Abortion

>History & "Humanities"
Please go to Jow Forums to discuss this.

>The only person whos opinion count is the person who is about to/not to make an abortation.

I think this, but for every murder for trivial reasons rather than just those of unborn babies
I mean, if someone is a hinderance to your lifeplans for whatever reason, it's your right to kill this person

I don't necessarily disagree with your end position, but if we are to see abortion as a loss of life, that the fetus deserves some level of sovereignty as a child-soon-to-be, we can't say it's only the decision of the mother any more than we can say that the victim's life is of the murderer.
For me, I have qualms about it because of being at the scene of a tragic miscarriage.
Nobody involved saw the miscarriage as "a glorified tumor" or "just a clump of cells" or "basically a parasite" it was fucking awful and everyone present saw it as a loss of life, it was absolutely horrid to experience. How then, in the aftermath of this, can we be so callous to abortion? Does the nature of it ride solely on the impression of the mother towards her pregnancy? What an awful way to live, to rest our actions on our feelings towards things rather than our actions being dictated by a logical assessment.

>But yh Im overall pro-abortion, an unwanted chils overall ends in an unloved child. There are lives simply not worth having.

This pathetic egoistical pseudo-justification is what I hate the most about abortion
Trying to act as if they do it for the murdered child's well being rather than by pure egoism too feel better is really really low

Face, anyone would rather have a chance at life, even with a shitty family and childhood, than die at the beginning of their lives so a whore can keep her comfy lifestyle.

Tons of people who accomplished great things in their lives through history started out with a shitty family/situation/childhood
I'm pretty sure once adult and accomplished, they were glad abortion didn't exist yet in their era.
It would have been a real shame if mankind had been deprived of these persons existences just so their insignificant pathetic whore mothers could have had a comfier life without having to take responsabilities for their actions

> Face, anyone would rather have a chance at life, even with a shitty family and childhood, than die at the beginning of their lives so a whore can keep her comfy lifestyle.

Wrong

I also disagree with your exaggerated use of whore just to denigrate some1 who I'm not even sure what you are assuming they done wrong. There are a lot of people who just don't have acess to sexual education, they have no iddea what they are doing. Are they still whores? Is it really still 100% their fault?

I don't believe so Tim

Anyone who has unprotected sex and then abort = whore
If she keeps the child however, she's no longer a whore but a breeder, as nature intended her to be

There's a reason why all those people want to fuck, and the intended reason isn't ripped off fetuses in a trashbin

How many months old was the fetus? that is relevant on this topic.

In my country i believe it is legal to abort untill 3 months or 10 weeks or some shit like that. Because before that, the cells are not evolved yet to be what is considered a living being. no heart, no nervous system not a thing. Yess, it will form into a kid, but it is not yet. I didnt want to fall int this easy argument, but everytime we fap we also kill several cells that could be turned into full living beings. Is it also wrong?

So even if the woman has 0 awareness of contraceptive methods and all that kind of shit we do take for granted, she is also a whore?

> as nature inded her to be

Being able to do one thing does not mean you "have to", and that is your ultimate goal.

>Wrong

He's right actually. And I say that as someone who had a pretty bad childhood and family.
My mother never wanted me, and it was always pretty obvious.
The only reason I exist is because abortion isn't legal in my country (South Asian country, won't say more).

Although my life was pretty bad as a child, I now have a high paid job, a loving wife and two kids
I'm totally glad my mother wasn't able to abort, thus allowing me to have my chance at life, which I seized

>everytime we fap we also kill several cells that could be turned into full living beings

This is a tired, disingenuous argument. A sperm cell is a part of the male and will never develop into anything. Only after fertilization a new organism is formed, a separate human being.

I am pretty aware of how most of people in Brazil live, on their case, it will just be an endless circle of too early births, they will never get a high paid job (not likely).

Using yourself as example (something that can't be checked here) is not the best type of example

I guess there's no problem with letting it out on its own then to fend for itself.

If people are unhappy, they can always kill themselves
Killing an unborn baby "just in case" cause they might end up being unhappy is not something commendable, it's bullshit (and anyway, we all know this shitty justification only exists to feel better about killing an innocent baby)

Of course a child cannot fend for itself, more so in first week than after birth. I know it makes for a nice "gotcha" moment for you, but I'm sure we both know this isn't an argument against what I wrote.

Generally, the people who are agaisnt abortion, are also people who condemn suicide.

Still, it will not be only one life that "might be bad". the life of the mother will almost for sure be bad (as she wants to have an abortion, if she has to keep the baby, I'll assume she will have to keep up with something unwanted, thus mking her unhappy). And still bringing some1 to this world for him to kill himself soon, does not sound to good

We can give the fetus for someone else to look after and raise, after all it's completely separate to the mother from the moment of fertilisation.

Rather early in her pregnancy, womb barely begun to swell

Cont: and you are all misusing the world killing, if it is not a living being, you cannot kill it, stop using grammar to the benefit of your argument

>but everytime we fap we also kill several cells that could be turned into full living beings. Is it also wrong?

t. literal brainlet with ZERO basic knowledge in biology

Sperms are reproductive cells, not human beings
The only DNA they carry is the DNA of the body they belong to

Once fertilization occurs however, a new DNA (and thus a new human being) is created.
A fetus has its own personal DNA, and thus is a human being rather than just cells like sperms or ovum

That's fucking basic biology dude
There is literally no debate on this

princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

That same argument could be used for leaving newborn infants on hillsides to die of exposure.
That is the argument of an evil or disengenous man.

>Cont: and you are all misusing the world killing, if it is not a living being, you cannot kill it

t. single digit IQ
Not even pro-abortion people deny that fetus are living beings
And since they're part of the human species, they're not animals either

The best you can say is that maybe they're not a "person" (since that's a very vague concept), but the fact they're living and part of the human specie are not up to debate

If you can develop a method that will not kill the child (in the process or afterwards), then yes, you can remove it. Not where we are at though.

We could actually tranfer a fetus to an artificial womb
A fetus cannot live on its own, but it is absolutly not part of the mother's body

Well once you have found a method where you aren't forcing another person to go through pregnancy and childbirth then you can come back to us.

Theoretically you could transfer a brain into a vat with yet undeveloped technology. Is that part of a women's body?

I'm not Irish or Catholic or even religious, but I'd vote to keep the 4th as abortion is genocide in the name of eugenics no better than Nazism.
Mother's being allowed to kill their children to escape responsibility isn't a woman's right, a woman's right is being allowed to be born.

Attached: Fuck child killers to be desu.png (951x253, 153K)

in the democratic society, to ask a man or woman to accept inconvenience or hardship is the ultimate sin.
pregnancy is a sacrifice of sorts, so that we can keep the holiness and sovereignty of human life as it is. bearing a child and birthing a child is hard, but good men and women accept that life is inevitably such a thing, and that we must bear suffering for more noble purposes.
not such a case in the democratic society. their higher values are not to uphold noble things, but to defend their own leisure and convenience at all costs. they will crush the skull of a fetus in the womb, vacuum out it's corpse from their vagina, and use the flesh to fuel heating systems inside their hospitals because it inconveniences them.

it's fucking awful, and a monument to our hedonism and rejection of responsibility.

can you link me some pro aport people assuming that less than 10 months fetus is considered a living being ?

We already have the technology for artificial wombs, retard
Fuck off with your retarded comparison

Anyone who has very very basic knowledge in biology knows that fetus are alive
Even cells like sperms are alive my man (altho ,unlike fetus, they're not human beings since they do not have their own DNA)

My point isn't that every living beings should have equal rights (no one says that), but the fact you think a fetus isn't alive proves how inept at basic biology you are, and how your opinion on abortion is worth jack shit

That's simply factually incorrect, we do not have working artificial wombs that could successfully grow a human fetus to full term.

This is where people disagree, putting life of the child above mothers discomfort. I also disagree with the idea that a woman is unjustly forced to carry the child. Barring rare exceptions, she is pregnant due to combination of choice to have sex, and bad luck. It is the natural function of woman body to carry, not abort. It is the person who performs abortion that transgresses, not the child.

I disagree that her rights end where your feelings begin.

I disagree that the baby's life ends where her feelings begin

A human life isn't "his feelings", faggot
If the "feelings" argument should be applied here, it's against the side that puts a women's desire not to take responsabilities for her actions above the right of a human being to live its life

The fetus has no rights or feelings, so her rights and feelings win. It's you that feels sad about it, not the unborn fetus.

What about her daughter's right to live?

BTFO

See

>The fetus has no rights or feelings, so her rights and feelings win

It has a life tho
And life > feelings or rights

The fetus only has no rights if you strip rights from it. Same with blacks, same with Jews, same with any class of human beings you deem subhuman just because you want them dead or to be oppressed as a convenience.

Allow abortion up to a certain point of development +special cases such as rape and the like

Attached: Dorset-street-1902.jpg (450x310, 100K)

BTFO

A plant is alive, that's not an argument.

It's not even a conscious being, it has no rights.

>A plant is alive, that's not an argument.

A plant isn't part of the human specie, a human fetus is
Are you some special kind of retard?

>The fetus has no rights
Well that's what's being debated
>or feelings
Feelings are malleable, subjective, and open to manipulation. Those that do not safeguard their impressions of events heavily with logic are not to be trusted.
Feelings are a lesser thing to decide your worldviews upon.
What most be respected is not feelings, but facts. Life has been conceived.

On the one hand Irish are scum of the earth so should be genocided
But on the other abortion is murder no matter how you spin it, so I would vote no

A plant isn't human.
I am very openly a human Supremacist.

You know you can put kids up for adoption right

So eugenics is fine

>raising a child is a wasted life
>wasted life’s should be ended
So you’re in favour of eugenics, you don’t think people should be given the CHANCE to adopt

Your argument was that life was greater than feelings. A plant is alive but has no feelings, like a fetus.

>Feelings are malleable, subjective, and open to manipulation.
An early stage fetus does not even have a functioning brain.

No they tend to be the people in favour of suicide, they just use the word euthanasia

In suicide the person chooses to die.
In abortion the choice to even live is taken from the person.

How are they even remotely relatable, in fact they are polar opposites.

>Your argument was that life was greater than feelings. A plant is alive but has no feelings, like a fetus

You know very well we're talking about human life, faggot
Human life is a thing considered sacred in our society, even by people who are pro-abortion (which is why they use farfetch mental gymnastics to try and imply fetus arent human, much like slavers did with black people)

exactly, the fetus is static and simple

to hinge the right of abortion on the feelings of the mother is the dangerous and illogical thing to do.

>An early stage fetus does not even have a functioning brain.
Oh so we can gas Retards
Good to know my plans didn’t die in 1945

it comes down to when the fetus is a human. that's it, i haven't seen any good arguments for killing an innocent human, so that's the cutoff. just gotta draw the line somewhere. idk where, im not a doctor

on a side note i think it's funny that killing a pregant women is punished harsher than killing a nonpregnant women even if that woman could have had a legal abortion when she was alive

>just gotta draw the line somewhere. idk where, im not a doctor
conception

that is when new DNA is created, something distinct, something that will at least become a normal person given time.
everything else rests upon feelings and emotion, an unreliable metric.

>You know very well we're talking about human life, faggot
>Human life is a thing considered sacred in our society

Let's just get to the philosophical bottom of the argument being made. You're rewording to a "human life" is more valuable that feelings, but why do we consider human life valuable? It's because humans have feelings and are conscious. If humans were unconscious and had no feelings there would be nothing intrinsically valuable about human life. So no, your argument just still doesn't stack up.

Yeah double murder
And ofc people campaigned against this because they thought it would lead to tightened abortion laws

If you can’t consent to sex when stressed out, how can you consent to kill your child when stressed out

I don't fully agree with other people responding to your response to me. While the child certainly has the right not be killed, the mother also has the right to her autonomy to not be infringe. Those are at odds, and it is not immediately clear who what precedence. It has to be argued instead that the child has the right to mothers resources, and indeed, I would say that mother has the duty to care for her child, and she can only be released from this duty if someone else takes it on. Of course it is not easy to justify this duty, especially when she was raped.

>it comes down to when the fetus is a human.

Since the very beginning given that it's part of the human specie

Fact: Human fetus are human (part of the human specie)
Fact: Human fetus are alive
Fact: Human fetus are individual human beings (rather than just cells like sperms) as they have their own DNA

These are FACTS, that no biologist (even pro-abortion ones) will ever deny
The only thing up to debate is when does "personhood" (=/= being "alive" or "human") begins

So if I drug someone, or kill them whilst they’re asleep I’m not guilty of manslaughter or murder

Damn, I meant to respond to

It's logical to strip away the rights of a conscious being to preserve the rights of an unconscious one?

Whatever next, are we going to start torturing people to preserve the rights of rocks and call it logical?

>the mother also has the right to her autonomy to not be infringe
But modern laws mean the autonomy of the father is infringed, he has to give up income even if he did not consent to having a child, so why not infringe the mother’s autonomy. Taxes also infringe on the Rich’s wealth, but these taxes go to help the poor and help them with their suffering

>Those are at odds, and it is not immediately clear who what precedence

When one party has survival at stake while the other one merely has comfort, I think it's pretty clear what to choose....

I am in favour of the state not punishing women who seek to terminate unwanted pregnancies, nor for the state making any judgement or imposing any restrictions on these women based on the reason the woman wishes to terminate. Leading on from that, if third parties wish to provide medical services to enable women to terminate those pregnancies, I don't believe the state should prevent those third parties from offering such services, but should rather regulate them to ensure what they do is done safely and sensibly and that women are protected from mistreatment and get the service and care they need.

Most of the posts in this thread are very emotive and seem to be focused on emotional arguments around what constitutes a human life and a human's rights. I've never really understood why so many people get so emotional about protecting the rights of human foetuses, especially when those same people don't get nearly so emotional about the rights of other human beings, but "whatever". I guess I'm one of those people who just don't get triggered by the thought of an abortion. It's physically repulsive and distressing, and in a perfect world, it wouldn't happen, because in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any unwanted pregnancies. But this world isn't perfect.

For those people who are strongly against abortion - or rather, who are in favour of the state controlling whether women can terminate their pregnancies or not, I have some questions....

They were a conscious being before you did that or before they went to sleep. The fetus has never achieved personage, it has never been conscious.

we gladly beat crowds of anarchists to defend statues

this is because we are civilized, we aren't slaves to whatever collective amount of emotions we harbor, we have higher ideals

you ask humanity to regress

Because surely the state-run adoption system is just hurting for kids and has bountiful amounts of money to dedicate. Let alone medical complications that can occur and the medical costs for child birth.

>a fetus is a child

>They were a conscious being before you did that or before they went to sleep

If we go by the "it was this before/will be that after", you can also argue that the fetus will be conscious after
Tour retarded argument only matters for the present moment

And anyway it's garbage since newborns arent concious of themselves but yet are illegal to kill

Right to not take responsibility for your actions < Right to live

Proportionate violence to preserve property is a whole different issue. And besides which that is just plain wrong, police are allowed to use appropriate level of force, they aren't allowed to "beat anarchists to defend statues".

yeah that's what i meant. most people aren't against prevention and most people aren't for abortion at 8 months so it's gotta be somewhere in between

Questions:

1) if you think the state should prevent women from terminating their pregnancies, how do you suggest the state should do it? What preventative measure do you suggest? Captivity? House arrest?

2) if a woman succeeds in terminating her pregnancy, how do you think she should be punished for her crime?

3) if the foetus has a right to life and therefore a right to the resources provided by the mother's body, what other rights does it have and how should they be provided for, perhaps by proxy to the mother?

4) suppose a woman is constrained to have a child against her will, what does the state then do with the child? Confiscate and reassign to other parents, or an orphanage?

How do I know they were conscious tho

Ethics is under the category of humanities.

>medical costs
Are you in a third world country?
>state run
Also private agencies and charities that help, now that gays can marry the amount demanding kids will increase

>if I use this biological term to signify which phase of development the human is at then I win the argument
I guess we should execute 6 year olds that shoot up schools then because they’re not concious and capable of consent

>If we go by the "it was this before/will be that after",
You just casually putting a slash between the two entirely different things does not make it the same.

>And anyway it's garbage since newborns arent concious of themselves but yet are illegal to kill
How conscious newborns are is unknown.

>Right to not take responsibility for your actions
That's just you going on about your own feelings again. Your personal opinion about other people "taking responsibility" is irrelevant.

>but everytime we fap we also kill several cells that could be turned into full living beings
Doesn't the average sperm only live a couple of days? If so, it makes no difference if they die inside the testicles or inside a tissue if there isn't a woman in sight. Or are you going to start condemning virgins for letting their sperm die inside them without ever seeing a woman?

1
Ban the practice
2
Fine
Jail time
3
A right to be allowed to grow to term and then delivered
4
If she does not want it then it is put up for adoption

i don't think it as different as you suggest

the point is that morality and logic extend beyond what is capable of holding feelings. we have greater concepts to respect, much like we value the heritage and culture represented by a statue, we respect the life of the unfeeling and unconscious.

If you are now arguing a solipsistic position and don't think anyone is conscious except you why are you worried about abortion?

what i don't get about people who are pro abortion and use these arguments: how do you draw the line?
with these "arguments" i could justify abortion at 8 months too