Thoughts?

If no one is going to love the baby, its best to kill it. I dont like the thought of my children going to school with your unloved halfnigger, soon to be rapist.

Don’t get an abortion, just atomic elbow the pregnant belly when they’re asleep if they are you partner, if not, who gives a fuck.

humans have things like the ability to form thought and feel pain.

a sperm cell touching an egg has neither. it's like if i rubbed the inside of my cheek and got some skin cells and threw that in the garbage. only a literal retard would have a problem with that.

OP here, messenger has another comment

Attached: 90F90DEA-C4F3-47BD-A351-E90EFFA3608E.jpg (712x169, 24K)

How should I respond to his claim? Dubs gets it

>t. someone who has never been properly raped

Nigger

Doesnt matter the clump of cells isnt protected unless youre in cousin fuckin alabama

Fuck you hell doesn’t exist

That is ignorant as fuck. Life is not black and white. Usually a lot of life takes place in a grey area. We all make the best out of a shitty situation. It should be up to the person to decide if she wants it or not. If the child is born through rape, I guarantee he/she will not have a good childhood and come out if it damaged as fuck. And if the woman is financially not capable of raising a child that also has to be taken into consideration. See where im going with this? Its never just as simple as " Is this right or wrong" each situation has different variables and you just make the best of a shitty situation. Its life...

Who cares? It’s not my child

informing you that abortion is sin is not judging you

OP here

Attached: 7CB6D6E4-FD2A-4534-8C88-7F0F6D607EC5.jpg (538x964, 209K)

Love thy neighbor, cast no judgememt.

See

Your words were
>abortion is wrong
sounds like judgement to me

seeyou cock sucking faggot

No, but you judged them. If you believe in a god you must immediately end your life now and face your judgement. Do it now before god punishes you and your family more, bitch fag.

Moral shit aside people are allowed to take other peoples lives legally all the time Especially if their was a crime involved.

Truth!

if they want to go down this road and say that it is alive, let the "mother" claim self defense and kill it for not leaving her property

KEK

You have a rape baby then, christnigger

I haven't got a hard stance on abortion really but I do know it's bullshit that it's considered a constitutional right under privacy

Your right to privacy means not opening the door when someone knocks, it doesn't mean inviting them in then murdering them

It's not potential life, jackass, it's life

Zygotes and gametes are different things

Let's not pretend like we are killing something like a newborn infant or something. I just don't care about the "life" of an infant that's likely going to be neglected or put up for adoption because it's parents dont want it. Safe to say we do it in a more human fashion than the old testament.

Sin is not a transitive property

Abortion is murder, murder is a sin

Stop trying to rewrite the bible you are the worst kind of Christian fuck you make the rest of us look bad

Also no one will burn in hell for sinning. Hell isn't real, at least not after you're dead. Hell is a place you go while still very much alive. And for fuck's sake, you don't automatically go to hell for sinning, we are born with sin that would mean everyone goes there. You go to hell if you don't repent your sin, not merely for committing it.

what's wrong with being put up for adoption?

Everything living has the ability to form thought and feel pain, even fish and chickens and they're the dumbest shit there is

Also no it is not like that at all, go take a high school biology class you ignorant fuck

It's not inherently wrong, but I find it somewhat neglectful to intentionally carry a baby to term for the purpose of putting it in the system. Sometimes adoption sucks for kids.

Fish don't feel pain at all

Is there some magical power about being passed through a birth canal that makes it bad to be murdered?

Is there some magical power that means you can only show affection to blood relatives?

Or is it just that you're a fucking idiot?

>everything living has the ability to form thought and feel pain
trees? grass? gotcha. nice biology, tardboy

Libtard beta with trips BTFO by quads of truth.

Attached: 92440379.jpg (407x428, 20K)

Nah, but I don't think it's murder to kills a substantially less developed creature to prevent a, likely, shitty future. I mean, it's better than the historic alternatives.

able-bodied american-born babies get adopted into good families without any trouble. There isn't a surplus of newborns being shuffled over into the foster care system.

That's weird because they swim away from it

I mean, that isn't proof sure, but unless you can disprove solipsism that's the best we've got

That's is a vast oversimplification of the adoption system we have in place in this country.

Oh so murder is justified if it's a mercy killing okay cool

Stone the rape victim to death, kill two birds with... well... many stones I guess.

They have an instinct to avoid it but their brains don't feel it as we would.

Quads might beat trips but google Acacia trees then come back

I also think it's just a faggot emotional argument in the first place.

Alright then. How would you describe it in a way that makes me understand why abortion would be preferable?

You know they used to bash the heads of babies against rock in the Bible right?

But we don't perceive it as they would, so we don't feel pain? Seems legit, top quality argument. I'm convinced

People who think this way deserve to get raped tbh

How much study have you done on adoption and foster care?

>everything
>acacia trees
since these 2 things aren't synonymous, i'm not gonna try. glad you had fun googling "can trees feel pain" and desperately searching for what i can only assume is a theory for 1 specific hyper obscure case. you literal sperg lol.

No, they don't "feel" pain. It's entirely instinctual to them and nothing else. They can't suffer from pain. I shouldn't have had to clarify because this wasn't a difficult point to grasp.

I wish it was then more women might be convinced.

I swear the only time they can follow a train of logic it's to kill their own children. Repeal the 19th

And King Solomon cut one in half, what's your point?

Plenty of black women are convinced if you look at abortion statistics.

I've been studying it 168 hours a week for the past century

So we got a better method than those upstanding gents

Not life. Cannot kill what isn't alive.

Really?

No he didn't. That was an empty threat.

He didn't.

That's just stupid. No man would keep a rape baby if he could get pregnant. No man would let his wife keep a rape baby.

yep

oh fuck off life dont mean shit

none of this matters

Would it matter if he did? He probably would have had divine permission.

BUT ITS A SIIIIIIIIIIiIiiiIiiinnn

an abortion is no different than removing a cancerous tumor. It's just cells with no brain. No one gets hurt.

This is what Republicans believe. Your 14 yr old daughter should be forced to give birth after being raped by a nigger.

Can you tell me cause I haven't studied that much

We haven't devised sufficient tests to validate the hypothesis but it's literally impossible to prove a negative so you might want to jump down off your high horse there buddy.

Also I didn't just google it lol I've always thought that plants were aware, I just heard about Acacia in a JRE. Acacia trees aren't the only example either though, mushrooms also display signs of intelligence. I don't see why grass should be any different. Evolution literally is intelligent design, and everything alive evolved to be so. It would be silly to assume that we are the only creatures capable of conscious thought or feeling pain.

So is everything. eating fish on a friday is a sin. eating shrimp is a sin. everything is a fucking sin.

quit jerking off if you're concerned about sin. You kill millions of babies every time you shoot your load out onto your parents basement carpet.

How is evolution inherently "intelligent design"

It was a threat to get the parents to reconcile, as splitting the baby would mean no one got what they wanted. Jesus christ. That story probably never actually happened and is just used as a parable ffs.

Gas chambers were a better method than firing squads. Doesn't make 'em good. Nor bad. It's just comparing one to the other.

It's entirely instinctual to you as well

Humans are animals, same as all the rest of 'em

Good thing people aren't forced to believe in one thing. Fetuses don't have rights. Fetuses are not people.

Other way around

Either they don't know what intelligent design means, or a bible thumper

I would argue that one of those methods is inherently better than the other

>we haven't devised sufficient tests
stopped reading right here. i get it, you think grass feels pain. enjoy being stupid forever

its weird how its always these literal retards who think abortion is murder.

They literally are alive

if god was a fish could he feel pain?

Plant reacting to stimuli isn't the same as feeling pain. Plants don't have thoughts, or brains, or even nervous systems. They don't have tools to feel pain, nor the tools to emotionally experience pain.

I'm a horticulturalist and a farmer btw, it's my profession. Only uneducated idiots and hippies think plants have feelings. It's childish bullshit. I love plants more than anyone, but come the fuck on. Learn basic biology.

Black women get the most abortions and whites get the least.

You're just pulling shit out of your ass. Simply because you can't empathize with a fish doesn't mean they can't "feel" pain.

To assume otherwise would be a very mean thing to think about your ancestors.

Yeah but does it matter if he did, if true?

Then prove you do anything other than react to stimuli

You are grass

You are an ant

You are a speck of fucking dust

What is the definition of alive? You will find a fetus does not meet the qualifications.

If they aren't viable outside the womb then the mother is essentially life-support and they are not independently alive.

"You're not a human being unless you're in my phonebook" - Bill Hicks

I mean there's basically no brain activity within the first few weeks of being conceived so

Sure, I can tell you that it is in a fetus' best interest to get born and then adopted compared to getting aborted.

Here's where the idiot realizes how many people are calling him stupid so he starts trying to play the, "I was pretending to be stupid!" card. Truly sad.

Yes but my argument is against abortion. I don't think you're following this very well.

What's so wrong with not existing? You think existence is preferred to non-existence. Why?

Well, you are right about one thing. I can't empathize with a creature that I can't relate to in any way. Do you eat meat?

How? That's not what intelligent design is.

That wasn't me, and I don't care how many people call me stupid. I'm not pretending, think what you want you're allowed to be wrong.

If you believe your God has no mercy that would work. However, the same book that tells you he exists also says he IS a merciful God, so as much as you might want them to, they won’t burn. They will ANSWER for it yes, if it is found to be sin.

Shouldn’t you be more worried about yourself though? I don’t think your God would like you calling his shots.

Attached: abortion3.jpg (700x553, 67K)

I don't really agree with that.

Not only it is okay to abort, she should kill the rapist if given the chance

>>don’t cum for any reason but children

I see what you did there you fucking the perv.

I can't not support abortion when it means less black babies.

Do rocks feel pain? They react to stimuli so they must feel pain, right?

because when I act on my own behalf I choose to exist, so if I were to act on behalf of another and their best interests I should also choose for them to exist

It's not what you think it is, sure

But it's what the words mean

We were designed by our ancestors
Our ancestors possessed intelligence
Intelligent design.

Personally I prefer to call it wisdom but then I have to explain further and it triggers fewer cucks like you so I'ma stick with intelligence for entertainment purposes

it's human and a life, but it's also just a nugget. pro-lifers all agree that human life is worthless once it's born, so let's just extend that until before it's born as well.

Attached: abort everyone.jpg (635x605, 57K)

Yes. I can respect the fact that animals feel pain, while also respecting the fact that life must take life in order to live. And humans are omnivorous, requiring nutrients from both plants and animals, therefore in order to stay alive, I must be a part of a process that causes pain in other creatures. But that is the way of life.

If God exists, that baby was destined to get aborted anyway.

MRS GREN

yeah they do

That is what it's called artificial selection. Such isn't all that different from natural selection. Very different from intelligent design.

literally if you think like this fucking retard, you need to retake your Freshman Highschool class you fucking under-evolved monkey ass, are you seriously saying not to masturbate other than recreation? WHAT IN THE INBRED FEMINAZI FUCK??

For some reason I though they were talking about the rapists life kek.

That is in no way, shape or form what intelligent design is. As far as being designed by our ancestors, in what way do you mean this?

Now you're just being obtuse.

Fact. Enough children have been sacrificed to these Assyrian false gods.
You are a bundle of cells that happened to form in to something else. No harm in me forcefully separating those cells right?

>you cock sucking faggot
sounds like judgement AND wrath. DOUBLE SIN! enjoy an eternity in hell.

Attached: abortion2.jpg (615x410, 38K)

But how do you know existence is in their best interest? It would seem you're making an assumption based on your bias towards existence.

Well, I can't fault your logic

But you don't technically have to eat meat in the modern day.

Yeah but you're someone who frequents a website known for posting child pornography. I feel like that kinda discredits your opinion on their "best interests".

Attached: 1564385303609.jpg (569x428, 25K)

And here I thought I was acute.

Correct using your logic feels very obtuse.

Sure, it's a sin, but the bible is bullshit, so abort everyone!

Call it whatever you want that makes sense, that's what I'm doing. Doesn't change what happened.

i bet this genius is at the top of his health too LMAO

Well yes it's an assumption. I also assume the sun will rise tomorrow. My assumptions are based on my observations.

eugenics is better than abortion but abortion is ok

If nothing is better than anything then anything is better than nothing

agree. there's a babe even if its microscopic. murder should not have a justification. if a rape baby is born and then you kill it, its the same thing entirely.

my views come from an unbiased non-religion orientated perspection. also i am a woman.

life is defined as a creature that 1. consumes food 2. can procreate. if a fetus could be kept alive and keep growing until it was like a normal birthed baby, it's alive. it isn't currently possible to take a fetus and keep it alive, but it is theoretically possible. in fact, test tube babies can live two weeks from fertilization from scratch without being in a womb, just a petri dish.

soon enough, it will be from sperm and egg to fully grown in a lab.

I eat meat. You can eat an entirely plant based diet and get all the nutrients you need though.

I agree with you that I should not be the dictator of everyone's best interests. I like democracy. I think of my thoughts in that regard as a vote.

Sigh, another one? I know that's not what you refer to when you say intelligent design because you're too used to dealing with fuckwit backwards retarded biblical literalists and crazy puritans

Your ancestors were intelligent. They used this intelligence to decide on mates, and reproduced to eventually create your sorry ass. You were designed by every successful reproduction made before your existence, by intelligent beings. Intelligent design. How is this so hard to grasp

its not the same thing lol. animals have no consciousness and don't have a societal purpose other than them being food. human life does.

No one has a unbiased opinion

And that would immediately put a halt the meat industry, obviously. Not everyone can afford a vegan lifestyle. I feel no moral obligation not to eat meat simply because some people have the option not to. I will try the impossible whopper when that gets released though.

>unbiased
>woman

pick one and only one

Those words have specific meanings, though. I'm not calling it what I want to call it, I'm calling it as it is defined.

If you really want me to explain

A rock can't travel further than I throw it. A fish can. Pretty simple difference between the two. Maybe google MRS GREN if you still don't fully understand the distinction, it's only 8th grade biology level shit you should be able to work through it

Fetuses are not people. Fetuses have no rights. Your religion does not change that.

Existence > non-existence does not equate with the sun will rise. One you're making an assumption based solely on your limited perception. The other your assuming because it happens time and time again.

As defined by you, and a bunch of other fucking idiots sure. But really it's a phrase, and as such can be applied to any situation the words themselves can describe. Evolution is something those words can describe. So I am using them to do so.

No I mean that you need to get a different term because that one already has a name. Having said that, most mailings historically weren't driven by people being especially intelligent. People procreate because that's what people do and they do it with whomever is available. The average person didnt have time to make these selections you are talking about.
Where are you getting this idea that people in the past had time to philosophize about mating?

I'd choose to never have existed if it were an option. Children are only good for their smooth genitals. Pic related.

Can those things continue to grow without the aid of medical science? No. Not life.

So what if it put a halt to it? Morality is more important. If you can't afford to be moral, just be ready for the ire of you're betters.

Evolution had those meanings prior to being used as it is now.

>don't have consciousness
How do you know? What makes us conscious? And what purpose do humans serve other than those for other humans? We are also food and only other humans would find purpose beyond that in other humans.

>you're betters

Imagine claiming to be better than someone in a language you can't even speak

I believe our brains are intelligently designed to the point where we have consciousness

And it had other meanings before that, or did you think Darwin invented the word? I fail to see how that refutes any claim I've made, least of all the one it was intended to

You couldn't understand anything I wrote up to this point because of a grammatical error?

This

Attached: 1564071598138.png (981x657, 88K)

>halt
That was meant to be sarcastic. If I stopped eating meat, it would change nothing in the world. And morality is a human construct that means nothing beyond some cozy idea of being superior to all the savage creatures that don't have morals. Yet we bring genocide to countless species for expansion of our precious domain. Humans are hardly moral, at best of times.

Where are you getting the idea they didn't

Whoa buddy. Guess I can't argue with that.

No, that's what I said. It had other definitions that roughly fit the idea that Darwin had. Intelligent design, however, is the belief that all life was made by a greater designer. Your idea is that humans selectively mated to make better humans. It's not really close enough and it's a bad term to use.

I can understand your dumb ass just fine.

I'm simply mocking you for making a mistake. You didn't get that? Jeez you're worse than I thought.

Lmao look at this nerd

Humans choose who they're
Their pets have sex with. Humans themselves often make the choices based on more fickle emotions and desires, rather than thinking "my descendants will have superior genes and will one day form a super race". I think that mentality had only come around after the discovery of genetics.

I'm not sure what you're getting at or why it matters. They're both assumptions based on observation.

How do the words 'intelligent' and 'design' not also have prior meanings that "roughly fit the idea" then? I don't see the contradiction that you seem to think exists.

Attached: source.gif (500x240, 987K)

You have to prove to me they did. There's no reason to believe that the average people in the world bred for anything more than the point of human instinct until relatively recently. Even then, the average person didnt have this huge pool of people to breed with to make those types of decisions. I need to see some proof otherwise and I'll happily retract what I said.

Your assumption on the topic of existence vs non-existence is not based in observation, but in bias.

Nah, because when people do that, it's usually because they have nothing else to say but really want to get in an insult.

First of all, "my descendant will have superior genes and will one day form a super race" is both a fickle desire and a straw man. Nice try though.

Secondly, then why did the concept of royal families and 'pure blood' exist before the discovery of genetics?

I wish i could be a female just so I could abort.

N O

Attached: A2F1B636-D046-440C-8DFC-3E3830874EA3.jpg (519x519, 64K)

To further add to my point, you only have observed your own feelings towards the matter, and possibly some of those who also currently exist. Have you polled any of those who don't exist? How could you know their feelings on the matter? I understand this is an impossibility, how can you ask a dead person or someone who has never existed how they feel? You can't, yet you still make the assumption that they would prefer to exist, and call this an observation.

You're also making an affirmative claim that I would like to see evidence for before I believe it. Oh wait, no one fucking knows. It's called prehistory for a reason. Why assume prehistoric us was so different to historic us?

Because they thought their blood was divine.

Mainly be a use the phrase already has a very specific meaning. The words themselves don't really but I can't say you have convinced me that there was much intelligence behind it in the first place.

I can't believe I have to say this again

If nothing is better than anything, then anything is better than nothing

Okay, I'll retract what I said. I still need some proof or something g to believe what you say though. Sounds like you believe it because you want to.

You don't need to move to be alive. Your example fails. Explain properly whether or not a rock can feel pain.

I don't see the contradiction.

I disagree. My assumption that existence is in the fetus' best interest is based on the observations I have made throughout my life. Mostly, that for the most part living creatures choose to continue living as much as possible, and also when one person is put in charge of another with power of attorney they are generally supposed to look out for the life of that person, for many reasons that have been thoroughly discussed by legal professionals. For all the same reasons that people tend to want to live and for all the same reasons that people with Power of Attorney are expected to look out for the life of the person in their charge, I believe it is safe to assume that it is in a fetus' best interest to be born and then adopted compared to being aborted.

Since when does "historic" us breed intelligently rather than from necessity.

Yes you do. It's one of the seven necessary features of living organisms.

The website about this is literally called basic biology, the page is called biology 101 that's how simple this is

basicbiology.net/biology-101/mrs-gren

Wrong. This implies dead things can't move. Chemical reactions instantly prove you wrong yet again.

They didn't do it to breed a super race, they did it to keep their blood pure. You're intelligent design would have them breed with others to make their future children ubermensch. Even then the average person didn't have children this way.

That's exactly why I believe it. What I want is to believe the truth, and occam's razor suggests the truth is the most simple explanation. Which is that before we started writing books about ourselves, we were pretty much the same except didn't write books about ourselves. Hell, maybe we did they just didn't last long enough for modern us to read them.

Learn the difference between an implication and a inference then start making arguments

Christians can judge all they want. That verse is vastly misinterpreted. Were all going to be judged anyway. James says we know others faith by their works - what else is that but judging others.

But, being self-righteous about it is not good. Calling sin sin, on the other hand, is totally Christian.

The thousands of millions of people who have died without reproducing beg to differ as to it's necessity

>Mostly, that for the most part living creatures choose to continue living as much as possible
Because it fears non-existence
>supposed to look out for the life of that person
Because religion has told us human life is precious and must be saved at all cost. Even when death would be in their best interest. These are all biases towards existence because we see non-existence as such a bad thing, when in reality, neither is better or worse. Can you describe why non-existence is bad?

Not even an argument. Fail yet again.

All abortion laws have an exception if the baby is endangering the life of the mother.

Excessive force in response to more minor trespasses is a crime. Duh.

Reading has been around for a very small amount of time relative to the existence of language. I have no idea how that's the simplest explanation to you either. I have no idea where you are pulling this shit from.

Just because it's not the most intelligent decision doesn't mean it's not an intelligent decision. People use their intellect to make arbitrary decisions all the time.

So do you mean people who willingly chose not to breed? Or people who were unable to? The instinct to have offspring is a staple of our lives. If we didn't have it, we wouldn't be here. We have it, just like other animals have it.

So your argument is basically, "well they didn't have kids with cripples so that's intelligence".

>minor trespasses is a crime. Duh.
not when they are destroying the value of your property, and stealing your bodily fluids

1. It's a different person from both parents because of the unique DNA... AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. And we all agree that DNA is the legal way we differentiate between two people.

2. The child holds no blame whatsoever in it's conception. It is innocent, and incurs no penalty whatsoever in how it happened.

Rape babies are just as innocent as non-rape babies. They all deserve the opportunity to have a life.

Allow me to try again, I'll spell it out since you're clearly slow. You made a logical fallacy known as 'ad hoc ergo propter hoc'

Claiming that living things move does not /infer/ that dead things don't. Nor that anything moving is living. That is an "after this, therefore because of this" argument which again, is a logical fallacy. I don't need an argument to refute a fallacy

I don't care about the babies life

Rocks are dead

Some of them probably did have kids with cripples but that is a hilarious summation of my argument that I completely agree with.

OP here, thread boomed, here is the messengers comment

Attached: EBCE5078-84F6-48A5-A1F6-252ACB3A47C2.jpg (750x1035, 302K)

Both, and how is it more complicated than assuming anything else? I assume things before history were much like things since, just with differing levels of technology

I could try. I would describe it as "bad" in two different ways. Firstly, it's bad for me because I consider it undesirable. I could expand on that but it would be a waste of time. I like being alive.

More relevant to our conversation, I would describe it as "bad" for another unknown person because there is strong consensus in our society that that is so. Using the example of Power of Attorney again, it is expected that a person in charge of another person's best interest try to keep them alive. For all the same reasons that most individuals choose to remain alive instead of committing suicide, non-existence/dying is bad.

So you can't explain why rocks don't feel pain?

Well, they definitely aren't alive. Glad we could reach some kind of conclusion

Then, I'm going to have to say your idea is fucking retarded. It's an entirely useless argument to make in the first place. Intelligent design, as a term, implies a substantial amount more than people not wanting their kids to be born with a dick attached to their thighs and a sunken skull. How you would call that intelligent design is beyond me.

You can only be pro life if you are vegan and adopt

If not then you are just a pawn justifying controll of low income people, abortion is one of the best crime fighters

CPS needs to be abolished

He has an axe to grind rather than a point to make. Kill the baby.

>see thread
Oh some chick was raped and murdered her rapist
>see posts
Oh it's fucking abortion that's boring

Because before Agriculture,most people lived in small, insular communities and tribes.

Of course irrefutable post is ignored

Of course I can, I already did. I'll assume you didn't read the page I linked.

Rocks cannot feel pain because they are not alive. Life is defined as anything that exhibits at least these seven traits:

Movement
Can move under own power

Respiration
Converts carbs/fats into usable energy

Sensitivity
Responds to stimuli (specifically by any of the other traits)

Growth
Production of new mass

Reproduction
Cell division

Excretion
Shit and piss

Nutrition
Eats stuff

Sorry I got a little lazy with the elaborations towards the end there. Here's the link again for further reading:

basicbiology.net/biology-101/mrs-gren

Why would they address it

>Muh Evolution
Darwin admitted to getting this theory through spirits that spoke to him. You are literally following the instruction of Demons and their religion when you engage in these types of discussions. There is no credibility to evolution and noticing animals adapting to their environments is not proof that we all originated from a single cell organism in primordial soup. Entire theory designed to lead people away from god in the masses.

Based

Extensive testing hasn't been done to prove that rocks can't process thought and be alive. You aren't a rock so you don't know. Boom eat some of your own logic right back at you.

Try again.

Because arguments don't rest on implications, they rest on inferences. How many times am I going to have to go over this.

Even if it did, not wanting your kid to be born with a thigh-dick and skull-sink might not be much intelligence, sure, but it's non zero, which is all I'm saying.

Luckily, most of us do.

it has less sentience than an ant in the first 5-6 months lol

So let's say Darwin got his ideas from being insane. Does that some how have anything to do with the evidence for evolution that we have since then? Also which god?

And since then most people live in big insular communities and tribes. I fail to see the refutation. If it's only a matter of scale, that's fine, I haven't made that part of my argument. More straw men, I guess?

Why even have a term for that?

Not really large.

But it has been done to prove that rocks do not exhibit any of the seven necessary qualities to define them as living, so an assumption though it may be it's one I'm fine with making.

You're really terrible at this, did you know that?

So you admit you can't prove it. Good job. Rocks feel pain.

You shouldn't. I care more about people who already exist.

Rocks are dead

Ehhhhh...

Na. It doesn't lead people away from God. People have been hiding themselves from God since the fruit of the tree of good and evil. They'll take any excuse or ability to do so they can get, because they're afraid of being judged for their failure.

I can't imagine actually believing in a literal garden of eden.

That's just a non-sequitur. Get some help.

Not an argument. Fail again.

Where did I say literal?

Yet again, I don't need an argument to contradict a logical fallacy.

You need it to prove whether something is wrong or right. You've admitted you can't prove it. Enjoy your loss.

Since the time of the fruit of good and evil

My man, you are suffering from incredible butthurt.

Not an argument. Keep failing.

To be clear, I'm not the guy you have been arguing with. I've just been laughing at your posts.

I actually like the tapeworm argument, I don't think it works in favour of abortion though.

It can even somewhat tenuously be linked to deliberate action.

However, if the difference between a tapeworm and your own child eludes you, perhaps it's not just the baby you should be killing.

I wouldn't say it's dems that are afraid of consequences, because I don't like generalised statements like that but (#notall) but if you support abortion and open borders and are against the death penalty you're almost certainly afraid of consequences. Not that you shouldn't be, but you shouldn't lack the bravery to counter that fear.

>which god
The Almighty, there is only one. I know you worship Satan or the demiurge or whatever you want to call him. To answer your question, YES being insane DEFINITELY has an impact on whether the things you are espousing as true, with the only source being demons telling you these things has a HUGE impact on the credibility of the information. There is NO proof that Darwin's theory provides an answer to our creation or lack thereof. The fact that it has been spread through academia and the public education system while touting it does prove these things is a direct attack on people to cut them off from our creator.

I never claimed to be able to prove whether or not rocks can feel pain, so why would I need an argument to do so?

I'm not arguing. Rocks can feel pain it's a fact.

I support abortion and killing criminals

So you admit they can. Easy win yet again.

Attached: 0BDAABAD-222E-4A7C-A8C1-603F2E7DDB00.jpg (333x239, 35K)

So, the Christian one I assume?

None of those words are the one I asked for. You're free to interpret the story however you want afaic. If you want to take it literally just to be mad at some Yea Forums user then go for it.

No there is a lot of proof of his theory. Which has changed quite a bit since his day and the fact that it's called a theory rather than a hypothesis should tell you how solidly we have given evidence for it.

That's an argument

How could I have taken that any other way in that context?

I admit they could, were they to be alive. But they aren't, at least by the definition of life that has existed since we discovered maggots don't materialise out of rotten meat.

Look, I know you think you're baiting me real hard, but I'm the kind of masochist that finds this just as fun as you do. I'll be here til 404, I hope you stay too

Simply by doing so. The only context that would limit you such is if I said 'literally' which is why I asked you to quote where I said that.

Because I didn't say that.

Of course Darwin's theory doesn't provide an answer to our creation, it doesn't address it. It only covers what happens once we exist, not prior to.

It's a fact.
You don't know they aren't alive. You can't prove they aren't. Just like you can't prove ghosts aren't real. Rocks could just be ghosts and they think and breathe differently than normal living creatures. Try again sperg.

He thinks evolution and abiogenesis are the same

Me too, but that does not negate the absolute right of a zygote to reach completion.

It's not:

Mom's desires VS child's right.

kek. this is where you say there are 500 genders and what not lol. i am a woman. theres two genders m/f and the definition of abortion is the killing/denying the possibility of life/"terminating" (the nice term given so you thots that can't be responsible cans sleep at night) of an unborn fetus.

try again. protip: abortion is murder. kekekekeke.

I guess I misunderstood then

are you retarded?

I can't prove they aren't, sure. But we devised a test to try and prove they are, and couldn't. If you have evidence to the contrary then please, share with the class

imagine thinking christians are stupid for having beliefs when your own are just as autistic

"da universe like, created itself man"

Absolute right according to you. I could just as easily say it doesn't according to me.

discord
=
.gg/
=
nUxdKRt

No, I'm not a moron

are you fucking retarded? you must be trolling, God, I hope you're trolling lol.

It's valid. Just because someone does something bad to you doesn't mean you can now do something bad to someone else.

Though even newborns are hardly humans. They aren't even sentient.

Attached: 1491027561698.jpg (500x565, 49K)

That's okay. It's a loaded topic, I get it. Bound to happen to someone.

I think it's more stupid to believe that a God can exist with no creator but the pre-universe couldn't

Stop trying to limit God to the character from a book. The REAL God, the one living right now as we type back and forth. I do not believe there is much difference in idea behind the one true God that is prevalent in many cultures. YHWY which the Christians, Jews and Muslims worship. The God of the Egyptians, Horus. The God of the Norse, Odin. Call him what you will, but if there are many Gods, there was a creator for them and for everything. THAT God.
>how solidly we have given evidence for it.
>((we))
I do not care for your science club popularity contests. Countless times the scientific community has come to a consensus that has been BTFO

Not my job, bitch. Prove they're not alive otherwise they're alive.
Prove rocks can't feel pain, bitch.

you're completely uneducated, please exit your browser and don't come back. you don't avoid fish on Friday, you eat fish and avoid MEAT -- this is only if you're catholic too. fuck you're so stupid.

quick, everyone, stop the women from menstruating because they're just killing innocent lives every 28 days

Right? At least we came up with SOMETHING lol

was your uncle gentle?

That's not an affirmative claim, no proof can be provided. Yet another fallacy.

>Acting like there's not a difference between a 6 cell organism and a multi million celled organism

How are you this retarded.

Oh so you are that type huh? Why must there be a creator for those gods and not the original God? Regardless of that, the only people who ever btfo out of scientists is other scientists trying to test ideas.

what he means is sentience

a dog/worm/cow doesn't look in the mirror and see itself, this is the basis for intelligent life

and please don't bring up that kids don't achieve this level of sentience until 4, the fact of the matter is that they WILL become sentient at some point in their life, a dog will never understand that isn't another dog behind glass

your 'load' is not alive. the point of which life occurs is when an ovum and sperm meet. a catalyst occurs in which life can be spawned.

you're truly an imbecile. the way you talk is also a bit idiotic as well. intelligence is proven not a fucking 'sign.'

abortion is the killing of an unborn human being, period. it's fine if you want to do that, but dont sugarcoat it saying the child is not alive so you can sleep at night, lol. just be upfront and come to terms, you're denying life to a human being.

It's turtles all the way down, dontcha knowwww

an egg =/= fertilized egg. retard.

>no proof can be provided
That's the sound of you losing. Easy.

WTF is lobster care!?!?

the sperm =/= fertilized egg...

Spiders are pretty close to seeing themselves in a mirror. They're at least very suspicious that it's them. Considering we've seen apes enter the stone age, can't be long until spiders are on the list with dolphins as possibly sentient.

I do not believe in the right to choose but I do believe in abortion.

in what way is either of those a better option than the other

genuinely curious

Actually it's the sound of nothing happening. My claim remains speculative, your argument remains a fallacy. At least, while I can not be said to have won, you can definitely be said to have lost. Many times over, at this point. It's cute that you keep going. Less cute that now you're just repeating yourself.

You remind me of when I stress out my predictive text and it just starts looping. I'd call you stupid, but that's an insult to predictive text. It's not dumb, just... limited. You, however...

no thanks, its just filled with a bunch of faggoty keyboard warriors who speak over each other all day long -- meanwhile they're fucking neckbeard lanky nerds with no lives.

I never understood the argument that a fetus isn't a human life and is only a group of cells. If you leave those cells be, they will become a person. You just have to look at it logically

Some retards say say ejaculating in tissue is murder, but those jizz cells wouldn't become human life unless they fertilized egg cells, so it's not comparable to terminating an ongoing pregnancy.

Attached: 1564687385100.jpg (598x600, 274K)

Ghost adds in an extra step and complicates matters more. Mainly is just a question that comes up when people ask how the universe could be created without a god

Actually it's not. You couldn't do the simplest thing and prove rocks can't feel pain. That's a loss on you kid. Try again.

Everyone has the right to choose. What I don't get is why stop at killing unborn babies? Just kill anyone that's a nuisance.

Oh, right, they aren't stopping there. "We'll make them comfortable, and then the parents and the doctor will have a discussion" FML

Rocks have nothing to experience pain with.

What are you two even talking about?

Attached: superthumb.jpg (300x250, 12K)

You can feel a rock. Thus, the rock can feel you.

and two atoms colliding to creative infinite amounts of mass, that's less complicated?

imagine thinking this way lmao

You should be able to pull the plug on terminal patients/vegtables. Voluntary suicide for terminally ill should also be legal.

We can feel a rock because we are loving beings with the needed physiological and mental equipment to do so.

I just don't get how you can't see it. It doesn't matter though, you asked a question and I answered.

What's it matter if suicide is legal or not. You're dead either way lol

Attached: 1556698264871.jpg (390x390, 18K)

>implying rocks can't love
I'm sorry, what body part excretes this "love" stuff?

That's not simple, it's literally impossible. Also I haven't once tried to prove rocks can't feel pain, nor will I. Because it's literally impossible.

If you have any documented evidence of rocks: Moving, respiring, sensing, growing, reproducing, excreting or nourishing.

It has to be all of them, mind. And movement as a criteria for life is done under the potential life's own power, so throwing it doesn't count

That's what I mean when I said they don't move further than I throw them, while fish do.

Not sure if you still remember but my claim was that fish feel pain. You have yet to refute that claim, at all. So you're right, you haven't lost. You never even tried. I guess that's an improvement. Congrats.

youtube.com/watch?v=XRj8ZxnzWGo

Like go to a doctor to get it done as a regular procedure rather than splattering your brains on the ceiling.

>being retarded enough to think fish feel pain
>yet doesn't think rocks feel pain
Kid, you're so stupid it's hilarious. Just take your loss.

That quote was a democratic governor discussing what a post-term abortion would look like.

Suicide should just not be illegal, I think. What are you gonna do, kill them?

the dick

Rocks have dicks.

Attached: proof.jpg (1252x1252, 167K)

I know what he means, but the question doesnt change. True, most creatures don't exhibit signs of sentience. But what is that threshold for sentience?. Self awareness? Language? Tool crafting? Emotion? Empathy? Morality/justice? Foresight? There are other species that show signs of having many if not all of these traits. user claims humans serve higher purpose than the lowly creatures used for food. But none of us serve any purpose beyond this. The universe is indifferent to our existence as much as it is to those of the ones we call food and claim cant feel pain.

> i dont get how you cant see it
well considering there's no scientific proof to back up said assumption, and said assumption has "only ever occurred once and isn't reproducable" I find that much harder to believe than a god creating a universe and planet that just so happens to be perfectly hospitable to human beings, a planet that if it was 1% further or closer to the sun wouldn't be inhabitable, not to mention the entire "primordial soup" premise, and the fact that it still hasn't been reproduced either.

Yes. Keeping people alive who want to die due to serious disabilities or mental issues is immoral if they want to just dies and get it over with.

Even Paul Simon said it.
>she love's me like a rock

I can define me as alive, I can define fish as alive. I cannot define rocks as alive.

I can define pain as a feeling I experience, I can define pain as a feeling fish experience. I cannot define pain a feeling rocks experience.

If you can, then go for it. Like I said three times in this thread, you're allowed to be wrong. Do what you want.

Why do you believe it's plausible that a God came from nothing? We haven't seen god, ever.

If it weren't possible to be be here, we wouldn't. That's not an argument.

she love is what?

You heard me

Boom more proof. You can't lie on a track.
>i am alive
>i define walking as flying
>i can fly
Nice more sperg logic. How are you failing this hard?

How exactly do you define walking as flying?

>repeating digits

How do you define feeling pain as "a fish having an experience" without knowing what the fish is feeling?

that wasn't even my argument to begin with retard
"we"
e p i c retort, friend :))

You're still allowed to be wrong, my dude. Call it what you want, I'm not arguing with you here you're the one disputing that fish can feel pain

If I recall because it's an instinctual reaction was the only reason you gave, and then started banging on about rocks when I asked you what the difference was between you and a fish.

I though it was a pretty simple question. You don't have gills.

So nothing then

>*hits bong*
>"sure told that asshole"

>If I recall because it's an instinctual reaction was the only reason you gave
I wasn't even talking to you about fish you literal moron. That wasn't me. There were like 3 other people calling you stupid and 1 was me.

I saw you say something insanely stupid and wanted to know if you thought the same thing about rocks. That is all, you massive idiot lol.

Alright man, have a nice day.

What did I say that was insanely stupid? That fish can feel pain?

From the Smithsonian, of Victoria Braithwaite:

>At the anatomical level, fish have neurons known as nociceptors, which detect potential harm,
>such as high temperatures, intense pressure, and caustic chemicals.
>Fish produce the same opioids—the body’s innate painkillers—that mammals do.
>And their brain activity during injury is analogous to that in terrestrial vertebrates:
>sticking a pin into goldfish or rainbow trout, just behind their gills, stimulates nociceptors and a cascade of electrical activity
>that surges toward brain regions essential for conscious sensory perceptions (such as the cerebellum, tectum, and telencephalon),
>not just the hindbrain and brainstem, which are responsible for reflexes and impulses.

Yes retard. I didn't even mention fish until you did.
>googles "do fish feel pain"
>quotes an article that doesn't prove him right
Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber. How do you fail at google? That article says they sense it's all sensory and not like human pain at all. Try again idiot.