Thoughts?

Attached: 4284889114.jpg (1884x1454, 170K)

We live in nature, everyone kills everyone, wars happen all the time, don’t gimme that shit.
Foetus doesn’t know shit. Unnecessary burdens for the mother , family and society at large.
Only because you want more white women to breed, and keep the race going, how filthy and backward.

Hello autistic user

..... if you (as a man) inserted the text onto the female icon (whether it represents your gf, wife, or any other women) then I agree:

..... it IS your choice, as a man, as to what she thinks in (what she refers to as "her") extremely limited thought processes; also:
what, when and how often, she is required to submit to your whims & fancies when you choose to avail yourself of its "body" and what has been deemed to be the "choice" for want of a better word.

Never forget that "my" means "your" when referring to YOUR chattels & goods.

we serve the rich in capitalism. So lets hate each other while we do that for gender stuff

Limited thought process, good way to empower people.
Are you a muzzi by any chance?

so because wars happen, its okay to kill people who arent event involved?
coma patients doesnt know shit too, is it okay to kill you when your dentist anesthetize you?
if anything becomes a burden for you, its okay to kill it? would you kill your grandma because she cant care for herself anymore? why dont you kill yourself since you are such a burden on society, being a fucking neet and all

This is highly personal stuff, no matter who you get your ass fucked by at your day job.

Until the baby is inside the mother, it has no independant survival.
You’re just a whiny bitch upholding some imaginary ethical/family/Christian values, but honey these things are imaginary, you can do the for as long you want to, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t a dumb cunt.

>be stupid woman
>have sex, the sole thing that might put a baby in her tummy
>'oh noes i have inexplicably allowed the normal function of my body'
>'this means i have every right to cut away this growing life inside of me which has a DIFFERENT GENETIC CODE THAN MY OWN BODY which i will conveniently forget so i can claim that it's my body and my choice'
stop lying to yourself and look at how many babies you've murdered.
I don't care about the population, we just need to have less niggers and baby mure murder is an acceptable way of achieving that.

>Until the baby is inside the mother, it has no independant survival.
again, coma patients or old bed ridden people arent able to survive independently, too. is it okay to kill them?

>ou’re just a whiny bitch upholding some imaginary ethical/family/Christian values
nope, i just realized that the notion that fetus arent humans is an arbitrary one. every single argument from consciousness to survivability can be debunked. so this whole matter boils down to a single question: is it okay to kill babies because women dont want to face the consequenzes of whoring around?

thank god for based atheists denying the existence of morality
your reasoning conveys no moral values which is great if you want to build an easy morality which always works out. You can now easily claim that child raping and terror attacks are good and birth is evil. You can also claim they are equally evil or good. You can do anything you want you non-moral friend, so how about we go rape some women who deserve it?

> "... Are you a muzzi by any chance? ..." ;
no - atheist, born and brought up in a Christian cultural ethical background, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

> " Limited thought process, ..."
..... yes - exactly

> "... good way to empower people. ..." ;
..... I have never been inclined to "empower" my chattels, or goods,
or those of inferior intellect - who merely need adequate control & motivation
in order to do an adequate job of fulfilling their function and purpose.

In Conclusion :
If (as I suspect) you are a person of the feminist persuasion :
then all I have to say to you is
> tits & timestamp or gtfo ;
..... in accordance with the long established rules & regulations
of this highly esteemed forum.

Sex is a human need, why the fuck should women not have sex?

Genetic code, it’s fucking connected to the damn uterus.
And if you include genetic code then men are equally responsible, but these assholes leave shortly, saying not my problem. So many single mothers, goddam

Does this logic apply to underaged girls as well?

So if a 13y old girl choice to have sex with her dad it's really her choice and in the eyes of the law she is the criminal?

Or is the choice of the underaged girl passed on to the mother untill she is of legal age?

So if the mother choice to let her daughter have sex with her dad, the mother is the criminal?

Attached: Sheep.png (164x136, 59K)

Different cuz, a foetus has not yet become an independant individual. This is happening prior, the coma guy has lived a life and people and his friends know him, lol, you even brought that up, dumbcunt.

A baby is half sperm, where do the niggers run away after , why now only the women’s responsibility.

Depends i she married? If so then it's all her husbands.
women are property

Nope, I’m talking adults, so fuck off

sex is not a need. It's a function used for reproduction and abused for recreation (this is why masturbation doesn't feel as good as actual sex, it's abuse and not use)
are you perhaps some sort of nigger
that kid does not have the same genetic code as the mother, the mother cannot claim ownership of that piece in her body because it never was hers to begin with.
>single mothers
you're blaming men for making the easy choice, but women are the ones who should have been on their guard for this. Women decide who fucks them, so it's their responsibility. Also single mothers get money from the state, which is why there are so many of them, look up the stats over time, it increases after these benefits were added. our society destroy itself, it wasn't men or women.

So your mom is one of inferior intellect,??

>Different cuz, a foetus has not yet become an independant individual.
yes it is, it has an unique dna-code, making it an independent individual.

>why now only the women’s responsibility.
because thats how biology works.

There is no fighting with ignorance is there?

>Nope, I’m talking adults, so fuck off

No.

I just don't want to pay for other people choices.

Cancer also has different code

There absolutely is. There is no fighting shills, that's a whole other story. Yea Forums is /pol/'s lefty and trap loving little brother, and the only reason it's left is because the people here are younger. On top of that, there seems to be obvious shilling here, so that's why I respond, so these faggot shills don't corrupt these newfig Yea Forumstards

Because that’s how biology works..
How sad, bullied in school?

>he thinks cancer has different dna than the cell it came from
I honestly don't even understand how stupid you have to be to unironically think this argument is the same as a baby
are you a woman?

So single mothers shouldn’t get benefits??
When the other half of the responsibility(the MAN) has run away.

I think they totally deserve it, weak men getting away with stuff so beneath any civilised society.

It does, advanced cancers, can be a lot different from the parent cells.

Read

no, but i see you are out of arguments.
as i said, you made an arbitrary decision to justify your poor lifestyle choices.

How is biology related to responsibility?

so what? cancer isnt a person, will never be a person and was never destined to become a person you dimwit, its not a legit comparison.

like plucking leaves off weeds, banning abortion doesn't fix the root of the problem. comprehensive sex ed and readily available contraceptives would fix most of the issue. the problem is that the folks who want to ban abortion also oppose sex ed and contraception, so they're perpetuating the very problem they claim to oppose.

The foetus is also not a damn person. An extension from the uterus

by your actions, you created another human being living in your body. of course you are responsible.

This

The action also belongs to the man then.
Gotcha

it cant be an extension of the uterus as it has its own dna code, remember?

Uterine cancer?

Look she can do what ever she wants with the baby, I dont care........... if they want to force us to have children, they can pay the fuckjng child support.

yeah in a perfect world, men always take responsibility for their offspring. but since we arent living in a perfect world, some men will ditch pregnant women, and since the baby lives in the mothers womb, the mother got the responsibility. its not fair, but thats how our bodies work

isnt an extension of the uterus either.

But if you seperate it it ceases to exist.
Then abortion should be legal, cause the thing with its own DNA should be kicked out, unless the mom wants it.

also rape and incest! this is Yea Forums, never forget about rape and incest.

I don't give much thought to sluts but when I do I'm with your mom

That is the fucking point, women are not breed vessels like in madmax,
Hence requirement of prochoice

Your mom and grand mom are my bitches

Attached: B964A45C-EF78-44FA-B4D2-E4984BE8E916.jpg (700x620, 101K)

Parents consent for children dumbcunt

benefits are the reason women become single mothers
the males take part in this scenario where in the end, the states take the paternal role by providing money
the men wouldn't leave if the women weren't so eager for them to leave, the women don't mind because the men don't have money and the state does.

Consider the following: an embryo, according to biology is
>Alive
>human
>an organism/diploid

Therefore, it is a living human being, and logically speaking should be legally entitled to all the rights of a one week old baby.

>buhbuhbut its jsut a clump of cells
congratulations, so is everyone else.
>its not a fully formed human.
neither is a one week old baby

you cannot support abortion and basic human rights at the same time.

And what about those who don’t deliberately do that(become single moms)
You want to take that blood on your hands.?

I thought west was civilised

Anarchist?

>But if you seperate it it ceases to exist.
no. it dies. thats a difference.
besides, children have a chance of survival outside the womb beginning with the 19th week.

> cause the thing with its own DNA should be kicked out, unless the mom wants it.
the mother consented to hosting it in her womb by having sex.

so we are again at that point, its okay to kill babies because women could find it inconvenient?

So how about totally legal before 20weeks?

a fetus is not a baby

>A foetus, from which grows by itself only needing water and nutrients, like a plant, containing in itself all the necessary information to develop itself into a fully grown human being
>is not a person
>but comparable to cancer which grows uncontrollably, almost randomly or semi-randomly, and does not grow to a full fledged organism
user if this is your entire argument then you should kill yourself.

It’s not a baby yet, it’s called a fetous,
If that cunt will not have a good life nor the people around him, esp his mother who didn’t want hin in the first place. Idk maybe

why? because its okay to kill beings who arent able to survive by themselves? thats euthanasia

That was only cuz you gave a FETOUS rights cuz of different genetics.

There are more bacterial cells in a human body than human cells

No the mother consented to have sex , that is all the father consented to as well. Accidents happen. Stop destroying the lives of those who already exist just becuase you think someone who doesn't exist yet, might have potential.
Woman should have total tight to decide what happend in her body. The Man should also have total rights as to whether or not he has any desire to be involved in any way.

>It’s not a baby yet, it’s called a fetous,
what is the distinction?

Yes. very much so. I approve of this message.

and a baby is not an a toddler. and a toddler is not an adult. and this is not an argument. not only did i never say it was i never once brought up a fetus.

It’s not even viable.

>i consent to the natural act of reproduction, but i dont consent to the outcome

Medfag here, before born=fetous
After born =neonate
Standard terminology

cram your sophistry, the whole discussion is about fetuses you fucking retard

A lot of changes occur right on being born

>another none argument
ok. its not a baby. now what.

so if its okay to kill a foetus, its okay to kill a baby a day before its born?

a fetus is part of the mother's body, a baby is not...do I really need to hold your hand on this?

At birth a number of physiological changes occur, and then after that the little fucker is called a neonate. Before that fetous, different physiology

a baby that isn't born is not a baby yet you fucking idiot

. Thisnis why we just need to only have anal and oral sex, no way to get pregnant

agreed, just need my frosty wife to thaw a bit

Yes, and it's commonly accepted whenever there's a brain-dead individual on life support.

For all intents and purposes, all of our ideas of personhood lay in the dignity we attribute to their conscious, subjective experience. No brain activity, no person hood. And there's no consistent, rythmic brain activity until 20-24 weeks.

Both are very different in physiology,
Pretty much all major organ systems change after birth.
Yes they are different.
Read up on changes in a fetous after birth.

Bump

:

I assume you have been trained to read the words, though evidently still incapable of understanding the meaning beyond the level of a trained parrot.
I refer you specifically to my clearly expressed comment
[ in ] :

> "... ALL I HAVE TO SAY TO YOU IS
>> TITS & TIMESTAMP OR GTFO ;

..... with my upper case emphasis in order to "empower" you to seek
competent male tutoring as to their precise meaning
also guidance concerning your required course of action on this board,
before you are allowed to state your business to the rational human beings who frequent it.

I’m a dude.

really? it is? so if i ripped a fetus from a mothers womb, sent it to a forensics lab along with a sample from the mother, they wouldn't come back as two completely separate samples of human beings? your anti science attitude is incredible. never said otherwise yell me what happens if i walk into a hospital and dismember a comatose patient?

Wanna suk?
Not a faggot, but would like to see you submit and suk kok

and an adult isd much much much different than a one day old baby. should uit be legal to murder babies then? because they arent fully formed? i mean thats the basis for your argument

Tasty bait

They will be able to tell, a fetous from a newborn.
You can go ask a forensic medfag

Like a caterpillar and a butterfly

you're grotesque, a fetus and a newborn are completely different.

Two corpses one of fetous and one of newborn, the can easily tell apart

Attached: 8d0.jpg (500x500, 55K)

no one is disputing that. thats a completely different concept from the baby being "a part" of the mother. youre moving the goal post cause you know youre wrong. a fetus and a mother are two different organisms. in only takes a 5th graders understanding of biology to comprehend this. yes i know. whats your point

if by bait you mean ironclad argument backed by science and human rights, then sure

> " I’m a dude. " ;

..... that's what many other mentally deranged dykes would have us believe, while they are butching their carpet munching trade.

>buhbuhbut its jsut a clump of cells
congratulations, so is everyone else.

And so is all plant life. And all animals.
So it really does not matter that we share that similarity with embryos/fetusses.

Op here , I’m bored now
K bye

Are you gay?

except you cherry picked one single point without considering the others. its also human, a diploid/organism. its the sum of these biological facts that make a fetus a human being.

Attached: 1551548320986.jpg (625x626, 76K)

a fetus is not an organism though, it's a developing part of another person.

Do you think you have a right to go out and dismember homelss people? no? oh so you must believe you must pay for all of their needs? there it is. the ignorance that i was looking for. a fetus is its own organism. its a diploid. this is an indisputable fact. your beliefs are based in lack of education and ignorance of biology. do you also think your skin cells or sperm or any other part of your body is capable of having a complete set of chromosomes/dna?

Do you have anything to back up your claims?

Even if we see single-motherhood rise in response to welfare, isn't that a greater statement to reform welfare in such a way that it doesn't incentivize the (apparent) dissolution of the nuclear family? For example, how many of those single mothers still have the father in the life, but are not married so that they can receive greater benefits? Would it not make our society more honest and fair to simply restructure welfare in such a way that they get the support they need?

Similarly, you may read about people capable of getting jobs, but getting jobs would cause them to lose benefits, resulting in less overall income. You might call such a person lazy, but for the truly poor, that small drop in income can mean eviction, or going hungry, or their children going hungry. In such a case, a restructuring of welfare so that it does it's job - supporting people while they improve themselves - is possible, without creating these financial traps.

youll need an argument to go along wiht your useless memes

Yep. Unironically reasonable. It's literally why we invented birth control.

Depends. Did you have legal guardianship of the comatose patient? Is the patient just comatose, with regular brain activity, or truly braindead? Then go right ahead. Take them off life support, take the body home from the morgue, cut it up how you'd like. There's literally nothing unethical there.

Again - no brain activity, no personhood. They're still a 'human', but at that point they're essentially breathing meat.

Yes I took it out of the bigger context, sorry for that.
I cherry picked because I keep hearing your argument while it's irrelevant. And people don't adress it specifically.

Attached: 936.jpg (625x626, 33K)

but the foes of abortion also oppose birth control

so no consent means abortion is OK?

but the fetus's body isn't hers

Yes, because they're short-sighted and don't have a strong grasp on reality.

They believe that teaching comprehensive sex Ed is somehow inappropriate and means that teachers are condoning and teaching kids how to have sex, not just teaching them the basic biological realities of it.

They're opposed to any kind of publicly funded sexual healthcare programs (subsidizing birth control, IUD's, etc) out of the crippling fear that "a darkie is going to get anything".

It's the sort of people that look at the problem and look for an ideal world where it should never happen, instead of confronting the reality of *why* things happen.

Most states allow abortion in cases of rape, so yes.

first, no. if you walked in there and started actively chopping them into pieces youd be jailed. but you can legally let them die. thats all. same with a fetus, its called a miscarriage. which no one is saying should be a crime. not to mention the logical fallacy with comparing a damged and terminally ill human with 0 chance of recovery to a perfectly healthy developing human. if that comatose patient was most likely going to miraculously wake up, fully healthy, then no, no way in hell would you be allowed to kill him. your whole premise is flawed fair enough

It's attached to and dependent on her body. She can remove anything that she feels intrudes or invades her body, the same as we can remove intruders from our home.

I don't care for the argument much myself, but I understand it. I still prefer to refer to the lack of brain activity.

The premise is not flawed. The difference there is:
a) one has previously existed as a subjective consciousness
b) one only posses the likelihood of developing into a subjective consciousness.

In the case of A), if there was real hope for them to wake up, taking them off life support would be flawed, as they have already established a personhood that they may realistically return to.

In the case of B), you're simply preventing that person hood from ever developing. Without a previously existent personhood as in A), there's no person being deprived of their continuing existence.

>the Negro Project
Margaret Sanger was a hero

So it's okay to murder a toddler?

But she put it inside of her body. That's like saying you can bite a dudes dick off whenever you suck nigger dick

Attached: 5864255841.jpg (1916x1604, 213K)

Very tasty bait.

Of course it's okay to murder toddlers.

I have no idea where you get that from my argument. Toddlers clearly have subjective experience, learn, are aware.

If your mouth is being raped and invaded, sure, bite it off. Otherwise, just.. stop sucking dick?

It's okay if you want to murder a toddler. We're not judging. It's your choice.

but women could also give the child up for abortion. It's just a matter of convenience.

adoption* jacking off typo

Like you can choose to wear a sweater instead of a t-shirt because it's cold outside.
Convenience is a valid reason to do things.

Ah but the latest craze is to NOT allow that exception. And if the centers are shut down, it doesn't matter right?

>give the child up for abortion
I approve. We need to abort more orphans.

>bodily autonomy vs the right to life

this is perhaps the only logically, legally, and even remotely ethical rebuttal. however, if you take a deeper look at it, and you accept this as a reasononing for allowing abortion, then logically you should be 1, in favorm of outlawing it after the fetus is viable, which evidence suggests is right around the ~20th week mark, and 2nd, if you support bodily autonomy to such an extreme degree, you should be fully against mandatory vaccinations, and discriminating against those who choose to exercise their rights. as for the brain damaged point see: >return to personhood
no. theyre still a person, they still have legal rights. if you knock someone out are you legally entitled to do what ever you want to them? because accordin to you theyre no longer granted person hood.

>youre simply preventing that personhood from ever developing
is the same as saying
>it should be legal to end a human life because its legal to end the humans.

personhood is a legal concept based on a human beings state of being. my whole argument is that this concept of personhood, legally and morally should be extended to a fetus because a fetus is biologically aa human being. your answer to that so far has been "its legal to commit homicide because the law decided these particular humans dont have rights."

>Convenience is a valid reason to do things.
except for murder

mandatory vaccinations are not truly mandatory. the government isn't breaking down doors and stabbing people with needles as they scream in protest about muh autizm

Clearly baiting. I do not support murdering toddlers. I do, however, support women's rights to end their pregnancy before the fetus is significantly developed.

As well as at literally any point in the pregnancy where the fetus is found to be nonviable or a risk for the mother.

Pregnancy in and of itself can be extremely stressful and damaging to a women's body. Easier to abort. Nothing is lost, quite a bit is saved. You're also ignoring any kind of abortion for medical reasons.

Attached: 8027925214.jpg (2184x1394, 156K)

that is to say, in lieu of abortion after the deadline, the fetus should be removed and placed on life support.

I never understood that exception.
On the one hand, you have people who think abortion is morally neutral and purely elective, doesn't matter whether it's rape or not, it's up to the not-mom.
On the the other hand, you have people who think abortion is murder. And if it is murder, then it doesn't really matter if it was rape or not. The child is innocent.
So why do they make an exception? It makes no sense, from either point of view.

forcing your citizens to take their responsibility is how man became civilised.
Thomas Sowell explains this. google him. It's basic human behavior. If given the opportunity the people will be lazy.

youre isolating specfic reasons to abort now. not every prego womans unhealthy

It's okay, I agree with you. Toddlers aren't really human. They're just parasites, and the mom should have the right to abort at will.

If all is fair in the game being pregnant, then it should more than just "my choice".
Rape on the other hand, well I suppose then it's their choice.

and if the government is forcing an unwanted birth, the government will pay for all costs?

the exception is to make it legislatively more palatable. logic means nothing.

Except that it isn't murder.
Either way. I'm not here to go around that argument again.
I was saying that convenience is a valid reason to do things. That's it.

My Wallet, My Choice.

Feel free to shit out a kid, but don't expect me to pay for it. My choice would be to abort. If you have it you are making a CHOICE to do it alone.

It's one person's convenience vs. the life of another. Strange to put convenience first.

it's not about convenience, it's about bodily autonomy.

Which conveniently ignores the baby's body.

i didnt say they were. im talking about the hypothetical concept. also the government often times people of their rights based on their choice to utilize this right, eg schools. this is a completely different idea. this is possibly the greatest example of the red herring fallacy.

the government is "forcing" homeless people to exist by not letting me round them up and execute them.

theyre mutually exclusive issues.

Makes sense

Then youre just starting with a different premise than pro-lifers, in which case "her body her choice" isn't the assertion you should start with

pro life does not equal pro redistribution

If a homeless man breaks into your house, you have to let him stay until he's ready to leave. Otherwise he could die.

First of all, a matter of clarification by what I mean by 'personhood'. 'Personhood' goes well beyond simply being a human being with a pulse. Even if you're knocked out, you still have brain activity. Even under the deepest anastetic, you still have regular brain activity. Lack of brain activity is the legal hallmark for the death of the individual, moreso than lack of a heartbeat. Therefore, I am in favor of allowing the abortion of human fetuses before they have what is arguably the single most important and relevant hallmark of human life - cutting it off in it's development. Once that awareness begins to develop, past 20ish weeks, then no, I do not support at-will abortion.

I do, however, support abortion at any point in time for medical reasons related to the life of the mother or non-viability of the fetus.

As much as I absolutely hate it, I don't support mandatory vaccination, though I support the ability of public school systems or other organizations to require them for attendence.

Thomas Sowell has researched this topic for a few dozen years. It's his opinion that the black community got utterly destroyed in part because of welfare acts made by Democrats trying to make it easier for blacks. The single motherhood benefits started in the 60's or so, and right thereafter the black family unit collapsed. The white family unit also got damaged pretty badly
You're asking many questions because you think I'm wrong. Google or rather YouTube him for yourself. Welfare is a cause for the dissolution of the family unit, it cannot be sustained without taking responsibility away and thus eroding the family unit.
Society should not be honest and fair, because people aren't honest and fair, stop talking all these lefty imaginary babbles, society has never and will never work that way. If i have more money you're damn right I'm going to do everything about it to make sure I stay rich and if I had less then you'd be damn right that I'd be doing everything to get rich, even taking away some rich guys hard earned money.
Your second paragraph is correct, benefits get out of control so you get situations where working is less profitable than staying under benefits, those persons doing it are simply dojng the smartest thing, no one can blame them for it. It's the system that's bad, not the people.
In such a case you could restructure welfare, but that's only for those few people who want to work but can't because it's better to stay under benefits, most people are just lazy and do not want to take responsibility.

Attached: 2582443998.jpg (2450x1344, 199K)

So you're saying sex is equivalent to home invasion? Is your name Gloria Steinem?

Moynihan was right.

but it's not a baby, we've been over this retard.

that's the problem then isn't it?

It's not a baby?

Let's ask any pregnant woman ever. Does she talk about the fetus inside her, or about her baby?

Every single pregnant woman since the dawn of time talks about her baby.

not to mention, in no othere circumstances does bodily autonomy allow for actively executing a human being. and theres still the argument that you made your choice of what to do with your body when you engaged in intercourse and after that the right to life outweighs the righn to bodily autonomy.

>hey guys look at this arbitrary definition of a human """person""" let's all follow it and kill babies!
Fetus is a nonexistent word used to describe a baby inside a mother's womb. Liberals don't want to use the word baby because then it'd be obvious they're killing babies.
However, non-white fetuses are basically the same as 'lack of brain activity' so i agree that we could kill those without a problem

but a fetus isn't a baby, this was covered like 50 replies ago shit-for-brains

In some cases, yes. I dunno what Jew you're trying to compare me to, but considering your angle on this argument, gonna assume she's a cunt.

Read what I said. I never supported unrestricted abortion. I support elective abortion before 20ish weeks based on fetus neural activity and medically necessary abortion afterward.

Bait.

>fetus is not a baby
hur dur

so the "personhood" of the fetus depends on medical technology?

Except every single woman who ever got pregnant disagrees with you. Are you really this stupid?

embryo=/=fetus=/=baby

Your argument is based on the idea that sex is equivalent to a violent invasion of your property. You literally as bad as the crazy 1970s feminist who you've never heard of because you're stupid.

oh so NOW you care about the opinions of pregnant women?

Attached: 1556943225556.jpg (480x320, 54K)

You've been proven wrong again and again, and you're only arguments are:
>nuh-uh
>and hey we talked about this 50 posts ago (please please don't bring it up again because I'll lose the argument again)

Only if you see the right to life as beginning at conception.

I see the right to life as beginning with subjective experience and consciousness. No well-developed nervous system, no regular brain activity -> no right to life.

You clearly don't.

likewise

Is it arbitrary, or the most useful and pragmatic?

In ever case, evaluating life/personhood based on brain activity is more useful than any other definition.

you've proven nothing except that you like to rehash failed talking points. a fetus is a part of the mother's body

What about birth control?
Condoms are being handed out to 4th graders. Why can't that be the choice?

At what point is it ok to decide to kill a child. My 16 year old is a pain in the ass can I kill him now?

actually he could argue he cares more because he cares about the opinions of ALL pregnant women, whereas you only care about the opinions of pregnant women who want to keep their pregnancies.

Then hey, great. Then clearly nobody here cares about women, so why the fuck is this an issue?

>two faggots not caring about pregnant women caring about their fetuses
Yea Forums proves that the uterus of a woman is worth more than the woman?

If you're just talking about inherent risk... I don't think that mortality rate for pregnancy is significantly higher than for abortion. And what do you mean "nothing" is lost in abortion?

So you're arguing that ALL pregnant woman call their babies "fetuses"?
kek, you're a moron

Nope. Depends on whether it has brain activity.

Whether a fetus that would currently be non-viable given current medical technology could be treated with future medical technology, and thus not require an abortion, is unrelated to it's question of personhood. It's a matter of medical necest based on our current abilities. If you've got rotting, septic fetus tissue inside you, you need an abortion even if there's still a heartbeat.

I never said that, and what the common woman calls her fetus is completely irrelevant to medical science and public policy.

No, the woman is a life support system for the uterus. Don't undervalue women.

It has everything to do with trying to saying a baby isn't a baby

but a fetus is only viable as early as it is today because of modern technology. Didn't think that reply through didya sport?

a baby is a baby, but a fetus is not a baby

We can only save people from internal wounds due to modern technology, does that mean anyone who is shot and who would have died on the operating table prior to the Civil War has to be treated as if they were dead?

It is significantly higher. The process of giving birth can take months to recover from and permanently injure a women's body.

...so how does that bolster your argument then?

We've proven you wrong again and again. And you're denying the clearly expressed views of every pregnant woman ever to do it. Nice misogyny.

Don't give a fuck.
I feel no need to inject myself into someone else's person decisions.

I wasn't make an argument beyond the Civil War, I'm a different user.

>brain activity
>this machine will tell me if i can kill a baby or not by looking at these electrical pulses
And if that baby doesn't yet have brain activity, which is a stupid metric for a growing organism to determine if it's "alive" or not, since it already IS alive from its conception, and you wait a day and it shows activity then you can't kill it? so the whole difference between a living baby and a dead baby is 24 hours of waiting, and you couldn't be bothered to wait that long just to see a baby come to life? You won't, because you don't want them to. You don't care about babies, that's why you create an arbitrary definition of what a person is, trying so incredibly hard just to not define a baby as a person. You're only showing to the world what kind of a person you are. From conception the child lives, and you can lie through your teeth, you can create new frameworks and definitions all you want, but no matter how convoluted you make your bullshit, at the end of the day, the child is alive from conception onwards.

you've proven nothing, repeating yourself won't change that. what a woman thinks her baby is doesn't mean anything, it's a fetus until it is born. this is biology 101, not public opinion.

I literally never brought viability into this discussion. I brought brain activity into the discussion.

I think that if it has not yet developed a brain, and ergo subjective experience, then it is not immoral to abort.

This is mostly unrelated to viability outside the womb.

except that brain activity is not a requisite of being alive. with or without being a fully conscious human being, its still alive. thats why killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide. thats why i cant stick a knife in a vegetable, no matter how terminal he may be, and a hospital can still be sued for neglecting a vegetable. they have legal rights despite the lack of what you have decided is the hallmark of human life. and so should a perfectly healthy developing human being.

i support private entities requiring whatever they want. the government however, has no more right to require individuals to abandon their right to BA anymore than their religion or political affiliation or any other right. they are the servants of a free people.

life begins at conception. this isnt a philosophical view, its a biological one. aka, its a fact.

well take your retarded apples and stop comparing them to my oranges fuckface

So you don't mind terrorists who kill you? because it was their decision, so don't inject yourself into those.

Inherent risk isn't a reason, though. If something new pops up then maybe, but you can't just say "fuck it, I'll murder a baby because I really wanna nut inside mmmm me horny." You should take the risk of labor rather than an uninvolved party taking the risk of dying for your pleasure.

>what a woman thinks her baby is doesn't mean anything
And I bet you call yourself a feminist, kek

Whiny insecure little bitch much?

stop user. A fetus is a medical term for a baby in a belly, when it hasn't yet come out of the vag
it's still a baby
you're only coming across as ignorant, willingly so..

I also don't see life as a necessarily meaningful construct to begin with. So you say it's alive.. why do I care? Why do I care about an assembly of unaware molecules?

I care about the subjective experience that living beings with a brain posses.

people in permanent comas have flickers of brain activity too, that's a stupid and arbitrary indicator of "subjective experience".

You really have no respect at all for the opinions of women, do you?

>implying a fetus is not a human life

Since when does a label determine the value of a life?

So if I label you a faggot it is ok to dismember your body with pliers and shove a vaccum needle into you brain?

KYS!

Attached: loop-loop-rope.jpg (1300x957, 95K)

>if I think something is true, then it is true
so if a bloke with a dick decides he's a woman, you'd respect HER new pronouns?

>o if I label you a faggot it is ok to dismember your body with pliers and shove a vaccum needle into you brain?
Yes

What do pronouns have to do with murder?

a fetus is a medical term for an as-yet undeveloped baby

you're the one saying perception is reality, I'm seeing how far you take that belief.

That's literally hate speech, user. You're trying to use an irrelevant technical term to dehumanize someone.

Biological life begins at conception. I don't think it's a meaningful definition, however. Why care for a clump of unaware cells, simply because it has the potential to grow?

And yes, we choose to give vegetables some decency. Because they're under the guardianship of their next of kin, or the hospital has taken legal guardianship. We almost always still hold out the hope that they will one day wake up. In the case of those who are truly braindead, yeah, we take them off life support, or keep them alive while we harvest their organs.

I'm not saying anything about perception, stop trying to make up fanciful thought games.

said the guy trying to force women to give up bodily autonomy

And yet we know subjective experience is correlated to brain activity.

So logically in a being that literally doesn't have a brain yet.. no problem.

>Biological life begins at conception.
Exactly. The science is settled, 99.44% of embryologists agree, anyone who disagrees is a baby denier.

Agreed. This is why 9/11 is fucking funny and the more Americans get killed, the more I laugh. I think it's amazing when white people get murdered in their own countries and when their stupid white daughters get gangraped. They all deserve it for living, stupid worthless garbage living animals.
You're right user, life is worthless. So do the world a favour and commit a terror attack, ridding the world of the disgusting cancer that is life and your life and others their lives. Then kill yourself thus fully giving meaning your life by finding it in death.
Kill yourself faggot, nihilist fags have absolutely no place in this world and they deserve to be laughed at while they're being tortured to death
it's not like you care right you filthy nihilist you aren't supposed to care about anything
but you do, when you get hurt suddenly you care
because you're an edgelord hypocrite, you know you're wrong, you know nihilism isn't a answer, yet you follow it, because you're either too stupid to realise you're wrong, too stupid to change, or too young to be capable of changing
in all of those situations you're either going to die like a retard someday or you're going to grow out of being a edgy nihilist faggot
so I kindly suggest you just kill yourself

>not saying anything about perception
>"the clearly expressed views of every pregnant woman ever"
>mfw

Attached: the best.jpg (1024x683, 71K)

How am I trying to force anything on women? Because if you don't realize that sex is usually consensual, the only explanation is you're a rapist.

>correlation
ohshitnigger.png

Dude, by that standard anything anybody says is a matter of perception. You're not making a point, you're just a redefining a term into meaninglessness.

>usually

Attached: ezgif-1-1b66acb669f8.gif (270x172, 1.58M)

First off I wasn't talking to you about women, that's someone else.
Yes, thanks for affirming my point. And it's not undeveloped moron, it's being developed. And as you have correctly said, it's still a baby, so you were being just being a little faggot
fetus = baby = living being = abortion is murder

Yes.

you're the one who said perception is reality, not me. I mean, I sympathize that you're so dumb as to do so, but it ain't my fault.

I'm the opposite of a nihilist. I said life as a process holds little inherent meaning. Subjective experience, on the other hand?

Our awareness and subjective experience is the cornerstone of all meaning; it is made of meaning.

Was it your baby she killed? How would you feel it it was your child?

developing = /= developed.

see also: not a baby

so you just gotta crack some eggs to make an omelette?

No, that was you faggot. You're trying to redefine unborn babies using a technical term, in opposition to every woman who was ever pregnant. Protip: No woman in the history of the world has ever touched her belly and said "my fetus is kicking".

What's that got to do with anything? You're the one who thinks sex and rape are synonyms.

can you at least understand why i hold the views i do?

from your point of view, they apparently are synonymous if the potential outcome is treated the same.

>It's murder
Nope. It factually is not.

If it's kicking, it definitely has brain activity, and is probably right to be called a baby in common language, even if medically speaking its still a fetus.

They're also imputing the idea of babyhood on to the fetus, seeing it as the future baby they imagine it will become.

It's not murder if it's not provably human. It's weird that you incels care about what happens to kids anyways

Attached: 1275957722616.gif (384x269, 837K)

I never said anything about perception, except in reply to your post. Not once. I know you think you're smart. But the evidence... sorry man.

subjective experience is empty. You can give it meaning by pretending it has meaning. That's called lying to yourself or feeling emotions. Emotions which are just biological reactions and clearly are fully logical. Subjective experience is meaningless and does not exist. Life as a logical process holds meaning in its factuality, 'subjective experience' is just an empty replacement. Stop lying to yourself user, stop putting so much weight on your feeble emotions

Except I never said that. You're just assuming.

Oh, so now you think pregnant woman are delusional? Nice.

Absolutely. I just don't think the right to life starts at conception.

I think there's a lot of confusion surrounding what life is, and what makes it inherently meaningful. Life is no different than non-life; both are strictly physical processes. In every case, when we examine why life is meaningful, or appears beautiful, we find it is either a) a fascination with the mechanics of the process, which can be reduced to purely physical dynamics, or b) we find meaning in the subjective experience, either our own, or respect for that possessed by another.

ok nigger you're so retarded you misread that i am on your side and was arguing against 'fetus'
jesus christ you just made a decent case for why abortion should happen sometimes...when the child is retarded.

I agree its her choice who to fuck. But if shes going to fuck around and get pregos raise that baby or give it up. Next if she was raped etc im fine with the alternative thats punishment to do to anyone.

Subjective experience is empty, but somehow I feel like you're not talking about it using the Buddhist techincal term of emptiness.

Examine your perception more deeply; every word out of your mouth is a lie.

So you're really seriously arguing for one side or the other? This is a bait thread, the only real response is to troll both sides.

Which is really easy, in an abortion debate, because both sides are completely irrational.

Medical language luckily has absolute no importance whatsoever and is only there to define words for doctors. The real world uses the word 'baby'. As in 'a baby is living and growing in her womb'.

My fetus just kicked. I think it might be a male human!

Nope. But wanting the baby and imagining the future inherently change their perception.

>murder
Incorrect. Please stop using incorrect words for emotional impact. It invalidates your argument.

Attached: good thing it's just a fetus.jpg (645x357, 38K)

gender doesnt exist
dot

The whole argument of pro-cells vs. abort-anything is about the definition of murder. You really can't avoid it, when discussing the issue.

Attached: 1A5A6E3C-2790-42CE-9A6E-464783D4007E.jpg (1080x1350, 67K)

Who said it does?

you're almost correct
abortion is murder and that's the sole rational side. Anyone else should go kill themselves instead of a fetus.

Sex education and birth control will reduce the number of abortions more than banning abortions. Why don't conservatives promote the things that work?

Attached: 95F00E1B-004F-4870-A112-103DFAE71C66.jpg (1024x768, 175K)

Murder. IUD, birth control, condoms, morning after pill stop 99% of all abortions. The last 1% will be rape of some fourm then asap do an abortion and allow the victim to get help. Find the bastard and burn him alive.

Im all for it but they need to get rid of child support for the stupid bitches that just get knocked up for the money.

The solution is simple, force every male to get a vasectomy at the age for 12-13. That way it will be literally impossible for women to get pregnant, it’s not murder if the sperm never makes it to the egg. So let’s stop making it females problems and force men to do things to there body they won’t want.

When a guy is ready he can then get the vasectomy undone and have children. Seems like an absolute win to me.

Roll

Roller

Damn

Call me Mr. Deleetus

Cuz Dey dumb

Bump

Does ending 2 cells count as murder? 4? 1024?

Ping

Dong

Brong

Ching

its mostly the repeated narrative that im an ignorant zealot misogynist that i cant stand. not from you specifically. just in general.

Chong

Omg it’s the giga nigga

The definition of murder is unlawful killing.

Abortion is not unlawful. Therefore not murder. Pick another word and stop trying to emotionally charge your arguments.

No. It is about whether killing an undeveloped human before it becomes able to suffer is immoral and whether therefore it should be made illegal, at which point it could be called murder. Calling it murder when it is factually not murder is just trying to use emotion to win by misrepresenting the issue. It is the same as emotive language fucktards using the term genocide to describe the process of the admixture of different phenotypes.

>muh Eastern teaching
lel Buddhism is worthless
Your subjective experience has no value and worth to it. You merely by choice assign it value and then proceed to claim it had this value all along. The words I speak might not all be truthful, but they are honest.
Subjective experience holds no meaning. Only the objective does.

Jesus save us from giga

Different user, but that's why I troll these threads. Neither side has a logical leg to stand on. No, a wad of cells does not make a baby. And no, traversing the birth canal does not magically turn a clump of cells into a baby. The truth is inbetween, and the zealots who have polarized the debate between absolute pro-life and absolute pro-choice are irrational idiots.

>be baby
>be growing
>someone kills you by sucking you out of your comfy womb with a vacuum cleaner
>lawful killing
lmao what? when did the baby consent to his murder?

That's bullshit. When you're discussing whether something qualifies as murder, there are never going to be any ground rules that state you're not allowed to call it murder until a law is actually passed. Because that's the whole point of the debate, one side believes it's murder, the other side does not. You can't get away from that terminology, and trying to do so is dishonest.

>Murder
It's it legal?

>when did the baby consent to his murder?
When he signed the uterine tenancy contract.

Abortions aren't something to be taken lightly. That's why sex education and birth control are so important.

Come on Yea Forumstards, get interested in the giga nigg,
Like c’mon.

I'm not feminist but I am pro abortion. Fetuses aren't people.

When a man cums in a woman and walks away he should get off scott free. It's not like he left the woman with anything but a cluster of non-sentient cells anyways.
That's your logic, that's how you sound. Demanding someone else be responsible for your own fuckups when offering none yourself. Half of you roasties could've solved the entire issue by wearing a condom or even taking a damn pill, but you didn't; you had to act all proud and display your right to be cummed inside of. You are retarded, you have to go back.

Attached: sad sad sad.jpg (618x626, 67K)

Winrar

when offering no responsibility*

Windows 98

The term murder specifically refers to illegal killing.

If you are saying 'this is murder' you are asserting that it is, in fact, illegal.

It is not.

There is a big difference between saying
"this is murder"
and
"I believe this should be considered murder"
and the difference is that one is emotive and factually false and the other is a genuine statement of opinion.

If the people that are against abortion really wanted them stopped, they'd be championing free contraceptives and proper sex education, things that prevent people from ever becoming accidentally pregnant in the first place. But they never do that. They don't really care about hypothetical babies, they just want to punish young women for having sex.

No murder involved. Use the right words. Stop trying to make this an emotive argument.

They think that "keep your legs closed" is sex education.

No, you can also be asserting it SHOULD be illegal. Learn how words are actually used.

I'm fine with this...
But let men have
>my mind
>my body
>my money
Let us have the option to "choose" just like women...give us equal rights.
If a woman can choose is the baby lives or get aborted, the man should be able to choose. I don't want to pay child support but the woman kept the baby(that's her choice) so my choice is (my mind, my body, my money)

Thank god we don't have that anymore. "Spread your legs for everyone" is what we should be teaching all young women.

Anesthesia is not the same as a coma at all. Yes I think its reasonable to euthanize brain dead coma patients. I also believe that id you know your child is going to be born so severely mentally disabled and wont be capable of self care or gainful employment there's no reason to have that child. Nobody is saying that we should kill the elderly. And I dont see it as reasonable to expect to euthanize anyone who is already living. Nobody espouses that view.

his mother chose to sign that for him. He got his contract, a full 9 months.
I agree, child murder should not be taken lightly. Sex education is worthless, schools shouldn't teach that, you should teach your children about sex.

>Sex education is worthless
Imagine believing this in 2019

>And I dont see it as reasonable to expect to euthanize anyone who is already living. Nobody espouses that view.
I do.

No. That is a very different sentence. To correctly convey that you think something should be illegal, you use these words:
"I think it should be murder."

If you wish to convey that you think something should be illegal and you say
"it's murder"
you have either failed to convey your intended meaning or you are disingenuously trying to influence the argument through emotion.

It's garbage, it needs to be more hands on, with plenty of opportunities to get clinical experience

No, we should be teaching sex education and proper use of birth control. Open your legs if you want to, but understand the risks and be safe.

No, that's now how anyone uses the word. Murder is not a solely a term of art that only applies in a legal context, it's also moral judgment. It's similar to the debate over whether torrenting mp3s is theft. Technically, it's not. It's piracy. And in a legal context, that's an important distinction. But in regular usage, it's common to say it's theft, because theft is being used in a broader sense, with moral connotations. The use of murder is similar.

>be literal unlawful killing
>d-don't use that word, it's not right!
yeah that's correct, abortion is murder and thus not right. Child murder should devolve into an emotive argument because necessarily there is one side who doesn't care about human lives and wants to murder a growing human being. Stop talking around the fact that you want to end an innocent growing life because a woman made a wrong choice and now wants none of the consequences of her own actions. You care so much about not giving her responsibility that you'd rather end a humans life than let a woman suffer the consequences of her own actions. And in that you take away a life, and the humanity of that woman, because humans are supposed to be shouldered with responsibility.

Fuck that.

imagine believing you need sex education
imagine you need to be told that gay prides are good and everyone should have anal sex