is there a flaw in my logic?
1: A human's life begins at conception
2: Murder is the intentional unlawful and/or immoral taking of a human life
3: It is immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being
4: The child in the womb is innocent
5: Therefore, abortion is murder
6: Murder ought to be illegal
7: Therefore, abortion ought to be illegal
I don't see how any sane rational person could disagree with any of the points i've made or their logical conclusion
Other urls found in this thread:
ushistory.org
cyh.com
twitter.com
I disagree with points 3 and 4. Killing people is very often expedient. That is why we do it in war. Also, it is doubtful if a fetus is innocent since it will probably grow up to cause problems for someone at some time in the future.
The people who would disagree with you are not sane, not rational, and have no counter-arguments.
Just a load of guilt.
>expedient
of course, if you murder someone and take their money, you have more money, it's still immoral though.
>it is doubtful if a fetus is innocent since it will probably grow up to
in your hypothetical the child IS innocent, it's just that he WILL or MIGHT not be in the future
My understanding of the opposition, the part that still cares for logic at least, is that there is contention with your very first statement, that there is a fundamental difference between the born human amd unborn. That difference being the innate biological dependency of the fetus on its mother.
>it is doubtful if a fetus is innocent since it will probably grow up to cause problems for someone at some time in the future.
You've just laid the groundwork for executing all children. Good job
Very subjective, a fetus is a human only when born and is given a legal status of a human when its given the name etc
I've stayed away from the abortion argument for a long time, mostly cause I can see both sides and don't really know where where I stand. I agree that abortion is murder and that late term abortion is sick.
But, imagine a nigger breaks into your home while you're out of town for work. The nigger kills your wife and son and newborn baby but leaves your 13 yr old daughter alive since the police arrived as he was raping her. Turns out she's pregnant and to top it off you learn that the niggers father and grandfather were also rapists and murderers.
How the fuck would you not abort the shit out of that demon fetus?
>a human's life begins at conception
is the weakest point there because it draws equivalence between a fully developed, born human baby and two haploid cells that just combined.
In the same way that it is not immoral to remove a bacterial infection that may be harmful to you, it can be argued that it is not immoral to remove the cells at this point.
A better approach would be to look at the potential of these cells. A bacterial infection in your body will never be anything but potential sepsis, whereas the fertilized egg will potentially become a human being with all the rights and protections a human being should have.
Your argument should instead focus on the fact that the fertilized egg will become a human being, especially if you are going to argue at life beginning at conception, which is a hard stance to bring people over to.
So it is understood that the current state of the fertilized egg is not something very precious compared to regular somatic cells in the body, without the context of the potential of life.
But if your focus is on the potential of human life, to stay morally consistent you should be against birth control as well because this also interrupts the process of conception. A morning after pill and a condom do the same thing in essence, in that with neither, a woman will be pregnant and eventually bear children, and with one or the other, a woman will not become pregnant for more than a day or so.
>3: It is immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being
Not saying I disagree, but you're begging the question since the debate is whether it is always immoral to take a life (and whether a fertilized egg is a human being).
>a fetus is a human only when born
what is it before then? a feline?
"human" isn't some abstract nebulous philosophical term, it is a biological distinction.
biologically, a human's life begins at conception, the moment the sperm meets the egg.
there is no debating that.
what you were going for was the "personhood" meme, which is really just a big fat red herring.
>tfw feminists are Anarcho-Capitalists about this one specific issue
>1. A human's life begins at conception
No.
Cool list though. Good luck with it.
>fertilized egg will become a human being
the fertilized egg is human. not feline, not bovine, not chlamydiae.
it exists, therefore it's a being.
therefore, it is a human being.
just because it's ugly or doesn't look very impressive doesn't mean it doesn't have just as much of a right to live as a fully developed one (when is that even? 30 years old?)
>NO UTERUS
>NO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
ftfy
>No.
not an argument.
>"human" isn't some abstract nebulous philosophical term, it is a biological distinction.
abstract nebulous philosophical term... okay there buddy. 'human being' is not an exclusively biological term, where they would be more likely to use homo sapiens sapiens. Human being is not a binomial.
The burden of proof lies with you on a positive claim.
Your turn.
it's pretty non-controversial.
you could just crack open a science book.
the moment the sperm meets the egg, biologically, you have a distinct human life.
OP's image is transwomanphobic
>just because it doesn't resemble a human being for another couple of months doesn't mean it doesn't have as much right to exist
that is exactly what it means right now, legally. You shouldn't mix the word rights in a moral argument, rights are only what we're allowed to have by society. Right now, that fertilized has no rights.
It is the fertilized egg of a human. It is two haploid cells come together and the process begins that will end in the birth of a fully developed human being. This egg has the potential to become a fully developed human, but at this first stage it is a single cell. You have a lot of single cells in your body right now that you have no trouble removing, that is why a successful argument against abortion must hinge on the potential of this fertilized egg.
But if abortion was illegal certain races might umm.. multiply quickly
Expand you your first point. Human life begins at conception because why?
No, you haven't.
Quote me a science book that says so and I'll believe you.
But you can't, because it's not.
Stop being retarded.
These damn feminazi clumps of cells need to be aborted before they can protest more at "rallies."
Sick of all the Marxist dogma infecting society
>3: It is immoral to intentionally kill an innocent human being
but let me guess, you have no problem killing animals for no reason other then them tasting good?
Also I might add that life without consciousness is not worth more than a bacteria, a tree or a worm.
I understand you pro-life people "feel" the need to protect a fetus, but you need to understand also that some people disagree and you need to stop pushing your shitty opinions on others.
>rights are only what we're allowed to have by society.
>american flag
no.
"we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
------>
The only argument has always and will be forever be is when does life start? Does it start at conception or end of first trimester... If you determine that then your logic works. I don't think I agree that a zygote is a human.. but a fetus is undeniably so.
Kike with proxy detected
Because it's "obvious" and "go read a book" AKA he feels like it.
1.9% is not 0, that's american education for you.
...
I disagree with that claim. Can your cite any sources for that?
>they do have those rights duh, look at the constitution
How is that working out for those unborn fetuses right now? Not to well? It's almost as if you need to look at the practical application of what a right is and how it is enforced by imperfect people instead of preaching to the choir about how that should be the case.
I'll take your ignoring the rest of my points in my previous point as tacit agreement with them, considering you are willing to argue with other points you disagree with in the thread.
If our only contention is on whether or not a right is guaranteed for the unborn when you can walk into an abortion clinic and see that that is demonstrably not the case, then there's not much point in arguing further because that's getting off topic. In the future be careful about your language in the context of the arguments you're making and understand what it will take to change the views of people that may be on the fence instead of beating them over the head with what you see as a fact when they may not. I'd argue more but I need to go into work
you can't prosecute someone for something they MIGHT do
God damn you're American, it's a large part of this country's ideals
The law doesn't have to do with morality. It overlaps, but plenty of things that are immoral aren't illegal, and plenty of things that are illegal aren't immoral.
ushistory.org
it's really outside the scope of my initial argument in the OP though, whether or not we have a right to live.
>I'll take your ignoring the rest of my points in my previous point as tacit agreement with them
you're free to, but really i was just annoyed that you don't know where our rights come from as an american citizen so i stopped reading there, i've read it now though.
>This egg has the potential to become a fully developed human
yeah, when is that? age 30?
>You have a lot of single cells in your body right now that you have no trouble removing
they are mine, a fertilized egg is a different human being.
You should separate the legal argument from the moral argument fampai. Why is it deontologically immoral to intentionally an innocent human being? It's immoral because it requires malicious intent, and malicious intent is immoral. Does killing a fertilized egg imply malicious intent? If not, then it can't be said that murdering innocents is deontologically immoral. If you reject that malicious intent is the basis for calling something immoral, then on what basis do you call something immoral?
>but plenty of things that are immoral aren't illegal
agreed.
but surely you don't disagree with the 6th line?
are you saying murder shouldn't be illegal?
1. You are a person now
2. You were a person 1 hour ago
3. Repeat backwards until birth, you were a person then
4. A person is no different just before birth and just after birth
5. A person is therefore a person at all stages of embryonic development
6. Killing a person is murder
7. A fetus is a person
8. Abortion is murder
No flaw
FTFY
>before 5
If you are a person before birth, you are a person an hour before that, all the way to conception
No, I mean this.
Why is that true? Sources/proofs please.
Only if more bitches swallowed, we could end this senseless slaughtering.
no testicles
no science
no medicine
>1
Human life begins before conception.
But human life =/= human personhood.
Define what makes a human "human" beyond genetics.
Dont confuse the scientific definition of human life with the poetic one.
A fertilized egg doesn't have the shape of a person, shape is part of a person's essential nature, therefore a fertilized egg isn't a person. I think it's murder only when it starts looking like a baby tbqh.
>take car
>remove only one part
>repeat
>end up with nothing but a single part that is somehow a car
a grain of sand does not make a heap
this is not logical at all
But then you can't define when it becomes a person, as there is no exact moment the shape becomes human
Imagine a nigger breaks into your home while you're out of town for work. The nigger kills your wife and son and newborn baby but leaves your 13 yr old daughter alive since the police arrived as he was raping her. Turns out she's pregnant and to top it off you learn that the niggers father and grandfather were also rapists and murderers.
How the fuck would you not abort the shit out of that demon fetus?
cyh.com
>But human life =/= human personhood.
k
>Define what makes a human "human" beyond genetics.
science is enough for me
>Dont confuse the scientific definition of human life with the poetic one.
the poetic one (personhood) shouldn't be involved
There's a problem of measurement which can be arbitrated, but you can define exactly when it becomes a person. We denote it as a person when we recognize it to have a person's shape.
Which persists for many years outside the womb.
Is infanticide now acceptable? Up to what age?
Shut your trap, you bleeding heart liberal piece of shit. Why do you hate white people? And why do you love shitskin babies? We're massively overly populated as is-- abortions should be given out like candy across the third world.
Adopt it out.
>The nigger kills your wife's son
FTFY Leaf
That it has a full set of human DNA. Too lazy to get a source. Any intro biology book that talks about sex cells.
If you want to get into metaphysics with the human soul. No clue. Human babies are arguably not self-aware.
No, because the word "begins" infers that it is a process.
And the two haploid cells which formed the zygote are themselves alive.
>abandoning your principles just because it arbitrarily happens to be profitable in the current timeline
Are you Jewish?
>A human's life begins at conception
I think that's your weak link OP
Around 5 weeks (?). You can recognize an embryo as a person so early that it makes abortion on those terms absurd
that's the strongest one though if you don't appeal to nebulous horseshit like "personhood"
biologically that's the black and white objective moment when a distinct human life begins, the moment the sperm meets the egg
How about you define personhood? How is that different from human life?
I hate to admit I can't refute this and it's a very simple argument in philosophy 101
science is amoral
not good or evil or regarding the metaphysical
this glorified "no u" isn't an argument.
homicide is not ending a "human life", it is ending a natural person.
Life =/= People.
What make killing you morally distinguished from killing a dog, or a plant?
Now with whatever your answer to that is, how is that comparable to a fertilized egg?
The natural person is in the mind.
No mind, no person.
No brain, no person.
No brain activity, no person.
Is there a person the moment a neuron is activated for the first time? Maybe.
But it logically cannot be said to exist at any moment prior to that.
Does that single part of a car have the potential to become a car if nobody intervenes? If not then your bullshit argument is nothing more than a false equivalency.
When does it begin then? Every liberal bullshit opinion I've heard on this is completely arbitrary and basically boils down to "when it looks human enough to make me feel bad"
> A human's life begins at conception
autist
A human life begins at the point it gets the potential to develop into the next stage of human development, which boils down to its conception.
>this glorified "no u" isn't an argument.
my point was i don't care when personhood begins, the only thing my argument needs to know is when a human's life begins
>homicide is not ending a "human life"
yes, it is.
>Life =/= People
human life = people
>What make killing you morally distinguished from killing a dog, or a plant?
tu quoque, unless you're on my side now, mr. jainist, and saying that abortion ought to be illegal i don't really feel the need to address this fallacy.
Objection!
Abortion is not technically the intentional murder of the fetus. It is the termination of the pregnancy which happens to end up killing the fetus. The pregnancy is something that happens to the mother and because of bodily rights they can stop their body from being in that state. The fetus cannot survive if the pregnancy is terminated but regardless of this, it does not hold the womb hostage. The mother can do with her body as she pleases. Similarly how you're not required to donate organs even if the person will die without it, and doing so doesn't make you a murderer.
oh boy here come the train fags
And force your 13 yr old daughter to give birth to a monster? To gestate the spawn of the demon for 9 months, that raped her and killed her family? So not worth it.
>not letting her give birth to it so you can both take it out to the woods and beat it to death with whatever you can find
L O W
O
W
E N E R G Y
N
E
R
G
Y
I don't get it. What are train fags? Do you believe anything I wrote is false?
You just have to define the car m8. As long as all the car-components agglomerate together and give rise to emergent carness(which is to fulfill the purpose of the car) it is reckoned as a car when you see it.
Its not an abortion if the fetus survives, if it does then its just a birth. The only thing that defines abortion is the death of the fetus.
Pregnancy is not something that happens to a woman, unless she is raped she is 100% responsible for her pregnancy.
See that is the thing. I am not entirely sure.
Clearly the people posting these arguments are people and the keyboards they are using to do so are not.
Personhood has a grey area though.
The conception argument is simple but simple does not indicate merit.
Does what something could be without intervention morally mandate to treat it as if it is and not interfere?
If it isn't a person yet then it isn't a person yet.
If it becomes a person it is THEN that abortion becomes a moral quandry.
The lack of a clear alternative answer is not proof of the prior.
We didn't fully grasp heliocentrism in the past. That didn't make geocentrism true.
>is letting something die the same as killing it
Sorry I meant the trolley fags
Termination of the pregnancy necessarily entails killing the fetus, just the same way shooting somebody in the heart doesn't kill them, but necessarily results in their death.
Maybe someone should kill you, faggot. You're probably causing going to cause problems in the future. What you said makes no sense on any level.
You obviously don't know how abortions work. The fetus is either sucker out with a tube or ripped into smaller chunks and removed. The potential life is destroyed. It's not like turning a fucking oven off and letting the cake inside it rot.
>it might do something bad so it should die
Guess the human race should not exist.
>sperm meets egg
>unique dna created
>life
Checkmate murderers.
Points 6 and 7. There is nothing wrong with murdering niggers, retards, and people with genetic diseases. Also natural selection should select against women who are more likely to get abortions. It's the only for of eugenics we have left.
1 isnt a flaw, but the implications through bringing it up will be brought up later i'm sure
2: murder is lawful, considering we kill people for doing unlawful acts.
3. I see no issue with this
4. I personally agree, although a subjective statement doesn't really help your case overall.
5.Abortion is not murder, which points back to your first point. When a body is independent upon itself to live, which is basically when a human relies on its own organs to survive without the assistance of its mother, is when its murder. Personally, its a different story. but moving on.
6. "ought" ? Murder is illegal (yes, exceptions exist) but why put "ought" in here? Is this Jordan Peterson? Honestly though, i'm not sure why anyone would disagree with this statement. seems odd, though.
7. Disagree.
I'm arguably rational, i'm not sure what your point is with that statement either.
>yes, it is
>human life = people
Distinct lack of barbers being charged with murder then.
Also is organ donation indentured servitude then? Organs that "die" are useless and cant be utilized.
If I am legally pronounced dead and some kid at St. Judes gets one of my kidneys, attends my funeral, and lives on to go to college, am "I" still alive?
Or is the formula for human rights more complex than "is it genetically human and organically living"?
If it has different DNA, it is a separate being and killing it is murder.
Then there are people like me who don't care about underdeveloped piles of cells and let people do whatever they want
>reddit spacing
clearly you're retarded and nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever. How can you claim a human life is not a person at a certain point and yet you cannot define what personhood is? Is a human in a coma not a person? Is a 2 month old newborn more of a person than a 1 and half month newborn? If so at what point exactly is a person to be considered a person and under what circumstances would it stop being one?
You know this is a bullshit argument because murder is the forcible ending of a human life and a human life starts at its conception regardless if you arbitrarily consider it a person or not
Why do you think it's called an abortion. It is the abortion of a pregnancy. (As in abort mission!) a c-section is technically an abortion. Also, contraception fails. Regardless of all that though, the thing that justifies the "killing" of the fetus is bodily rights.
How about we don't make laws based on arbitrary and hazy philosophical distinctions like "personhood"?
>You know this is a bullshit argument because murder is the forcible ending of a human life and a human life starts at its conception regardless if you arbitrarily consider it a person or not
a fetus =/= human.
>murder is lawful, considering we kill people for doing unlawful acts.
if it's lawful and not immoral, then it's not murder.
the death penalty isn't murder, it's justice
>a subjective statement
i think it's objectively true that they're innocent, especially since they can't make any moral choices at that stage
>Abortion is not murder,
if it is immoral to murder an innocent human being,
and the fetus is an innocent human being, then
abortion is murder
>i'm not sure why anyone would disagree with this statement
you do if you think abortion should be legal, since abortion is murder.
So you suggest we don't attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction between how we define a human and how we feel nothing when we kill a day 0 fertilized egg?
>inb4 feelings don't matter
Can't make prescriptive statements without appealing to emotion.
So next time we have a military conflict we should make sure to have a court hearing each time we want to fire a round at an adversary. Also point six murder is illegal.
So if a woman conceives and has a beer and a smoke the next day should she be tried for child abuse or battery? Since you claim a human begins at the moment of conception. That means anything the mother or father does after the exact moment of conception that might cause harm to the human should be met with the full legal ramifications, which honestly is absurd. The lives of the fully developed humans are greater then that of the mini human regardless of how deplorable you find it.
People pretend like 1. isn't true because its convient, then ignore the rest of the argument
If you stab a pregnant woman in her stomach and she lives but the baby dies, you goto jail for murder.
If a doctor kills the same exact baby, he gets paid and his accomplice (the mother) has no penalty.
That's where the aspect of bodily rights comes in. And the organ donation example.