>>18482168
>morally wrong
Morality is relative
While there are local instances of absolute morality, there are supervening local instances of the opposite morality

incels have no skin in the reproductive game and as such their opinions are of no consequence

>>18482168
It's only morally wrong if the child was white. The entire third world should abort.

>>18482171
Ought we be truthful, honest, and represent each side fairly in a debate?

>>18482171
>Morality is relative
I don't think this position is worth taking.

>>18482168
>Abortion is morally wrong.
Why?

>>18482201
Because it is a violation of human dignity.

>>18482202
How? Real question who's human dignity?

>>18482197
>I don't think this position is worth taking.
It's not a position, it's a fact.
>Ought we be truthful, honest, and represent each side fairly in a debate?
Depends on the debate, as with anything.

>>18482168
It helps keep undesirable populations low.

>>18482204
>It's not a position, it's a fact.
As long as you understand you are giving up the ability to make moral and ethics arguments. It's a tough thing to defend and rhetorically difficult to convince a normie.

>>18482212
>the ability to make moral and ethics arguments
Those are for adolescents.

>>18482203
The human dignity of the fetus. It is a separate organism with its own DNA and biological processes that make it alive and different from the mother even if for a temporary period of time it depends on the mother for life.
>but its not conscious
Should we go around killing comatose people? Should we go around killing people with severe brain deformities that render them non-conscious in the way we are? Should we go around murdering new borns since arguably they do not experience the same levels of consciousness as us? At what level of consciousness is it morally wrong to harm things since arguably many living things are conscious. Possibly insects have consciousness on a very low level.

I wish all chads were incels

>>18482212
>As long as you understand you are giving up the ability to make moral and ethics arguments
Once again, entirely depends on the context. In an absolute sense, sure. In a localized sense, why not?

>>18482224
What you're doing is entierly meaningless. Ethics begins with the assumption that there is a morality "out there" to be known, and by finding out what it is, we can model what kinds of actions are acceptable or non-acceptable in it via ethical systems in the same way that physics assumes there are physical laws "out there" and that we can theorize about them and make mathematical models.

>>18482219
>Should we go around killing comatose people?
There are procedures and legal systems in place that allow families to make the decision to "pull the plug"
>Should we go around murdering new borns since arguably they do not experience the same levels of consciousness as us?
No because they are conscious, I would even concede that at a certain point in development an unborn child becomes conscious. But a zygote is certainly not a conscious being.
>At what level of consciousness is it morally wrong to harm things since arguably many living things are conscious
There is a general agreement of what level it is okay for. Like vegetative patients or fetuses early in development.

>>18482233
>Ethics begins with the assumption that there is a morality "out there" to be known, and by finding out what it is, we can model what kinds of actions are acceptable or non-acceptable in it via ethical systems in the same way that physics assumes there are physical laws "out there" and that we can theorize about them and make mathematical models.
Your fatal mistake is in thinking there is a single, absolute ethics. That's what moral pluralism or relativism basically refutes.
Define the framework and ground rules first in which we argue about specific ethical principles, and then we can do such. Until then, the facts are simple: we can't argue about shit

>>18482238
> >>18482238
>There are procedures and legal systems in place that allow families to make the decision to "pull the plug"
Just because something is legal does not make it morally correct. Lex iniusta non est lex.

>No because they are conscious, I would even concede that at a certain point in development an unborn child becomes conscious. But a zygote is certainly not a conscious being.
Well you only think that because you're a physicalist about consciousness. But even if you are correct, and indeed maybe you are, it doesn't solve the issue. It makes consciousness an arbitrary factor in determining what is right and what is wrong. If any being, even an insect, could expereince even the slightest levels of pain and suffering, is it morally wrong to kill them? Cows seems pretty aware. Should we kill cows. Who are you to say they aren't conscious? We can't even measure consciousness reliably, we can only make inferences. Also why does suffering make something bad in the first place? Arguably suffering can be good. How and why would you conclude suffering = bad unless you have a moral framework that assumes suffering is bad and we ought not to make things suffer? It doesn't automatically follow that just because something suffers that that suffering is bad.

>>18482238
>There is a general agreement of what level it is okay for. Like vegetative patients or fetuses early in development.
Argumentum ad populum.

>>18482246
>Your fatal mistake is in thinking there is a single, absolute ethics. That's what moral pluralism or relativism basically refutes.
Why assume any differently? Naively it seems like a pretty good assumption to make.
>Define the framework and ground rules first in which we argue about specific ethical principles, and then we can do such. Until then, the facts are simple: we can't argue about shit
But you're self refuting. You would have to accept the framework in the first place to argue about it. If we can't agree on some first principles then we cannot speak. This is basic Aristotelian epistemology.

>>18482262
>Just because something is legal does not make it morally correct
But it is consistent with the belief that abortion is okay.

>If any being...
A lot of animals do show evidence of higher levels of consciousness and because of that I do believe that factory farming is a cruel thing. Bugs are clearly more like robots.

>We can't even measure consciousness, we can only make inferences.
We don't have to have an exact quantifiable number to make judgements.

>Arguably suffering can be good
Huh?

>>18482264
>Argumentum ad populum.
No because the point of bringing that up was to try and expose a contradiction in my worldview but my response shows that no such contradiction exists.

>>18482266
>Why assume any differently? Naively it seems like a pretty good assumption to make.
Naively yes, until you grow up and realise not just society's ethics change, but your own as well. Literally all evidence points to ethics not being a monolith.
The closest thing we can get to ethics is super base instincts, but even then there's exceptions due to spirituality and religiosity.
>But you're self refuting. You would have to accept the framework in the first place to argue about it.
I don't mind accepting any framework you propose if we're purely arguing about the correct ethics in that framework. What I reject is that there's a single "true" framework.

>>18482281
>But it is consistent with the belief that abortion is okay.
How?

>A lot of animals do show evidence of higher levels of consciousness and because of that I do believe that factory farming is a cruel thing.
What if we killed them instantly? Isn't this why there are both laws and ethical codes that advocate the humane treatment of animals, especially livestock?

>We don't have to have an exact quantifiable number to make judgements.
Correct. So how do you know that insects aren't conscious? I'm not saying they are but it is plausible they are. There's no scientific agreement on this. At what point of consciousness do we stop killing?

>Huh?
Just because something is does not mean it ought to be. Just because something suffers does not mean it ought to or ought not to suffer. You cannot conclude moral statements from things that are. This is the naturalistic fallacy. We have no reason to think suffering = bad unless you make an a priori assumption that it is bad, or if its a consequence of something other assumed thing of your moral framework.

>No because the point of bringing that up was to try and expose a contradiction in my worldview but my response shows that no such contradiction exists.
How so?

>>18482292
>Naively yes, until you grow up and realise not just society's ethics change, but your own as well.
All kinds of things in societies change. Science is a social endeavor, and it has changed. Just because our theories change does not rule out the objectivity of whatever we're theorizing about.

>I don't mind accepting any framework you propose if we're purely arguing about the correct ethics in that framework. What I reject is that there's a single "true" framework.
But you just self-refuted again. If you think that moral relativism is the correct moral framework, then that itself is a relative moral framework. And you said I need to "grow up." How about you take a basic logic class first.

>>18482299
What proof do you have for morals being as objective as physical facts?
My observations tell me: morals are not objective at all. Even for a human collective, morals vary to such a vast degree, that they directly oppose each other in many circumstances. Even (for moral objectivists/realists/universalists) seemingly obvious facts can be easily contradicted by millions of people.
>If you think that moral relativism is the correct moral framework
I don't think it's a framework at all. You're confusing metaethics with ethics. To me, moral relativism or pluralism (I actually prefer the latter because people immediately start seething about moral relativism) is just a simple fact about the existence of multiple frameworks and ultimately speaking, there being no objective way to compare them against each other, unless you provide some axioms (core beliefs). Sure I have a framework of my own, but it's based on my core believes obviously.

File: soyjak-angry.png (40 KB, 435x498)

40 KB PNG

>sex isnt a right incel
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CANT ABORT MY BABY SEX IS LITERALLY A RIGHT
Lol.

>>18482309
>What proof do you have for morals being as objective as physical facts?
I don't believe morals are physical facts at all. I take moral realism to be the starting point of ethics because non-moral-realism often result in absurdities.

>Even for a human collective, morals vary to such a vast degree, that they directly oppose each other in many circumstances.
Again this doesn't mean there isn't an objective morality. We can just be wrong about what morality is and how to model it through an ethical framework. Moral realist can actually make the opposite claims of you and show how there are moral beliefs that are consistent across cultures. In fact they could also argue for moral progress, much in the same we have scientific progress.

>I don't think it's a framework at all. You're confusing metaethics with ethics.
Actually you are right I made a mistake. I misunderstood you there for a second. My apologies.

>>18482319
>I take moral realism to be the starting point of ethics because non-moral-realism often result in absurdities.
Show me an absurdity and I'll show you why it's not absurd at all according to a subset of people on earth
>there are moral beliefs that are consistent across cultures
There literally is no such thing

Anyway, let's start arguing should be fun! Especially since you have a certain set of beliefs both regarding frameworks themselves and a framework. So, what morals do you wanna argue about? Or do you wanna first clarify realism vs pluralism?

>>18482294
>How?
It's isn't a gotcha. A commatose person is dependent on someone else for their survival, in the case of being braindead they don't have a conscious experience. Sure they could wake up but they also might not. I believe that a family should not be forced to keep them alive on a chance they may recover. Obviously the specifics and details if when it is okay to pull the plug are best handled by experts such as doctors and such.

>What if we killed them instantly?
That's okay. And before you make the jump to humans with the same logic, I don't give animal life equivalent value to human life, because I'm human. But I don't think the amount of suffering they experience in factory farms is okay.

>So how do you know that insects aren't conscious?
Well they have a lot smaller brain and nervous system and their behavior is very predictable and robotic. Like if a flea sees a light flicker they instinctually jump towards it because they interpret it as the shadow of a host passing by. Their behavior is similar to what we see in programmed systems, I'm very confident they don't have an inner experience.
>Just because something...your moral framework.
Are you the moral relativist anon? I'll make a simple argument ig if you really really need one.
I don't like suffering. Therefore other people don't like suffering. Therefore we should work together to reduce the amount if suffering.
How are you going to argue that suffering is good? And I don't take suffering to be the same thing as discomfort or struggle. I would agree that exercise or learning is good even though it can cause discomfort or struggle. I would not agree that getting lung cancer is good for any reason.

>>18482326
>How are you going to argue that suffering is good?
Relativist anon here (not the same one you're replying to)
This is literally the foundation of some of the biggest religions on earth. Actually shows very well how vastly different moral perception can be, you believe in reducing suffering, but some religious people would argue that without suffering you'd literally have no free will so we need at least some suffering and this reducing suffering as much as possible is not just bad, but directly goes against god.

>>18482325
>Show me an absurdity and I'll show you why it's not absurd at all according to a subset of people on earth
I think you're confusing the fact that there are relative moral system with the idea that moral realism is true. Like nobody is going to disagree with you per se that on one level morality is relative in the sense of culture. But that doesn't mean morality simpliciter is relative. It doesn't show there isn't a universal moral framework. The problem with moral relativism on any level is that you cannot have genuine moral disagreement between different moral frameworks because you would be operating on fundamentally different assumptions. Unless we have some basic first principles we share about morality, then it seems like we can't have moral debate or ethics at all.
>There literally is no such thing
>https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/701478
> In 961 out of 962 observations (99.9%), cooperative behavior had a positive moral valence. The results for each type of cooperative behavior are given in table 2.
>A survey of 60 diverse societies found that the moral valence of seven cooperative behaviors was uniformly positive. In every society for which there were data, these seven cooperative behaviors were considered morally good. There were no counterexamples, that is, societies in which these behaviors were considered morally bad. The survey also found that these cooperative morals were widespread—with most appearing in most societies—and that they were observed with equal frequency across all cultural regions.

>>18482335
I guess the question is if you're constraining yourself to humanity.
But moral realism doesn't do that, so I have a problem with moral realism. Moral realism says there's objective moral statements about EVERYTHING. That seems extremely illogical to me, since I can easily conceive of an alien civilization with completely inverted morals.
Now whether that distinction is useful is a different question, but I prefer the truth (moral relativism) over a white lie.
>study
An appeal to popularity does not prove moral realism. I'm sure I can find you some monks or shut-ins who'll say cooperation is bad.
Now, do I think that WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS of humanity, there is a an abstract set of base morals that most (not all, most), humans will agree with? Sure. But that doesn't contradict my general position.

Anyway I'm not running away, just going to sleep so i won't respond for a few hours if you're waiting for another one, just letting you neutrally know

>>18482329
No heaven allowed on earth. Yeah that makes sense.

>>18482326
>It's isn't a gotcha. A commatose person is dependent on someone else for their survival, in the case of being braindead they don't have a conscious experience. Sure they could wake up but they also might not. I believe that a family should not be forced to keep them alive on a chance they may recover. Obviously the specifics and details if when it is okay to pull the plug are best handled by experts such as doctors and such.
But you haven't justified why it's ok to pull the plug on them. If you say it's because they're not conscious, why should consciousness be considered the cornerstone of how morally treat others?

>That's okay. And before you make the jump to humans with the same logic, I don't give animal life equivalent value to human life, because I'm human. But I don't think the amount of suffering they experience in factory farms is okay.
So then you agree that there is objective human value then? How do we determine which humans have more value than other humans? You haven't justified that.

>Well they have a lot smaller brain and nervous system and their behavior is very predictable and robotic. Like if a flea sees a light flicker they instinctually jump towards it because they interpret it as the shadow of a host passing by. Their behavior is similar to what we see in programmed systems, I'm very confident they don't have an inner experience.
1. You're assuming physicalism
2. Even if physicalism were true that doesn't rule out insects are conscious since consciousness could exist on a variety of levels.

>I don't like suffering. Therefore other people don't like suffering.
That is a non-sequitur.

>>18482326
>How are you going to argue that suffering is good?
Well maybe good can be brought out of suffering. Aquinas theodicy includes this in it. Suffering can bring about endurance, psychological growth, maybe in fact a small group of people suffering can bring a large degree or pleasure to an even larger degree of people if you accept a kind of consequentialism and believe pleasure = good. My point is that you cannot conclude suffering is bad simply because there is suffering, you need to either a priori hold to it, or deduce it from some other assumption you hold to like maybe, "suffering doesn't lead to human flourishing, and lack of human flourishing is bad, so suffering is bad" or something along those lines.

>>18482352
>That seems extremely illogical to me, since I can easily conceive of an alien civilization with completely inverted morals.
So you mean to say: "I can conceive of a morally different culture or species or whatever, therefore there is no objective morality."
This is a modal fallacy. Descartes also did this when he tried to argue that the mind is a different substance from the body since he could "conceive that the mind and body were different." You can conceive of a world full of relative moral systems, it doesn't mean moral relativism is true.
>An appeal to popularity does not prove moral realism. I'm sure I can find you some monks or shut-ins who'll say cooperation is bad.
>Now, do I think that WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS of humanity, there is a an abstract set of base morals that most (not all, most), humans will agree with? Sure. But that doesn't contradict my general position.
Well you're right, it doesn't. But that wasn't my point. My point was to simply show how your claim that there are no shared set of moral values is false. You cannot then use your prior claim to prove moral relativism. So either you're contradicting yourself or you concede my point.

So is being a faggot yet OP exists

>>18482219
This is correct. Anything to the contrary is cope from people too scared or too poor (or both) to deal with an unplanned child. It is unequivocally an act of murder.

>>18482168
How many babies have you adopted anon? This is a genuine question.

>>18482168
So much of your life comes down to the love and support of your parents, and as a result I don't think unwanted children should be brought into the world. It's unfair to everyone.

>>18482640
Nah this is a stupid question. The two people who spawn the child are the ones who shoulder the responsibility of raising it. It's not OP's job to raise a random child when someone deliberately went and got fucked and spawned it despite all the contraceptive options out there.

>>18482219
Yes it's murder but nobody cares. People do mean stuff all the time. Factory farming is also evil but so what, people are still going to eat meat because it's tasty

>>18482368
>This is a modal fallacy.
It's really not when we are talking about absolute moral statements. Also I obviously mean physically and logically conceive. Doesn't even have to be another planet, imagine humanity dies out and we get a bunch of sentient parasites, cooperation definitely would be absolute immoral for them since they're parasitic by nature.
>You can conceive of a world full of relative moral systems, it doesn't mean moral relativism is true.
I don't need to conceive of one, we live in one. The alien thing is just a drastic example to exemplify it. The fact alone that exceptions for any moral statements exist on earth is sufficient to prove moral relativism. I'm sure I can find you some antisocial people or super ascetic monks who'll argue cooperation is bad. Same goes for base instincts like survival, I'm sure I can find some ultra nihilists.
>But that wasn't my point. My point was to simply show how your claim that there are no shared set of moral values is false
Yeah fair, that claim was too drastic, obviously there are
>You cannot then use your prior claim to prove moral relativism
The claim that there are no shared values? Sure. I guess I should refine it to sa "there are no universal absolute shared values". Do you agree or disagree?

>>18482753
>It's not the person who wants the children to exist that should be responsible for the children
Contraceptives are abortion my friend.

>>18482168
The only people who get abortions are blacks and spics. It's a non issue if you aren't some deranged evangelical who thinks the Earth won't survive without infinite shitskins.
>>18482753
Hahaha prime example of worthless fucking self righteous faggot right here
>no you can't just abort kids you can't feed...that's immoral!
>*kid ends up in the foster system*
>wtf why are my taxes so high? must be muh librulz

>>18482803
>force people to have kids they don't want
>Surprised Pikachu when they fucking loathe their kids and smack them around and take zero interest in their education or development

>>18482802
Nope. Contraceptives are methods of preventing pregnancy. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

>>18482803
If you shit your pants and make a big mess, is it my responsibility to clean it up? Or is it yours because you're the one who shit yourself? You sound like a fucking ignorant nigger yourself.

>>18482807
You forced yourself to have a kid when you decided to engage in a reproductive act with no protection. Disallowing you from murdering your own kid is not "forcing you" to do anything, you did it to yourself. Stop trying to shift the blame for your own actions, ya fuckin' loser.

>>18482814
>children have no effect on their surroundings or society in general
Must be easy living with such toddler tier moralistic world views

>>18482827
Reading things that aren't there again, lil schizo?

>>18482830
>I'm too retarded to put two and two together, pls spoonfeed me
Fine.
You say
>is it my responsibility to clean it up? Or is it yours because you're the one who shit yourself?
That's great and all, but we aren't isolated creatures. For better or in this case for worse, the unaborted children grow up to be members of society. They interact with YOU and your children. So yes, it actually will be your mess to clean up too, albeit to a lesser extent.

>>18482205
Imagine how many bikes, TVs would be stolen and convenience stores robbed and innocent whites murdered without abortion. I agree good sir

>>18482834
That doesn't make it my responsibility when some dipshit breeds, nor does it make it not murder to kill it. Now, whether or not you view its murder at the hands of its retarded parent as justifiable for the greater good of society is a separate question.

>>18482857
Your argument is disallowing abortion because it's murder and murder is some fatal moral injustice.
Do you have the same world view about an intruder in your house? If no, where do you draw the line and why?

>>18482807
>people do a reproductive act without preconises that they might get pregnant
>Surprised Pikachu when their actions have consequences and they can just whore around or have "have fun"
You are like a fucking onions bitch boy,
"Whattt!!! you are telling me that women cant jus kill their new-borns, because they just fell like it because they sex!!"

>>18482862
>Do you have the same world view about an intruder in your house? If no, where do you draw the line and why?
Those are completely different things??
You chose to have sex, a reproductive act; you know of the possibility of Bering child
you didn't fucking choses to do an act so an intruder comes.
You are fucking retareded

>>18482862
I never said abortion should be disallowed. In fact, I never stated my opinion on whether or not abortion should be legal. All I said was that disallowing you from murdering your kid is not "forcing you" to do anything. Reread what I said, illiterate.

Killing an intruder is not murder, because the intruder is not an innocent person. Murder is the killing of an innocent, which is what an unborn child is. Are you ESL?

>>18482168
Better bait thread than I've seen in a while.

>>18482948
Yes because being a whore and killing an innocent baby you brought into this life because you was irresponsible is bait

nice bait post

>>18482352
>An appeal to popularity does not prove moral realism.
I dunno, boss, all human peoples have made taboos, laws, and practices which resemble or are even identical to one another, regarding things like theft, rape, and murder. Almost like there is a universal constant through out all times and for all peoples.
>I'm sure I can find you some monks or shut-ins who'll say cooperation is bad.
There are plenty of thieves, murderers, rapists, traitors, and all sorts of others who are condemned by all societies and moral systems, and there existence does not disprove moral reality, in the same way that buildings that are made in a faulty manner and collapse does not disprove the science and practice of making buildings. The existence of renegades, if anything, proves the usefulness of morality, because it is by morality that we distinguish them. If you disagree, can you describe to me why these evils are bad in a way that is truly morally relative or morally pluralistic?

>>18482201
Murdering people is bad
>it's not a person!
Every cell it has is human and alive, but feel free to describe how it is ackshually neither of those things

>>18482807
>>18482814
>just stop being fallible human beings
The average person is a useless eater who will inevitably breed useless eaters regardless of their ability to raise their spawn. This has been a thing for millennia and you faggots aren't going to legislate it away in 2 weeks.

>>18482961
>Every cell it has is human and alive
By that logic jerking off is also murder

I don't give a fuck about fetus fucking shits. Neither do you. The pro-life outrage is so fake and performative. You don't give a fuck about some 4 week tadpole. You might feel some lazy rage about late term abortions, but your brain would still refuse to categorize it as a fully developed human.

>>18482964
nice strawman, life beings at conception not my sperm. He was refurling to the fetus retard

By that logic as well he would be suggesting that all women are serial killers because they have periods

>>18482964
The sperm cells released from jacking off are not their own discrete being that will have a complete mind and independent body, but will only conditionally do so after fertilizing an egg and creating a zygote, which is human and alive
Are you also going to tell me that removing a cancer cell is le heckin murder by that logic, too?

>>18482967
>The pro-life outrage is so fake and performative. You don't give a fuck about some 4 week tadpole. You might feel some lazy rage about late term abortions, but your brain would still refuse to categorize it as a fully developed human.
Speak for yourself faggot

>>18482976
How many unwanted children have you taken in? Don't evade the question faggot.

>>18482976
You enjoy whining about abortions because its an easy target cause to stroke your moral ego. Prolife is just veganism for conservatives. You "care" about it obligatory 10 minutes of the day and then go on about your life. I don't see you firebombing planned parenthood clinics, that would require actually caring for real.

File: 1767465538678769.jpg (40 KB, 680x378)

40 KB JPG

>>18482168
depriving women of they right to make decisions about their own bodies is evil

>>18482979
Nigger I'm broke wtf do you want me to do.

>Don't evade the question faggot.
Nice projection faggot

>>18482980
I debate people irl on the topic and convinced a couple of people for Prolife,
you on the other hand are defending whores like a cuck

>>18482981
>depriving women of they right to make decisions about their own bodies is evil
They had the decision when they chose to have sex.
Its like signing a waver and then acting shocked when you have to follow through on it

>>18482973
>life beings at conception not my sperm
Why? Why this magical border?
>>18482975
The sperm cells released from jacking off are not their own discrete being that will have a complete mind and independent body, but will only conditionally do so after fertilizing an egg and creating a zygote, which is human and alive
Why does that conditionality not magically also apply to the zygote? In terms of biological complexity for the first few weeks it's only marginally different and obviously has neither brain nor consciousness

>>18482985
>Why? Why this magical border?
Because its the most morally consistent one

>>18482979
I don't have to take in any unwanted children to think that murdering them for being unwanted is acceptable. Why do think I have to?

>>18482985
>Why does that conditionality not magically also apply to the zygote?
Because it is when a human is created, all other metrics are arbitrary and (You) know it.

>>18482952
>only whores get pregnant unexpectedly
How's school going buddy? You got hair on your balls yet?

>>18482984
It's like saying that we should stop treating cancer because it was your decision to smoke, or stop treating broken bones becasue it was your decision to engage in a sport activity

>>18482987
>Because its the most morally consistent one
Define most morally consistent, it's not morally consistent at all. Aside from the "because I wanna", theres a shitton of cases where common sense says an abortion makes perfect sense but "morally consistent" retards like you say "but it's murder!!!"
>Because it is when a human is created, all other metrics are arbitrary and (You) know it.
A human is created would imply you should mourn a 1 week fetus as much as a fully fledged baby. Is this what you're unironically arguing for?

>>18482864
>Christ faggots cannot decide if children are a blessing or the divine wrath of god as punishment

>>18482973
>>18482975
>*MY* hedonistic sin is fine, actually
You are so fucked :)

>>18482994
>It's like saying that we should stop treating cancer because it was your decision to smoke, or stop treating broken bones becasue it was your decision to engage in a sport activity
Thats a false equivalency because you are dealing with another life

>>18482993
Nice strawman faggot, I gave an example, not that "only whores get pregnant unexpectedly"
I would ask you how school is going for you but its pretty obvious you dropped out seeing how much of a retarded faggot you are

>>18482995
>A human is created would imply you should mourn a 1 week fetus as much as a fully fledged baby. Is this what you're unironically arguing for?
Yes, and if you had seen those who had suffered a miscarriage, you might understand.

>>18482983
Sell everything you own and donate it to an orphanage. You're not a selfish whore who wants to slut around with luxury possessions when INNOCENT CHILDEN are suffering?

>>18482988
>I don't have to actually do anything to stand by what I pretend to believe

>>18482999
Getting angry lil buddy? It's ok for people to disagree. Ok, now we have established that unexpectedly pregnancy ISN'T divine punishment for sluts, what is your suggestion for women who are raped and become pregnant that way, just to keep things simple?

>>18483000
>Yes, and if you had seen those who had suffered a miscarriage, you might understand.
Are you willing to pay for the emotional and mental support of all of that with your taxes, or does your compassion suddenly end there? Also are you willing to pay for better instruments to detect exactly when a life begins so we can accurately mourn these early miscarriages since they're fully fledged humans after all?

>>18482998
All sins are wrong, but not all of them are murder. Does that make sense to you?

>>18483000
Now imagine those who suffered a miscarriage seeing people who were forced to have children they didn't want slapping them around and using them as human ashtrays. How'd they feel then?

>>18482998
I'm not a comer, but even then a hedonistic sin is completely different form murder lmao

>>18482996
I'm not Christian faggot, nice try through<3

>>18482995
>Define most morally consistent
applying the same ethical principles to similar situations without contradiction, regardless of who is involved

>theres cases where an abortion makes perfect sense but "morally consistent" retards like you say "but it's murder!!!"
Yes I agree I'm not a stick pro lifer I understand that there are situations where abortion sadly is the best choice

>>18483005
You are going to scream and scream and scream. Forever :)

>>18483009
>MY sin is different!!!!
So so fucked :)

>>18483009
>applying the same ethical principles to similar situations without contradiction
2 seconds later
>Yes I agree I'm not a stick pro lifer I understand that there are situations where abortion sadly is the best choice
Lmao.
Now you have two choices:
Either you
>admit abortion is not actually murder since you can't be so contradictory about such a grave moral misgiving
>admit murder isn't actually that bad (which leads to a whole bunch of other fun issues)

>>18483006
They'd feel human compassion for them, and want them to have better lives, I'd hope, something you seem to struggle with
>but what if they're poor, or retarded, or miserable, or abused, or...
No amount of them suffering is going to convince me that killing them is the right thing to do.

>>18483010
>>18483011
Your mom screamed when I stuck my swollen frenulum in her gaping greasy asshole last night under the covers.

>>18483019
There is no better life for them. Just 18 years of having the absolute shit kicked out of them and if they aren't beaten to death by mistake, booted out onto the street when they're exactly 18 to become a junkie hobo. Such human compassion from you!

>>18483004
>Are you willing to pay for the emotional and mental support of all of that with your taxes
Yes, actually, but my believing abortion is wrong only requires that I submit to the truth of this world, and not jumping through your infinite hoops.

>>18483020
Those flames just got hotter :)

>>18483022
You fucking commie piece of shit.

>>18483022
>not jumping through your infinite hoops
It requires both otherwise you're a hypocrite. If you unironically think the definition of life is THAT extreme, you should also vouch for everything that comes with it. Babies should get child support from conception. Any crimes against pregnant women count doubly so. Etc etc
Now I'm sure you'll just say yes to all of this, but you have to admit this is an extremely rare position and won't get you anywhere, realistically speaking

>>18483001
>>18483001
I am studying med, my pay off will be more beneficial in the grad scheme of things

Also what you are saying is that I should just kill myself for other people? I'm not Christian
What a fucking dumbass

>>18483003
> what is your suggestion for women who are raped and become pregnant that way, just to keep things simple?
First this is only like 1% of all abortions so its pretty reatreded to justify pro choice from that
but I would say that even if its extremely hard for the women she should keep it, We are not Christians, the child shouldn't be punished for what their for fathers did they don't have original sin

>>18483011
Yes things are different dumbass, slapping someone is different then killing them, to suggest otherwise is retardom

>>18483015
>Now you have two choices:
False dichotomy, nice fallacy dumbass

an example in where I believe abortion is justified is when the mother would die if it carries through, the child will still die but i believe its justified

No pro-lifer can defeat the following:
The embryo is not a subject but rather just an object. At worst we could say that destroying an embryo is property damage.

>>18483021
I want them to be alive to fulfill their telos - I want them to live in a good society, a safe country, and a prosperous world, with loving parents, but I cannot control these things anymore than I can make the rain come or go. Being alive is a step in the right direction - a murdered person has no chance at ever reaching self-fulfillment.

>>18483027
>False dichotomy
How is it a false dichotomy? There is no third option in my dichotomy, either you believe abortion is murder or you don't.

>>18483027
>I'll do good with my money in future I swear!!!
>claims to be a medical student
>doesn't understand what a massive number 1%of all pregnancies is
You are a whore filled with pride and hedonism, you don't give a fuck about children.

>>18483031
There is no telos. Just a short lifetime of misery until the wrong needle in the wrong alley. Compassion!

>>18483032
>How is it a false dichotomy?

>admit abortion is not actually murder since you can't be so contradictory about such a grave moral misgiving
>admit murder isn't actually that bad (which leads to a whole bunch of other fun issues)
Assuming that I can’t say is still not murder

Yes abortion is still murder but like the example I gave before it can be justified

>>18483026
>It requires both otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Let's say it does, for the sake of argument.
>Babies should get child support from conception.
Yes, I expect mothers to take care of their bodies for their child while pregnant, and expect that their fathers should take care of their wives and children.
>Any crimes against pregnant women count doubly so.
Yes, it should.
>I'm sure you'll just say yes to all of this
Yes, because I actually believe it, none of this is a larp, this is my actual opinion on the world.
>you have to admit this is an extremely rare position
Only because of the failures of the people in this world
>won't get you anywhere, realistically speaking
People thought Roe v. Wade would never be overturned.

>>18483041
So it is a valid dichotomy since you seem to accept it and validly answer it. You opt for case two, namely "murder is ok in some cases".
Which cases are those? We've covered if the life of the mother is at risk, what if it was a young girl who was raped? Should she carry out the baby and be mentally scarred for life? That seems pretty evil to me

>>18483036
>doesn't understand what a massive number 1%of all pregnancies is
>doesn't understand how much more massive of a number 99%of all pregnancies is

>You are a whore filled with pride and hedonism
Lmao what stop projecting and I’m the whore for not wanting to kill babies because of careless sex? Jfl

Also the other anons point still stands >>18482988

>>18483041
>murder
>can be justified
Nta but I'm pretty sure that's a contradiction unless by "can be justified" you mean something like "sure he murdered his wife but it kinda makes sense because she was rich and way older than him".

>>18483048
You're the whore because your material comfort is more important than what you pretend to believe.

>>18483038
You are simply wrong. Do you think that because of human suffering we all should simply kill ourselves, too?

No pro-lifer can answer this question: why should I give a fuck about every single object with unique human dna?

>>18483047
>So it is a valid dichotomy since you seem to accept it and validly answer it. You opt for case two, namely "murder is ok in some cases".
No it’s not dumbass you saying that I have to accept that abortion is not bad is not the same to say that only around 1% of abortions are justifiable

> what if it was a young girl who was raped? Should she carry out the baby and be mentally scarred for life?
Already spoke about this
>but I would say that even if its extremely hard for the women she should keep it, We are not Christians, the child shouldn't be punished for what their for fathers did they don't have original sin

> That seems pretty evil to me
Coming form someone who is advocating that murder is moral this doesn’t mean much

>>18483029
You could say murder is property damage, yes, but that feels very bourgeoisie to me. Don't you think it's a bit more than that?

>>18483049
Murder is justified every single day. It goes something like "I am wearing a green jacket and was told to murder the man in the brown jacket by a man in a fancier green jacket than mine. His had gold ribbon on it so I had to murder the man or I'd get into trouble!"

>>18483058
Why would I call the destruction of an object "murder"? Stop being hysterical.

>>18483052
>it's simply wrong to say that most people who are hated by their parents end up as punching bags until they're on the street and die in a ditch
Ok little buddy.

>>18483049
> can be justified" you mean something like "sure he murdered his wife but it kinda makes sense because she was rich and way older than him".
False equivalency

Although 99% of abortions are murder hence my generalisation; Abortion is not inherently murder because murder is unjustified killing and like the example I gave before it can be justified

See how you had to mix my words to make it sound like I said murder is justified; how pathetic

>>18483060
How are you meaningfully not also an object?

>>18483050
>More projection

>>18483061
So they are in fact people, and aborting them is killing them, then?

>>18483063
>See how you had to mix my words to make it sound like I said murder is justified
You literally said "Yes abortion is still murder but like the example I gave before it can be justified". If murder is defined as unjust killing, then it by definition cannot be justified and the instances of abortion that can be justified are not murder. The example I gave was that the only way for you to not run into the contradiction wrt murder and justification was to use some other meaning of the word "justify" (like in my example).

>>18483065
You haven't sold your possessions to give the money to the orphans. You lack the courage of your convictions, whore.

>>18483064
I'm a subject because I have a mind.

>>18483066
Yes, they are people when they are born and grown up into hobos dying in a gutter. COMPASSION!!!

>>18483070
And so will the child, if you don't kill it. We were all in that state once - all of us were once defenceless. They've done nothing wrong and they are our brothers and sisters and will be just like us. They have done nothing to deserve death, and yet you defend their slaughter. Why?

>>18483067
I already told you the reason that I called abortion murder did your eyes just move past this retard?
> Although 99% of abortions are murder hence my generalisation;

>>18483068
>Mf You haven't sold your possessions to give the money to the orphans
I donate to charity’s all the time dumbass, I didn’t say this before because I didn’t want to seem that I was virtue signaling; also I have nothing fucking sell which doesn’t get in the way of my study’s, I literally buy left other foods off restaurant because they are on sale

> You lack the courage of your convictions, whore.
>more projection
>doesn’t know what whore means

>>18483075
>the half nigger rape bastard is my bother
Lol no.

>>18483078
You've got whatever device you're posting this on. Sell it, whore. Fucking hedonist piece of shit.

>>18483078
Also Sorry for my grammar I’m on my phone

>>18483075
>And so will the child, if you don't kill it.
The embryo is essentially a mind-assembly kit. It's just an object that may or may not construct a new person.

>>18483083
You'd rather have a phone than feed a hungry orphan? Hedonistic whore.

>>18483081
> You've got whatever device you're posting this on. Sell it
>expects me to become homeless so I can justify pro life
>this point still also stands >>18482988
>also I have nothing fucking sell which doesn’t get in the way of my study’s
My phone is a fucking 8 years old and that and my laptop are basically my life line
>whore
>doesn’t know what whore means

> Fucking hedonist piece of shit.
>more projection

>>18483091
>>18483092
You are making a fool of yourself

>>18483092
And? Sell it. Your phone is more important to you than feeding a child or something, whore?

>>18483088
If it is genuinely a mind-assembly kit, it deserves a place of privilege among objects - for most objects can do no such thing, but these ones are capable of constructing a being like us, a subject with a mind. A position of privilege that gives it unique property rights against its willful destruction.

>>18483097
You are such a Moron, I already told you I donate to charity’s and why I need my phone and why even if still had luxuries it still wouldn’t unjustly pro life
I’m not repeating myself because you are to rerated to understand

Also you still don’t know whore mean lmao

>>18483104
Too Retarded*

>>18483104
>ESL retard is getting angry
Your phone is a luxury. You're using it for pleasure now, your fucking whore. Sell it.

>>18483098
>this object can do something most objects cannot do
>therefore we mustn't destroy this object
There is no entailment between these two I'm afraid.

>>18483097
I'm this anon: >>18482988
and you have yet to answer my question.
No, it is not required for me to sell my phone to feed an orphan to think that murdering orphans is bad. The causes and solutions of these kinds of problems tend to require mass efforts through political or religious orgs, and are not something I could fix as one person - me getting them one meal will not fix their misery, but you murdering them will end any hope of their lives improving.

>>18483104
>even if still had luxuries it still wouldn’t unjustly pro life
Yeah, those luxuries would matter far more than the lives of some dirty brats.

>people on the kill all niggers forum when said niggers are still in the womb

>>18483111
The capability of transcending from object to subject is not an ordinary quality. And we both know what kind of subject it has the potential to become - why does that not merit special treatment?

>>18483113
>I don't have to give up my hedonism to improve someone else's life
What a selfish whore.

>>18483120
Let use your logic

Have you?
Why are you on 4 chan?
Why do have a device in the first place? Why haven’t you sold it yet?
You hedonistic whore XD

>>18483119
Manufacturing objects like that is one of the most trivial things we do. You still haven't proposed any entailment between an object having an unusual quality and the proposal that we mustn't destroy it.

>>18483120
I can be selfish, and a whore, and think killing innocents is wrong, without contradiction.

>>18483122
You're the one claiming to care so so much about the little children yet won't sell your phone to help one.

>>18483126
At last you admit it, whore. Now why should we listen to anything a hypocritical little whore says?

>>18483127
I’m not the guy you were talking to?

But you are still a hedonistic whore because you haven’t sold your positions yet

You selfish selfish whoreXD

>>18483129
Go have your erotic roleplay somewhere else.

>>18483127
Anon just ignore him he is a hypocritical retard holding onto straws

>>18483131
Why would I sell my possessions when I don't give a shit about kids?

>>18483134
Thanks for admitting your a selfish hedonistic whore:)
nice talking to you

>>18483132
I accept your concession.

>>18483136
Yes, I am. You seem to have me confused with the guy who claims he wants to save the children but values a phone more than filling a child's belly.

>>18483124
Definition One: A Subject is that which possesses a mind, that for which the statement 'I think, therefore I am' can be truly said.
Definition Two: An Object is any of the myriad of things which lack this quality of mind.
Proposition One: It is beneficial from a purely morally relativistic sense that Subjects existing in a society of Subjects should entreat one another with special protections against harm, if only for the sake of mutual cooperation.
Proposition Two: It is possible for a Subject to become an Object, like when under the effects of anesthesia or, arguably, when sleeping.
Proposition Three: Subjects should be entreated with these protections even in situations where they become Objects, or Impaired Subjects, as in impaired states of mind - under the effects of hallucinogens, when sleeping, or under the coma of anesthesia, for instance.
Conclusion One: An Object which can attain the status of Subject should be entreated with unique protections from harm, in like manner as Subjects should entreat one another.

>>18483148
>Conclusion One: An Object which can attain the status of Subject should be entreated with unique protections from harm, in like manner as Subjects should entreat one another.
This does not follow, sorry.

>>18482999
>Thats a false equivalency because you are dealing with another life
cancer is another life too

itt atheists and liberals show they have no coherent moral framework.

>>18483167
completely different form human life

>>18482238
Okay, and? The zygote has potential for all that. You are advocating for snuffing out a healthy human life. Just come out and say "wahmyns should be able to commit murder for their own convenience."

>>18482999
>you are dealing with another life
that's why abortions should be allowed everywhere, you are dealing with a woman's life

>>18483281
She should of thought about that before she had sex, again
>Its like signing a waver and then acting shocked when you have to follow through on it

>>18483282
you are not allowed to get treated because you made a mistake?

>>18483281
Also only like 1% of abortions are done because the mothers life is at risk

>>18483285
there is no way of knowing that but not wanting a child to raise is a good enough reason

>>18483284
>you are not allowed to get treated because you made a mistake?
While quite frankly it doesn't matter if it was a mistake or not; its a child's life we are dealing with, she shouldn't just go to murder it because she was a bit rough in bed, thats her fault

>>18483291
>its a child's life
and women life
I choose a developed human being with intelect and feelings and connections over a fetus

>>18483290
>there is no way of knowing that

>https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021
"In 2021, 98.0% of abortions (209,939) were performed under ground C... The remaining grounds account for very few abortions; 111 in total across grounds A, B, F and G."
Also 111 out of 214,256 total abortions calculates to 0.05% of all cases

>https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
4% of respondents cited physical health problems of the mother as a reason for seeking an abortion. While this broader figure covers various health issues, analyses often interpret the subset involving immediate, severe threats to the mother's life as falling within a 1% to 3% range.

> but not wanting a child to raise is a good enough reason
Sure if you don't want a child go for it, just don't be suppressed when you have one after doing a reproductive act

>>18483302
>internet statistics
ahem, there is no way of knowing that

sex is a pleasurable/leisure/bonding acivity, not something that you do only to have children

>>18483292
>I choose a developed human being with intelect and feelings and connections over a fetus
A fetus being a human
You was wrong about the statistics
You was wrong about the chose
You was wrong about the fetus
what next

>>18483308
I was not wrong doe, zigote embryos and fetus are not equal to concious humans. If I were to choose betwen saving a normal human of any age, or saving an embryo or fetus, i would always choose a normal human

>>18483308
Nta, it's a human but with no emotions, no connections, no thoughts, no memories, no inner world at all. There is no "what it's like to be (an early) fetus" just like there is no "what it's like to be a brick".

>>18483305
>internet statistics
Sorry what the fuck are implying here?
By that logic ever academic can sight his sources because they are "internet statistics"

Also the sources are for the fucking government you moron

>ahem, there is no way of knowing that
The hospitals/abortion clinics record the reasons dumbass

>not something that you do only to have children
Yes yes, because there is no reason why men have developed pennies to penetrate and women have their ovaries next to their vergina
How the fuck are we supposed to have children then? are you 6? do you know how sex works

>>18483312
>By that logic ever academic can sight his sources because they are "internet statistics"
yes, you should always know that those are never equal to reality, there are many countries with different laws and different ways of gathering data
>ow the fuck are we supposed to have children then?
if you want children you can have them, if you don't then you won't have them. Humans are inteligent beings that can bend the enviorment to their will thanks to science and civilisation, we are not animals that are only meant to breed

>>18483310
> I was not wrong doe, zigote embryos and fetus are not equal to conscious humans
So it’s ok to kill the fetus if it not conscious? It developes rights after it develops conscious

>>18483311
So a person is a coma isn’t a human?
Because they have no emotionas no inner world no thoughts?

>>18483320
>So it’s ok to kill the fetus if it not conscious?
yes, if the woman who's the fetus is part of her body wills so
>>18483320
person in coma has friends/family and citizen laws

>>18483320
>So a person is a coma isn’t a human?
Are you stupid? I literally said that the fetus is a human. Learn to read.

>>18483319
> yes, you should always know that those are never equal to reality, there are many countries with different laws and different ways of gathering data
You understand how retared this is?
You are suggesting that I can’t use multiple sources from different first word governments to give statistics? Sure you won’t be absolutely correct but you will be 99% correct

> if you want children you can have them, if you don't then you won't have them
Ok sure?

> Humans are inteligent beings that can bend the enviorment to their will thanks to science and civilisation, we are not animals that are only meant to breed
True but you shouldn’t be surprised we you pregnant with a child because you had sexual interviews and you should be aware that you may bring in life into this world because you are doing it

>>18483331
>you are suggesting that I can’t use multiple sources
you can, it's the best way to tell trends but you should be aware that they never strictly represent reality
>you shouldn’t be surprised we you pregnant with a child because you had sexual interviews and you should be aware that you may bring in life into this world because you are doing it
yes, but people make mistakes all the time, and we shouldn't suffer for them if we don't have to

>>18483328
mb I misread

>>18483324
>yes, if the woman who's the fetus is part of her body wills so
Ok cool, lets do a thought explement.
Lets say you had a fetus in your body who has not developed consciousness yet (mi going under the physicalist perspective) and you sever the part of the fetus brain so he can not have a connection between his right and left hemispheres but still keeping him alive, basically biologically alive but not conscious (and we can guaranty that its not conscious). And you give birth to this body and then you do the same thing 10000 times until you have a farm of biologically human bodies which you bread and kill for their organs it would also be reasonable to assume that you could by it of your own personal wants.

So you have practicably made a farm of humans which get sold, raped, etc.
But its ok as they don't have rights because they are not conscious so its morally ok

>person in coma has friends/family and citizen laws
The fetus has family member which care for it and want it to grow big and strong? At this moment the fetus is not aware of it the same as the guy in the coma/
So your point?

>you can, it's the best way to tell trends but you should be aware that they never strictly represent reality
D >Hey why are you here for
P >Im here for an abortion because if i don't have it i i will die
D >Let me verify that (verifies that because its impossible to fake biological problems of this degree)
>notes down the reason after veritying it, reults are sent to the gov or whatever and they can compare it to all the other reasons for an abortion

Quite frankly you """might""" be able to make this claim for any other reason other than an biological reason, so you are retareded

>yes, but people make mistakes all the time, and we shouldn't suffer for them if we don't have to
Yea and so should the child, he shouldn't be murdered because they had an oppsie

>>18483337
>it's the best way to tell trends but you should be aware that they never strictly represent reality
Even then the sources i proved will still be extremely accurate you dumbass

>>18483350
>Ok cool, lets do a thought explement.
>Lets say you had a fetus in your body who has not developed consciousness yet (mi going under the physicalist perspective) and you sever the part of the fetus brain so he can not have a connection between his right and left hemispheres but still keeping him alive, basically biologically alive but not conscious (and we can guaranty that its not conscious). And you give birth to this body and then you do the same thing 10000 times until you have a farm of biologically human bodies which you bread and kill for their organs it would also be reasonable to assume that you could by it of your own personal wants.
>So you have practicably made a farm of humans which get sold, raped, etc.
>But its ok as they don't have rights because they are not conscious so its morally ok
Nta, obviously yes. I truly don't get why you'd think the answer might be no.

>>18483354
So its morally ok to have biological human sex dolls?
So Its morally ok to deprive them of the life they could of had?
So Its morally ok to genetically modality them for harvest before they could even think?

>Nta
This isn't reddit you don't have to say that after every comment

>>18483350
I ignore most of this post as i can't understand it all but i stand by my point that women shouldn't be forced to sacrafice their bodies for the sake of unborn children

>>18483355
>So its morally ok to have biological human sex dolls?
>So Its morally ok to deprive them of the life they could of had?
>So Its morally ok to genetically modality them for harvest before they could even think?
Yeah of course. They're literally just a bag of organs. It's no different from those human ears grown on a lab rat for transplants.
>This isn't reddit you don't have to say that after every comment
I wouldn't need to say that in a non-anonymous forum where there's no danger of you attributing another poster's views to me.

>>18483357
>i stand by my point that women shouldn't be forced to sacrafice their bodies for the sake of unborn children
And innocent babies shouldn't be murdered because the mother just doesn't feel like it, it was her fault in have sex which is a reproductive act in the first place and not preparing for the possibly of a child
>Its like signing a waver and then acting shocked when you have to follow through on it

>>18483362
>Yeah of course. They're literally just a bag of organs. It's no different from those human ears grown on a lab rat for transplants.
Can you justify how Its morally ok to genetically modality them for harvest before they could even think and to deprive them of the life they could of had

>>18483366
Why would it not be? Up until a certain point (and certainly during the first trimester), the fetus is just a thing. I don't have some moral obligation to either things or to "potential minds" who have never existed and will never exist. That would be ridiculous.

>>18483363
It's her or the system fault for not using anticonception but i consider women to be more important than unborn children so they shouldn't be forced to suffer when there are means to help them

>>18482168
I agree. But sometimes they are necessary for example when you get black and white.

>>18483369
>Up until a certain point (and certainly during the first trimester), the fetus is just a thing.
Its not that could of become conscious its that it was going to be conscious and that you did a transhumanist experiment to turn it into a living sex doll which you agree is morally ok.

>I don't have some moral obligation to either things or to "potential minds" who have never existed and will never exist.
A guy is on track to go by a lottery ticket and you know that the lottery ticket he is going to buy is the winning ticket this ticket will get him out of poverty and help out in so many ways. And you know he is going to buy the winning ticket, would it morally ok for you to go and switch the winning lottery ticket with a losing one so he Nevers wins?
It would be morally ok too do that in this mindset because why should you care that he will win because he haven't yet.

That would be ridiculous.

>>18483370
>It's her or the system fault
You are getting close

> for not using anticonception but i consider women to be more important than unborn children so they shouldn't be forced to suffer when there are means to help them
Well quite frankly she should of considered that before whoring out instead of murdering a human

>>18483394
>You are getting close
very few countries also ban anticonceptions so the ammout of abortion is going down worldwide, and the global acces to sex education is also growing
>she should of considered that
people make mistakes, I vote to relieve a fellow humans suffering instead of condeeming them

>>18483394
>Its not that could of become conscious its that it was going to be conscious
I don't have a moral obligation to let objects generate conscious minds. If there was a 3D printer that printed fully formed conscious humans, stopping it before it gets to the head is not murder.
>A guy is on track to go by a lottery ticket and you know that the lottery ticket he is going to buy is the winning ticket this ticket will get him out of poverty and help out in so many ways. And you know he is going to buy the winning ticket, would it morally ok for you to go and switch the winning lottery ticket with a losing one so he Nevers wins?
No, because the guy I'm scamming is not an object.

>>18483400
>very few countries also ban anticonceptions so the amount of abortion is going down worldwide, and the global access to sex education is also growing
The fact of the matter is, is that it wouldn't matter they still understand that its not 100% effective and yet the still did it
And even if they didn't know, the child shouldn't be punished for there mistakes

>people make mistakes, I vote to relieve a fellow humans suffering instead of condeeming them
I vote to not murder babies because people was too carless with sex

>>18483409
suit yourself then, I'm taking the conscious humans side

>>18483406
>No, because the guy I'm scamming is not an object.
You complete miss the point of the allegory you retard
the allegory demonstrates that even if something is not present at this current moment but only has a potentially to be present it still doesn't make it ok to get rid of that potentially

>>18483417
>I'm taking the conscious humans side
Yes and the conscious humans side is where we murder innocent babies because I irreconcilably whored out.
What a joke

>>18483424
>irreconcilably
unreasonably* typo

File: chicken-hound.gif (70 KB, 220x153)

70 KB GIF

>>18482201
Banning abortion is part of the incel reproduction strategy. By demonizing it they try to limit access to it, and in combination with a fascist regime that lets them get away with rape here and there, much like the ugly incel thugs that the hound kills in game of thrones raping the tavern girl, and so their dogshit incel orc genes get to pass along. Its goblin reproductive strategy from goblin slayer. All the pearl clutching about amounts to this.

>>18483424
yup, the world is not all roses, but I'm taking my fellow concious humans side as forcing women to use their bodies to sustain a fetus against their will is evil

>>18483430
sctizo /pol/ is this way >>>/pol/

File: Goblin-Slayer-Cover.jpg (80 KB, 1600x900)

80 KB JPG

>>18483434
*Goblin detected*

>>18483433
>yup, the world is not all roses,
It semes to you like it is, because killing a baby is just like a slap on the wrist for getting too freaky in bed, you fucking retard

>I'm taking my fellow concious humans side
Speak for yourself faggot we arent mentaly ill like you are

>as forcing women to use their bodies to sustain a fetus against their will is evil
And murdering innocent babies because they irreconcilably whored out is evil

Your whole moral frame work is joke

>>18483430
Abortion is for promiscuous whores. A woman who loves a husband would feel honored in giving birth to his offspring.

The only reason God has allowed women to rebel against men is because men have rebelled against God by doing what grieves his heart. He who is not submissive to God does not deserve to have a wife to submits to him, because wickedness and degeneracy is in his mind.

>>18483438
Goblin slyer is mid
I liked the first ep because how gritty it was but it just became over done edgy rape senses

>>18483440
I do not believe in punishing people when they make a non malicious mistake like having sex without anticonception, especially since most women are submisive and can be coerced into having sex, most of the time they are victims and forcing them to carry an unwated fetus is evil
plus your whole time you speak about women in derogatory terms, calling them whores for having sex and never blaming men so i think you are motivated primary by misogyny rather than empathy

If pro-lifers really thought that abortion is murder why aren't they going out to burn down abortion clinics en masse? If they truly felt that abortion is in no way different than murdering a child than a few years in prison for arson is surely worth saving thousands of lives right? You're pretty much destroying a death camp at that point.

File: 1777325057440684.jpg (82 KB, 500x581)

82 KB JPG

>>18483441
I dont give a shit about your faketaphysical pearl clutching incel. Its all an attempt to create justification for your agenda where none exists to me. Die and take your dogshit genes with you.
>>18483443
You havent even seen but say you cause you are a lying goblin. Ep 1 is shock value and showcase on why its ok to kill goblin incels on sight.

>>18483441
trvke

>>18483446
When refuse the advice of their fathers to marry who they chose and stay home under their protection until he finds a suitable husband.

We need to live how God commands, he created the entire freaking universe, clearly he knows what he's talking about. Obeying him will lead to the most prosperous of societies. Human suffering comes from the human desire to do what humans want and not what their maker commands them.

Stop following your heart, God says it deceptive. Follow him, he's your maker.

>>18483472
Now you just switched to religious fanatic larping, which is suspect is false as well

>>18483446
>I do not believe in punishing people when they make a non malicious mistake like having sex without anticonception
Have sex and being pregnant even if you didn't intent for a baby is not punishing people its just case and effect retard

>especially since most women are submisive and can be coerced into having sex, most of the time they are victims and forcing them to carry an unwated fetus is evil
>Stay behind me my queens you can do no wrong! Its fine if you kill a babies for no reason, you don't have a strong enough will!
You are a fucking simp, Hold women accountable for their accounts you bitch
and quite frankly you are also a fucking hypocrite seeing how you assume women cant make choices from themselves yet get on me for calling girls who get abortions whores.

>plus your whole time you speak about women in derogatory terms, calling them whores for having sex and never blaming men so i think you are motivated primary by misogyny rather than empathy
>Y-you c-cant call them that..!
I am only calling the women who get pregnant and have abortions whore, have some reading comprehension you retard

Lets Do a recap:
>You was wrong about statistics and then tried to Wessel your way out when i provided sources
>You was wrong about the human reproductive system
>You was wrong about case and effect
>You could not track my posts like a retard
>You claim to be for women then call them weak willed and tell me not to hold them accountable
>You was wrong about where life begins
>You was wrong about practically everything
You and your morality are a fucking joke,
I will not be engaging with a retard like you anymore

>>18483480
Funking track you rerated that wasn't me you funking dumbass

>>18483481
forcing women to suffer when you force them to carry a fetus in their own bodies aganist their will is punishing them and it is evil, it's a form of slavery

>>18483482
retard* typo

File: images (25).jpg (45 KB, 424x471)

45 KB JPG

>>18483472
Serial monogamy is also incel reproduction strategy as well cause its basically sexual communism where a woman mathematically ends in an incel's kitchen. Just like banning abortion is in combination with fascist regime so is serial monogamy always in combination with artificialy taking away women's ability to fend for themselves without a husband for this one and only sexual communist reason. All of course done through faketaphysical pearl clutching to create justification where none exists.

>>18483483
>against their will
There will was when they chose to have sex.
Its cause and effect, them getting pregnant and bringing life into this world even if they didn't intend to, to is their fault.
If she doesn't want to keep it, fine. let her send them off to an orphanage, you can do that.
But they cant just go killing it because they had a mistake. Its their mistake not the babies and it shouldn't be punished for that
You really are a joke

>>18483504
no, most of the time sex is just for making kids

>>18483520
um ok?...

Pro-life wins again lol

>>18483525
*is not

>>18483539
So, this doesn't change any of my points I raised above?
>Its cause and effect, them getting pregnant and bringing life into this world even if they didn't intend to, its is their fault for doing a reproductive act.
>But they cant just go killing it because they had a mistake. Its their mistake not the babies and it shouldn't be punished for that

I can go sage too

>>18483556
yes because sex is not something that humans do only to have children, it's a pleasure/bonding activity primary

File: image_2026-05-18_170740625.png (122 KB, 605x372)

122 KB PNG

>>18483563
begging the question dumbass

My points still stand
>But they cant just go killing it because they had a mistake. Its their mistake not the babies and it shouldn't be punished for that

You are fucking retareded I can tell that even more by reading the debate where you got BTFO
NO point in discussing with retards

>>18483418
>You complete miss the point of the allegory you retard
>the allegory demonstrates that even if something is not present at this current moment but only has a potentially to be present it still doesn't make it ok to get rid of that potentially
Your allegory is retarded. Getting rid of the ticket isn't morally problematic because we ought not get rid of tickets, but because I'd be performing a scam that is against the rules of a lottery which all participants implicitly agree to abide by (i.e. nobody knows which ticket is he winning one). It's analogical to something like match fixing. If on the other hand I find a map to a treasure that the poorfag guy is blindly searching for, dig it up first and keep the contents, there is nothing immoral about that because there's no scam involved.
All your arguments fail because they're not the arguments that worked on you in the first place. You were convinced abortion is wrong for religious/soul-related/otherwise supernatural reasons.

>>18483488
God has never commanded monogamy in his law. Man is allowed by God to have many wives and as many concubines as his heart desires. It is the woman who owes sexual loyalty to her husband. Man does not owe sexual loyalty to any of his wives. His wives literally belong to him. God's laws are perfect, society's laws are oppressive to men and unjust. Man and women are not equal and they must not be treated as such.

>>18483569
seems like you are just angry and you can't defend your position that treating women like a cattle isn't evil

File: HIUCdGeWEAAYUwA.jpg (75 KB, 422x677)

75 KB JPG

>>18483789
Why do stats say women were happier when treated as cattle?

>>18483772
>Your allegory is retarded.
U sure your not talking about yourself? lmao

>Getting rid of the ticket isn't morally problematic because we ought not get rid of tickets, but because I'd be performing a scam that is against the rules of a lottery which all participants implicitly agree to abide by (i.e. nobody knows which ticket is he winning one).
Its a fucking allegory retard of course nobody knows which ticket is he winning one irl, learn how to read.

>It's analogical to something like match fixing. If on the other hand I find a map to a treasure that the poorfag guy is blindly searching for, dig it up first and keep the contents, there is nothing immoral about that because there's no scam involved.
Thats a false equivalency and your dumb
On one hand you have absolute knowledge that the guy is going to win the lottery if he is going to buy the ticket (of which he is on his way to do). the potentiality is there and if not disturbed it will actualise
On the other hand its some random joe shom which will most likely not find the treasure. The potentiality is not there and if not disturbed it will not c
So this is a completely different allegory you dumbass

>All your arguments fail because they're not the arguments that worked on you in the first place. You were convinced abortion is wrong for religious/soul-related/otherwise supernatural reasons.
Yea this solidified you retard status, literately all my arguments are an internal critics, I argue under the premises that physicalism is true and that consciousness is generated form the brain and not form the soul like dualism or any other theory of mind like non-dual or idealism.
My human cattle argument only works under physicalism as I am assuming that consciousness is generated form the brain can through some sort of tech can stop it from developing
My potentiality argument only works under physicalism as I am assuming that consciousness is generated form the brain after a certain point of development

>>18483804
They're not self sufficient, they rely 100% on the government bribing and extorting businesses to hire them. They are allowed to do whatever they want only because the government oppresses fathers and husbands on their behalf and prevents them from disciplining them and keep them in line. The government is the oppressor of mankind, men were truly happier and more free before they took over the land.

The feds are a curse upon man. A punishment from God for turning away from his law.

>>18483816
{2/2]
anon this unironically shows how much of a dumbass you are and cant actually track the argument, i shocked that this is a Humanities board. i would assume that people would have better reading comprehension

>>18483816
>The potentiality is not there and if not disturbed it will not c
will not actualise*

>>18483804
do they? where? how do you measure how "happy" billions of people are across the history?

>>18483816
>Its a fucking allegory retard of course nobody knows which ticket is he winning one irl, learn how to read.
It's only immoral if you do know which ticket will win for the reasons I mentioned - it would be a scam akin to match fixing.
>On the other hand its some random joe shom which will most likely not find the treasure. The potentiality is not there and if not disturbed it will not c
>So this is a completely different allegory you dumbass
I can just postulate that I know he'll find it. It could be that he's digging in a predictable grid pattern, or that I heard him saying in the pub where he'll dig next etc.
>Yea this solidified you retard status, literately all my arguments are an internal critics
I know, and they're extremely bad. You don't realize how bad they are because those are not arguments that you were personally convinced by, not even in the same ballpark.

>>18483816
But this is also all missing my earlier point. Even if you can have immoral things where the crux is something potentially (not) happening, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can have immoral things where the victim is merely a potential one.

>>18483835
>It's only immoral if you do know which ticket will win for the reasons I mentioned - it would be a scam akin to match fixing.
Again you are missing the point, if you use your brain you can see its a metaphor for life
>It's only immoral if you do know which ticket will win for the reasons I mentioned
Good you just admitted that acting upon someone potentiality and stopping them to actualise is immoral
And again its a fucking allegory and just the man does know the winning lottery ticket just the mother knows the baby will develop consciousness
The mother knows that the fetus has the potentiality for life and if not disturbed it will actualise

They way your are handling this is like if I gave an allegory of a man which knows a 1000000 digit code and then i expect you to write down all 1000000 digits and if he did gets them all it would be way more probable to assume that the guy cheated; then like the special ed you are you would say some shit like "no man can remember a 1000000 digit code

>I can just postulate that I know he'll find it. It could be that he's digging in a predictable grid pattern, or that I heard him saying in the pub where he'll dig next etc.
>having to change the allegory because its shit
Again it would be unlikely; but even then its still completely different from my allegory as in mine you know that he is going to win the lottery ticket and his potentiality is going to actualise
In yours you are just assuming that his potentiality will actualise even though you don't have foreseeable knowledge that he will unlike mine. Also both of you are competing for the treasure and only one of you will live the mothers potentiality has already been actualised the babies haven't. And if the babies potentiality actualises it won't kill the mother (and if it did I already said how in this instance an abortion is justifiable)
You see how retarded you still are?
[1/2]

>>18483868
>I know, and they're extremely bad. You don't realize how bad they are because those are not arguments that you were personally convinced by, not even in the same ballpark.
>Had to switch the critics of my arguments because he was wrong (again) like the retard he is
See how this this is just an ad hominem fallacy and nothing else.

>You don't realize how bad they are because those are not arguments that you were personally convinced by
Just a random assumption

>not even in the same ballpark.
What a joke XD
I will not be engaging with a retard like you anymore

>>18483868
>fetus has the potentiality for life
for consciousness*

>>18483868
>treasure and only one of you will
Get it.*

>>18483868
>Again you are missing the point, if you use your brain you can see its a metaphor for life
You are the one missing my point. The immorality of taking the ticket isn't due to the potential of the man to get the prize (after all, the treasure seeker has the same potential to get the treasure yet me taking it isn't immoral), it's due to breaking the implicit rules of the lotto by participating while knowing which ticket will win.
>Again it would be unlikely
I said that I can postulate I know he'll find it if I don't dig it up first.
>but even then its still completely different from my allegory as in mine you know that he is going to win the lottery ticket and his potentiality is going to actualise
>In yours you are just assuming that his potentiality will actualise even though you don't have foreseeable knowledge that he will unlike mine.
I wouldn't take that road if I were you. If it's only immoral if you definitely know the potential will be fulfilled, then under that framework abortion isn't immoral in the real world because the mother never actually knows for sure whether the baby would've been carried to term successfully.

>>18483826
Ask them

Why do atheists wanna kill babies so bad?

>>18483912
Because blessed is the one who smashes them kids against the rocks or some shit, idk.

>>18483912
They're not atheists, they think women will reward them with sex if they act feminist online

>>18483916
You're not a Christian, you just hate women because they reject you and fuck chad.

>>18483913
>completely disregarding context
>>18483916
Sounds like atheist behavior. I seek Christ, not pussy.

>>18483920
You will never be a woman

>>18483907
ask 4 billion women?

>>18483923
Correct, I am a man, mashallah.

>>18483924
>what is sample size

>>18483920
I'm not pretending to be a Christian though?

>>18483927
something that doesn't reflect reality
and how do you compare it with the women in past generations who are dead by now?

So that's it, huh. The great apologist gave up on the argument and got into a low iq flamewar with randos.

>>18483932
They asked them back then

>>18483887
Holy shit I know I said that I wouldn't engage with you anymore but this is so fucking braindead I had to

>The immorality of taking the ticket
I never said anything about the ticket giving immorality LMAO
this just shows how shit your reading comprehension is and how much of a retard you are

>it's due to breaking the implicit rules of the lotto by participating while knowing which ticket will win.
Again your grade 5 reading comprehension fails you again.
If you r-e-m-e-m-b-e-r, I had to just tell you out right what the allegory meet.
And you are still treating an allegory in a literalistic sense
see
>They way your are handling this is like if I gave an allegory of a man which knows a 1000000 digit code and then i expect you to write down all 1000000 digits and if he did gets them all it would be way more probable to assume that the guy cheated; then like the special ed you are you would say some shit like "no man can remember a 1000000 digit code

The mother is the man with the knowledge, she knows that the fetus (the man which is on his way to get the ticket) is good to get the winning ticket if undisturbed

man knows about the other mans potentiality to win the lotto and if not disturbed it will actualise and he will win
Mother knows about the fetus potentiality to develop consciousness and if not disturbed it will actualise and it will develop consciousness
Do I need to spoon feed you any more?

>I said that I can postulate I know he'll find it if I don't dig it up first.
Still completing different as in yours your competing, one of you takes it, the other loess it if you act on it
in mine only of you can take it and if the other one disturbs it he losses it and the other man doesn't get anything
yours: take or be token
Mine: Watch a snail cross the rode or step on it
Remember we all talking about the potentiality of consciousness here

>>18483935
Do you think your daughter should keep the child if she gets raped?

>>18483945
>I wouldn't take that road if I were you.
Nigger stfu you're retarded stop speaking like this

>If it's only immoral if you definitely know the potential will be fulfilled, then under that framework abortion isn't immoral in the real world because the mother never actually knows for sure whether the baby would've been carried to term successfully.
>Again more retardom and thinks I mentioned immorality anywhere
The chances of it happening are still extremely low; It is predicted that the fetes develops consciousness at week 24 by then miscarriages only have a around 2% likely https://www.chrissieyu.com/miscarriage-statistics-uk/
And even if it was 50% it wouldn't matter as its a natural cause and the mother couldn't do anything about it, unlike actively murdering it (switching the ticket) so she wouldn't be held morally accountable

Lets do a recap:
>You cant read and have shit comprehension
>You don't understand metaphors
>You don't understand allegory
>You don't understand my arguments
>You criticisms are just fallacy's and again come from your retarddom (literately all my arguments are an internal critics, I argue under the premises that physicalism is true and that consciousness is generated form the brain and not form the soul like dualism or any other theory of mind like non-dual or idealism.)
>You can't track
>You have con on like 30 points (retorical language btw
>You was wrong about where life begins
>You was wrong about practically everything
Unironically I tired to made this response simpler and spoon feed you so you can understand it, be thankful
Anyways
You and your morality are a fucking joke,
I will not be engaging with a retard like you anymore

>>18483945
>what the allegory meet.
ment*

>>18482168
abortion is evil because it destroys what could be a healthy person, its racial suicide. not because it "kills" a baby

>>18483945
>in mine only of you can take it
in mine only one of you can take it*
before any says something im on phone give me a break

>>18483950
>abortion is evil because the girl ACKs herself and not that the baby is murdered (both are bad)
Are you sure you are not evil

>>18483944
all of them? where? what study? what country? what region? age? social standing?

>>18482168
Not the unfeeling clump of cells!

>>18483957
Do you have any evidence oppressing them made them sad?

Pro-life wins agian

>>18483954
thats not what i said, abortion is evil because the baby could become a healthy european adult, but instead its killed and thrown in a dumpster. i support aborting disabled, genetically ill and deformed babies as eugenics

>>18483962
>oppressing; to make a person feel uncomfortable or worried
happy person is not uncomfortable or worried

>>18483972
I'm sorry I mischaracterized you I'm glad you have a brain not like the other guys I was deabting

>>18483946
Not the guy you was responding to but yea
>I would say that even if its extremely hard for the women she should keep it, We are not Christians, the child shouldn't be punished for what their for fathers did they don't have original sin

>>18483945
>the ticket giving immorality
What on earth are you talking about?
>Again your grade 5 reading comprehension fails you again. If you r-e-m-e-m-b-e-r, I had to just tell you out right what the allegory meet.
>And you are still treating an allegory in a literalistic sense
My objection isn't that the allegory is impossible, it's that I disagree about what is the relevant fact that makes the situation immoral.
>The mother is the man with the knowledge, she knows that the fetus (the man which is on his way to get the ticket) is good to get the winning ticket if undisturbed
>man knows about the other mans potentiality to win the lotto and if not disturbed it will actualise and he will win
>Mother knows about the fetus potentiality to develop consciousness and if not disturbed it will actualise and it will develop consciousness
I understand the analogy. My point is that you misidentified what principle makes the lotto situation immoral, and that the principle that makes the lotto situation immoral is not present in the case with abortion.
That's why I brought up the treasure analogy - it's the same analogy but with the relevant principle (running a scam) removed.
>Still completing different as in yours your competing, one of you takes it, the other loess it if you act on it
I could throw the treasure into the sea and it still wouldn't be immoral.
>And even if it was 50% it wouldn't matter as its a natural cause and the mother couldn't do anything about it, unlike actively murdering it (switching the ticket) so she wouldn't be held morally accountable
You're not tracking the point. The chance we're talking about in this line of the argument is the chance that the treasure seeker will fail to find the treasure even without my interference. My claim is that this is irrelevant to the morality of the analogy, but if you want to claim that it's relevant, then so is the chance that the mother will spontaneously miscarry without interference via abortion.

File: wikipe-tan.png (29 KB, 1206x1080)

29 KB PNG

>>18482987

>>18483979
>but yea
So you're a cuck? You're fine with your daughter having to raise some thirdie offspring to no choice of her own?

>>18482995
>A human is created would imply you should mourn a 1 week fetus as much as a fully fledged baby
People who think abortion isn't murder are so intellectually dishonest it's insane.
"Oh, you think 102-year-olds are humans? That automatically implies you should value their lives just as much as you value 12-year-olds' lives"

>>18483994
Notice how you didn't answer the question and instead made up a strawman
Btw senile vegetable boomers do indeed get taken off life support

>>18483999
>Notice how you didn't answer the question
What question?
>and instead made up a strawman
What strawman? You're literally saying that if you believe something is alive you should automatically value it the same as some other living thing. Why? Nobody thinks this.
>Btw senile vegetable boomers do indeed get taken off life support
Nobody's talking about vegetable-state humans, nice sleight-of-hand.
Basically everybody considers healthy old people to be worth less than healthy young people. Does this mean healthy old people aren't alive and that you can just terminate them if you want?

>>18484004
>Nobody's talking about vegetable-state humans
Fetuses are literally vegetable state humans thoughbeit so you're claiming that nobody's talking about fetuses.

>>18484007
But nobody is denying the humanness or aliveness of adult vegetables. Why is it only fetuses that get this treatment?