Is abortion murder? Serious question

Three retards, probably samefag, that don't understand why things like rape and organ trafficking are illegal in every civilized society.

Kinda, but depending on when you commit the murder it's negligible. Technically sperm cells are alive all by themselves. Technically trees are living things that you kill when you cut them down.

A baby doesn't develop the ability to experience anything like consciousness or pain until somewhere around the time its heart starts beating. Prior to that, you're not killing much in that moment. You're just callously stopping the formation of something that could be a cool person later in its development, which makes it reprehensible when abortion is done frivolously.

To be clear, niggers and Downs kids don't deserve to live anyway.

>Downs kids don't deserve to live
Then who the fuck is gonna clean the windows at Chickfila?

Attached: 4278742397.jpg (908x1586, 136K)

I always thought the word murder was a bit of a stretch, especially considering specific circumstances. Your future baby's going to be screwed up 10 different ways? I can understand an abortion then, it's essentially the most humane version of a mercy killing. You just changed your mind? I guess it's just barely acceptable if it's not late-term but I feel pretty damn bad about it, and would prefer it gets adopted instead. Abortion sucks in general but sometimes there's no good decision to make and we just have to make the "best" one instead.

If you purposefully don't abort a downy kid then I assume you are dumb af.

>supposed
says who?

Both legally and morally, no.

If it was going to be a healthy white kid then morally it's wrong.

What I meant by that was that once a woman is pregnant she is almost gauranteed to give birth.

Yeah it is

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

No. Miscarriages are still way way common.

Well I mean, she isn't, but even if she was, so what?

Abortion disproportionately kills niggers and therefore should remain legal.

Checked. Yes that's true you have a point. Miscarriages are horrible but it isn't a decision. Women decide to kill the baby when they get an abortion. Outstanding disgits.

No, it's the woman's choice unless she is in a relationship with the father-to-be then it should be a joint choice. If a woman just decides on her own and tells the guy to fuck off with the whole "my body my choice" bullshit then it should be classified as murder.

Why should the father have a say?

Bringing a child into the world that isn't wanted is worse than death. Adoption is not a good idea and shouldn't be used like that.

That's also his dna that has a chance to be born.

fipy bipy

>Adoption is not a good idea and shouldn't be used like that.
Seriously, Apple wouldn't exist and the world would be a better place.

>Why should the FATHER have a say?
I'm surprised this is even a question these days. So much for equality.

Exactly. Already seeing benefits.

So?

It depends. If it is white i call it murder. If it is a nigger or mexican i call it execution

If the father's body were being used in some way during pregnancy there would be an argument there, but it isn't.

Is euthanasia? Is manslaughter? asking if we are trying to paint all rectangles as squares doesn't work kiddo

Let's see how long the human race would last without men. Remind me how woman are able to concieve babies naturally on their own.

If you get an abortion all the potential the baby had is gone. If the father wants a chance to raise his child then he should. They can say that it's their body their choice but what they're doing is destroying the baby's body as well.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Men absolutely have the right to choose not to have sex, just like women do. After that decision is made though, the man's body is no longer involved.

If it were possible to remove the baby without killing it then that's what we should do, but it isn't always possible. A father's desire to raise a child can in no way override a mother's bodily autonomy.

Irresponsible cumsluts shouldn't have sex if they're not ready for the possible consequences.

If he's looking forward to being a father she has no right to deny him that. To do so is to kill his child.

Bullshit.

If someone is dying and they need, let's say a blood transfusion, and I'm the only possible donor, I cannot be compelled to give blood to save that person's life. It's called autonomy, you own your body, and you have total say in how your body and body parts are used.

Even if a foetus is healthy and viable, a pregnant woman still has domain over her own body, and can choose an abortion.

Typically, though abortions are carried out because if necessity because the woman's life is threatened by some complication. Abortion is a miserable, painful, shitty experience and it's not something some random feminist would do just to piss off the patriarchy.

So please, stop being an ignorant sac of douche, and stop pretending you give a shit about a baby's life when we all know you just like telling other people what to do, you shitfuck.

She absolutely has the right to deny him that. You cannot compel someone to use their body merely to suit your desires.

Are you female?

This.
This.
This.

Attached: 8E98B350-DB14-4E80-ACAD-DA63D3539E7A.jpg (750x450, 92K)

No, and it wouldn't matter if I was.

Yes it would. Sweetie you'll understand one day.

Not an argument.

If it gives the woman complications and threatens her life then she has a reason to not have the child. What I don't agree with is when she aborts the baby even though she is capable of giving birth. A baby shouldn't be stopped from living just because the mother got pregnant and decided she doesn't want to give birth. They made a choice to have sex knowing the possible consequences.

Adoption is not a good idea?

There are something like over 20 couples seeking a child than there are children available for adoption. Adopted children also far no worse in life in terms of grades, education, graduation rates, criminality, ect. Actually more often than not they do better in said subjects.

I think you are mixing up Foster Care and Adoption. People often mistaken the two systems. Foster Care children are taken from homes by FORCE because parents are considered unfit and are usually sent to other family. If no other family exists they are sent between temp homes until a permanent family is set-up. Although not only are foster children less appealing to couples (for many reasons, including many of them are much older, have behavioral issues, ect) but they are also harder to permanently adopt.

The most popular choice is seeking the parent (assuming they can even be reached), getting a signature to permanently release custody of child, and taking it through the courts to also get custody from the state. Even then, there are a lot of problems where a new parents custody rights are ignored.

In a standard adoption (from say a mother givinf up the child at birth). If you have the money and are willing to wait for a child to come along (which can take a long time because, again, there are 20 prospective families for every 1 child) then it takes very little time to finish the process and the child is considered yours no different than if you birthed them. Except with a few extra added rights (state dependent) like being able to see biological parent medical records and such.

What if the woman was raped?

I'd rather you didn't speak on behalf of my gender, thanks. Fucking sick of virtue signalling cunts like you online. Done with your shit now.

this is some good copypasta cheers

"Typicall" is just wrong. A vast majority of abortions are done for convienence.

And even of third trimester abortions, the supreme court never determined what "heath" meant. Any private abortion clinic can abort a baby the day before being born and say "the health of the mother at risk."

What kind of health risk can the mother assume? Physical, mental, financial, and social health. Its easy to meet the "health risk" requirement.

Mind you this requirement is ONLY NEEDED for 3rd trimester abortions. The vast majority of abortions ARE purely for convienence. If you don't think abortions are murder thats a fine argument, but dont make up shit that isnt true.

I'm not speaking "on behalf of your gender", I'm speaking about morality. If you're a woman and you think abortion is murder, you're still wrong. The gender of the person making the argument is utterly irrelevant.

Yes.

>what I don’t agree with is...
So what? It’s not your body. You do not have to sacrifice your bodies for others, neither does any woman. That’s really all there is to it.

That is an unfortunate situation, It's sad. Even though the mother was raped I still believe the baby deserves a chance, Not everyone agrees with this. Even if the baby will grow up in an orphanage they still deserve the opportunity to live. It was not the mothers fault to get pregnant but I stand by my ideas. No matter what everyone deserves to live.

Holy fuck you're unbelievable. Maybe go back and actually read what I said you fucking moron.

What about rape? Not only is it rare for abortions to be used because of impregnation caused by rape.

Although why does rape justify murder, that is if abortion IS murder. You dont get to kill an innocent party just because of a bad experience.

Also there was a small study conducted and found that abortions by rape had higher rates of PTSD and depression disorders 3 months later than giving birth and raising the child.

Small pool of people so it doesnt prove anything. Although its possible that abortions because of rape impregnation might actually be more harmful for the woman.

If that is the case, then the whole thing about the woman making a choice is just a red herring, since to you it doesn't matter if she made a choice or not.

If I were a woman and was forced to birth my rapists child I’d kill myself. I don’t know why you think your desire to see someone else’s fetus grow up matters in the slightest to the person who actually makes the decision.

Attached: 1dfc65a8bcef444b5c8a202d244e381c7dd8802e6be584a69a19566a32fdf5f7.jpg (900x900, 109K)

Alright, I read it again. My response is unchanged. Got an actual argument to make?

My argument is that abortion is not murder, and the whole "taking responsibility for your actions" thing is just a non-sequitur.

The baby growing in them isn't their body either. The fetus is still a human and no one should have the privilege of deciding whether they live or not.

How murder is defined is a choice humans make and there is a series of logical demarcations ranging from every sperm is useful to if you haven't named it yet infanticide is kosher. I feel like it's reasonable to allow a mother to remove a child from her body and if it can survive outside at that point good for it. If not it should have tried harder.

>nobody should have the privilege to decide
Yet someone does, the woman can choose not to support another body with her own. There is no situation in which you are obligated to sacrifice your body for someone else, even if they’re a fetus growing inside you.

That's not an excuse to legalize it. Arguments based off of emotion is good marketing, but makes bad policy.

The argument needs to be. Does the federal and state government have the power to legalize abortion? If it is clasified ad murder eventually then theres a good argument they dont as they have to protect the life of the child.

The next argument is SHOULD we then legalize it? And why?

If you argue based off of emotion it looks bad in the long run.

The truth is I don't care. Every one deserves to live.

>Killing a pregnant women and her unborn child is 2 counts of murder
>Pregnant woman killing her unborn child is fine.

>You're just callously stopping the formation of something that could be a cool person later in its development, which makes it reprehensible when abortion is done frivolously.

You could make the same argument about abstinence

You're free to have your opinion, but I say forcing someone to use their body against their will is wrong.

Typical, man telling woman what to think. Why am I unsurprised. You want men to have no say then fuck you. I've seen too many friends who are good men be denied the chance to be a father because bitches "didn't want to deal with that shit" all the while using "my body my choice" bullshit, then fucking assholes like you come out and say it's totally fine for them to do that. You make me sick.

Listen, society has control over all of us. If you don't agree to our societal morals, then get the fuck out and go live in the wild with the rest of your feminist retards. Hope you die of a cold.

Not an argument.

Great, so since there isn’t legal precedent obligating someone to conpromise their own body for another, then women shouldn’t be forced to carry out children to birth.

No emotions there at all.

Isn’t it the most respectful action of a man to just leave it up to the individual?

Hilarious because I'm one of the ones against the feminists.

Who's forcing someone to use their body against their will?

It's denying you the oppurtunity. If they want to make the act legal but criminalize abortion clinics thats enough in my book. I don't think you should be stopped from being allowed to harm yourself but another person harming you in a clinical setting should be illegal.

You dont have the right to an abortion. You can argue you have the right to self harm. If thats the case the both with by outlawing abortion clinics and not criminalizing self harm.

Thats not what abortionist want though because they want abbortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers.

You should have left it at this but instead you kept arguing with a larping faggot and what does the world stand to gain from that?

Men have been guilted into that shit. There's nothing respectful about it. No woman I've ever known believes that.

Except you're not sacrificing your body for someone else. Your body is still there after you give birth.

Hot. Would bang

Not if it's a nigger

oops

>Who's forcing someone to use their body against their will?
People who are "pro-life" are trying to.
>If they want to make the act legal but criminalize abortion clinics thats enough in my book
This is a bizarre opinion.
>I don't think you should be stopped from being allowed to harm yourself but another person harming you in a clinical setting should be illegal.
Should tattoo parlors be illegal? Should cosmetic surgery be illegal?

And you're free to have yours. I say forcing someone to not be born is wrong.

I dunno, it takes me less than a minute to just say "not an argument" and it's amusing to see what "she" will say next.

Yes and no. Fetal rights do exist, and do protect the mother in case of harmful acts done upon the child (except for death).

So in a way, there actually is. You can argue if those should even exist. Although there is plenty of legal precedent set to make abortion illegal already. How about society at least make sure its values are consistant. If abortion isnr murder then murdering a pregnant woman isnt double murder. And a pregnant woman has no more rights than a non pregnant woman. Its not a human being after all.

Sacrifice doesn’t mean entirely, you’re sacrificing your health and physical integrity when you give birth— shit is genuinely dangerous.

Hell parents can’t even be obligated to *give blood* to their children.

The first is retarded but you can't oppose it for the same reason you can't say children's choirs full of cancer patients sound like shit.

So compelling people to use their bodies against their will is acceptable to you. Got it.

You wouldn't be singing the same tune if you were aborted. Oh wait...

Abortion is no more murder than refusing to give blood to a dying kid that needs it is murder. You can’t be obligated to sacrifice your body’s nutrients for another person.

Also not a woman.

You pro slavery too?

And that isn't fucked up at all.

Then she should be able to kill the rapist's baby then

We make criminals do community service or stay in jail.

If your old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to do the time.

Alright, as long as you are having a good time.

Do you think it's murder?

Truff

Cosmetic surgery and tattooing should be if considered self harm.

As far as I'm aware, it is entirely illegal for any medical clinic to cut off a limb even with permission unless it meets medical needs much more restrictive than that of 3rd trimester abortions.

But rape tho?

What crime are you referring to in the case of a pregnant woman?

You used crime literally and figuratively in that statement and I can’t tell if you’re trying to mislead people or if you’re just retarded.

No. That's irrelevant. What does that have to do with this conversation?

By that logic, I am not obligated to feed my child either.

Criminals violate laws and take the punishment that they agree to via the social contract. If a woman agreed to carry the baby to term before getting pregnant you might have a point, but that isn't what is happening.

So are they self-harm? Why is abortion self-harm?

Because you’re taking away people’s bodily autonomy.

It's a common saying you social retard.

How about: Old enough to Play, old enough to pay.

or is that too complicated?

You wouldn't donate your blood to a dying kid who needs it?

No.

/thread

An act isnt performed upon the child, it is in the case of an unborn child. You are harming the child by aborting them, you arent harming someone by refusing a blood transfusion. You are denying a service.

I'm not sure how its simply denying nutrients when you are ripping the child's limbs one by one and then crushing their skull to remove them. Do you actually know how most abortions are actually performed?

It's extremely relevant. You're trying to force people to use their bodies against their will. It's a form of slavery.

You are because there is clear legal precedence for that. There isn’t any for requiring someone to compromise their own body. Food comes from outside your body.

I do when I can, but I wouldn't charge someone who didn't with murder. Would you?

It would exactly what is happening if abortion was illegal.

The consent to have sex would be an agreement to carry a possible child.

As it was for thousands of years before.

But I'm poor and can only afford to feed myself.

Well I'm not pro slavery.

>if abortion was illegal
It isn't though, hence why it isn't murder in the legal sense.
>The consent to have sex would be an agreement to carry a possible child.
Why?

Sure but law isn’t idiomatic. There’s no crime in the case of a pregnant woman, and people can only be forced by the state to work as a punishment for the crime. Are you not smart enough to see how your were being misleading?

You clearly are.

Serious answer: No.

Any other answer is based on faith or outdated science, and be ignored.

Yeah they’re sucked out. Nobody is obligated to host a growing fetus in them anyway.

Only misleading to a social retard, that would take a common idiom literally.

Like an idiot.

That’s why we have social programs

Except they've effectively outlawed abortion in Alabama. They can't be ignored, they have to be shown publicly that they're wrong.

No, you have a point. But I would still hate them for it. They had an opportunity to save someone's life but they decided not to take it.

>murder in the legal sense.
So it is murder in a moral sense.

>Why?
Actions have consequences. Getting pregnant is a well known consequence to having unprotected sex.

How so? Explain how I support slavery because I think everyone should have an opportunity to be born.

It says a lot that you can’t actually back up your argument and that you’re just insulting me now lol

Its a double edged sword i think. Im all for killing babies, but i hate giving women rights.

Attached: sanic3.jpg (164x300, 7K)

smells like liberals and cuckoldry in here

>So it is murder in a moral sense.
How so?
>Actions have consequences. Getting pregnant is a well known consequence to having unprotected sex.
1. Rape exists.
2. The consequence of getting pregnant is that you either carry to term, you have a natural miscarriage, or you get an abortion.

faggot

Because you believe in forcing people to use their bodies against their will. That's slavery.

Right but we’re talking about the law here, so throw morals out and understand that actions have very clearly defined consequences.

Having to carry a child to birth is not a legal consequence of having sex.

There is no argument moron. You never said a word about what I said, only made some sort of autistic contention because you think an idiom is literal.

Attached: 7733475309.jpg (1866x1620, 192K)

Are you a Nazi?

Then explain what crime you’re referring to in this post.

Is ought fallacy.

Current laws mean dick all in this discussion.

but procreation is also murder. by having a child you are also sentencing them to a slow death by age. either way by creating life in some way you are a murderer.

Attached: __admiral_and_prinz_eugen_kantai_collection_drawn_by_oekakizuki__sample-e672dbb12f84082a34be74f31d63 (850x1133, 180K)

So they shouldn't be able to experience life?

No, but are you?

Good god.

Let me hold your hand like a child.

user says: you cannot compel someone to use their body against their will.
Yet we do it all the time with criminals so that is clearly false.

The idiom, do the crime do the time, means if your going to take an action, you must be prepared to deal with the consequences.

As in if you are old enough to have sex, you are old enough to have a child.

You obviously are because you believe that those humans should be allowed to live.

Read what you just typed and try again.

I meant shouldn't. But I'm guessing you get my point. If not then you have to be extremely dense.

>Rape exists.
Just making exceptions the rule. I am sure planned parenthood is just in the business of protecting rape victims.

>The consequence of getting pregnant is that you either carry to term, you have a natural miscarriage, or you get an abortion.
Getting an abortion isn't a consequence, it is a way to cop out of your obligations.

I don't think that they shouldn't be allowed to live. I am not arguing for forced abortions.

“We do that all the time with criminals” because the 13th amendment specifically allows that as a punishment for a crime.

What is the literal crime in the case of a pregnancy?

You obviously are because you believe that those humans shouldn't be allowed to live. I fixed the typo now is it easier to understand?

>Just making exceptions the rule.
Still exists, which leads to the conclusion that either the woman's right to choose takes precedence or that the whole responsibility thing is just a red herring.
>Getting an abortion isn't a consequence
Sure it is. If I injure myself, a possible consequence is that I go to the hospital to get it treated. We don't compel people to heal naturally, even when the injury is the result of their own negligence.

Is-ought isn’t a fallacy from what I can tell. It doesn’t seem like it’d invalidate an argument.

Are you saying just because something is a certain way, doesn’t mean it should be that way?

Yep, see

>Are you saying just because something is a certain way, doesn’t mean it should be that way?
bingo

>Still exists, which leads to the conclusion that either the woman's right to choose takes precedence or that the whole responsibility thing is just a red herring.
No my argument is that if you consent to sex, you must deal with the consequences of it.
Rape is clearly not included within the purview.

>we don't compel people to heal naturally,
How exactly does one heal "unnaturally"? A doctor setting a bone, makes it heal correctly, but your body and time still have to do the work.

Yes. Much like with self defense, you should only be cleared of murder if you absolutely must abort the baby to save your life. Doing so otherwise is clearly.

if she was raped, no
if the child is retarded, no
if she's non-white, no
if she(black woman) could die, yes

Attached: 0c65ae00d9b1ca8a86190552378366b7.jpg (563x844, 55K)

>you must deal with the consequences of it.
Which is exactly what they do by getting an abortion.
>How exactly does one heal "unnaturally"?
Medicine and procedures that do not naturally occur during the body's healing process. If you want to say that surgery is natural, then abortion is also natural.

I guess??? Either way, it's legal.

No, I live by my friends wise words on this one - “Yeetus Yeetus delete that fetus” rag you beautiful fuck

>If you want to say that surgery is natural, then abortion is also natural.
Natural means nothing. Anything a human does is natural.

The question is: Should it be legal?

Many natural things are illegal, humans naturally kill each other. We decided ending a human life is a social bad.

No.

Correction, we decided that the ending a human life is sometimes a social bad. Ending a human life in self-defense is not a social bad. Ending a human life in service to your country is not a social bad. You might say that abortion is neither of these, but the precedent is there that ending a human life isn't always bad, let alone murder.

See you treating me like an idiot got you nowhere because your argument was bad.

Checked

Yes. Killing babies is murder.

Attached: 1554214523171.jpg (653x490, 95K)

discord
IXI]-X)15(X-[IXI
.gg/vvftDyy

Attached: ahegao 15.jpg (337x292, 32K)

THAT would be murder, but aborting a fetus IS NOT killing a baby. Fetus and baby are scientific terms describing two completely different things.

Kinda

murder is literally a social construct
it can be anything you want it to be

now for what you are actually asking
>Is abortion killing a human being?
>If so, is that killing morally justified?
depending on when in gestation the abortion occurs, yes.
If the fetus can survive outside the womb w/o extraordinary measures it is just as an individual human as any child
prior to that point the spontaneous abortion rate is high enough that deliberate abortion is negligibly different
as for as the moral question
that is up to you

I want my right to kill babys but i also dont what sluts and bitches oit of a baby i want them to suffer for their sluttery

>financial, and social
there is enough judicial precedent that those are not, in a legal sense, included in the legal term "health"

OBGYN in formation here.
So, the point is that there are MANY types of abortion, like spontaneous for example. There is a concept called "parity" (i think its called that in english) which states that any fetuses born under 500g and under 20 weeks isn't considered a "person", and it won't even be buried. Over 500g/20 weeks, it is a person, regardless whether born alive or dead.
My personal opinion is that if under 20 weeks (mid-term pregnancy), it can be aborted no questions asked. If over, the woman has her right to get an abortion but must have a reasonable justification, whether financial, psychological, whatever the fuck. The father, if present, can express his opinion but does not have the final say.

tl;dr: yeah, have as much abortions as needed.

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

So if a woman can get an abortion a man should be able to get a financial abortion and be free from any child support then, right?

I don't personally think that it is. But I don't care. Making abortion illegal does not make it go away. It makes it go underground to Illegal channels. That, therefore, dramatically increases the risk of fatality to the women who endure it. If you think dead women are an appropriate alternative to unwanted dead fetuses that are not viable outside of a womb, then are definitely dumb and probably mysoginist.

But I'm not stupid. I understand that it is impossible to legislate morality. To those who think that it is murder, it will always be murder. Most of those people also have dumb old-fashioned ideas about women, but not all of them. But I recognize that I am not going to ever be in the position to change their minds. Only history can do that, decades after they're dead.

If she wanted to get it. He can't force her in any way to get it. Its like forcing a man to get a vasectomy.

either a slow mildly painful death or a quick instant death while you're still not sentient. it's hard to say which one is better but avoiding reproduction seems to be by far the best course of action. if you are a parent, then you have created life and are now responsible for someone elses existence, unhappiness, medical conditions, and death.

Attached: 1554668894579.png (1095x2104, 922K)

You can bitch at me for semantics, but abortion is quite literally not murder because it's not treated as murder under the law.

The question you should be asking is, "Should abortion be considered murder?" because the simple answer to your question is, "No."

Liberals.
Oh wait, same thing.

I would agree with you, but the jews harvest the organs and sell them to satanists who probably eat fetuses

just like masturbation is mass genocide

no, because the sperm hasn't fertilized eggs

dumbass

Nah, the developing child cant feel, see, taste, smell or touch, it may as well be a vegetable. I say kill it if you want, its nothing more then a tumor until it pops out.

>Abortion [...] it's not something some random feminist would do just to piss off the patriarchy.

this is so debatable.
from where i am you can see graffittis and poster at those feminist manifestations with stuff like "abort the male". This world is sick and i think it will get worse from now on.

Aaaaaaaand crickets.

Sure is buddy. I'm a pretty shitty person and even I know that.

Wish you had been Aborted

Only if it has a heart beat

Please learn the difference between then and than and then kill yourself.

Nope

You have killed billions of potential children. A sperm is alive too. Life is everywhere so what is different? Your sky god injects a human soul once a sperm and an egg join? Sorry but that's just nonsense, what is special about most humans is our ability to think and our appendages.

Eating meat is murder

A sperm is alive and its a potential life, just like an egg.

If I ejaculate, yes, according to basic 9th grade biology, this sperm is alive. However, very few of these sperm cells will survive long enough to fertilize a woman's egg. In most cases, the woman is not impregnated and all the sperm die. Moreover, one individual cell can never be intelligent enough to constitute as a human life.

It's way better to legally murder a being that doesn't know what pain is than paying 18 years worth of child support

There are adults whose hearts can't work properly, requiring th em to use a pacemaker. By your logic, are they still morally right to murder?

It's way better to wear a condom than to decide between child support and murder. Seriously, if you aren't responsible enough to raise a child, you aren't responsible enough to be having sex.

Yes

60%

Don't care. I'm not a moralfag.

No. Are you fuckin pre occupied or fuckin dumber than stupid?

and here we have a granny porn lover

>t.christfag

Your existence is pointless and everyone you love will die :)

Lol, sperm + egg implanted in wall of the uterus = human

sure, but why does it matter?

>implying i give a fuck about religion kek

we all will some day user, that doesn't bother me at all

>If you get an abortion you deny the baby a life
You are implying that that is bad.

LEGIT QUESTION that i do not know - does the bible reference abortion? If so, is the verse open to interpretation or can someone paste it in here for discussion?

Attached: 1331753851671.jpg (357x359, 22K)

probably not but I'm not a baby

depends how metaphyiscal you want to get. A foetus is potentially alive at some point, but is basically a vegetable for almost all points at which murder is legal. You prevent a future potential human being, but you would also do the same if you prevented 2 people from having sex which would lead to a baby. So the question thinks, do you assign any special siginificance not to the potental of human existance but to the assembly of a human. From the perspective of the foetus it can not have been murdered as it does not percieve the world on any meaningful way, just as shotgunning you in the face while you sleep isnt murdering you from your perspective. The Foetus can also not lay claim to life because its not an actor, so it can not be denied to it from its perspective.
so it comes down to if you as observer personally think that there is a special significance to something that has a shape of a human and will most likely one day become a human but isnt right now, more so than there is significance to other representations of future human life, like for example using contraception with your girlfriend.

Na it’s like being disconnected b4 the match even start...no harm done lmao

if its before ~7-8th month it should be fine.
but still, you should love your child even if it has down syndrome, tards are unique in their own way and are so fun to be with around

if its missing 90% of its head, is a mutt(that you didnt know how it got created) or is legless it should be fine to bolt it out of existence, no need to put an unecessary life in such pain

sacrificing babies is the best way to please the gods

define evil

trad: NAH FOR ME IS WITH AN INNOCENTS CHILD DEATH OR NOTHING

Attached: asdf.png (720x703, 540K)

Depends.

Murder is killing a person, not ending a life. A braindead patient with no chance of recovery can have their life ended by a doctor/family member. It's not murder because there is no person there anymore. So killing a fetus before it is a person (processing the world, feelings, memories) would not be murder, because there is no existing person to kill.