I was ever doing. It's as if you are trying to say that I had come here and immediately began talking about abortion and murder, than
>change the law to be more ambiguous

That's what I did. There exists no one who was me who also began the discussion with abortion versus murder, nor kept their focus on the topic and remained focused on the topic, nor provided a lengthy argument or statement on the matter.

>pointing out that women die in childbirth is the same tactic
It's... not. I am free to point things out, even still.

>yet get to enjoy feeling superior
>How wasteful and self-aggrandizing
If you want to accuse me of self-aggrandizing...

Yeah, you cant murder something that isn't human.

Imagine actually giving a shit

Can a 2 month old live on its own? Think before you define terms.

Well there you have it again.

Agency.

Without it you aren't a person.

If I shoot you without my own agency, did I murder you?

If someone places me in a position that endangers or even negatively effects you, and I have no agency, how is killing me wrong?

If a brain dead person placed in your house is blocking the hose to your oxygen tank, and killing be the only way to rid them, the how is that not self defense or your right by your property?

no, people wil still get aboritons. they just wont be safe or regulated.

Hahahahaaaaaa fucking this

Can a 1 year old

No... you can't... you can't be that stupid as to actually believe that...

Fucking tard

Attached: 1554168684371.jpg (480x377, 18K)

You can be that stupid these days.