What do eliminate anti-choice retards?

the embryo will grow into a person if you don't murder it.

At what point does an embryo magically become human? Is there a special number of cells like 667,357,378,466,763,007 where suddenly killing it becomes immoral? If you van't define the exact number, then pro-lifers are reasonable to take an abundance of caution when it comes to murder.

Attached: babygirl-small1.jpg (274x179, 22K)

and it is not immoral to murder a chicken, a tree, or a dress(?)...

People just need to be responsible for their own actions. Fuck me, it's not rocket science.

Attached: 1547918865500.jpg (500x451, 55K)

I suppose ironically it kinda is rocket science...

The eggs we eat aren't fertilised. Even if it were, the killing of chickens isn't illegal.

The killing of trees is not illegal.

The dress thing is borderline retarded.

I don't get the point, but if it's that a developing fetus, which grows in to a human, isn't allowed a shot at life then it's a poor point poorly emphasised.

It can be reasonably deduced that a fertilized egg will develop into a person unless it is acted on by external forces. It is still a human being even if it is not a person, which is a human being with social abilities. That external force constitutes murder.

Because then they lost their argument and have to admit they want to kill babies so they can go back to the club

idgaf about abortion, actually think its useful.
but I will admit this person is correct.
cant have a chicken without the egg, cant have a dress without the cotton.

you can try get rid of those 2 things and see how many chicken you end up with.

I just accept that to have an abortion is to kill something. im okay with killing something. it happens in nature all the time.

to say its not life is just to make yourself feel better.

drugs cannot be illegal for the simple fact they will be used in secret.
murder cannot be illegal for the simple fact it will be done in secret

>______ cannot be illegal for the simple fact it will be done in secret

Attached: 1.png (480x480, 225K)

St. Thomas Aquinas, the foremost scholar and theologian for the Catholic Church, reasoned that in order for a human being to "be", the faculties necessary to host at soul must exist. He reasoned that a soul cannot inhabit an insufficient host, or in other words, that structures such as the brain and those statements necessary to sustain the brain so that it can host the soul or consciousness must exist. At that point, a human being comes into existence in the sense that it is now a thing that can think, act, and desire. Before that, it is a thing which will become a human being, but does not yet possess those necessary traits to be considered "human". In today's medical terminology, this distinction comes in the form of the word "fetus".

Attached: 1546545711796.jpg (604x453, 43K)

Structures*
Sorry, I am phone posting

A fertilized egg isn't a chicken either.

If there's no brain neurons then there's no person. Problem solved.

That definition is still arbitrary. We don't even know what consciousness is, much less how to qualify its existence empirically. There is no point at which someone flips a switch and an embryo or fetus suddenly becomes conscious.

>kills innocent babies like it’s nothing purely out of convenience
> durrrr death penalty bad! Give that serial child rapist yoga and rap lyric therapy. Namaste.

If the forth image is what was about ed you would have a case, but it's not. Look at a balut (picture), is that not a bird that didn't hatch?

Attached: 2019-01-19 12.14.35.png (799x1194, 710K)

If a single cell is discovered on mars we call it a sign of life.

So why not a fetus?

Attached: 1547068142403.jpg (640x476, 63K)

If there is one neuron then it becomes immoral to kill an embryo? If not, what is the exact number of neurons where it becomes immoral, and why that particular number?

Attached: 2019-01-09 08.37.16.png (1842x1122, 1.87M)

Yes. Just one.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that consciousness cannot exist in a body unfit to host it. There is no way to prove just when consciousness occurs. We as a species are not even 100% sure that consciousness is anything more an illusion, that the human condition doesn't amount to more than a simple accretion of experiences playing in our heads that convinces us that we are real. Most people aren't directly aware of the fact that they are things that can think, and act on things for a purpose, so what really is consciousness? It is more or less objectively true that we can really only be aware of our own consciousness (and the existence of God, if you are a follower of Cartesian philosophy), that there is no way to prove that anybody else exists at all.

What I am saying in my original argument is that an embryo is just that-an embryo. A human being is not an embryo, and an embryo is not a human being, to say otherwise isn't logical. An embryo becomes a human being, and a human being was once an embryo.

So what about people with dementia? They're ok to euthanize correct?

>Abortion cannot be illegal for the simple fact that it wil be carried out in secret.

Attached: 1537563831400.png (620x581, 16K)

>human being is not an embryo, and an embryo is not a human being, to say otherwise isn't logical.

I agree, but because I don't know where the dividing line is, and can't know, I take an abundance of caution and rule out abortion altogether.

That's pretty early in embryonic development desu. I don't think wahmenz are going to like that.

>What do eliminate anti-choice retards?

If they can get the zygote, embryo, or fetus out without damaging it, then pro-choice is possible.

For instance, you can't just kill someone when trying to evict him from an apartment. If that someone is out on his ass and dies on his own, then that is not *illegal.*

The problem is that just because something is legal, does NOT necessarily make it moral. A bio-mom can always *choose* to give the child away than let it die after being carved out of her uterus.

The problem with cuckservatives and conservitards is that they think that just because something is immoral, that means it can be illegal. They are literally trying to take away God's gift of free will.

user. Hard boil a half developed chicken egg then I dare you to eat it.

Attached: 1544688020456.jpg (325x325, 10K)

Okay, and I'm not disagreeing with you, I believe that human beings possess intrinsic value by virtue of our existence alone, and that it is immoral in all circumstances to destroy something with intrinsic value. I, however, don't consider abortion murder, as murder is thought of in the ethical sense. I accept that it may be immoral to deny the existence of a being that would otherwise have existed had an intervention not occurred, but ultimately I also do believe that the world would be a better place without an ever increasing number of humans on it, just as there is an ethical argument against abortion, there are many strong arguments for it.

Abortion is a difficult moral issue. Most people on both sides take for granted that there's no black and white answer to it.

I slightly disagree with this, I think most people see it as a black and white issue, but ethics itself isn't black and white.

What happens is two sides make two arguments based on different moral foundations, and claim the moral high ground.

What's ironic is that the conservative claims to believe that every life is sacred, and so is pro-life, whole also supporting things like capital punishment and denying aid to people who need it, as well as expressing a willingness to use our troops to further America's interests abroad.

The liberal does the opposite, claiming all life is sacred, advocating for the poor, those on death row, and against war, but creating a paradox in that they don't see any immorality in denying a human being from existing.

Both sides think they are right, both sides are wrong

I think it's fair to give them about two weeks to get an abortion. Accidents happen so it's their job to figure it out at a reasonable time. Also, why do you some only roasties care about abortions? Plenty of chads don't want to raise some whore's baby.

Do they have zero brain cells? If so, then yes.

>Using a pre-conception photo of an egg and sperm

You cant because you guys are too busy eliminating yourselves. Enjoy your hispanics.

> t. Jeff Probst

Abortion is not a religious issue, it just happens to be that religious groups are the most active pro-life advocates. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not receive/perform an abortion", it just says "Thou shalt not kill", which we all agree on. We're just disagreeing on the definition of "kill".

listen up faggots.

when a dumbfuck 14 year old slut gets pregnant from some nigger who then runs off, she NEEDS an abortion. to submit the baby to 80 years of suffering is about the most cruel thing you could possibly do to a soul. the girl is utterly incapable of raising a child properly, the baby would be 100% FUCKED, for LIFE because of TERRIBLE upbringing by the fucking dumbcunt slut. for a group of people who love to shout gas the kikes you really don't have balls when it comes down to it, do you? abortion isn't murder, it's mercy.

Why do you think being a genocidal maniac is virtuous?
You're trying to sell child sacrifice. Seeing you vermin LARPing as morally righteous is becoming increasingly funny

Attached: 1511825068211.png (728x545, 291K)

I'm not necessarily arguing it as a religious issue though, and yes, we are. I see murder, in the philosophical sense, as the deprivation of life from a being entitled to that right by virtue of it's existence. I think it is immoral to deny a fetus the right to exist, but I do not yet see the fetus as fundamentally the same as a human "person", rather a thing that will become a person. It seems to me illogical to say that you can murder a thing that doesn't exist, or isn't a human being yet. You wouldn't consider the killing of a deer while hunting to be murder, in the sense that a deer is not a human person.

The fetus carries more philosophical weight than a deer, obviously, but the fetus is not a human being, who can think and act on reason for purpose.

I originally sought to use the words of Aquinas, as he is the premier source of knowledge as far as the church is concerned, to highlight what I see as a paradox insofar as to just what a fetus is. I am not Catholic but I will take their word over, say, the southern Baptist, who is more often than not shown to present glaring inconsistencies when presenting their arguments, as the words of a man such as Aquinas are impossible to argue with on the basis of logic. When one tries, one creates paradoxes which carry over to the rest of ones political philosophy

Your race will die off because of retards like you

Biological life and "being" are two different things. It's not considered immoral to kill a cow or a chicken in the way it would be considered immoral to kill a human. Chickens exist and are alive, a significant thing, but are not beings which contain intrinsic value, so to speak. The chicken is not aware of itself in the way we are, it cannot think or act on reason for a purpose, and because it lacks that virtue, in a philosophical sense, it cannot claim a right to life by virtue of its existence. Life is not the same as being.

Abortion and global warming
>the Left
>science is indisputable when it supports our views
Race Realism
>reeeeeeeeeeee
>James Watson is a racist faggot
>kills all white men

Came here to post this. Bravo sir