I can disprove any "pro-choice" argument

pastebin.com/FAgPedMs

It wont let me post the entire thing in this one post because it is too long.

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/FAgPedMs
babycenter.com/6_22-weeks-pregnant_1111.bc
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Ok, how about this:
>the ratio of niggers getting abortions dwarfs the rate of whites
Come on, I'm curious.

Abortions aren't performed that late, your picture is fb tier gaiety

it's just a clump of cell get a life virgin.

>Actually advocating for a larger nigger population
Do you not have enough bulls to prep?

That is not "late"

That is extremely early in the pregnancy

That't not an argument.

That's not an argument either.

...

For the purpose of a clear argument I will (for the time being) separate being biologically human from any concept of personhood. In doing so it is undeniable to say that biological human life begins at conception. If you really do not believe that then I cannot help you just like I cannot argue with someone who claims the earth is flat.........there is no point.
And even if you dispute my scientific claim,

Nor was it intended to be, it was just a comment about your gay img

It is.

And even if you dispute my scientific claim, I can reprove the fact through metaphysics. In metaphysics there are accidental and substantial changes. Accidental changes are changes to the subject which does not change the essence of the subject. Hair for example can be bleached or colored, however the underlying essence of “hair-ness” does not change. It is still the same hair before and after the hair color was altered. The change being made to the hair does not change the overall essence of the hair. A substantial change, on the other hand, does change the essence of the subject making it something completely different than before. Thus the subject becomes a new subject.
Take the sperm and the egg. The sperm and egg alone cannot grow a fully functional human body with free will. It is not until the sperm and egg meet that a substantial change happens and a human life begins. There is no other point in the development of the human body after conception that can be proven as the substantial change other than conception itself. Birth cannot be the substantial change that grants humanness because there is no difference between a baby one second before birth and one second after birth which could prove that a substantial change had happened. The same can be said for any other arbitrary milestone of development such as first steps or age 18 or age 21. All of those are accidental changes in which the overall essence of humanness is not changed. The only point where you can point to a visible and provable substantial change is conception. The sperm and the egg are not simply the sperm and the egg after the moment of conception and thanks to modern scientific equipment; you can see it happen before your very eyes.
Therefore, it is philosophically impossible to claim that any group after conception is less than metaphysically human.
.

Try a better argument than the illogical and unscientific "clump of cells" argument.

Actually read my pastbin and respond to my argument instead of throwing garbage fallacies around.

pastebin.com/FAgPedMs

fetuses develop fingers like that by 10 weeks. The development of the ears looks like a 14 weeker to me.

Try a better argument than the illogical and unscientific "clump of cells" argument.

Actually read my pastbin and respond to my argument instead of throwing garbage fallacies around.

pastebin.com/FAgPedMs

Seeing there is about a 98% probability your mommy is a nigger or libtard you, little friend, are OUT OF LUCK.

Abortions are legal up to 22 weeks in many states even older.


babycenter.com/6_22-weeks-pregnant_1111.bc

make an actual argument or get out.

Some even up before birth or partial birth.

You're a faggot.

>am I not human enough for you?
>implies there's something wrong with killing humans

when/how did Sup Forums acquire so many moralfags?

When would you say it is moral to kill a human?

And you are a troll

You are morally justified to kill humans that are incapable of living without parasitically feeding on you, threatening your own life.

>If you can dispute me, I'll toss out a hypothetical that'll instantly disprove you in my mind!

When would you say morals even *matter*?

Not an argument!

Not OP, but aren't they still human?

define human

Abortion is ok when the "baby" is barely even a visible thing in the naked eye aka few days/weeks old. Refute this with logical arguments please.

background, in my country we allow abortion clinics for abortion up to a certain date of foetus development. i cant remember how much exactly, but its early, basically you have to be responsible, find out youre pregnant early on, and immediately request an abortion. after a certain time limit, it becomes illegal to abort. its a centrist policy, and the best in my opinion.

A human being. Conceived by a biological male and female humans.

I have two instances in which abortion is justified
1: The child would have Down syndrome or severe autism or some other shit that makes them nothing more than a burden with no future.
2: the mother is either a teen whose family is incredibly poor and can't put it up for adoption due to location or it would kill the mother to brith the child.

mind acrobat gold medalist

Abortion is terrible, but it should be legal because terrible people have them.

nope

So then by your logic, all severely handicapped (mental or physical) or any small children who still require 24/7 assistance for all functions can bill killed justifiably?

That's three reasons you retard. I guess your Mother should have aborted you.

You are using SIZE from the SLED arguments.

1) "You say that A is big and B is small. It is size then: The larger having the right to kill the smaller. Take care. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person you meet with a larger body than your own."

2) size: The unborn is clearly smaller than a born human. It’s hard to reason how a difference in size, though, disqualifies someone from being a person. A four year-old is smaller than a fourteen year-old. Can we kill her because she’s not as big as a teenager? No, because a human being’s value is not based on their size. She’s still equally a person even though she differs in that characteristic. In the same way, the unborn is smaller than a four year-old. If we can’t kill the four-year old because she’s smaller, then we can’t kill the unborn because she’s smaller either.

I see you never responded to me.

Moral decisions are inherently arbitrary and determined by trial and error, so trying to fit them into a logical framework is retarded. Abortion is good because abortion works. There is no evolutionary penalty for a society that allows it, because at this point our survival is primarily determined by things other than the mass-production of children. Besides, it's always been low-key hush-hush eugenics anyways.

I just don't give a shit.

The anti-abortion, anti-choice, pro-life side needs to come to grips with the responsibility that comes with their goal.

If you mandate no abortions, you take on the responsibility for the well-being of the child AND mother until the child is 18. The State's fiscal responsibility to those affected citizens should guarantee a lifestyle, better-than-or-equal-to a "middle-class" child and mother cared for by a primary breadwinner.

Otherwise you're just spouting some hateful B.S. you don't really believe anyway.

Hitler also wanted to kill all people with mental/physical defects so you two have that in common now. I think most people will agree in saying that such a position is entirely evil and inexcusable.

2) being poor isn't a valid excuse to kill another human being......try again.

>If you mandate no abortions, you take on the responsibility for the well-being of the child AND mother until the child is 18.
I'm pro-abortion, but this is a non-sequitur. Why should the state take care of the mother's mistake? This creates an incentive for single-motherhood.

It's a human being once it has a proper consciousness and that's not even until a couple weeks after birth.

So go fuck yourself woth your pro-life bullshit.

You never gave me an argument or a hypothetical.

Hillary Clinton was born.

I have only one question. What race is it?

And I do. I do want to help all citizens to be successful including after birth and under less than ideal circumstances. .

Show me the fetus' skin color and the I'll decide whether or not it's human

down syndrome tards should be forcibly aborted.

BUT THEY KILL BASED BLACK MEN!

Took me all of 2 minutes to find you trying to get away by defining some abortions as "not-abortions" and stating you win the argument because technically now "abortions" do not need to be legal anymore.

Try again next time and rewrite the entire medical condition paragraph.

Your rape analogy is even worse.

So you saying that you want government to interfere into your freedom and tell you what to do with your private parts?

So then let me ask you this.........If you stop thinking for two seconds, can I kill you?

By your logic we should be allowed to kill the severely mentally retarded because they have little to no consciousness or thought.

Nice try......Please try again.

"down syndrome tards should be forcibly aborted."

You and Hitler share the same dream.

I also just noticed you have not mentioned birth defects or other complications with the baby at all, presumably because you'd rather some genetic catastrophy be brought to terms.

A fetus relies specifically on their mothers, the mother can't ask someone else to carry the child. The fetus is parasitic on one specific individual who can either allow it or not without needing to explain the details of their decision to anyone else. A third party can't reliably assess the morality or risks for each individual case, the womb owner must have that right. As long as the fetus can't survive without its mothers body all it rights are subject to the rights of the mother.

To be honest, i think parents should be allowed to terminate their kids at any age if they still live in the parental home.

Physical or mental has no bearing on humanness and I showed how it cannot have any bearing on defining personhood without legitimizing and promoting the genocide of all physically or mentally handicapped born people.

>what's a human
>something that was born of humans
>american edumacation

Maybe he wasn't such a bad guy, then.

>As long as the fetus can't survive without its mothers body all it rights are subject to the rights of the mother.
So you support infanticide too? Because literally everything you said applies to a newborn baby too. Nothing magical happens to a person's body while passing through a vagina.

>without legitimizing and promoting the genocide of all physically or mentally handicapped born people.
The world isn't black and white. And yes, I think encouraging to abort obvious defects and genetic mutations that cause a severe reduction of quality of life is both inevitable (when we get better at detecting problems and more importantly modifying the genetic code) and desired.

Counter question: There is a rare condition that causes someone to practically be born without a brain. Is this still a person according to you? Note that they have zero higher brain functions and no quantifyable personality or concioussness.

If you do say yes, then you must answer how the same is not true of someone who's declared braindead (legally it is now okay to assist in their death by turning off life support).

You cannot seperate these two issues, as they are one and the same.

several problems in your argumentation.

1) Your argument is flawed because: parasite lives outside the host and somehow invades the host.....a baby did not live outside the womb and then crawl up the woman's vag one day.

2) Your argument is flawed because: ownership of the womb does not give you the authority to kill another human any more than I have a right to eject a stowaway in my plane after I have taken off. Yes that action alone does not directly kill the person, but if I threw that stowaway out of my plane at 30,000 feet, I would be in denial if I said that I did not know that the fall would kill him. The same goes with babies. Saying that a woman has a right to eject the baby from the womb at younger than 20-24 weeks would most assuredly kill the baby and even after 25 weeks, it is not a sure thing that a prematurely born baby would survive even with our new and updated technology in NICU wards.

Your piss poor attempt at illustrating a "violinist" type argument fails.


A better analogy to use would “The Alpine Hut” analogy which goes something like this………..
A woman wakes up trapped in a hut in the alps. It is not the fault of the woman that she is there and it is not the choice of the woman to be there. In the hut she finds that there is a newborn who needs to be fed and cared for. In searching the house, you find that there is an ample supply of food and the woman happens to be lactating anyway. It would be wrong for the woman just to ignore the baby despite the fact that caring for the baby does not lessen her ability to survive until the police finally come and rescue her along with the baby. What person upon finding the alpine hut along with the living woman and a dead baby would not fault the woman for refusing to take care of the baby despite the fact that there was plenty of food and nursing the baby does not diminish the amount of food available for the mother? Even though the woman was violated by the rapist, the argument is still misappropriating the violation of the rapist on the woman to the baby who is innocent regardless of how he/she was conceived AND it is flawed to argue for a woman’s right to eject the baby while ignoring the death sentence that it would give much like ejecting my stowaway at 30,000 feet or the woman in the alpine hut refusing to feed the child at no person harm to herself (other than slight inconvenience). Thus the argument is logically flawed.

>human enough

dude your on Sup Forums

>impact
>top-bottom text template
>in the current year

>human enough

>I think encouraging to abort obvious defects and genetic mutations that cause a severe reduction of quality of life is both inevitable (when we get better at detecting problems and more importantly modifying the genetic code) and desired.


You and Hitler share the same despicable dream.

to answer your counter question......

"You mean that born human persons have an intellect and a consciousness that is higher than the pre-born and therefor you have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care yet again. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person who has an intellect and a consciousness that is higher than your own."

you have got to be a shill or like really old

Nope....I am doing this on my own. I just want to talk logically to prove my point.

higher and above zero are two different things

It is legal to kill someone who has demonstrably no conscioussness left. That's an undeniable fact.

Prove how the same does not apply to a baby born without brain functions.

Your entire argument rests on an indefensible case of allowing no abortions period, then declaring a few of the indefensible examples simply "well if there's a miscarriage because of some medical procedure it's TECHNICALLY not an abortion". Your entire premise is wrong. Those ARE legally abortions and a good reason to keep abortion legal.

Note that I do agree with you on the rape issue. I think rape babies that are otherwise healthy do have a right to exist, and the mothers should obviously also have a right to just put the baby up to adoption after they carry it to term.

That post was answering that exact question. No it doesn't apply to a newborn, anyone can take care of it, not just the mother. It's no longer a question of the mothers personal health and sovereignty when it's born.

A plane does not have sovereignty, a human body does. If you don't accept the right of the mother to control her womb you don't accept that humans have sovereignty over their own bodies. The view that people can't control their own bodies undermines all our rights including basic ones like property rights.

>le smaller nigger population meme
the difference between black "women" and pretty much any other race is that if the blacks don't want it they will find ways to abort it anyway, by eating bad foods or hitting the uterus. other races will be very unlikely to do this because they are human and thus will feel something except in those cases where the pregnancy was actually the result of one of the excuses they use like rape or incest or being chinese

It is not about size, if anyone is sliding it is you, my friend. It is about consciousness and development of a nervous system. Clearly you know less about this topic than I do. Why is it always the uninformed making these anti-choice threads?

I'm still going to ask your opinion on this, again, using LOGICAL arguments as requested in my first post. Not retarded big vs. small analogies that bring absolutely nothing to the table. C'mon, stop proving me right that pro-choice advocates are retards incapable of making a single logical argument.

1- Explain why there should or should'nt be a centrist approach to abortion ( allowing abortion at early stages, before the foetus develops a central nervous system, but making it illegal past a certain point, when it is deemed not humane to perform the abortion)

2- Should women who get impregnated unwillingly, like by method of rape, be denied access to an abortion? Should the woman bear a child out of rape and care for it her entire life, despite the fact that doing so will destroy her life emotionally, and consequently, the education and life of the rape child?

3- At what exact point do you see the foetus as an aware conscious being? Moment of impregnation, nervous system development, out of the womb?
Again, not about size, learn the difference. More about stages of development, and especially consciousness. unless you are naive to think that it all comes down to size, in which case stop talking about important societal issues.

>moral decisions are inherently arbitrary

Then why do we have laws at all? Murder is illegal. Thus abortion should be.

So a baby is a "property right"? By that logic, any child still under the care of the parent(s) can be killed

>staying in someones body without paying rent

NAP
A
P

Stop using these retarded analogies that have absolutely nothing to do with the question asked. Every single "analogy" you put up makes 0 sense and is only a way to divert attention from an argument you are unable to logically refute. Resorting to un-appliable analogies that are obviously immoral is not refuting an argument. You are committing fallacy after fallacy. It is clear you are not intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough to disprove any solid arguments in this topic. Delete your post.

>make abortion illegal
>make drugs legal
>niggers women spend all their money on drugs and can't afford babies
>babies starve
wow it's almost like niggers are going to find a way to kill niggers no matter what.

Property rights are derived from individual rights, undermining individual rights undermines all the rights derived from them including property rights. If you and a small Chinese man get in a teleporter accident after which he relies on your body to survive, based on our ideals of individual sovereignty that society is built on you have the right to refuse to share your body with him even if it leads to his death.

...

1) "The problem with any claim of one group of people having a higher status/higher rights than others will ultimately end in any other group of humans being given less rights or worth......whether it is Jews, blacks, The mentally or physically disabled, the old, the young, the politically conservative or the politically liberal.........OR YOU. The only way to ensure that such a scenario never happens again (BECAUSE IT DID HAPPEN IN ALL THE EXAMPLE GROUPS I GAVE), is to give ALL humans the same basic human rights and dignity (Bill of Rights?). If all are equal under the law, there can be no argument for one group being part of an “inferior class” of humans. If you truly believe that all human beings should be treated equally under the law, you would want to protect those rights for everyone regardless of size, age, gender, race/skin color, mental development, physical development or any other accidental grouping in which people get placed. That is what the founding fathers thought when they wrote the Constitution and anyone who claims to uphold the constitution and agree with the premise of the constitution cannot give some humans less rights than others without contradicting themselves.

2) Rape only makes up 1% or less of all cases of abortion....So are you bringing up the minority case in order to prove the majority case, or can you agree that abortion outside of rape is never justifiable?

3) Irrelevant. As I already explained to you SEVERAL times.........consciousness is an accidental of what makes us human. To use consciousness as the criteria means that I could point to examples of BORN people such as the mentally handicapped or the brain dead human being who are still human and still deserving of the same rights. There is nothing before or after the man being brain dead which changed his humanness and all humans are deserving of rights.

Your analogy is flawed because pregnancy in of itself does not lead to death.

So you've failed to address my argument for the second time now. At this point I'm assuming you have no way to and I'll bid my farewell. Was fun.

>witnessed fellow human

The mother controlled her womb by allowing herself to be fucked knowing full well what results from that, leading to the creation of a child. Therefore it's her responsibility.

I DID and I pointed out the invalidity and illogical premises on which your failed argument rested.

It has been fun. Come back when you have a real argument to make.

As I already explained to you SEVERAL times.........consciousness is an accidental of what makes us human. To use consciousness as the criteria means that I could point to examples of BORN people such as the mentally handicapped or the brain dead human being who are still human and still deserving of the same rights. There is nothing before or after the man being brain dead which changed his humanness and all humans are deserving of rights.

>responsibility means you can;t just feel good every second of the day
oyyyy vaayyy

Niggers.

No you didn't. That was the other half and I refuted you on those points too. Luckily I still had the tab open.

It is legal and considered merciful to kill braindead people. Prove to me that the same should not apply to fetusses and babies who are identical in brain capacity and can never and never will develop into a consciousness.

Note that the argument from intelligence is invalid here because it's not just a dumber human, it's not a human at all because it violates one of the core criteria we even consider for life.

If a baby can be legally declared dead by a doctor, then prove to me how aborting it isn't acceptable.

You repeat your mistake again. I will reiterate: It is CURRENTLY LEGAL to kill braindead people and considered merciful to do so. If you smash your head in in an accident and there is no way for you to recover, even the most devout christian doctor will eventually just recommend turning the machines off.

If you truly believe what you say about conscioussness then it is ALWAYS murder to turn those machines off and you must now prove to me that either
a) you legitimately think that people cannot ever be legally declared dead
or
b) How there is a fundamental difference between a newborn that is braindead and an adult that is braindead

If you fail to do so, then by lack of alternatives, abortion must be a-okay in atleast one case.

>There is nothing before or after the man being brain dead which changed his humanness and all humans are deserving of rights.
So why are you allowed to switch off machines keeping brain dead people "alive"?

If you think human vegetables have value, that's a you-problem.

The teleporter accident didn't lead to death either, you just have a chinese mans head sticking out of your ribcage. It's a miracle but you both survived seemingly healthy for now. It happened because you were both messing with illegal teleporter stuff that you shouldn't have.

Pregnancy can lead to death, only the womb owner has the right and all the necessary information to determine if that the risk is acceptable.

Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy.

You don't have the brains for any of this, you know?

>Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy.
yes it does.
sex leads to pregnancy.