Dear conservacucks...

Dear conservacucks, I would challenge any of you to present a compelling arguement against abortion not reliant upon christianity. Medical authorities are in consensus that fetuses do not feel pain prior to 27 weeks, and are otherwise incapable of suffering in any manner until the third trimester. Additionally, current evidence seems to suggest that babies are not self aware until after birth. Fetuses are incapable of suffering or self awareness, and thus need not be regarded as persons.

Other urls found in this thread:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01538.x/full
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/09/why_drivers_in_china_intentionally_kill_the_pedestrians_they_hit_china_s.html
archive.is/asuZS
twitter.com/AnonBabble

If you were aborted would you be reading this?

It's 2017. We have birth control for females, as well as physical contraceptives for males and females. There's absolutely 0 excuse to get pregnant in the first place.

I wouldnt care, as I'd never have been self aware.

Because science has also declared that 7/10 mother who go through with the abortion goes through a form of depression. 2/3 of that demographic is out of neurosis.

Pain on the level of the child is on one flip side of the coin, it's also the matter of the mother. And considering you're alive to bitch about it, I feel somewhat annoyed that you have no regard or sympathy towards the helpless who has no voice for it's future, or it's contributions to the world.

If your parents decided not to have children, would you be reading this? Is not having children as morally egregious as abortion in your eyes?

Why would I feel sympathy for organisms that are incapable of suffering? Fetuses are about as entitled to moral consideration as rocks are.

It should be discouraged but legal.
Damages the mothers mental health.
Learn to google.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01538.x/full

yes

From an objection standpoint, science has no consensus on what defines "consciousness" so it's a tedious topic to dwell on.

So in your approximation, every fertile mother is morally compelled to bear as many children as she is physically capable of carrying?

what about rape or children who are downie or have some other deffect, like those retard frog blonde girls that often get posted here?

I'm pro abortion, although what I wouldn't want is having to pay for the abortion of Brayan and Britany because they didn't use protection... although I think it's better for that kid to get aborted with such idiot parents like that.

The capacity to recognize oneself as a distinct being, form lasting memories, ect...

Because it is the duty of Fate, not Mothers to don the veil of cruelty to maintain a fair and cold world. It is natural to protect a life you cherish with your hands. Anyone who does not see this, especially as parents, are not natural. A creature that destroys it's offspring, not on the sake of survival but lack of morals is a defect of natural selection.

The whole "it's natural" arguement is bullshit. Nature is cold and brutal and doesn't give a shit about you.

Why is nature inherently ideal? Why are unnatural actions inherently unethical?

>Medical authorities are in consensus that fetuses do not feel pain prior to 27 weeks
That is incorrect. Fetuses respond to painful stimulus after just 8 weeks:

1. Gupta, 2008, p.74, col.2, para.2, “Movement of the fetus in response to external stimuli occurs as early as 8 weeks gestation…”

Gupta R, Kilby M, Cooper G. Fetal surgery and anaesthetic implications. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain. 8:2 (2008) 71-75.

2. Glover, 2004, p.36, para.4, “The fetus starts to make movements in response to being touched from eight weeks, and more complex movements build up, as detected by real time ultrasound, over the next few weeks.”

Glover V. The fetus may feel pain from 20 weeks; The Fetal Pain Controversy. Conscience. 25:3 (2004) 35-37.

Notice I provided a source while you did not. That's because you are a satanic, baby-murdering liar and I'm looking forward to your burning in hell forever and ever and ever. Enjoy.

Accepting your bullshit argument, I can't be a human without having been a fetus, so why would I support killing something that will be a human.

Perfect. So kill yourself. Medical science knows that a human jumping off a cliff dies before they experience pain as it's near instantaneous.

Abortion under these circumstances only creates another victim and does nothing to address the problem.

Society is natural, progression is natural. Traditions are natural. But the destruction of oneself, to one's legacy for the intent of nothing but it's destruction is not natural. A wolf mother would only deem a child to be eaten if she may survive another day that others live in it's place. What is the excuse for abortion besides convenience? A mother wolf in the right conditions can even adopt a stranger runt into her family. Nature can only be defined by the people who understand that it does not always follow human logic.

I personally am pro-life only after the 1st trimester because the central nervous system is pretty well blueprinted for development by that point and it's what I've chosen as my "point where life probably means something."

I ultimately try to not pass a lot of judgement on what someone else chooses to do. I don't think the government should have any part in anything having to do with abortion -- neither outlawing it nor funding Planned Parenthood. I wish it weren't so normal to get abortions (see shoutyourabortion.com). I think a lot of my issue has to do with the alt-left casual child hate mixed with all the shit they're doing to make it normal to rape kids and decrease the population.

"At seven weeks' gestation.3 An intact spinothalamic projection might be viewed as the minimal necessary anatomical architecture to support pain processing, putting the lower limit for the experience of pain at seven weeks' gestation.

At this time, however, the nervous system has yet to fully mature. No laminar structure is evident in the thalamus or cortex, a defining feature of maturity.4,5 The external wall of the brain is about 1 mm thick and consists of an inner and outer layer with no cortical plate. The neuronal cell density of the outer layer is much higher than that of a newborn infant or adult and at seven weeks' gestation has yet to receive any thalamic projections. Without thalamic projections, these neuronal cells cannot process noxious information from the periphery."

In short, the minimum structures required for physical sensation are present at 8 weeks, this does not necessarily indicate that physical sensation actually occurs. Also, reflexive movement in response to sensory information does not indicate pain.

"Can fetuses Feel Pain?" - Stuart Derbyshite

>Fetuses are incapable of suffering or self awareness, and thus need not be regarded as persons.
Citation needed. Also there are people who have conditions that also prevent them from feeling pain. They are persons. Personhood is not determined by conditions of the person but rather an agreement by society and can exceed any limitation you wish to impose.

Get bent.

Convenience is a perfectly valid reason.

Unnatural actions do not nessicarily mean unethical. It's natural to have scorn and hatred for a race and creed of men who intended your race and creed harm, it's not ethical in the terms of the culture. At the same time, Christians are taught to love their enemies. It's ethical but it's not natural. When there is a conflict between two entities they always clash but it's never about ethics. Ethics are only really plausible in application when there is no conflict or rather what it amounts to after a conflict.

When I say what you propose is unnatural is...name me an animal that kills a child for the sake of inconvenience and not for the sake of survival?

Another thing that needs to be payed attention to is also sentience

All human beings deserve fundamental rights the most basic of which is the right to life.

What's the main problem?

>traditions are natural
Right, slavery used to be a tradition, as was human sacrifice. Again, just because you use the word "natural" doesn't automatically make anything a good thing.

Abortion is simply a choice, like euthanasia is. If the mother's life was in danger because of her nigger kid, would you abort the kid? A lot of women died in childbirth before medicine because that's natural, but I guess the "convenience" of modern hospitals and whatnot isn't an excuse to let a mother die.

I cant, yet I fail to comprehend the relevance of that.

Consented Sex at risk of it's consequences is unnatural as well as foolish.

At the very least being self aware and able to think abstractly are good criteria for consciousness

you were once a fetus. end of argument. morons

Just say it with me, user.....
"You like killing." End of story.
Even if you just consider it an organism, organisms are still living.
Stop living the delusion. Just admit it already. Death is a natural part of life and you like the power of that choice.

Interesting, thanks for the info.
Only thing I find weird about when I hear this point argued is that it justifies or condemns abortion on the basis of pain when you'd maybe think that an argument for/against "life" would consider something more philosophical. But maybe I'm just talking to people who use this as the backbone of their argument where others have a more nuanced opinion.

You are self-aware though and know what you are doing.....

Why? Rights are an abstract concept that humans created. How do you determine what is a right and what isn't?

I find this hilarious because especially in USA, people who are pro-life are also pro-death penalty.

Slavery is natural. It's mental conditioning as well as a culture. Drones of a hive do what they are taught to do for the betterment of the hive and to enjoy the perks of it's groupling.

If you're trying to moralize this whole situation, I would not bother. Abortion much like consuming one's child, or leaving a child behind for the sake of the pack is a choice except one is natural. Abortion is literally a queen wasp attacking her own eggs because she sees it as a danger, and the question is, a danger to what? That is what I refer to when I speak of naturality.

If a Mother's life is in danger, naturally the mother must be saved, I don't condemn that. What I condemn is that the choice all abortions have are "naturally" held, and ethnically approved. It's not so. It's an aesthetic and an anodyne for a senseless desire to slaughter one's off spring.

Why is it that when the mother wants to keep it, the baby is worth SO much (to the point that if someone were to kill it, jail may ensue), but when the mother doesn't want it, it suddenly isn't worth anything?

An unborn baby either has worth or it doesn't.

Also: when a pregnant woman is killed it's called a double murder.

Yes, but there is a difference between a being that has never been able to wrong someone and someone who has killed someone.

Sanctity of human life is not reliant on religion.

>current evidence seems to suggest that babies are not self aware until after birth.

they aren't self aware until 2

are you then in support of infant euthanaisa until the baby can pass a self recognition test OP? I myself would support this initiative, sentience is what makes us human not being a meat back capable of moving

>baby has commited no crimes
>death penalty applied to criminals through due process
yep, no fallacy there.

Friendly reminder that leftism is atrocity training.

except niggers

>Abortion is literally a queen wasp attacking her own eggs because she sees it as a danger, and the question is, a danger to what? That is what I refer to when I speak of naturality.


wtf? How is a family that can't afford a kid the same as a threatened queen bee?

One of them hasn't committed a sin yet.

Good for you. SCIENCE has no firm definition.

I wouldnt give two shits if I were aborted, I wouldn't have been conscious or capable of suffering. I wouldn't be here if my parents opted not to have kids, is it morally egregious in your eyes not to have kids?

>implying that women shouldn't bear as many children as possible
>implying that white women shouldn't bear as many children as possible

Do you know where you are?

Medical authorities don't even know what phenomenological pain is which is the only one that matters in this regard.

You're whole argument is invalid good bait 2/10 at best.

Tell me something, do you really care if some Shaniqua 4837 miles away from you, who you'll never meet or affect you in any way, aborts her fetus? Assuming you're not paying for it.

Basically, if you don't like something, don't do it.

"baby" is not a person, baby is an amalgamation of cells incapable of consciousness.

Here you go:

Once you create life either through intent or negligence with your sexual behaviors, you've created a new human (you can use liberalspeak to try and say "MUH CLUMP OF CELLS", but it'll be a human if left to develop as intended), you are no longer morally able to delete its existence without having to accept you terminated another being. Why is it valid to terminate a human who is working to form into a being who wants to survive just so you can have your convenience to live like a shitpile?

Liberal retards love to say "MUH BASED BLACK KID WHO GOT SHOT BY THE COPS MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THE WORLD, THIS IS A TRAGEDY!!!" but simultaneously use every pretzel logic excuse to validate terminating new lives that MIGHT actually do something good while standing up for shit-tier humanity whose only mission was to become fertilizer.

Liberals, retarded every single time.

Penis

which is why we should protect every human life regardless of creed or race

So you would then claim to say the person who took the risk of having this child is infact flawed? The means of survival does not consist of having sex for entertainment.

Even if the conditions of the coupling were without consent, it'd be even more natural to abandon the child than kill it. (Or if you wanted to put ethics into it, adoption.)

In my mind, sentience is a prerequisite to personhood.

evidence seems to suggest that murdering people generally doesn't hurt me. therefore it is ok, as pain obviously is the only qualifier for the justness of any action.

Why is human life so special?

>a fetus is a person

Much like you big surprise!

I'm a strict utilitarian, so yes.

They are also not aware at any age when they're asleep, which means you can kill any sleeping person you want.

it is cuckservative you muppet

When chromosomes cross over it a unique even. One that will never happen again the same way.

Because it is not possible to separate a person from society and the sanctity of life must be preserved in order for people to function in society. If we devalue human life we can reasonably expect that people will commit tragedies upon each other in their daily lives.

Take for example China
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/09/why_drivers_in_china_intentionally_kill_the_pedestrians_they_hit_china_s.html

In a society with state mandated abortions it's no wonder that they begin to devalue each other. Such a society I don't wish to live in.

>It's a human life, but it is not a person.
hu·man
ˈ(h)yoomən/
noun
noun: human; plural noun: humans
1.
a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
synonyms: person, human being, personage, mortal, member of the human race; man, woman;
individual, soul, living soul, being;
Homo sapiens;
earthling
"the link between humans and animals"
per·son
ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature; personage, character, customer;
informaltype, sort, cookie;
informal,body, dog;
archaicwight
"that person over there is the one who called the police"
>It's a human life, but it is not a person.
>It's a person, but it is not a person.
>It's a human life, but it is not human life.

This is your logic. I weep for you.

Answer me this, OP.

>Being pro abortion for non-whites. In this case it should be encouraged like the Democrats often do in every major city.
>Being against abortion for whites though because they are better.

Do you have a problem with this line of thought?

Always archive those
archive.is/asuZS

murdering a sleeping individual subjects their relatives to emotional suffering, and is thus impermissible.

I mean I don't really have an opinion but I don't think it's the equivalent of the queen bee scenario you came up with.

I don't think people who get abortions feel that their status in society is threatened because of female fetuses.

And how the hell would you know what's capable of consciousness when no one has the faintest idea what consciousness actually is.

Every "argument" against the death penalty is emotional and incoherent.

I do indeed, white supremacy/nationalism is bullshit.

Abort babies because they're unwanted
Import immigrants because you need to grow the economy

Or
Stop aborting your population and have a country like with good economic growth

>not possible to separate a person from society

So you don't believe in the individual?

It's wrong to kill someone who nobody would miss, too, idiot.

Why do you care which babies are being killed as long as we kill them?

What if we also killed all of the person's close relatives, also in their sleep? I get your point but there are things we care about morally that go beyond simply not inflicting suffering. Otherwise we'd all be antinatalists who go on a crusade to kill everyone painlessly so they can stop suffering.

We'll see how capable of "consciousness" you're capable of while you're getting struck by lightning.

And yet, people survive lightning strikes, and these survivors tend to heal and restore their consciousness to full or partial functionality...given sufficient TIME.

Simply because you don't have consciousness at a particular point in time is insufficient to conclude you're not a person. Furthermore, seeing how, given sufficient time without negative interference, a fetus will develop consciousness, it would seem anything that can have a consciousness at ANY time would qualify as a person, by the "consciousness standard".

>Tell me something...

Tell me something, do you really care if some Sandnigger 7560 miles away from you, who you'll never meet or affect you in any way, murders a random white woman? Assuming you're not paying for it.

My answer? Yes. Yes I do.

All life is miraculous, especially human life, and ending a life for anything other than survival or to ensure the right and just order of things should be avoided if possible. Allowing people to terminate their pregnancies teaches them that sex can be abused for pleasure and their actions don't have consequences. Sexual liberation and extreme individualism: harbingers of a civilization in decline.

I dont... Abortion is permissible regardless of race.

so you do not believe that the actions of human beings are generally aimed at improving the human condition for the exchange of money? because as you likely know, economic productivity rises with population and thereby standard of living. that baby would have made an impact on the quest of having billions out of poverty, but that's obviously a far lesser concern for a true utilitarian than anybody feeling pain while being cut into pieces in his mothers womb.

Well, there are words that describe matter at different levels from the microscopic to the macroscopic, but they are just ideas in our mind. Matter itself is not actually differentiated into "trees" or "cars" or "water" or "people". It's all one single wash of self-identical energy.

I want you to site your sources for claiming fetuses are incapable of suffering. Further, if it's true, the fact that they can't feel pain doesn't deny them their human rights. Would a grown man in a coma who can't feel pain or for that matter have no self prception suddenly become less than a human?
My compelling argument against abortion is that there is an unborn person whose right to life shouldn't be superseded by a mother's regret. Can you explain how one can support the murder of an unborn baby and still have a sane moral compass?

For cases of actual, legitimate rape, or simply for those who accidentally got pregnant and cannot afford to raise the child in a healthy environment, I am for abortion.
It becomes a problem though when it's seen as a get out of jail free card for a poor decision to not use protection or birth control.
>Honey, I'm going down to Dr. Shekelstein's office again today. Can we do it again tonight? My punch card almost has enough for a discount.
Just do pic related instead if that's what the whore wants. Much cheaper.

Using the "feel no pain before 27 weeks" argument is retarded because assaulting someone who has no sense of touch is still illegal. Plain and simple, abortion stops a beating heart. Plus, I am 99 percent sure I was a mistake b/c conceived 2nd week of February.

So there is no problem at all with encouraging it for a certain race while discouraging it for another.

if its true that they are in concensus that 27 week old babies dont feel pain then this is truly evil. they have covered up the fact on a massive scale that this is what a 27 week old baby looks like. liberals are pure evil baby killers.

Why, praytell, is life inheritly valuable when separated from consciousness? It seems to me that your argument rests solely on vague, moral platitudes.

If it were a matter of status it would not be so proudly wavered about, so proudly. Status is a perception and one shared within a family is personal, often times private.

This is a matter of function and what power is behind that function. A woman is the only gender that can produce children and no animal in this world except a select few monogendered species can refute this. But humans lack the biological traits and functions to achieve that function.

What you might not know is that...in their attempt, in the volition to seek empowerment...that control how one's body functions. But here's where things begin to get blurred. It's not a question of whether or not it is ethical to control this function.

It's a question of what is to be gained by this practice?

everytime I cook an organic egg I watch a small lump of cells screaming.

You don't seem to be self aware either, so I guess I can murder you, non-person.

ABORTION IS BLACK GENOCIDE

Abortion is the #1 killer of blacks in America

Good. Keep it up, democrats.

>Allowing people to terminate their pregnancies teaches them that sex can be abused for pleasure and their actions don't have consequences
This in particular is the dumbest argument there is. Do airbags teach people that driving can be abused for pleasure? If preventative measures exist, why is making use of them irresponsible?

I would contend that that doesnt happen