A human embryo's brain doesn't really begin to develop until the 8th week of pregnancy

A human embryo's brain doesn't really begin to develop until the 8th week of pregnancy
At the 10th week of development the embryo is less than 2 inches long.
A human embryo doesn't become a fetus until about the ~11th week of development

This undeveloped embryo is not a human yet, not possessing fully developed human organs, it's comparable to any other creature in it's first stages of development. Look up a picture of a sheep embryo, you will barely be able to tell the difference between that and a human embryo, because there isn't much. Our DNA is programmed to build our body in steps, the first steps of the development of life are almost the same for all animals. Where evolution made changes to us is after the first stages of development.

91% of abortions occur within the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.

Any argument for not wanting to abort a baby this early would be entirely based on the fact that this embryo will eventually develop into a human. But that would have shaky implications. Is it for some reason our moral duty to carry a baby to term that is naturally supposed to get there? Then are we supposed to have as much sex as possible too? To bring even more possible human lives to fruition? Oh shit, now we're all Mormon.

The truth is there is no fine line to cross for a bundle of cells to become a human with rights, the line is large and grey, but where ever you place the limit, it sure as hell can't be this early in the pregnancy.

...

...

...

Depriving someone of the chance to be born is fucking deplorable, even if you dont consider the fetus to be human yet its still fucking disgusting.

if that were a pig nobody would give a fuck, and yet a pig is more sentient than an embryo.

...

...

...

...

...

...

Your mother fucked up by not aborting you

...

depriving an imaginary person the chance to be born. there is no soul, there is no life before consciousness. any injustice you feel is only instinct, but makes no sense.

...

...

...

...

...

>3

...

AYY LMAO

11 weeks / 3 monrhs seems like a fine cutout for nice people

for the others, 0-88 years seem like a nice age to avort

>no life before consciousness
Can I unplug your life support if you end up in a coma then?
What about if you're sleeping? Can I kill you because you're a burden?

>consciousness has already been achieved
Yeah and it ended after these events started. Now there is once again only the potential for consciousness

A woman's brain doesn't really begin to develop until the 28th year of life
At the 20th year of life the woman is still mentally a child..
A woman doesn't become a person until about the ~50th year of life

This underdeveloped woman is not a human yet, not possessing fully developed human brain, it's comparable to any other creature in it's first stages of development. Look up a picture of a sheep, you will barely be able to tell the difference between that and a woman, because there isn't much. Our DNA is programmed to build our body in steps, the first steps of the development of life are almost the same for all animals. Where evolution made changes to us is after the first stages of development.

91% of marriages occur within the first 25 years of life.

Any argument for not wanting to go your own way would be entirely based on the fact that this woman will eventually develop into a human. But that would have shaky implications. Is it for some reason our moral duty to financially support a woman that is naturally supposed to get there? Then are we supposed to have as much sex as possible too? To bring even more possible human lives to fruition? Oh shit, now we're all Mormon.

The truth is there is no fine line to cross for a woman to become a human with rights, the line is large and grey, but where ever you place the limit, it sure as hell can't be this early in her life.

how do the pro-life people feel about braindead people who are kept alive only on life support?

i'm talking the ones literally with zero electical signals going on or at worst actually missing their brain

they have the same level of consciousness as a fetus. aka ZERO

I suppose it just depends if you're a nihilist or not.

anyhow, I wouldn't have a say, but I already made my reasoning clear, All men have the potential to create hundreds of consciousness'. We obviously don't because we can't and don't want to provide for hundreds of children. Boil it down, what if you can't even provide for one child, how is the decision different.

unique dna

a child has rights so the point is moot already

If you're a nihilist you wouldn't defend abortion either. People really don't understand the word nihilism, humans cannot really be nihilists, society can be nihilistic because the values shared by humans can become diffuse. All humans value something, nihilism = no value system. You might be confusing nihilism with existentialism.

>Then are we supposed to have as much sex as possible too?
These sort of arguments from natural law are based on the perverted faculty argument. Read up on it before sounding like a retard. Moreover, the point on abortion is not this.

>The truth is there is no fine line to cross for a bundle of cells to become a human with rights, the line is large and grey, but where ever you place the limit, it sure as hell can't be this early in the pregnancy.
There is. It is called conception.

>if that were a pig nobody would give a fuck, and yet a pig is more sentient than an embryo.
It's about being a human. It's because your moral sense is fucked up that you care more about pigs than people.

Top kek

You sick bastard.

Who?

Imo its only too late for abortion when it can on its own live (not counting complications) meaning that if an 8 month fetus cannot live on its own, its still not too late, if it dies on its own its not too late

*record scratch *freeze frame Yup this is me, your probably wondering how I got here.

That's a moronic question.
"Braindead people" are literally just dead people.
Brain death has been the clinical definition consensus for "death" for a while now; the heart rate flat-lining is no longer critical for someone to be considered dead, except when there is no hope of resuscitation, such as in a first-aid scenario without an AED, in which case you can go ahead and pronounce death.

"Zero electrical signals" is just a dead person, regardless of whether you shock their heart into contraction or pump air in and out of their lungs. You're just playing with their corpse.

Literally no one in the pro-life side is arguing that those people are alive, so spare us the goofy strawman.

It does not depend on anything. Things are right or wrong by themselves: they do not require some idiot judging them.

you must judge right and wrong for yourself

To quote a famous song: Life is life.

>A liberal's brain doesn't really begin to develop until their late 30s...
they are just a bundle of cells

Yes, and I must discover there is a very hot planet close to Earth too.

Unique DNA is the only objective standard of a new individual

Your subjective measurements (8weeks when the clock strikes midnight) are not useful in a legal context. Babies develop at different rates and it makes no sense that it suddenly becomes a human when the clock strikes midnight on X date.

I didn't say that my last line pointed out that the actual line isn't really a line just a gradient

Current science says you're not fully human until age 25, when the prefrontal cortex is mature.

I care about anything that can think for itself. I don't put any inherent value on humans lives because we don't need to. humans aren't valuable, consciousness is.

sounds hot where can i get one?

define human friend

We need laws to govern abortion and "a subjective gradient" isn't going to cut it when people want to rip their fetuses apart with tongs.

When is abortion legal, and when is it illegal? These need concrete answers and "it sort of becomes a human at 8 weeks but not always" doesn't cut it.

Hillary, is that you?

I gave my opinion, I don't care where you set it as long as it after 8 weeks. probably before 3 months preferably,

>25

I find it amazing that we are killing millions of people just due to sheer convenience and irresponsibility. I'd like to hear these fucking liberals react to the utilitarian arguments for removing Jews from Germany made by nazis. Suddenly, there seem to be rights or something.

>humans aren't valuable
The human body and its soul form a single entity. You're not only falling for the transhumanist meme but you're also implying there are degrees of humanity.

>8 weeks when the clock strikes midnight

So abortion at 7 weeks, 59 minutes is fine, but when the clock strikes midnight the fetus suddenly becomes human? Your subjective standards make no sense and will lead to your humans (by your definition) being aborted.

This.
When the OP makes such a nebulous argument as this >The truth is there is no fine line to cross for a bundle of cells to become a human with rights, the line is large and grey
and then concludes like so
> but where ever you place the limit, it sure as hell can't be this early in the pregnancy.
He is only making his position weaker.
That conclusion does not follow at all, in fact if anything he is only making a case for the pro-lifers:
The notion that it is indeed arbitrary to defend a point during development where it is suddenly "now a human" where it wasn't before is in fact a very good argument, but not one that in any way supports going ahead and setting up an admittedly arbitrary position to aim further down the pregnancy right after. That's just inconsistent.

What it does support is the argument for aiming for conception - as the single well defined point where there is now a living being of a human nature (a biotic entity and with Human DNA), regardless of how early in it's life or going into other arbitrary definitions of "humanity" - as the only defensible position for where abortion is indubitably morally correct.

Of course, that would lead us into concluding that the only "morally safe" and unassailable position to defend is that of preventative contraception, while rejecting abortion at any stage after pregnancy or even abortative contraceptives.

You can be satisfied with that conclusion or not, but if not you shouldn't use the argument you used, OP, because that is where it leads.

>Is it for some reason our moral duty to carry a baby to term
yes you retard
aside from the previous shit, you don't just "become" pregnant, you don't just wake up one day and say "OH SHIT, I AM PREGNANT, I DON'T KNOW HOW ITS POSSIBLE!"

The moment you have sex you are saying that you are aware that you may become pregnant, so the the god damn responsibility

The only cases where I think abortion is an ok thing is when the child will be terminally ill and probably will die soon anyway, or when it is a rape baby.

Moreover, if its merely the presence of consciousness that matters, it would mean that when unconscious (i.e. sleeping) humans would lose their rights, and when they woke up they would gain them again.

But you're not that retarded. You will probably mention something that sounds very much like potentiality by claiming that people who are sleeping are going to be conscious when they wake up. Well, good riddance, m8, because you just shot yourself in the foot.

suppose you have some braindead patient lying in a coma.
The guy isn't reactive, shows only basic neuron function and is for all intents and purpuses a complete vegetable.
Many people would agree that it'd be ok or even mercifull to kill such a patient, arguing that whatever he is now, he isn't really human. He's just a huge bundle of cells, without purpose and intent. Fine, shut off the life support.

What if i told you, that the patient had an almost 100% chance of being fully recovered and functional within the next 9 months? Would you still shut off life support

Apparently, you think the definition is arbitrary, so my definition of being able to make proper decisions is appropriate. But we could just as easily say it is when you inherit 23 chromosomes from each parent and start developing.

>rape baby

I don't agree there's a morally safe position, desu I've been undecided on abortion for a long time so I'm just putting my opinion to light to see what people think. human dna is such an arbitrary measure i wouldn't want to touch it as my position.

In anyway i find abortion disgusting, I would never abort my child, but I'm taking the most objective position i can think of.

technicall it's a parasite before birth, not a person.

This is the dumbest argument
>Hurrr its not a human yet
>Durr no brain yet
We are not living in the dark ages, we know where babies come from and how sex causes pregnancy. Its not a mystery. You know when you have had sex. You as a woman know if you are on birth control, or you as a man know of you used a condom. There is a small window to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex with "plan B." If you choose not to use plan B or birth control and you get pregnant, that is entirely you and your partners fault. You created a person and you are too fucking selfish to take responsibility for your actions so you willfully murder a child so you can party more.

I support post birth abortions for parents of shitskins and liberals. Either parent should be able to demand one.

Moreso it depends on the value you a person applies to life.

After that it's just feminist pro-choice propaganda trying to disassociate the idea of a foetus being life. Similar to the effect found in the Prison experiment. When we dehumanise something through terminolgy or slurs, or attempt to deconstruct it, it has inherently less emotional sway with us and we can begin to treat it inhumanely.
Case examples:
"gas the kikes" over murder and genocide of human beings
"Straight white male" over person with a valid opinion
"Nazi" over person who doesn't agree with leftist agenda.

...

because a two year old can live on its own too right?

>disassociative

its at conception

/thread

that's subverting the argument but not addressing ti directly

you could say the same of many millenials.

What if it's a day before being able to survive outside the womb?

That's actually another argument against the bullshit OP is implying on consciousness. You are going to have a very bad time arguing that already born babies have one. So, I can kill my 6 months old son, now?

you just ignored my entire argument. Also I can just quote the cliche response that you wouldn't let a rape victim have an abortion.

no proper memory doesn't mean no consciousness.

Who me or my examples?

More like if your NEET isn't out of the house by 25, it was stillborn and you can abort it

Are you commenting on my spelling

They don't even have any self-awareness, ffs.

>NEET

you're basically saying people will give whatever value they want to life that's convenient. But ignoring the reasons put up for why they assigned those values. I guess coming up with your own reasons.

this means that every day you're not getting women pregnant is a day you're depriving people from being born. just how many people have you not contributed to?
thousands unborn
thousands

that's exactly the point OP you nigger.
Newborns and babies are also still less intelligent than pigs. I think some parrot species are as intelligent as 3-5 year old children.

Why don't we just kill off 3-5 year olds? They still don't show the neurological capacity to be considered humans, right? They merely look like humans and have the potential to become humans one day.

In your own words i could ask " Is it for some reason our moral duty to care and raise a baby to adulthood that is naturally supposed to get there?"

The problem with your philosophy (inspired by Peter Singer i suppose?) is that you for some reason insist on the absolute description of human value based on neurological function etc. and leaving all other more metaphysical reasons for why human life is special outside. I guess you're doing this, because you think, it's more scientific that way, but leaving out "data" a lot of people hold dear is pretty unscientific, let me tell you.

Also, regarding neurological obsession: let's kill all the retards

God doesn't exist

Heat death of the universe.

babies can notice themselves in a mirror and know it's them. that's self awareness if I've ever heard it

no

>is not a human yet
wrong
it is a human since the point of conception ie creation of new human dna
it is not a person however

Read on the perverted faculty argument. Jesus Christ, these people are clueless.

Whatever the reasons, they tool they use to get people to agree is a common denominator

...

>semen
>conceived egg
Pick 1

You can kill every baby up to ~18 months. Confirmed.

...

not until they're about 1 and a half years old (another fun fact: Kenyian children only pass the test once they're 5)

lol ok

You're a retard

Or maybe it's just feedback from mirror neurons

Brutal
Abortion is fucking awesome

I understand that, but there is a morally safe position: if you defend no abortion beyond conception, there are literally no arguments that can be made against you.

Only that you are "playing it safe" (and you are). But that is moral.

Any argument where a mother or father's convenience, anxiety, grief, or worse even negligence, takes precedence over the pregnancy, is one where the person is forced to argue the non-humanity of the fetus/embryo at some arbitrary point and essentially try to justify what is technically murder (morally, not legally anymore) as being of lesser importance than whatever of the points above I stated, according to the situation (e.g. rape, young age, ignorance, etc..).

Human DNA is not an arbitrary measure at all, friend. Fetal development is.

Human DNA is clear: you have a human (a biotic entity with human DNA > a living being that is human in nature > a human, by any biological definition) the moment that the gametes are joined in fertilization, and they cease to be two cells with partial manifesting DNA from their host (as any somatic cell) and become a full, complete and unique DNA program bearing cell agglomeration (like any other human no matter how large, small, young or old). This is objectively when it becomes a new, separate entity and it is also objectively when it becomes a human "thing".

What is arbitrary is to try to pinpoint an alternate point in it's life where it would become a "true" human or not, and that leads us into metaphysical rhetoric over "humanity".

Safest position is always this: abortion after fertilization (i.e. conception) is the killing of a human being. Whether it has the right to live at that point is another, legal, matter.

But it is unarguably a kill, and unarguably of something "human" in nature.

...