Is there a scientific argument one can use against abortions? Too many people act like only bible thumpers are against

Is there a scientific argument one can use against abortions? Too many people act like only bible thumpers are against.

^them

I'm only against abortion if it's a white child.

Because as soon as the fetus reaches 2 months it's considered a living being. All individuals in this country have the right to live.

I'm guessing you're not a bible thumper? Why are you against abortion?

You don't have to be a bible thumper to consider abortion immoral

Because a unborn child is still a child. Killing your unborn child should be illegal or saved for extreme cases. The phrase my body my choice is funny to me because im not aloud to go get euthanized but slutty teens are aloud to kill children.

This.

Abortion provides a eugenic choice based ability to limit those not essential to society before being a net negative inclusion.

But it also provides those willing to have net positive children the ability to opt out of their duty to do so thereby giving us negative population growth or at least an enforcement of that trend.

No. There is no argument against it. You're just against women's rights.

Nice job, bigot.

Does "killing innocent babies is wrong" count as scientific or is that religious?

Beyond the fact that using it as a method of contraception is generally speaking immoral, when you''ve got a fuckload of other methods available to you?

Using Abortion to prevent unwanted births is ok, but really should only be treated as the final measure as there are far more ethical methods available.

That's retarded. If you care about the Constitution then you can at least try to argue from those grounds and not necessarily religious grounds.

This is literally the stance Nazi Germany had on it, also they allowed it if the child was going to be disabled.

What do you mean by "scientific"? You mean philosophical? Science can't answer when we get personhood, only we as a culture decide that, and religion can be irrelevant to that question. The only scientific argument in favor of abortions is stuff consequential to the abortion, like reduced crime rates or increased financial stability. There's no science saying "the fetus gets personhood at x days and can be aborted before then".

Abortion requests should be succeeded by trials where a judge determines if the woman has the right to kill her child.

If we eat the fetuses we gain their unborn power and then we become immortal

>All individuals in this country have the right to live.
No they don't, that was preconstitutional idealism.

>Make up my mind
>Look for proof to defend my made up mind
You are the worst kind of scum.

Population growth can't go on forever though.
It must become static at one point.

This is why I am inherently against immigration in most cases.

I'm a fedora as the meme goes. It's wrong because it's murder.
>I can't take care of the child
Then why did you make a life decision to have sex bareback?
>I can't afford it
Then why did you make a life decision to have sex bareback?
>my contraception failed
Contraception is imperfect and doesn't work 100% of the time, you still made a life decision to fuck not taking the consequences into account.
>I was raped/I will die if I am forced to carry
This is about where I'll concede and accept that there's a real argument of self preservation.

It's not really that hard.

Reasonable abortion policy:

>free on-demand abortions for any reason for the first 3 months
>after that free abortions only if the Mother's health is at risk

Currently our economic system is dependent on a growing populace. It'd be better for us to rework the economy to not require that before we transition to a no-growth populace.

It's the same argument against murder being wrong. Which is the crutch of the leftist claim that a fetus isn't human - which as you know is opposed to all scientific evidence. These are the same people who will bring up science in their global warming debates, but ignore sceince in abortion or 'gender identity' debates.

Save yourself the headache though, do you really think having a discussion on why murder is wrong is productive? If the person if arguing that murder is a-ok, i doubt you'll make much progress with them.

Abortion is fine.

People can do with their bodies what they want.

Force me to pay for it though? Fuck that, you're not entitled to that by virtue of being a fucking promiscuous slut.

No, there's no scientific argument because abortion isn't stoichiometry you turboautist

I definitely hand cognitive dissonance on this. I'm a man so it's impossible to know how I would feel as a woman but here are my thoughts.

On one hand, women are correct when they say that since it is there bodies it is their choice. Additionally, with the human population already growing rampantly out of control, whats the point of creating more life that will more than likely be at the bottom of the totem pole.

On the other hand, having abortions the way they are now has an effect on women: they are allowed to have even less accountability and responsibility (which is low already). Additionally, since there is no set definition of when life is created (either at conception, or sometime during the production of the fetus) there can be a moral issue for some.

At the end of the day I would lean pro-choice, but that doesn't give women an excuse to slut around and then use tax payer money to pay for their abortions. I hope they really think about the consequences of their actions and don't view abortion as a simple solution to their slutting. This of course doesnt apply to rapes or medical issues. idk that's my thoughts

If you really wanted to you could say how it's racist because it disproportionately affects blacks but I don't know why you'd want to do that. Crime prevention at it's finest.

The thing is, I know I'm "evil" for having this view but I'm not the one that's pro-abortion, they are.

The biggest problem with abortion is that it's legalization hasn't really led to a drop or decline in shitskin numbers. At the same time, it seems to be at least partially responsible for the declining white birthrate. The fundamental problem is that subhumans see children as a ticked to gibs, but for middle class working people children are very expensive. In order for abortion to be a realistic means of culling inferior races we have to fix the leftist welfare state.

Why be against abortion?

>majority of abortion patients are shitskins, liberals, or trash women you'd not want to breed with anyway.

I am, however, against it being on the taxpayer dime.

Do you believe a zygote to be worthy of human rights and protections? I'm not trying to instigate I just want to know where you draw the line.

Abortion should be legal but only for first few weeks.
Why is this such a big deal again? If it means less nigs have babies who gives a shit?

Is there a scientific argument that a child 10 minutes before it is born is not a person and that as soon as it is born it magically becomes a person

You have to work backwards. At what non-arbitrary point is a child scientifically not a person?

>People can do with their bodies what they want.
It's this kind of thinking that allowed vermin to artifically create the myth of 40+ fucking genders, a crippling societal future, and a generation that will be unfit for anything productive.

The constitution is predicated on these ideas.

>free

?????????????????????

No scientific study or doctor will agree with yigr stance of fetus being sentient humans.

After the DNA molecules of parents combine the new human is already created. At that point EVERYTHING is predetermined: height, eye color, face, traits of personality, etc. The complete blueprint of the human is created.

Regardless weather you destroy the blueprint of a house before it is built or destroy the house itself after it is built the result is the same: the house ceased to exist and you are responsible for it.

Does it matter at what stage of life you murder a person?

-it's not part of the mother's body, because it has a different DNA
>muh "some kind of life, not yet human life" argument
-if stages of development are to define what human life is, should we kill anyone who is born without an arm or a leg?
>muh "sentinence and intelligence" argument
-great, how do we define when you're intelligent enough to live? Because most abortion advocates accept the murder of babies with Down Syndrome
>muh "free to choose and what has to happen shall happen" kind of an argument
-then if there's no real limit as to whom we may kill (because apparently the fact that the baby's your own child, the person's intelligence, physical health, etc. are more like annoyances rather than something that would lead you to respect someone else's life) and the other person doesn't see anything wrong with it...

...then you're arguing with a piece of shit that only seeks to keep his "right" to fuck, murder and repeat ad infinitum with no regard or care for anyone else's well-being. Stop arguing with that person, it's not worth it and you won't convince them. Go talk to some nicer ppl, there are millions of them-

>People can do with their bodies what they want.

So can a government force a parent to go to work and labor to earn a wage to feed her dog or 5 year old kid?

Is it ok for a parent to let their kid starve?

>comparing houses to people

I draw the line at the moment it has 23 pairs of chromosomes giving it the entirely unique dna every individual soul on earth has.

You can't trust the population to maintain itself with them.

Because of how middleclass society has been shaped there is an incentive for them. This allows the poor to just keep reproducing, especially when paid for by the government.

As a result, demographics will change and the people who hold the cultural mindsets to maintain society will be replaced, leading to societal collapse.

In short, nobody is tracking demographic growth and so no one can see that a countries population can be replaced by someone who isn't that keen on maintaining it.

A good example would be Germany. If things don't change eventually the migrant population of Arabs will be the majority and they will not be maintain german law or culture when they reach that point.

The real culprit here is culture and welfare, but limiting abortion in the middle class would mitigate it because "accidents" still result in new people.

When pro baby murderers say what about rape cases?. You tell them to buy a fucking gun.

>souls

only human zygotes can implant on a human uterus
the zygote is a human from the moment of conception.
to argue otherwise is a problem with object permanence, and certainly not my problem.

You're thinking about it wrong. Abortion is a moral question. Logic can help, but it alone is not enough to decide what's "right" and "wrong" morally.

i forgot the logical extension of my argument: downies aren't human.

do you believe in the death penalty, faggot?

The reason I asked about the zygote is because 1/3 of all pregnancies fail at the zygote stage. The mother isn't even aware it happens. But if I tell you this fact, will you cry over it? Will it fill you with immense sadness that billions of "humans" die this way? I assume, probably not, and nearly all people will feel similarly. Doesn't that tell us something about the personhood we should afford to the zygote?

That's not to say I offer an alternative answer, I personally don't think it's an issue that can have an objective answer, and I speak as someone with a molecular biology degree.

>how dare you use a metaphor
If you're incapable of abstract thinking you're nigger tier.

what is a human?

An objective answer scientifically I mean. Ultimately it comes down to some part of your personal morals, culture, religion etc. Unless you also advocate that we immediately fund massive investments into making sure these failed pregnancies never happen, which realistically could only happen if we make all babies test tube babies not even grown in a mother's womb.

I'm pro-life but I would make an exception for rape because it's not right to force someone to take on the duty of caring for a dependent. They have to do so through their own fruition.

This is what should be told in first response:
Science doesn't answer ethical questions.

your immortal soul, yes.
>zygote
we're discussing murder here user, stay on topic.

That is just an emotional appeal, if most people don't feel that bad knowing drug addicts are rotting away in prison, does it mean drug addicts aren't really people or that normal people can't really empathize with lifestyles outside of their comfort zone?

All that will happen if you do that will be to incentivize women into making false rape accusations

>It's this kind of thinking that allowed vermin to artifically create the myth of 40+ fucking genders

Result of Zionist propaganda

>a crippling societal future

Result of Zionist propaganda

>and a generation that will be unfit for anything productive

Result of Zionist propaganda

The problem isn't freedom, but subversive influences.

>So can a government force a parent to go to work and labor to earn a wage to feed her dog or 5 year old kid?

The parent isn't the government's body.

If you're saying the government should have that power, a simpler solution is to let the parent, child, and dog die if the parent doesn't work.

Anyway, it's none of the government's business if a parent chooses to abandon their child or let themselves starve. It's unfortunate for the child and dog, but that's life. Shouldn't have been brought into the household of someone so incapable.

You pay in, you get the benefits, otherwise you can fuck off. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this concept.

I understand the consequence but I think consequentialism is a terrible way to formulate law. I'm sure judges and juries would quickly grow suspicious or downright dismissive of most rape claims once they see women lying about it so much

Only reason I care about abortion is because it pisses off libs.

The argument is:
>life begins when sperm fertilizes egg
>ergo to have an abortion is to murder a baby

People will say shit like "oh so every time a guy cums he commits genocide", not realizing that you kinda need the egg to create life.

Plus abortion is straight up immoral in most cases. "I made irresponsible decisions and I don't wanna face the consequences so lol bye baby". Degenerate desu.

ok rothbard.... thanks for letting me know you were just memeing

>The problem isn't freedom, but subversive influences.

And what got those subversive influences into positions of power in the first place? The artificial notion that "freedom" is something that actually exists.

Abortions aren't illegal or anything now. They're just not funded by the fucking government

I mean if you want to discuss it scientifically I'll chime in best I can, but if you want to shitpost then oh well. Even your statement about "I draw the line at the moment it has 23 pairs of chromosomes giving it the entirely unique dna every individual soul on earth has." isn't scientifically accurate because the zygote can split into another zygote giving rise to identical twins. At that point there may be no mutations in the DNA, meaning there are two zygotes who are genetically identical, and your values impart personhood to each individual zygote. Is another soul now made at that point despite the fact they are identical, or is a soul only created when a mutation happens? If so, which zygote gets the new soul if both zygotes mutate on their first cellular division, which renders classifying one of the zygotes as the "true original" impossible?

>your immortal soul, yes.
Prove to me souls exist.

Yea, but how many men would play along rationalizing that a few months in jail is less costly than a lifetime of alimony and child support?

>using a (((scientific))) argument against a moral question
Nope. And even though im catholic i support abortion, I dont want to see more liberal fuck ups and niggers running around, they should abort their degenerate kids

In many states they are completely illegal after the first trimester

the average of what all 7.2B of us believe it to be.

Just to add, the governments only fucking job is to secure a border and thus a home and stable society for its inhabitants.

The government, like any business, takes in money, and dispenses services to payers. Non-payers have nothing to do with this process and should not be involved either with coercion or benefits-without-payment or payment-without-benefits.

Noice!!! I haven't think about that!

Oh it is an emotional appeal yes, but I was just wondering how far they'd take their position. If you view zygotes as people, then what I described is effectively the #1 cause of death of humans, and realizing that fact should be emotionally traumatic to most people that so many people are dying this way on a daily basis, and they aren't even mourned over.

An exact science answer on the start of life or even what life even is can be tricky.

If you ask science, the answer could potentially mean that I've killed millions of kids by crashing them into my wall every day.

Some things cannot be answered by science because our emotions cannot allow them to. Or it is because science is also how humans interpret the universe. Not how it is exactly.

>da jooz

>>>r/the_donald

>muh rape!
>muh incest!
checkmate, cisnazi scum!

That's fine by me. Three months is more than enough time to decide if you want to flush it out or not. Especially since if someone stops bleeding for two months they should know what's going down

you are a babby
a libertarian babby

move over and let the libertarian DADDY handle this
>governments can come into existence as a voluntary covenant between inhabitants that establishes rules to dictate the social order

You have to ask yourself this: is murder wrong? (That is, if you think abortion is murder)

Or you, like most people only think that murder is only wrong in certain circumstances.

Because then, abortion is not "wrong", it's just simply someone else's acceptable case of murder.

It is inevitable that abortion debates get into moral philosophy, and morals are not absolute, therefore this is a losing debate for anyone who claims they are absolute (mainly religiousfags, but not only them)

Yeah it's just memes, now go back to sleep, your new dad government will make sure everything goes right in your life.

You'll never have to lift a finger. No dissenting voices, no pesky things like property rights.

Oh wait, you're not a communist? Then why the fuck are you supporting all your money being taken away and given to others? Oh wait, you just want free stuff.

Great political ideology, keep up the good work of trying to suppress any thoughts of consistency or merit.

>and realizing that fact should be emotionally traumatic to most people

'no'

>Humans are already dying at large because of A so it should be ok to cause more death using B.

This is not a question of mourning. Nobody really mourns strangers but it doesn't mean it is fine to kill those strangers.

Parents with 2 children means the mother has on average experienced more than 1 miscarriage (due to zygote failures and miscarriages later on in the pregnancy, not even counting those lost to abortion). If you have 1 sibling, then on average you have lost 1 or more siblings. Does this emotionally affect you at all?

If abortion is murder than we ought to attend funerals for miscarriages

>being against the one thing keeping america from having a 28% nigger population
>wanting all those would be single mothers to actually have their kids and shit up the future with their little criminal scumbags
>m-m-muh murder even though it's already illegal to have an abortion past the period when the baby has even the slimmest chance to survive outside the mother for even a few days on a ventilator

why would I care what you think, as a lost soul you have no value to me or anyone.
you asked my personal opinion about where to draw the line, it's a scientific point of fact that is when your dna becomes uniquely yours and thus human, whether you want to argue about being self-sustaining, or having a heartbeat, brain activity etc with the implication that babies aren't human, sure we can have that discussion, but you asked where i draw the line. I draw it when you become uniquely human, which seems a clearly distinct point. Your corallary about twins doesn't change anything in principle since you haven't moved the marker, just doubled the wager.

It does seem like you are triggered by my use of the term soul, which implies you believe we are nothing. I'm not sure how to convince a self-hating person they are something, I'm not sure i'd want to convince a selfhating person they are something, perhaps you should fullfill your own opinion of yourself?

Not strictly scientific - as in based on empirical observation - rather sociological in this case.

Making abortion freely available to any woman trivializes life.

The underlying problem is that we need to be more responsible with our choice of partner, and take the act of procreation very seriously.

For the promiscuous, or those not interested in parenthood, men have the option of getting a vasectomy, and women have the option of getting a tubal ligation.

I would not mind funding one tubal ligation for each woman so interested, should she also realize she'll need to cover the cost of a reversal if she regains interest in becoming a parent.

One tubal ligation costs around $2000, whereas the price of a birth control pill is about $15 a month. Assuming sex every night for 22 years on the pill gives us $3960, not to mention that it is not always guaranteed to work.

I'm optimistic new procedures for fast tubal ligation could be developed to bring the cost down, especially in the light of any proposed government funding program (with a reasonable cap of, say, $1200 per operation).

This would be more cost effective than birth control, and would carry no risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

Lots of people actually have these. Weird as shit

oh look, a gypsy with no respect for the sanctity of human life.

If you stop a house from being built, did you demolish it?

Ethics is not the realm of fact, science isn't particularly useful.

>Does this emotionally affect you at all?

Nope

Already [triggered] by a simple question, nigger?

You can corner Christfags super simply by just asking them if morality is absolute or not.

I said that about souls because I wanted you to think about what logically must follow if souls are granted at the point of a zygote being formed. If a zygote splits into 2 identical zygotes to give rise to identical twins, what is going on there with the souls? Is the original soul destroyed with 2 more made, or does the soul move to 1 zygote with another soul made for the other? If so, how is that choice determined if no mutations occurred in the 2 new zygotes which are genetically identical? Does the original soul split into 2?

If I as a scientist am in the lab working with human embryos and induce the zygote to proliferate into several more zygotes, are souls being made for each zygote? What's happened to the soul of the original zygote? Has it gone to the afterlife or does it remain with one of the zygotes?

lol
>libertarian babby trying to tell libertarian daddy what liberty is

watch this
>an individual is responsible for this effects of their actions thusly possessing rights to the employment of their individuality and duties to not damage the individuality of others

To voluntarily take on guardianship of a dependent gives you the rights to go about guardianship in a way suitable to your conscience yet it also naturally is confounded with a duty to care for the necessities and well-being of that dependent. Before you voluntarily took on guardianship, that dependent was in a state of well-being or non-suffering. By voluntarily engaging in sex you take on the duty of caring for the well-being of the consequence of your actions, a dependent, in other words to now induce suffering onto the dependent. It is rightful to transfer this guardianship to another but only if that other is of equal capability to care for the well-being of said dependent.

>If you kill your enemies, you're not a libertarian

Self-defense is not an inconsistency. It's an extension of "I do what I want with what I have", in that if you try to take what I have, I can't do that, so I am free to protect what I have and a society at large is allowed to protect what it has.

Yeah, you're right, you're not free to fuck over other people in a social order that's all about disrupting other people's freedom as much as possible. What a crazy concept.

>And what got those subversive influences into positions of power in the first place?

Government overreach. If the government had only a few powers, it wouldn't be able to influence society on such a grand scale, used as a tool for communal transforming.

You created a beast, and it turns out that someone else had more carrots to lead it than you. Big surprise.

Freedom isn't an artificial notion. If I can do what I want with what I have without interference, that's freedom.

If you're saying it's an abstract concept, well no shit it is, so is degeneracy. We made up these ideas. Doesn't mean we can't reject or accept them. Glorify or rebuke them. That's what having a value system is.

Welcome to being human, a social animal.

>why would I care what you think
I could say the same to you, if you disregard anything that doesn't line up with your ideas then don't expect anyone to listen to your bullshit.

Yes, the babies can feel pain at 10-13 weeks.

Current limit is 26 for any reason, and beyond that for other reasons.

This is called murder by any scienfitic and logical definition, for you can no longer argue that the growing human is not concious (the only scienfitic argument that can rationalize abortion as not murder).

To get into the nitty gritty, the brain finishes devolpment by the end of the first trimester, and directly attached to the brain are something called "brain coverings", which have pain receptors on them. They are the reason we can get a headache.

Without them the brain cannot actually feel pain, and if they didn't exist the point of conciousness would be much later.

You see after the brain finishes fully developing the brain stem is attached to all the nerve endings in your body, and these nerve endings are grown. This process takes a long time, and so only things that are directly attached to the brain before this process is completed can feel pain. Without the brain coverings the offcial Obama admin's statements on the issue would be fair, (basically lies to justify 26 weeks~) but the brain coverings exist, and there are also evidence of babies responding to light and sound at 18~20 weeks, as well.

So there you have it, babies can feel death at 10-13 weeks.

>scientific argument

Do not let retards brainwashed by propaganda kill their own child before it is even born.

The question is, where do you draw the line between human and non-human?

The fetus has neither an exact replica of the mothers dna nor the fathers; it has its own, unique dna and therefore it's another human being (albeit in development).

Do humans have human rights?
Or do \some\ humans have rights?

i don't need a scientific reason.. just like I don't need a scientific reason to know OP is a fag.

Different morals produce different societal results, it's easily quantified.

The problem is when you're arguing this stuff nobody wants to hear that sexual liberation is a bad thing.