Is this correct, Sup Forums?

Is this correct, Sup Forums?

Only if she’s black.

no. men have the right to decide. women are property.

Silly, there ARE no women's rights or ANY rights for anyone

No, I don't want some fucking bitch to kill my kid.

> Let me be a slut and murder my own children without any penalty

Leftists definition of a strong woman

So is sex, just don't have it if you don't want the fucking kid

No.
Abortion is a Household right, since there is more than one actor when it come to childbirth. The day humanity will reproduce by mitosis will be the day abortion be a individual choice.

imagine being so retarded you think this person is oppressed

Absolutely. Women who get abortions tend to be left-wing. We don't want them reproducing.

Why would you impregnate "some fucking bitch"?

Abortion is currently a get out of jail free card for fornicating. Not to even mention how I believe it’s murder and shouldn’t be allowed in marriage either.

(((Natural Rights))) are fucking cancer.

no, it's a sandnigger

>Let me be a slut and murder my own children without any penalty
This is why everybody laughs at rights-grabbing anti-choicers. All of their arguments are weepy and emotional.

Life is a woman's right and half the kids she's killing are female.

It doesn't matter. Why the fuck would anything like that diminish murder?

yes but she should be the one paying for it

Abortion is a family's right. I don't want downies :^)

>half the kids she's killing
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's illegal in the US to kill kids.

It's tough. It's because theres not one issue surrounding it, it's multiple issues, and any "solution" is still going to bring problems of it's own.

I am pro life, but I find when I tell people I believe killing a human life is wrong, they IMMEDIATELY respond with "it's not a human life".

That's the thing, much like with slaves, the fetus has been dehumanized to the point where people won't even THINK about it being a human. Then of course when you ask them what it is, they say "a fetus". Then you ask what a fetus is and that's why their cognitive dissidence starts to kick in as they scramble to define it as anything but a human, or they'll start making up really arbitrary definitions like "fully formed limbs" or "a brain". Really the only definition that holds true consistently is that it's a new human life at conception, and is at it's earliest stage of development, much like how a child is still developing, yet still a human.


But honestly the abortion debate is missing the reasoning why so many people get abortions. Fix the underlying issues and you can prevent a lot more abortions than the current shit slinging that goes on. But fixing the underlying issues means that we'll have to go back to some of the more traditional aspects of life. I don't see that happening since every single woman I talk to seems to think that every single issue, no matter what the results, is "progress", despite the fact that change can indeed be bad.

I don't care if it's human. My ancestors put sickly kids outside, knowing that they wouldn't be able to feed it and that it wouldn't be able to work. I agree that people that say a fetus isn't human are just using it as an excuse to cope, though.
Abortion is a non-issue here, because it's being used as it should; a more sophisticated culling of babies with unwanted traits like down syndrome.

no

>they'll start making up really arbitrary definitions like "fully formed limbs" or "a brain"
As if you don't make them up by casting spermatozoid not human and fetus human.

No, I'd like it to be the man's right too.

Like FUCK YOU if you think I want to raise an unwanted child.

>Abortion is a non-issue here, because it's being used as it should; a more sophisticated culling of babies with unwanted traits like down syndrome.

Abortions with genetic issues are in the minority. In that sense, abortion is absolutely not being used as it should.

So, where do the rights go if the baby is going to be a girl?

>the fetus has been dehumanized
Strawman garbage. The fetus is living human tissue, but not a human being - a person, until it is born. That's the time-honored 8000 year definition that we still hold today.

Ah yes, the "what if I trim my fingernail, that has my DNA and thus it's a human by your definition!" reddit tier argument.

Shame Russia, shame.

You icelandics showing the world just how evil State controlled medicine is
> These people will cost us too much, kill them all

Whose next? Spina bifida kids? The deaf? The elderly? Babies born with a cleft palate?

...

Stupid fucking Russian nigger. No wonder you sit in here and shill for killing babies because your shitty country's slutty women would all be crippled if they couldn't murder their kids

Spermatozoid is not fucking human. Let me tell you why you dumb slav nigger. A sperm cannot sit alone by itself in natural proceedings and produce a goddamn human. YOU KNOW WHAT DOES PRODUCE HUMANS? SPERM AND EGG. TOGETHER. For living in a shitty chicken coop you have no idea what fertilization is.

Show me the Jew that can jerk off onto the fucking ground and produce a Man in 20 years. This Jew must live in your polluted vodka potato head, you retarded monkey. But if he shoots a load up a cunt guess what? Pregnancy. This may be too difficult a concept for you to understand

You think you know so much about genetics when the truth of the matter is your dumb vodkanigger genes have been bred and buttered for Jewish mind-control ever since the Revolution. I see now that the bolshevik slaughtered all intellectuals in your barren land, for there is no hereditary wisdom within you.

>fetus is living human tissue, but not a human being - a person, until it is born.

That's most definitely not the definition. "Human" it's some arbitrary social construct like you want it to be. There's no biological change that suddenly happens during the few inches of traveling through the moms vagina that makes it human all of a sudden. It's not brought into "being" at that point. You know when It is brought into being? Conception. Hence, Human being.

On the issue of abortion, I am pro-life. However, I believe in a womans right to bodily agency. Assuming we all hold these two rights and uninfringable, we come to the "right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins"

Since neither side can definitively define when an unborn child is a human (some garbage liberals will say at any point its okay to kill them, even at 9 months in). The question of when consciousness(something science cannot define) enters the human body.

The egyptians believed that the soul enters the childs body at 7 weeks (49 days) of development. This is the number I go with. Some pro-lifers will say even at conception it should be considered a human.

Now there are exceptions, like if the pregnancy could kill the woman, in which hit is okay to terminate. But as I see it, pregnancy is a special case in which its the only way to create a human being.

Imagine being such a vile creature you fight for the right to kill your own children.

Even animals are more honorable than women.

I'm curious about what you think about aborting babies with downs and other diseases. There's no way to prevent it in a traditional sense. You could be a god-fearing, sex after marriage Christian that plans ahead for the baby and still get a baby with downs.

Fuck, you called me reddit, so I guess you win now. God damn it.

Many animals eat their young, watch their young get eaten by their siblings etc. What's your point there?

>I believe in a womans right to bodily agency.
I don't think women have shown they're up to the task of autonomy

>a human
>a human
A human what? Being? Is that the understood word you keep desperately trying to avoid saying because you know it belies your claim?

So women can either be below animals or equal to animals how about them being human?

Except it gets reaaaaaaal hazy when the only thing that separates "tissue" from "baby" is whether the doctor's hands reach in to deliver it (say, via cesarean), or to crush its skull. This particular status of
"is it a human being or not" is dependent on another acting being. It's fucking retarded.

We are equal to animals. We've been killing our babies for millennia. Besides, his point was that animals were above killing their young which is objectively false.

>they'll start making up really arbitrary definitions like "fully formed limbs" or "a brain"
>they'll start making up really arbitrary definitions like "it has to reach the egg first" or "it has to produce human in natural proceedings"
I guess -user was right after all, brainlets will make up arbitrary conditions meeting which makes a human as they go.

Niggers aren't human.
>They have almost identical DNA with whites.
>Fetuses aren't human.
The white ones literally do have identical DNA with whites.
>Doesn't count because I want to murder them.
That's why you will burn forever.

until a certain point
when embryo resembles a human too closely she has no rights.

no

It's tough. Is it easier to abort? Absolutely. Some of these kids are a lifelong commitment with zero chance of passing on any kind of legacy, biological or values.

But...many of these kids are also happy to be alive. All? No. But many. And they can often bring a lot of joy to the parents still.

I'd still be towards the end of it being morally wrong though. But it's extremely tough. But just remember that's it's also extremely easy to move quickly to finding a moral equivalence with that, and eugenics.

Only if said women willingly admits that casually killing unborn yet clearly living children is perfectly acceptable.

Fake?

>Fuck, you called me reddit, so I guess you win now. God damn it.

Oh dear, you reading comprehension isn't so good either. I said your argument was reddit tier. Not you.

>they'll start making up

Travel 500 years up your ancestral tree you goddamn inbred serf cumstain and you will find more common wisdom in the average non-communist than in your combined universities. Nigger this isn't "made up" this is how it has been since the dawn of Man. You are the one making STUPID ARBITRARY CHOICES TO MURDER BABIES

State should have complete control of who breeds and who doesn't?

Heroin addict with 9 partners in the past month? No.

Convicted for 85 counts of assault, theft and burglary? No.

Happily married, wealthy, well-educated? Yes and throw in a tax cut as well.

Yes you faggot a human being now stop arguing your semantics. I don't mean a fucking human chicken when I use the word human.

>That's most definitely not the definition.
You have clearly mistaken me for another user or you reading skills are subpar.

>"Human" it's some arbitrary social construct like you want it to be.
I'm going with the social construct that billions of other human beings also believe.

>There's no biological change that suddenly happens during the few inches of traveling through the moms vagina that makes it human all of a sudden.
Any biologist will tell you that there are dozens of major changes that occur in the moments of birth. The fetus is submerged in the amniotic fluid until birth/hatching just like any other egg. It's literally an egg until the day the woman's "water" breaks. And that's when the fetus dramatically changes from a submerged growth to a living, breathing human being in our world. The lungs begin to open and for the first time the fluid drains out and air fills the lungs. The ductus venosus and hepatic portal vein suddenly close off from the heart. The skin, previously submerged in amniotic fluid, is now exposed to air and sensing direct human contact. The umbilical cord no longer caries away urine and waste. The placenta breaks free from the uterine wall and the alimentary canal opens for business. It really is the miracle that this egg hatches and this human growth becomes alive.

A zygote interacting with a gamete is nothing compared to birth.

>You know when It is brought into being?
Ok, how many human beings do you claim to see in this picture?

...

It's not black and white.

On one hand it is an extra opportunity to escape a spermjacking on the other hand it means that men have less reproductive rights.

no, it's extremely left you dumbass

So, do you want people to have the right to abort downies or not?

>>they'll start making up really arbitrary definitions like "it has to reach the egg first" or "it has to produce human in natural proceedings"

What? I've never heard anyone use those definitions for what a human is. Once the egg and sperm join together, a new and separate unique human DNA is brought into existence. That's the only consistent argument for where a line can be definitively drawn for when an individual human life begins.

>only thing that separates "tissue" from "baby" is whether the doctor's hands reach in to deliver it
If it is viable, everything works, it can live outside the womb, then any kind of removing it or it leaving on its own is birth. If it the fetus is not viable, if it stops growing, we call it a stillborn. At that point it's medical waste like your basic burst appendix.

>Since neither side can definitively define when an unborn child is a human

Its pretty easy. Conception is the defining moment. It has distinct DNA from mother and father and if given time will become a fully fledged human being. Yes its just a clump of cells, but if cells are considered alive, then the embryo is as well. Anything else is just personal opinion/belief or a way to deflect from the fact you will be terminating this life and preventing it from forming into a developed human being.

Pro-choice crowd just needs to admit that they are comfortable with ending this potential human's life. Dont beat around the bush, dont try and tell anyone its not a human just because it hasnt pushed its face out of your vagina, dont act like you care about whether it feels pain or not. Just admit you are fine with ending human lives for your own personal convenience.

When they can make babies on their own then the baby can be their responsibility wholly. Until then they are merely part of the process.

The U.S. has a legal and philosophical inconsistency where we will consider the murder of a mother with child as two homicides, but an abortion will not even be acknowledged as a homicide. To me, much of the "pro-choice" rhetoric stinks like pro-abortion, and even as an atheist, the arguments that a fetus is not a life are at best callous and unfeeling.

The truth is that the choice to be made is when sexual intercourse happens. That is the right we reserve inherently. Prove to a court that the intercourse was non-consensual, that you have no understanding that sex makes babies, or that carrying to term incurs a significant risk of fatality. Eugenics is touchy. Anyone that espouses the desire to abort people with Down's should be brave enough to introduce themselves to a room full of them, one-by-one, look them in their beady eyes and tell then their lives aren't worth living.

The "conscience-free" abortion is a vile thought that should be shunned by a civilized society. Too many advocate talking points stumble way too close to that for my liking.

I don't think anyone should be deciding for someone else if they want to live or die.

I do fully support someone wanting to kill themselves later on if they want to though.

>I'm going with the social construct that billions of other human beings also believe.
Half of the population disagrees with your definition, you intellectually dishonest faggot. Your defense is a half-assed and poorly conceived appeal to tradition that dismisses the fact that people were executed for abortions in the past, and the general populace was okay with it. So if you're going to make these dense appeals rather than defending the ethical definition outside of stupid semantics, you should really go fuck yourself.

>Pro-choice crowd just needs to admit that they get laid often enough to not want every girl they fuck to make them pay for a child

fix'd

>I said your argument was reddit tier
>Everything I don't like is reddit tier
>I didn't actually called you reddit jokes on you!
Have some decency. I literally pointed out hypocritical and arbitrary your own casting of fetus human is. Ironically you went out of your way to say that your opponents use arbitrary goalposts when defining human.
You're absolutely out of touch my dude, adjust your moral compass as soon as possible.

>State should have complete control of who breeds and who doesn't?

I think in general giving the state the ability to control the aspect of reproduction is a fucking terrible idea.

>philosophical definition of life
>weepy and emotional

Really made me think

Last I checked, a man didn't have to endure the pain of child birth. Abortion is a woman's right.

Of course not! Abortion is a sin! Women must always gives births to children! If God gives a Zayka than gives and Lujayka!

We're not debating whether the act is called birth or stillborn, you dishonest and inconsistent little bitch. We're debating what determines whether it's a human being or not, so don't try to change the question at hand. Because if we go by your stupid fucking definition you just proposed (a definition no one asked for), then people on life support aren't human beings.

As long as they admin they are OK will killing unborn babies.

>but if cells are considered alive, then the embryo is as well.
So your arm cells are a human being, too? I think there's a difference between living tissue and a living being.

>preventing it from forming into a developed human being.
Why? You're saying it's not a human being now as a fetus? It may be a human being one day, but not today?

Another user here was upset about "semantics" because it tripped him up too. Language tells the story about what words actually mean.

>amniotic fluid until birth/hatching just like any other egg. It's literally an egg until the day the woman's "water" breaks. And that's when the fetus dramatically changes from a submerged growth to a living, breathing human being in our world. The lungs begin to open and for the first time the fluid drains out and air fills the lungs. The ductus venosus and hepatic portal vein suddenly close off from the heart. The skin, previously submerged in amniotic fluid, is now exposed to air and sensing direct human contact. The umbilical cord no longer caries away urine and waste. The placenta breaks free from the uterine wall and the alimentary canal opens for business. It really is the miracle that this egg hatches and this human growth becomes alive.

And which of those processes "make it" a human being? Is someone born of a c-section not fully human because it missed a few steps? Theres no reasons why any of the processes you describe someone form a "human being". You give an example of it literally being an egg. What the fuck do you think is inside the egg you retard. the "being" isn't an egg itself. Christ.

A true man has to endure the pain that the ungrateful slut he so mistakenly impregnated has the utter lack of human decency and soul to murder their child for the sake of "convenience." He also has to deal with the pain that lawmakers go out and say this is perfectly fine

Pregnancy is painful, but it is a woman's burden in life to have that pain. Men have their own burdens: having their child be killed before the boy can be born into the world is not a natural burden for a man to bear

So people that did everything you said, and lived a traditional, chaste lifestyle are now stuck with some drooling husk "individual" because of basically moralfagging? You said it yourself, not everybody is gonna be happy taking care of a reject and it's because it goes against their very being. Pro-life is anti-nature, essentially, and why I'll never ascribe to it.

>pain means I can kill something
Hey, if my kids are unknowingly physically torturing me, I can kill them!

Do not reply to commieflags

>Why? You're saying it's not a human being now as a fetus? It may be a human being one day, but not today?
>Another user here was upset about "semantics" because it tripped him up too. Language tells the story about what words actually mean.

You're really bad at inferring what people mean given the context. Do you really think that he thinks that arm cells are a human being? Does that make any sense to you?

You're purposely using semantics to try and get someone in a "GOTCHA" moment rather than looking for truth. Stop that. It's dishonest.

A fetus is a prenatal human between the embyonic stage and birth. The embyo would be the first stage of human development in the womb. They are still human, not hard to understand.

As for arm cells.. well if I go up and "abort" your arm with a knife you wont be too happy right? I just destroyed tissue of a human being which is generally frowned up at the very least.

>Why? You're saying it's not a human being now as a fetus? It may be a human being one day, but not today?
He clearly distinguished "developed" human being, not whether development renders a stud of "human being" or not. You are, again, a dishonest fag.

Nope just another democrat.

*status* not stud

>So people that did everything you said, and lived a traditional, chaste lifestyle are now stuck with some drooling husk "individual" because of basically moralfagging? You said it yourself, not everybody is gonna be happy taking care of a reject and it's because it goes against their very being. Pro-life is anti-nature, essentially, and why I'll never ascribe to it.

Pretty sure nature doesn't give women the choice to abort their fetus because it's inconvenient. The next answer beyond that would be abandonment on their child when it's born, despite it possibly being healthy. Certainly more healthy babies are aborted now than ones with genetic defects. So in that sense, it's actually pro-choice that is anti nature. But it's irrelevant because aligning yourself purely to whats more natural is really dumb as you could ascribe that to almost every single facet of your modern life.

It's not even good semantics. He's purposefully ignoring deliberately placed context and making absurdist conclusions (that anyone with half a brain can see through) based on his own ignorant readings. He's being dishonest on purpose, so telling him to stop being dishonest isn't a wake up call or something. This faggot should stick to making quips on Twitter.

I seriously dont get pol, we should all push for abortion to be legal, will i push my girlfriend to go through one? no, would she try it without me knowing? dont think so... Wil blacks and feminists and leftists do them yes, so why oppose it if it helps against these flouride addicts future kids ?

>Half of the population disagrees with your definition.
Half of [today's population] and [only in the US]
Most societies and cultures that came before didn't count their chickens until they hatched.

Your defense is a half-assed and poorly conceived appeal to tradition that dismisses the fact that people were executed for abortions in the past,
The Church was always eager to execute people for the silliest transgressions. It signifies nothing.

>So if you're going to make these dense appeals rather than defending the ethical definition outside of stupid semantics,
The only ethical definition is that new human life begins the moment is it born. A woman's egg, fertilized or not remains her egg until the moment it hatches. And there is no higher deontological ethic than self-determination - the right of every human being to decide for themselves how to live their lives. Women have the natural and inalienable right to decide, for themselves, if they will bear children or not.

If I ask you how old you are, you tell me in years since your birth. We celebrate the day you came to life and call it your birthday. They call birth a miracle, it's always been that way. You can google it. I just don't get these people who have zero interest in humanity suddenly are consumed by fertilization, then just as suddenly drop back to zero interest the moment a child is born. It's people like you who are radically trying to move the goalposts to some other less plausible definition because of your contrarian nature.

>you intellectually dishonest faggot. you should really go fuck yourself.
I think you got some spittle on your keyboard there.

Exactly. Even by his own reasoning, the only difference between a c-section and an abortion is the intent of the human whose hands are going in. By his poorly conceived biological definition, a human being isn't a human being unless it's purposefully treated with care. It's pants on head retardation.

I will say, even though I am pro-life, I'm not necessarily for forcing other people to be pro-life.

Like I agree that eating meat is morally wrong. Killing another animal when we have more than enough viable alternatives just isn't justifiable. BUT, I still eat meat. Why? Because i'm not a perfectly moral person. I do lot's of things I don't consider morally right. I still TRY to be, but there are some things that I'll probably never give up, like meat (well maybe pork as I had no idea pigs were so intelligent).

So it is good or bad that other people are pro choice? I don't know. Maybe it just "is".

Yeah sure whatever. But she has to pay for it out of her own pocket.

Women dont have rights.

>We're not debating whether the act is called birth or stillborn,
Right, you would have lost that debate, too.

>We're debating what determines whether it's a human being or not,
Here, write it down this time. A fetus is growing human tissue, but it's not a human being until it is born.

>then people on life support aren't human beings.
You mean already born people? By the standard definition, already born people are human beings.

You're not really very good at this thinking thing, are you?

I have one polocy on abortion
If its a nigger, pull the trigger

Listen, little faggot, are you going to continue to ignore the ethical problems you've introduced by your definitions?

Please state how dependent humans on life support are different from babies who CAN survive I'd they're delivered and taken to a NICU.

Please state how your label of "human being" is not dependent on the intent of the human whose hands touch the fetus.

You refuse to address these points. You'll probably misread this and strawman it, too. Have fun.

You stupid obfuscating self-righteous pompous dick sucker. Tell me the difference between a premie delivered via cesarean (taken to the NICU) and another baby aborted. Both procedures happen at 26 weeks. Just answer.

>And which of those processes "make it" a human being?
Birth.

>Is someone born of a c-section not fully human because it missed a few steps?
What steps do you believe were missed? This will be good for laugh.

>Theres no reasons why any of the processes you describe someone form a "human being".
The "forming" is the growth of the fetus. The birth is the new human being. Did you really not know any of this before now?


>What the fuck do you think is inside the egg you retard.
A fetus, of course. What do you believe is inside the egg?

>>Is someone born of a c-section not fully human because it missed a few steps?
>What steps do you believe were missed? This will be good for laugh.
Predictable. He refused to answer the question and instead asked a different one.

Dude. You're literally an ethical coward.

Hold on a second. Are you trying to say when it becomes a PERSONS? Because that's very different from a human being. Hell even a quick google search would have shown you that human being isn't used in the way you're trying to use it.

And theres still many things wrong with the argument that a human becomes a persons only immediately after birth. Stop acting like it's settled.