Abortion is murder

Abortion is murder

Ok

it isn't, though

Yea, it's intentional murder of a child

Begone Jew.

The question though is when does a human gain life/rights. I think the best line to draw it at is conception. so yeah i agree

Shitposting is cancer

When the sperm meets the egg, that is a human being.

I wish you were aborted

it's not a child, it's just a collection of cells and goo, honestly.

It's a complete living being with it's own unique DNA, so it's a human being

Obvious facts are obvious.

Ivan, the troll bot, is trolling.

>It's a complete living being
you really need to learn some basic biology

It's a living being when it becomes sentient, and that happens way after the legal cutoff for abortion

Then why can't it defend itself?

Fucking true

Well we all are technically a collection of cells and goo

If someone got raped and was unable to live with a child, should they be able to get rid of it and not let it suffer a terrible life or should they let it live?

So a brain-dead accident victim isn't a human being because he or she isn't sentient?

Xd Guns for fetuses!!!
Who’s with me?

They only care about the baby when it's inside the woman. Once it's out it's the motner's problem. It's not about the rights of the child, it's about the lack of rights of the (prospective) mother

That is a shitty, shiity, arguement. Go and sit in the corner and you think about what you just did.

But for the record, no. Once a person is brain dead and no longer sentient, they're a corpse, not a human 'being'. The clue's in the name, dipshit

Woman do have a right to put unwanted baby into abortion, also, the majority of aborted childern are not coming from raped women. Abortion should be restricted only for raped women (this could also work as a motivation for rape victims to came out, and talk about this stuff to the police, so they can find the rapist)

So to you, any measure of brain damage automatically means that the person fades from being a human into being something else that should be eliminated?

The example proven by this guy you answered to is trully stupid, but how about people in a coma? And could you explain why it's a shitty argument besides the example?

Why do lefties love killing babies so much? This was the same rally Madonna threatened to blow up the white house at.

You're correct, it is murder.

The debate of abortion ethics is often detailed by that statement because it immediately polarizes people by making an emotional argument. Abortion isn't a bad thing if it's done to improve society. If you have a child that is going to be a burden by being handicapped in a way where it can never contribute, then you have made society worse. That child should have been aborted.

I don't agree with the wonton use of abortion as any sort of birth control, but if you know you can't care for the child and can't find someone who will properly raise the child to not be a degenerate, then you're sparing that person a bad life. It's more mercy killing if anything.

OP, let's pretend there's a house on fire. inside the house is a 5 year old child, and a cryogenic tank containing 1000 fertilized fetuses. you run in to the fire with only enough time to save one or the other, who do you save?

I believe life/rights begin once they start to pay taxes

And why do they want taxpayers to pay for it instead of themselves? Is it like a guilt thing? They want to spread it around

Why making society better is important?

The fetus' obviously

The 1000 fertilized fetuses of course. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

What? The guy said brain-dead, not brain-damaged or in a coma.

Someoneone who is brain dead is dead. End of, no longer living, a slab of meat on a table or in a ditch. Someone with brain damage can still live a semi-normal life. Someone in a coma may recover.

Those guys aren't brain dead, but you, on the other hand, I have my suspicions

...

Well if those fetuses were inside women, where they can develop, then i will run to save

Good attempt, but you're asking that question to the wrooong crowd

What's wrong with murder?
>The perils of overpopulation are much worse.

...

Because if the society is better, the people are happier.

Said by a person who can't read correctly. Like i said, I agree that this example was wrong, because this person is braindead, so it's just a body of a person, but how about people in a coma? If you want to convince someone to your will, then you need to stop insulting them and start making some arguments. What are you currently doing is called argumentum ad hominem, and it does not make you trustworthy.

burn them both?

you are full of shit. I guarantee if you were actually in that situation you would save the 5 year old, regardless of what you anonymously post on a message board.

If we found a single celled organism on another planet, we would consider it life. It would be counted among one of humanities greatest achievements.

Funny how that standard for life goes out of the window as soon as we're talking about a life that happens to interfere with someones convenience.


People are idiots. Shouldnt breed to begin with.

No I would save the fetusus with no hesitation

...

>What are you currently doing is called argumentum ad hominem
Seriously, you're trying to spout logical fallacies at me and complaining that I can't read correctly when I've already answered your point? Don't be so fucking patronising, you're making yourself look silly

>Someone in a coma may recover.

Now who can't fucking read? Cock.

>murder is wrong!!!!!1

It's ok. You'll grow out of it

Well, its sounds reasonable, but does few handicapped people really make any difference? I mean, it's like saying that gay people doesn't improve society because they don't make offspring.

If a 5 yo can't ru. Out of a burning building then she can't survive in the real world those fetus' still have a chance

You didn't answered my point, because i was asking about different situation. Besides that, you just insulted me with no reason at all. Read again my first post, i agreed with you that the example given by that dude was wrong. So what is your problem? Also, just read why people do use argumentum ad hominem, i put this name for a reason.

You really need to train how to speak with people :(

Additionally, here is a lawful argument.

Be consenting to acts that could result in pregnancy, you inherently form a contract with any fetus that would form.

The upholding of a contract between 2 entities can only be changed or voided if both agree or come to some compromise.

You, by knowingly putting yourself at risk of pregnancy and knowing what it entails, entitle the fetus to rights via your own action and person that guarantee its development and right to life (you need only admit that the fetus is of human conception to entitle it to human rights, which it clearly is).

Since the fetus can neither agree, disagree or compromise on any conditions of the contract, the initial conditions (that you agreed to by not being intelligent with sex) must stand in order to preserve those human rights.

Simple.

It is but still fuck of fagot

I argue that gay people do help because they are more likely to adopt an unwanted child than to have one of their own.

As far as the mentally handicapped go, any impact without contribution to offset what they take away is bad. Any country that offers assistance to parents of children who are incapable of contributing some day is having funds drained that would otherwise be put into programs that could help take care of children in foster care or the elderly that need assistance. What is the purpose of keeping someone alive who is crippled both mentally and physically to the point where they can't even do so much as feed themselves?

It's a different story if your child develops an illness and becomes incapable. But it's not fair to the family, or society if no one can care for it, to be forced to care for what is essentially a moaning lump.