Abortion is immoral to me, and I want to be able to defend my position, yet this is difficult, as
>"It is immoral!"
Is not an argument.
I am not all that religious either.
Do you have any arguments to back up my position? Abortion is wrong.
Thank you.
Pic somewhat related
>Also, if you can, try presenting some arguments against the comeback arguments.
Babies develop heartbeats at week 5
They feel pain at week 20
If you cant kill a pain feeling alive baby out of the womb, you shouldnt do it in the womb
youre wrong
abortion being wrong is one of these things that 'just is' - in a sane world, you wouldn't have to justify feeling this way. the kind of trash who get abortions regularly should just be sterilised instead.
>yet this is difficult, as
>>"It is immoral!"
>Is not an argument.
It is an incomplete argument, maybe. But we use morality to govern lots of our decision making.
Is a baby a human being one minute before it begins to exit it's mother's womb? Is it morally acceptable to kill them at that point in time, but not five minutes later?
>If they say yes, being born grants personhood
Congrats, you have met someone with abhorrent, but consistent beliefs.
>If they say no
When does the organism in the womb become a human? When it starts kicking? When it has discernible genitalia? When it has a heartbeat? When it has a nervous system?
The point I would get at is to get a clear answer from them on the following question: at what point does it become unacceptable to kill the organism inside the woman, and why then?
I would welcome any help in improving this argument.
We just have to pick a number and go with it, like we do with everything else.
Fetuses are not human before the age of x, they are human after the age of x.
Doctors and biologist with integrity should weigh in on this.
Taking a life to absolve whores of responsibility is one of the most immoral things you can do.
Sure.
>I identify as a female
>This space in-front of me is what I consider my vagina
>Prepare to be aborted
HAHAHAHAH...wtf
okay i laughed..."floppy"
hahaha
that's fucked
Letting a baby live a life with a shitty human being is pretty immoral
Morality relates to the well being of society. There are many cases in which abortion benefits it. Niggers and gypsies should be encouraged to get abortions, for example. Aborting deformed or retarded babies is also strictly moral, since it prevents what would become a burden to society and frees the parents to have a healthy progeny instead.
On an ethical level, there is no doubt that abortion is an invasive procedure that can often result in psychological trauma and thus shouldn't be trivialized or considered as a postponed method of birth control.
Sadly, most discussions about the subject devolve about subjective discussions on what you consider old enough to be sentient, a separate human, etc., which is nothing but feels arguments camouflaged as science.
...
Murder is immoral. There you go.
Any reasonable argument against abortion hinges on the premise that life begins at conception so try to base your reasoning on that.
>Fetuses are not human (beings) before the age of x, they are human (beings) after the age of x.
Human fetuses are human. They are not their own living being until they are capable of surviving on their own outside the womb.
God pretty much says the same thing - He equates life with breathing
>Doctors and biologist with integrity should weigh in on this.
infants aren't capable of surviving "on their own" for several years
>at what point does it become unacceptable to kill the organism inside the woman
It is not alive on its own until it is ready to be born. Before that point it is not alive. After that point it can be born, i.e. alive.
Eggs are chickens
>infants aren't capable of surviving "on their own" for several years
Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
When they are born, infants breath on their own. They digest their own food. They poop.
Before that, they are submerged in an egg sac. None of that works and they literally can't do anything on their own.
I am just too preoccupied at how Sup Forums your image is. if this is shareblue, way to up your game.
>Eggs are chickens
Eggs can be all kinds of animals. We don't count them until they're hatched, is the traditional proverb.
Seeds are plants
if the child is at a point of gestation where it can survive outside the womb, it is murder. If the child cannot survive then obligating the mother to carry it is not a question of murder
So now your argument is that, instead of "surviving on their own" they just have to have the necessary bodily functions for survival. And for some reason you believe that those don't function at all until passing through the vagina.
It's illegal to destroy the eggs of protected species. Why? Because we all know that they will hatch into a member of that species.
>>"It is immoral!"
>Is not an argument.
>I am not all that religious either.
Congratulations, you've found the problem with Atheism. All arguments can only ever come down to "it feels better" or "it feels worse", which is not a solid basis for morality. Morality requires BELIEF in metaphysical absolutes.
Uncommon
>So now your argument is that, instead of "surviving on their own" they just have to have the necessary bodily functions for survival.
That was always my argument, You just weren't bright enough to understand it a while ago. In fact, it still sounds like you're really slow on the uptake.
>And for some reason you believe that those don't function at all until passing through the vagina.
The fetus is completely submerged in amniotic fluid. All the respiration, nutrition and waste is passed through the placenta until birth. Please have someone explain this too you if there's too many words for you.
>Morality requires BELIEF in metaphysical absolutes.
That's not true necessarily and we see examples in real life all the time in cases of extreme survival.
Just because the bodily functions are being passed through the amniotic fluid doesn't mean that the amniotic fluid is necessary for the bodily function. Emergency premature births/c-sections as early as 6 months have survived to live normal lives. Clearly those (and other premature births) have the necessary bodily functions for survival. Unless your argument is that the very act of leaving the amniotic sac instantly confers those bodily functions to the baby.
>Complains about fallacies earlier and has done nothing but ad hominem since then
Classic
You really didn't understand my post
>please make all my arguments for me because my teacher gave me this homework
the post
>sperm meets egg
>unique DNA created
>life
Murderers BTFO
>Just because the bodily functions are being passed through the amniotic fluid doesn't mean that the amniotic fluid is necessary for the bodily function. Unless your argument is that the very act of leaving the amniotic sac instantly confers those bodily functions to the baby.
The amniotic sac suggests the state of the fetus. Inside the amniotic sac the fetus is dependent on the umbilical cord/placenta for everything. Outside the woman's egg sac, the fetus is either stillborn or a living child that lives and breathes on its own.
>Clearly those (and other premature births) have the necessary bodily functions for survival.
Birth is birth, even if it is premature.
Emergency premature births/c-sections as early as 6 months have survived to live normal lives. Clearly those (and other premature births) have the necessary bodily functions for survival. Unless your argument is that the very act of leaving the amniotic sac instantly confers those bodily functions to the baby.
>sperm meets egg
>unique DNA created
>life
Is it murder for this girl to have this fetus removed form her back? Pic related
What?!
You can't be serious...
Morality is not at all attached to a metaphysical absolute at all
Morality and ethics is something that is defined, agreed and followed by a group of people in a certain society, no religion is needed for that.
Saying that is not believing that humans can't be good to others if they aren't afraid of some after life punishment, which is completely bullshit
Got me also
>false equivalency
Try again murderer
>Babies develop heartbeats at week 5
Not an argument
>They feel pain at week 20
If you kill them they stop feeling pain
You can't make a moral argument without first acknowledging the existence of a higher authority that decides right from wrong. Sorry user
>what is euthryphro's dilemma
>babbys first metaethics
I'm somewhat pro abortion. Up to a certain amount of time. You have to get it done ASAP
(pre 12-15weeks..TOPS)
But I believe abortion should be halted in the meantime to get those birthrates up and save the White race as much as possible.
Abortion is a net boost for the white race. Far more non-white fetuses aborted. It would be hard to get a law passed saying "no abortions for white people but it's okay for everyone else".
>false equivalency
How? The previous idiot tried to claim unique DNA = life, so how is having this unborn teenager somehow different?
>Try again murderer
Sure, liar.
How many people do you see in this picture?
>equating faulty dna that will not result in a viable human to the viable murdered zygotes and fetissimi
Not today Jeffrey Dahmer
I see a women and a shrimpie on her back
Kill yourself for posting that