If it's okay to kill potentially-conscious babies by aborting from responsibility

why isn't it okay to kill people in their sleep?

Other urls found in this thread:

numberofabortions.com/
princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
dictionary.com/browse/potential
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

what is so bad about killing people in general?

You're missing the point, dipshit. Anything that's attached to a body, doesn't have the right to remain attached. That goes for fetuses, as well as other forms of parasites. If by removing a leech from my arm it kills the leech, then so be it.

rufio did nothing wrong

A liberal on omegle literally told me legal abortion is good because without it, more mothers kill themselves trying to kill the baby themselves.

Why are liberals so brain-damaged?

Everybody can see you spamming the board with these threads, why are you doing it?

>You're missing the point, dipshit.
Maybe if you didn't abort your children, you wouldn't be so butthurt. You're mad because you're afraid what the question implies could be correct.
>Anything that's attached to a body, doesn't have the right to remain attached.
Irrelevant, but why?
>That goes for fetuses, as well as other forms of parasites.
>If by removing a leech from my arm it kills the leech, then so be it.
Implying fetuses are parasites and analogous to leeches doesn't constitute valid support for your assertion.

You should kill yourself instead of your children.

it's an important topic from our perspective.
if you're pro-life, you're holding to the view that 1,100,000+ children are being murdered in the US alone every year for the sake of convenience.

numberofabortions.com/

Actually, that's not me, but I did get the idea for this argument from seeing those threads.

>Maybe if you didn't abort your children, you wouldn't be so butthurt. You're mad because you're afraid what the question implies could be correct.
Not an argument.
>Irrelevant, but why?
Not an argument.
>Implying fetuses are parasites and analogous to leeches doesn't constitute valid support for your assertion.
Not an argument.

Those are all arguments. If you would contest that an argument requires at least two premises, I would inform you that implicit premises count. I'm sorry, idiot, but "Not an argument" isn't some magical, argument-winning trump card that you can use whenever you're wrong, just because it works for the ""smart"" bald man on youtube.

By definition, yes a baby is a parasite. It's a parasitic relationship, the baby take's nutrients/environmental help/oxygen and the mother receives nothing. Why do you support white genocide by increased nigger population?

Hmm, apparently one of them is a question, because your assertion begs the question. Yeah, you can't just make assertions, not support them, then say "not an argument" when asked to support them, and still insist your assertions are true, stupid liberal faggot.

>"so butthurt"
>"You're mad"
>"irrelevant"
>I don't like your analogy, therefore it's invalid.
>"""all arguments"""

STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM!

>By definition, yes a baby is a parasite. It's a parasitic relationship,
wrong, it's the same species as the "host" and raises the "host's" darwinian fitness.
the relationship is symbiotic if anything.

It is we do it to old people all of the time. Ever hear of hospice?

Because the sleeping person is not living off of your body without your consent.

If you want to start abortion threads please address arguments that have some meat to them, fighting strawmen doesn't make for fun threads.

>By definition, yes a baby is a parasite.
Whether or not that's true, you know good and well that using the word "parasite" is intentionally sensationalistic and an implicit false equivocation between babies and what people think of as "parasites."
>It's a parasitic relationship, the baby take's nutrients/environmental help/oxygen and the mother receives nothing.
Whether or not this is true, I'm not sure that's the entire definition of "parasite," but this is irrelevant anyway. See above.
>Why do you support white genocide by increased nigger population?
I never implied morality of abortion applies to animals.
>>I don't like your analogy, therefore it's invalid.
>What is a strawman, for 100 internets?
>>"""all arguments"""
What?

fpbp

Parasites can be the same specieis as the host and by what measure do you think having a baby improves a women's darwinian fitness?

A symbiotic relationship can be parasitic, symbiotic just means that the organisms live together but they don't necessarily benefit from each other. With the baby, it entirely benefits but the mother does not

>Because the sleeping person is not living off of your body without your consent.
So you're saying it would be okay to kill sleeping people if they were "not living off of your body without your consent"?
>If you want to start abortion threads please
I didn't start the other abortion threads, if that's what you're implying.
>address arguments that have some meat to them, fighting strawmen doesn't make for fun threads.
I am.
>Because the sleeping person is not living off of your body without your consent.
Congratulations, your fallacy is "begs the question."

Because it's fucking rude. Just like I wouldn't kick a pregnant woman's stomach in unless she specifically asked me to as a means to abort her baby.

>passing on your genetic material ha no benefit

Holy shit and here I thought liberals flipping out over trump cancelling a plane order showed some impressive mental gymnastics

>by what measure do you think having a baby improves a women's darwinian fitness?
+0.5, +1.0 for twins

>With the baby, it entirely benefits but the mother does not
wrong

>MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS MISS

The problem is you can entirely frame the baby as a parasite if the mother doesn't want it. It's sensationalist I agree, but it's still has value as an arguement. These women do not want the babies, they don't want it in them or living with them

>by what measure do you think having a baby improves a women's darwinian fitness?
""Darwinian fitness"" is contingent ability to reproduce. Killing one's children before they're born is the opposite of reproduction, therefore abortion can only affect it negatively.
>With the baby, it entirely benefits but the mother does not
So, the parasite analogy is meant to imply it's okay to kill people if they benefit from you, but you don't benefit from them?

The definition of a parasite is a foreign organism that derives nutrients at the host's expense you fucking retard. A baby does not harm the host it's attached to, on the contrary if the mother's organs are shutting down the fetus will actually send stem cells to help her survive.

>Because the sleeping person is not living off of your body without your consent.

I had no idea pregnancy is spontaneous

>Parasites can be the same specieis (sic) as the host

By definition, no they can't

>whether or not the host likes the "parasite" determines whether or not the entity in question is a parasite
wrong

you sleep rather soundly

>The problem is you can entirely frame the baby as a parasite if the mother doesn't want it. It's sensationalist I agree, but it's still has value as an arguement.
Fallacious arguments don't have value. The argument is essentially:

>1. Babies are parasites.
>2. It's okay to kill all parasites.
>3. Therefore, it's okay to kill babies.

Premise 2 begs the question.

is there a word similar to parasite/symbiote that means mutually beneficial?
i've been using symbiote to mean that and now i feel retarded

Killing a viable fetus is immoral, and is no different from killing someone that is unconscious. Prior to viability, however, you are simply removing an unwanted parasite from your body.

Well, has a woman okay'd killing the sleeping person? Because it's only okay AFTER a woman decides

>The problem is you can entirely frame the baby as a parasite if the mother doesn't want it. It's sensationalist I agree, but it's still has value as an arguement.


This is the dumbest thing I have read all day, congrats.

>muh parasite
read the thread lady

Mutualistic symbiosis if you wanna get technical.

It's just a matter of opinion whether it's okay to kill people in their sleep. I say go for it.

>Killing a viable fetus is immoral, and is no different from killing someone that is unconscious.
This doesn't imply killing "unviable" fetuses is moral. This is a false dichotomy.

If lucien lachance would come to me in my sleep I would abort every baby in the world

Too bad?
>Edgy kid is edgy enough to kill a kid but not edgy enough to deny a woman the right to kill a kid

My bed, my choice

Let me expand for the people thinking they're clever:

Killing a viable fetus is immoral, and is no different from killing someone that is unconscious. Prior to viability, however, you are simply removing an unwanted mass of cells, parasitic in nature, from your body.

Isn't this the same reasoning that Hitler used for gassing the jews? You can't just call someone a parasite and use that as an excuse to take away their human rights.

this tbhon

It is moral because it could not survive on it's own, and it is not the hosts responsibility to ensure its survival. It also does not have human rights, because it cannot sustain itself, and is consequently not yet a human.

Hitler didn't "gas the Jews".

>Isn't this the same reasoning that Hitler used for gassing the jews?
Newfag detected.
>You can't just call someone a parasite and use that as an excuse to take away their human rights.
Yes I can.

You have no place discussing ethics if this is how you think.

but that leach does not contain 50% of another persons DNA

Not an argument.

Why isn't euthanasia legal?

you are an unwanted mass of cells

a human being's life begins at conception
killing an innocent human being is immoral
the intentional immoral and/or unlawful killing of a human being is murder
therefore, abortion is murder

What difference does it make? If I cloned you, and used your body as an incubator, in order to grow your clone, do you have the right to pull the plug? Of course you do, because it's your body. DNA is irrelevant.

You claim a human beings life begins at conception as if this was some sort of fact, which is incorrect.

It wasn't an argument, genius =]

>You claim a human beings life begins at conception as if this was some sort of fact,
it's a biological fact.

>It wasn't an argument, genius =]
Yes, didn't I just say that?

>You claim a human beings life begins at conception as if this was some sort of fact, which is incorrect.

When does life begin if not at conception?

You caring for the ones that dont get aborted?

You paying for their food? You putting clothes on their backs? A roof over their head?

Why bring in another person who we wont/cant take care of?

If they are white, sure.

>Babies are parasites
>It's OK to kill parasites

>Liberal progressives are parasites
>It's OK to kill parasites

wtf I love abortion now

just because i'm against them being murdered doesn't mean i have to support them

Life does not begin until you are viable, and even then it is not a guarantee.

>You claim a human beings life begins at conception as if this was some sort of fact, which is incorrect.
How so? What can be identified as you can be traced back up until just before sperm met egg as before then you did not exist, at that moment you began.

Wrong. Fixed.

>Babies are parasites
>It's okay to remove the parasite, even if doing so would cause the parasite to die

>Liberal progressives are parasites
>It's okay to remove the parasites even if doing so would cause the parasites to die.

If something can't survive on it's own, without sucking my lifeforce, then that's not my problem. I am not responsible for it's death.

>the fetus isn't living until it can survive on its own
wrong

we're all going to die eventually anyways

what does it matter

Incorrect, even then you meet all the necessary criteria as being alive. Viability is an illusion as the window narrows everyday. And while there is no guarentee, that's like saying there's no guarentee, your car will start.

I accept your definition, sir. Let them starve.

Thanks for demonstrating that nihilism is just a refuge for the intellectually lazy. Why bother posting if you're unable to contribute anything worthwhile?

>Babies are parasites
Not according to the definition.

>If something can't survive on it's own, without sucking my lifeforce, then that's not my problem. I am not responsible for it's death.
You are if your actions directly lead to its demise.

>potentially-conscious
a fetus doesnt develop higher brain functions until ~5 months, a point which most states have banned abortion

So then if both the father and the mother consent, they should be able to abort?

idk

why bother posting when the thread will be gone in a couple hours anyways

>not according to the definition.
Oh really?

parasite
[par-uh-sahyt]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

>in an organism of another species
How's it feel to be the tool of your own undoing?

>of another species
BTFO yourself

I'll even go so far to grant you that a fetus is alive from the moment of conception. Is it an individuals personal responsibility to sustain a life at the expense of their health, if they are unwilling. If that life can somehow be removed and allowed to survive, then by all means every means should be taken to accomplish this. However, if the life is entirely dependent upon its host, why does the host bare the responsibility of sustaining this life? If your answer is "because you created it," my second question is, "If it is not sentient, and not viable, then why can I not destroy it?"

>of another species
People like you make me ashamed to post under the red white and blue...

So in other words, kill it before it can think, nice.

Nope. Just didn't copy/pasta the whole thing.


2.
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

This topic bring up a something I noticed: a lot of people don't understand what exactly happens during sleep.

If you asked the average person to describe sleeping, he or she would probably give an answer that is scientifically incorrect. People don't go unconscious when they sleep. Sleeping is a state of altered consciousness.

See:Eat my shit.

I'll make it simple Sup Forumsacks

>baby is a human
>baby is ALIVE within the mother
princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
>killing a living human is wrong
>abortion kills a baby (living human)
>abortion is wrong

>I'll even go so far to grant you that a fetus is alive from the moment of conception.
How gracious of you to recognize a fact.

> Is it an individuals personal responsibility to sustain a life at the expense of their health, if they are unwilling.
As far as I'm concerned, yes.

>If that life can somehow be removed and allowed to survive, then by all means every means should be taken to accomplish this.
Why?

>However, if the life is entirely dependent upon its host, why does the host bare the responsibility of sustaining this life?
Because they are the parent and are responsible for this current predicament.

>"If it is not sentient, and not viable, then why can I not destroy it?"
Because it will be. If you can kill anything that's inconvenient for you then why can I not do the same, and I'm not talking about fetuses.

Now you get it.
Also, never forget that as a pro-life American, youre ultimately arguing for a larger black population. Congratulations on wanting to accelarate the timetables for America becoming a nonwhite country.

>muh famous violinist

>Is it an individuals personal responsibility to sustain a life at the expense of their health
yes, if they are a mother and the life is her child

>"If it is not sentient, and not viable, then why can I not destroy it?"
because it's an innocent human life

You obviously meant the first one you autistic sperg, don't change your answer the second you're made a fool.

Also, may I remind you that humans are not parasites...

>without giving any useful or proper return
And what do you think that individual is going to do when you're old and weak?

I don't care, if I'm going to kill them it's going to be when they're older, abortion is dishonorable.

>You obviously meant the first one
Even if that were true, which it isn't, that doesn't change the definition. I was right, you were wrong. Deal with it.
>don't change your answer the second you're made a fool.
My answer? I just posted the definition. It's not "mine". So how could I possibly change it?
>Also, may I remind you that humans are not parasites
What is welfare?

What is hyperbole?

>potentially conscious

babies don't have functioning brains (read: capable of keeping them alive outside the womb) until about 22 weeks into the pregnancy, well past the point of legal abortion

lrn2biology

>i was right
Not in the slightest. Humans are NOT parasites you idiot. If that were the case, literally every organism in EXISTENCE would be a parasite because birth is necessary for life.

>if I'm going to kill them it's going to be when they're older, abortion is dishonorable.

>without giving any useful or proper return,
we've already shit all over the parasite angle in this thread, it raises the host's darwinian fitness

stop trying to dehumanize the child and accept the weight of what you're advocating

dictionary.com/browse/potential