>"here's proof that a fetus is an innocent human being!"
>just a bunch of people saying the obvious fact that a fetus happens after fertilization, with no commentary on either innocence or human being status
smartest anti-abortion activist right here folks

>>475631229
>muh human dna!!!!!
Nobody gives a shit, autist. Your position is only coherent if you believe in immaterial souls.

>>475631230
looks like the evil, demonic baby murderer can't read too well

>"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
>NEW ORGANISM

So the zygoote is a NEW OORGANISM thus is a DIFFERENT organism to the mother.
And what species of organism is the zygote?
The species of the zygote is HUMAN
So the zygote is a HUMAN ORGANISM aka a human beings=
Get wrecked you dumb fucking evil murderer.

And why is the zygote/embryo/fetus innocent? Because the zygote/embryo/fetus has not committed any acts of evil yet so of course it's innocent.
You dumb fucking evil retard.

Baby murderers annihilated yet again.

>>475631231
>murdering innocent people is only evil if you believe in immaterial souls

Typical demonic , amoral atheist self-owning and prooudly revealing their own moral bankruptcy.

>>475631232
>has a meltdown
>"heh bet u feel dumb huh"
Embarrassing

>>475631233
If you don't believe in immaterial souls, the fetus is an object rather than a subject up until it develops consciousness, low IQ anon. Objects aren't people.

>>475631233
>LE MORALS
Christians enslaved niggers and raped injuns btw.

>>475631229
>deliberately killing innocent human beings is murder and evil

I don’t agree with premise 2, I am fine with killing innocent human beings if they are so undeveloped that their sentience is literally comparable to a blob fish, chicken and they have a parasitic relationship with someone’s body

I’m also pro-euthanasia, and I think it’s better not to bring these fetuses into this shit world

>>16887712
Fpbp. OP wont even try to refute this one because he is exactly the type of evangelicuck that adopts niglets from Ethiopia and donates their pension to Israel.

>>475631235
>>475631237
The only significance of consciousness is whether you are aware of something.

It is wrong to deprive people of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate.
This is true even when that person is not aware that they have been deprived.

For example, it is wrong to steal someone's mail because you are depriving them of something that belongs to them, their mail, that they would appreciate.
Note it is wrong to steal someone's mail even if they are never conscious of the fact i.e. never aware that their mail has been stolen.

And for the exact same reason it is wrong to steel someone's life while they are unconscious e.g. during abortion, because you are depriving them of something that belong's to them, their life, that they would appreciate (in the future when they become conscious).

So because it is wrong to deprive someone of something that belongs to them that they would not appreciate even if they are not aware of it , it is wrong to kill someone while they are unconscious or steal someone's mail or other possession without them finding out.

>>475631229
>Abortion is murder and evil.
Yes, but the morning after pill and induced miscarriages are not. Both are non-invasive, and the latter has been performed for thousands of years (many ancient civilizations had herbal methods for inducing miscarriages). Therefore, the RU486 pill regimen, and the morning after pill, should be made readily available without a prescription all over the world.

>Debate me.
Only retarded youtube addicts say this.

>You will lose.
You lost before you even began.

>>475631239
>The only significance of consciousness is whether you are aware of something.
Wrong. The significance of consciousness is that something without the capacity for consciousness isn't a "they", it's an "it". The difference between a first trimester fetus and a third trimester fetus is like the difference between a rock and a dog.
If there's no "what it's like to be" an X, then X isn't a person but rather an object. You refuse to accept this because you believe in immaterial souls, but you don't want to admit that because you want to force your views on people who don't believe in souls.
You can never win this discussion.

>>475631241
Listen, if you're so desperate to murder innocent babies that you're willing to reject the obviously true moral principle that it is wrong to deprive people of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate even if they are not currently aware i.e. conscious of it then you can do that but then you're just exposing yourself as a morally bankrupt subhuman who asserts that it is ok to steal people's mail and other possessions without them realising or kill people instantly before they become aware i.e. conscious of it.

You can keep on crying about "souls" if you want to but nothing I have said refers to or relies on souls so you're just running away.
Unless you're making the claim that all moral statements require the belief in souls, which would again just be exposing the atheist worldview as evil and immoral and depraved.

>>16887712
This man is your friend. He fights for freedom.

>>475631242
I knew you wouldn't address what I said at all. What you're saying relies on souls because without souls, the first trimester fetus is an object rather than a person.
Don't waste your time replying to me if you don't intend to address this.

File: 4635463513524.gif (1.02 MB, 460x360)

1.02 MB GIF

>>475631229
>Debate me.
>You will lose.
niggers

>>475631240
>morning after pill and induced miscarriages are not
the morning after pill works by two mechanism, one prevents the sperm and egg meeting and so prevents the new human being from coming to life to begin with and so is not murder.
the other works by killing the young human being by preventing him or her from receiving nutrients, so is murder in the same way that dropping someone in a locked room with no food and water and leaving them there is murder.
induced miscarriages are obviously the same as abortion since you are killing the child by forcing them into an environment they cannot survive.

the fact that people have been killing their unborn babies for thouosands of years doesn't make it any less abortion and any less murder , you retard.

pointing out that something is non-invasive is brainless.
It wouold be like saying hey I sucked all the oxygen oout of the room you're in. I never touched your body so it's non-invasive so it;s not murder.

totally fucking retarded and braindead
You stupid evil tranny faggot


once again the forces of evil are proven to be utterly retarded and brainless.
I couold stomp on your head until you squished like melon and you wouold barely be less stupid.
"hurr it's non-invasive and has been happening a long time so it;s not murder unlike abortion"
gay retard

>>475631244
You're the one who is running from addressing my argument lol.

I've given you a moral principle .
> It is wrong to deprive people of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate.
>This is true even when that person is not aware that they have been deprived.
You can either accept that this moral principle is true in which case that commits you to agreeing that abortion is wrong just like the other examples provided of the moral principle being instantiated.
Or you can declare that you reject the moral principle and thus expose yourself as an amoral subhuman as outlined in >>475631242


Right now what you're choosing to do is be a coward runt who is too scared to even engage with the moral principle at all.

Typical evildoer brainlet cowars in the face of a righteousness argument.

>>475631234
address his point or stfu

>>475631247
Anon, you're so stupid that you genuinely didn't understand my point at all.
I agree with your principle, my point is that the first trimester fetus isn't a person but rather an object. The difference between a person and an object is that there is something that it's like to be a person, but there isn't anything that it's like to be an object.
You disagree with this because you believe in souls.
Give up, you've lost.

>>475631229
I believe in the extreme golden rule. I imagine that I will live all possible lives. I don’t care if a few fetuses are aborted here and there, especially since their mothers apparently don’t feel ready or willing to raise them properly in the first place. Abortion probably reduces suffering overall and improves the gene pool. Even if heaven and hell are real, what do you think happens to the baby? You think it goes to hell? Lol.

>>475631248
nigger zygotes aren't human. whites don't get abortions therefore I don't care.

now go die for Israel you zogbot.

>>475631249
If you agree with this principle
>> It is wrong to deprive people of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate.
>This is true even when that person is not aware that they have been deprived.

Then that commits you to agreeing that abortion is wrong.
LEt's just very simply do the substitution together and go from the principle to the specific instantiation to show this

> It is wrong to deprive people of something that belongs to them , their life, that they would appreciate.
>This is true even when that person is not aware that they have been deprived (because they not yet conscious).

See? There you go you dipshit.
The whole point of the principle is that it shows that it is wrong to deprive someone that something that belongs to him that he would appreciate even if he is not aware i.e. not conscious of it.

this is why it is wrong to steal someone's mail without them ever becoming aware i.e. becoming coonscious of it.
This is why it is wrong to kill someone instantly before their neurons can even form an action potential in response i.e. deprive them of their life before they are conscious of it
This is why it is wrong to kill somoeone while they're under anaesthetic, because you are depriving them of something that belongs to them , their life, that they would appreciate but for you killing them, even thoough they are not yet currently conscious of it.
And this is also why it is wrong to kill an unborn baby while they're gestating because you are depriving them of something that belongs to them , their life, that they would appreciate but for you killing them, even thoough they are not yet currently conscious of it.

So accepting the principle commits you to accepting that abortion is wrong for the same reason that the other above examples are wrong.
And rejecting means denying that any of the other examples like stealing someone's mail without them becoming aware of it or killing someone instantaneously is ok

>>475631252
>It is wrong to deprive PEOPLE of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate.
>This is true even when that PERSON is not aware that they have been deprived.
Yep, and the first trimester fetus is not a person but rather an object.
>This is why it is wrong to kill SOMEONE instantly before their neurons can even form an action potential in response i.e. deprive them of their life before they are conscious of it
The fetus isn't a someone, it's an object. There is nothing that it's like to be a first trimester fetus.
>This is why it is wrong to kill somoeone while they're under anaesthetic, because you are depriving them of something that belongs to them , their life, that they would appreciate but for you killing them, even thoough they are not yet currently conscious of it.
Correct. There is something that it's like to be Joe, so it's not right for me to deprive him of something that belongs to him. That's because Joe is a person rather than an object.
You lost, soulboy. Give it up.

>>475631251
if you want an ethnostate, just say so. abortion is unethical regardless of race. I have no intention of dying for Israel whatsoever. I want all aid to all countries cut down to 0. let them fend for themselves.

>>475631250
> I imagine that I will live all possible lives. I don’t care if a few fetuses are aborted
> I imagine that I will live all possible lives. I don’t care if a few children are murdered
> I imagine that I will live all possible lives. I don’t care if a few women are raped
>I imagine that I will live all possible lives. I don’t care if a few people's life-savings get stolen

wow that's amazing reasoning. I never realised before as long as you imagine all possible lives, it's fine to commit any evil act.

Wow baby-murderers are such intellectual people.

> Abortion probably reduces suffering overall
Ok bro, I know how to reduce your suffering maximally. I'll fill your room with carbon monoxide while you sleep then blast your brains out with a shotgun.
What's the problem bro? I'm reducing your suffering.
If I don't kill you in your sleep then your total amount of suffering will be much more so so just leave it to me.
I'm sure you'll agree since you think that reducing suffering is the most important thing.
Dumb utilitarian faggot.

>>475631253
> the first trimester fetus is not a person but rather an object.

Wrong, retard. A person is a human being. That's the meaning of the word. a person is a synonym for a human being.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/person
>a man, woman, or child:
A zygote is a child because a child is a human being before the age of puberty and a zygote is also a human being before the age of puberty therefore a zygote is a child which is a person.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+person
>a human being regarded as an individual.
a zygote is a human as established in >>475631229
>>475631232
and unless the zygote becomes twins or multiplets he or she is an individual, and if the zygote does become twins or multiplets then at that point you have multiple human beings and so people.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
>: HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/person
>A person is an individual human being.
as above


So your claim that a zygote is not a person is totally false. A zygote is a person because a person is a human being and a zygote is a human being, just a very young human being.

So the moral principle outlined in >>475631252 applies to very young human beings the same way it applies to any other human being.

You know this which is why you're desperately looking for an excuse not to acknowledge the moral principle which you know is true and which you know implies that abortion is wrong just like any other case of depriving someone of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate (but for you depriving them of it) is wrong, even if they are not currently conscious i.e. aware of it.

>>475631254
Based and true.
I don't like blacks because they widespread hostility for my race and they make every country where they're present in large numbers worse due to their low IQ and violent criminality and laziness and lack of decency.

But even so killing black babies is evil.

>>475631255
I don’t wanna be murdered or raped though. But I DO want to be aborted in many cases. That’s the golden rule.

>>475631256
>A person is a human being. That's the meaning of the word. a person is a synonym for a human being.
Arguing using a dictionary while talking about philosophy means that you automatically lost.
A person is a subject, not an object. A subject is capable of subjective experience, or in other words, there is something that it's like to be a subject. There is nothing that it's like to be an object.
And in any case, I only agree with your principle as long as the word "person" or "people" within it refers to personhood in a philosophical sense as I've outlined it above.
But of course our disagreement stems from the fact that you think the fetus is a person because it has a soul. And that is why you lost.

>>475631229
>innocent
prove it

>>475631229
>Every fetus committed the original sin
>Therefore terminating them is just
Q.E.D.

>>475631258
You might personally believe that many of your imaginary possible lives are not worth living , however you are not justified in assuming that this is what other people believe, since we know that nearly all unwanted children do consider their lives worth living as shown through their revealed preferences, the fact that nearly all unwanted children vote with their feet to continue living and enjoying their life.

And so the argument that you are the unborn children that you are murdering a favour or a mercy because their life would not be worth living is invalid since nearly all unwanted children do consider their life worht living.

The only time that this reasoning would be valid is when you can tell from scans that the fetus is unviable because they've been born with no lungs or something and so cannot survive outside the womb except for a few short painful minutes.
Aborting a child under this circumstance is equivalent to mercy killing a soldier who has been fatally horrifically wounded on the battlefield by giving them a quick death rather than painful death lasting several minutes.

>>475631262
it’s a clump of cells, it has no desires. That’s like saying we should harvest every single sperm cell from a man and ensure that it leads to life. You’re not pro-life if you don’t support forcing every single woman to have a baby once a year.

And again, I view myself as all life that exists. I literally do not care if I am aborted in a few lifetimes. I don’t believe in a soul or typical atheist “eternal void” nonsense. All consciousness is the same, it is all real. It’s all me.

>>475631259
>Arguing using a dictionary while talking about philosophy means that you automatically lost.

Why are you butthurt? We're speaking english, you used english words in a sentence that was false and so I corrected you.
A zygote is a person i.e. a human being.
You're just trying to deny that a zygote is a person as an excuse to avoid engaging with the moral principle from >>475631252 even though the moral principle very clearly, explicitly applies even when the person i.e. the human being is not conscious i.e. not aware

So simply poointing out that zygotes are not aware does not help you, that;s the point of the moral principle.

If you choose to accept the moral principle then it applies to zygotes the same way it applies to other humans.
If you choose to reject the moral principle then that means rejecting that the crimes ouotlined in >>475631252 are wrong which exposes you as depraved and evil.

>> It is wrong to deprive people of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate.
>This is true even when that person is not aware i.e. not conscious of the fact that they have been deprived.

perhaps you are making the claim that if someone is not conscious then it is ok to deprive someone of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate.
In which case you should have no problem with me walking into the hospital the next time you're under general anaesthetic and filling your room with carbon monoxide.

Obviously this wrould be wrong because it is infact wrong to deprive someone of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate, even if they are not conscious or aware of it at the time. And for this reason killing an unborn baby and stealing their life from them is also wrong.

You can't refute this moral reasoning so the only thing you can do is repeat "muh souls" even though I clearly have not referred to souls once in this argument.

>>475631263
>>475631263
>it’s a clump of cells, it has no desires
But you just said
>But I DO want to be aborted in many cases.

So at first you started making claims about what the unborn child would want based on what you imagine you would want in that situation, then when I demonstrated that your claims did not apply to other people in >>475631262 you suddenly thow out your own previous line reasoning ? lol

>That’s like saying we should harvest every single sperm cell from a man and ensure that it leads to life. You’re not pro-life if you don’t support forcing every single woman to have a baby once a year.
quote what I've said that implies this and demonstrate how what I said implies this.
Nothing I've said commits me to this.

All I'm saying is that killing innocent human beings is wrong. A zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being, they're all just names for stages of life of a human being the same way an octogenarian is a human being. A zygote/embryo/fetus is just a very young human being.
A sperm cell on the other hand is not a human being, a sperm cell is a part of an adult human being the same way a cheak cell is part of a human being. It is only after a sperm and an egg combine that you get a new, distinct human being , a new human organism see https://web.archive.org/web/20240117085032/https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

So killing innocent human beings is wrong, but destroying a sperm cell does not constitute killign a human being any more than I am killing a human being when I scrape a wooden stick against the inside of your cheek to scrape off some cheek cells.

>>475631260
see>>475631232

>>475631265
I care about reducing suffering. Abortion reduces suffering on average. Simple as. Your definition of “wrong” has some implicit assumptions that you haven’t yet explained. Why is killing innocent humans always wrong? Is it wrong to kill animals? What does it mean for something to be wrong?

Who the fuck wouldnt abort some sickly mutated disfigured brain pervert at any cost

btw Sabina Nyberg often made herself on purpose pregnant to me, lying that shes on pills, then once casually coming out of a toilet stating "took too much drugs again, dropped a fetus in the toilet, took some time to flush" or something like that, yes that makes her HOORNY

>~prolife
hmm

>>475631264
>Why are you butthurt? We're speaking english, you used english words in a sentence that was false and so I corrected you.
I corrected you because you're very very stupid and don't know how (non-specialized) dictionaries work. Protip: they collect some of the most common usages and attach a brief description. In this sense, the dictionary will refer to common usages such as "those five people over there", but not niche uses such as "alien people from Vega 5" or "the philosophy of personhood". If you weren't a high school dropout, you'd be familiar with this fact and wouldn't try to use a dictionary to argue about philosophy.
>If you choose to reject the moral principle then that means rejecting that the crimes ouotlined in >>475631252 # are wrong which exposes you as depraved and evil.
I already told you that I accept a non-retarded version of the principle which uses the philosophical definition of personhood I provided. You have no argument against this because your whole argument rests on your belief in souls. You will also not address me using this version of the principle because you don't know how to argue against it (because you're very stupid).
>In which case you should have no problem with me walking into the hospital the next time you're under general anaesthetic and filling your room with carbon monoxide.
Nope. There is something that it's like to be me and even if I've taken a bit of a nap, I've already laid a claim on this body beforehand.
Cute attempt, soulboy, but you lost.

>>475631267
ohhh you care about reducing suffering do you? Well I know how to maximally reduce your suffering. I'll just pump carbon monoxide into your room while you're asleep and thenblow your brains out with a shotgun.
You ok with that bro? You should be good with it since it reduces your suffering the most possible.
Dumb utilitarian retard.

>Why is killing innocent humans always wrong? Is it wrong to kill animals? What does it mean for something to be wrong?
running to meta ethics already?
Listen, whatever meta-ethical framework you choose , as long as you accept the modest proposition that murdering innocent human beings is wrong then everything I've said holds and abortion is also wrong.

On the other hand if you want to say that murdering innocent human beings is ok, or that you don't know whether it is wrong to murder innocent humans, you can go ahead and do that, I don't mind if someone rejects the moral premise that murdering innocent human beings is wrong because at that point I can just point out what a depraved , immoral , evil degenerate they and point out to regular , decent people that in pro-abortion people are so evil that they're willing to assert that it is ok to murder innocent human beings in order not to be committed to admitting that abortion is evil.

>>475631271
> I'll just pump carbon monoxide into your room while you're asleep and thenblow your brains out with a shotgun.
You ok with that bro? You should be good with it since it reduces your suffering the most possible.
My family would suffer a lot, actually
> as long as you accept the modest proposition that murdering innocent human beings is wrong then everything I've said holds and abortion is also wrong.
So you admit you use words without even defining them. My position is pretty clear: I put myself in the shoes of everyone. The maximum golden rule. I don’t want people to suffer and I want a society where you can just go around murdering people because that would be chaotic. Abortion does not lead to chaos and it does not increase suffering. It prevents a lot of bad childhoods and allows mothers to have children at a better time. Your only argument is “but murder bad” because you’re just blindly following your monkey instincts that tell you that killing another human is generally not a good thing to do. But in the case of abortion the CONSEQUENCES are actually good on average, and that’s even when you codify it into law. You can’t make it legal to go around killing people just because you think it won’t lead to suffering. The logistics would be horrible there.

File: 1719795578089242.jpg (59 KB, 640x492)

59 KB JPG

>>475631257
thank you. balkanization seems the least violent option for both sides to coexist.
good fences make good neighbors.

>>475631270
No what u r doing is using words incorrectly because u r so desperate to be allowed to murder unborn children that you want to change the meaning of the word person so that it no longer means human being but instead means human beings except for unborn babies or some post-hoc, self-serving hogwash like that.

Sorry buddy but that isn't what person means. If you don't want person to mean human being then stop speaking english. While you're speaking the english language then the strings of letters correspond to the meanings within the english language.
So zygote is a human being. you have to deal with it.

>I already told you that I accept a non-retarded version of the principle
ahh so you finally admit that you reject the principle because you concede that the principle does commit you to accepting that abortion is wrong.
Wonderful. this is progress. you are admitting that if you agree with the following principle
> It is wrong to deprive people of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate.
>This is true even when that person is not aware i.e. not conscious of the fact that they have been deprived.

then that commits you to agreeing that abortion is wrong

Good. Since you have finally worked up enough courage to engage with the argument and commit to a position on the principle all I need to do is show how depraved and evil you are for rejecting this moral principle.

you reject that it is wrong to steal someone's mail without them ever realising i.e. being conscious of the theft making you an immoral thief.
You reject that it is wrong to steal someone's life without them ever realising i.e. while they are not conscious of the fact that they're being killed e.g. while they're under anaesthetic or in the womb.
These are obviously very evil beliefs and it perfectly demonstrates the moral depravity of baby killers and how their bloodlust compels them to reject even very obviously true moral principles.
cont.

>>475631270
>>475631274
cont.

>There is something that it's like to be me
this cringe, tinny phrase is just pointing out that you're conscious, right? but you aren't conscious when you're under anaesthetic.
> I've already laid a claim on this body beforehand.
ohh is that what matters, continuity of memories? So if I hit you unconscious and give you amnesia so any memory of "laying a claim to your body" or your previous identity is gone then it would be ok to kill you?

Obviously not and the reason why is because it is wrong to deprive you of something that that belongs to you that you would appreciate, in this case your life, even if you are not conscious or aware of it.

you on the other hand would have to say that once I bump your head and destroy your memories and knock you unconscious temporarily then there is no longer "something that it is like to be you" so it would be fine to kill you.

what you're trying to do is raise the distinction that an unborn baby has not yet been conscious whereas an unconscious adult has previously been conscious. But this is a distinction without any relevance to moral value because in general the previous state of something is irrelevant to that thing's value because the past is gone and can never be returned to, so the previous state of something only matters to it's value (moral or financial) in as much as it can provide information about that thing's current or future state, but a thing's previous state does not matter in itself to it's value. It's only the current and future state of something that matter to that thing's value.
For example Enron previously was very profitable, does that mean enron is a valuable company now? no.
cont.

>>475631270
>>475631274
>>475631275
cont.
a corpse was previously conscious, does that mean a corpse is morally valuable? no.
An unconscious adult is not morally valuable because they were previously conscious but because they are likely to be conscious in the future. For example a baby that fell into a coma during gestation and grew to adulthood without regaining consciousness would still be morally valuable if there was reason to believe that person would be conscious in the future.

So your past state of previously being concious is irrelevant, both because it would still be wrong to kill you even if knocked you out I gave you amnesia and destroyed your memories and previous identity and any semblance of "what it is like to be you" , and because the past state of things is irrelevant to their moral value in general .
so it is just as wrong to kill an unconscious person that has not been conscious before and thus deprive them of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate as it is to kill an unconscious person that has been conscious before and thus deprive them of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate.

OP, you could have just entitled this thread:
>Respond and Watch Me Melt Down
Thank you for the laughs, and GOD BLESS!

>>475631273
Explain this image to me, I'm retarded. I know the one with the glass is easier to break into so it's probably a safer area, but why does it look so ominous?

>>475631272
>My family would suffer a lot, actually
So if I murder all of them in their sleep too then would that be ok according to you?
Or how about I murder you in your sleep and replace you with a robot that can impersonate you so well they don't realise.
Or I murder hermits living on their own in their sleep.
Or I murder then entire world with an advanced weapon that kills everyone on the planet in an instant.
All of these depraved, nihilistic , evil things are good according to you since they reduce suffering.
gay utilitarian retard.

> It prevents a lot of bad childhoods
Are those bad childhoods not worth living? According to unwanted children, their lives are worth living. So you saying that that it is good to prevent unwanted children from living their life is as invalid as me saying that it would have been good for me to prevent you living your life by killing you either before you were born or during early childhood because your life is not worth living because I designate a life worth living to be 10 utility points higher than your life. This is just as arbitrary as what you are doing when you claim that it is good to murder unwanted children to prevent their "bad lives"
cont.

>>475631272
>>475631279
cont.

>You can’t make it legal to go around killing people just because you think it won’t lead to suffering. The logistics would be horrible there.
but you're saying that if you didn't make it law and I just did it anyway either by doing it in the wilderness or something where other people don't find out, or if I was otherwise powerful enough to murder hobos and hermits without people noticing or murder people and replace them with robots without people noticing then in principle that would be ok with you.
You'd prefer for everyone to get murdered if there was some "kill everyone " button, e.g. a super AI of somekind , since that would reduce suffering the most when everyone has been murdered.

This is how totally evil your ideology is.
People often hold up the nazis as the most evil ideology because they wanted to exterminate the jews, an entire race of people, but you're a hundred times more evil than that because you want to exterminate the jews and the africans and the asians and the europeans etc. every race on earth.

the only thing preventing you is the fact that you think you wont be able to achieve it because you don't have the "logistics", but if the kill-everyone button did fall into your hands from say an advanced physics experiment or a super AI that was going to turn the world into paper clips, you would press it because you want to minimise all these people's suffering by killing them.

>>475631229
>the thing which improves our society somewhat is evil
I don't care.

>>475631229
>Abortion is murder and evil.
Okay, and?
I'm Jewish btw

>>475631279
> So if I murder all of them in their sleep too then would that be ok according to you?
More friends and family would be affected, retard
> Or I murder then entire world with an advanced weapon that kills everyone on the planet in an instant.
That would be horrible. I hope that one day we will have a world that with so much joy and happiness that overwhelms the billions of years of suffering so far. Ending it all now would be beyond tragic.
> Are those bad childhoods not worth living?
No, not compared to the lives that they could live. The moms can just have kids at another time, when they’re better prepared. I literally do not want to reincarnate as every single rape baby, every single baby with a 12-year-old mom, all the dumb moms who got impregnated by some guy who doesn’t wanna stick around, etc. etc. I don’t want to live those lives. So yeah on average I think it’s justified. Golden rule.
> or if I was otherwise powerful enough to murder hobos and hermits without people noticing or murder people and replace them with robots without people noticing then in principle that would be ok with you.
Only if it were based in good judgment and it actually improved the world, then yeah. I think the ends always justify the ends. But if you were really dumb and just killed people without thinking, then obviously it could lead to bad consequences. Which is why things like this aren’t legal.

>>475631278
high trust homogenous society vs low trust multiculti diversity

File: 1714671882073796.jpg (148 KB, 1098x892)

148 KB JPG

>>475631282
Stormniggers are so far gone that they're calling themselves Jews now. Crazy world.

>>475631283
lol I notice you avoided addressing the ones you didn't have an answer to ,coward
>Or how about I murder you in your sleep and replace you with a robot that can impersonate you so well they don't realise.
you didn't answer because you know according to the retarded "hurr do whatever reduces suffering" negative utilitarian mindset you have no principled reason not to say yes but you know that saying yes would be retarded so you just avoid responding to it.


>not compared to the lives that they could live.
who cares about that comparison? so youo can imagine a hypothetical better life than there current one so that makes it ok to murder them even though they consider their current lives worth living?
Ok then I can imagine a life better than yours too.
I wouldn't want to live the rest of my life , from 20 something years old or however old you are, as a depraved, bugman , utilitarian retard like you so I'm doing you a favour and justified in preventing you from living the rest of your life.
You see how it's autistic and invalid to assume that your preferences are the same as other people's preferences then just call that "the golden rule" , you retard.
When your decided whether to give someone a mercy killing, what matters is whether that person considers their life worth living not whether you consider that person's life worth living.
Even if you don't consider someone else's life worth living according to some gay faggot bugman standard e.g. "ugh I woould not want to stay alive if I did not have both my parents. I would just kill myself" that doesn't mean you're justified in killing other people whose lives who meet that standard when you know that most other people in that situation do consider their lives to be worth living.

dumb faggot.

Anyway I'm going to bed now.
Once again baby murderers have been exposed as evil and totally unable to justify their position with logic and decency and instead only offering depraved, evil hogwash

>>475631286
ok to be fair I’m not just all about reducing suffering, but improving conscious experiences overall. I can’t think of literally any greater goal than that. At the very least, abortion reduces lots of stress from mothers who don’t want to have kids at that particular moment. I empathize with the mothers and also the children who have bad childhoods. But you cling to these moronic moral absolutes just so you can say that you’re moral. I actually care about what other people are experiencing. One day it will be clear to everyone that you are the more “evil” one here. Which is to say, you are dumber. You ignored a lot of what I said also. I ignored you because your other points are weak. I already mentioned that I care about outweighing past suffering with joy and you talk about replacing me with a robot. Problem there is my life is actually really good. I’m above average in many areas and find great meaning in improving my life and the world.

>>475631254
>>475631257
>>475631273
why do you leftists worship niggers

It's the most perverted form of murder. A mother killing her unborn child willingly

>>475631286
>I murder you in your sleep and replace you with a robot that can impersonate you so well they don't realise.
nta, but under utilitarianism, this would clearly a misallocation of resources that could've been directed elsewhere, like donated to charity. I'm not confused as to why anon wouldn't take you seriously.

>>475631274
>No what u r doing is using words incorrectly
Nope, I'm using a technical definition of personhood. We are talking about philosophy, so I'm using a philosophical definition. If you don't want to talk about philosophy, fuck off to /co/ and talk about Thomas the Tank Engine or whatever.
>you finally admit that you reject the principle because you concede that the principle does commit you to accepting that abortion is wrong
As I predicted, you didn't address that I accept a non-retarded version of the principle.
>this cringe, tinny phrase is just pointing out that you're conscious, right?
Nope. It means exactly what it says.
>you on the other hand would have to say that once I bump your head and destroy your memories and knock you unconscious temporarily then there is no longer "something that it is like to be you" so it would be fine to kill you.
Nonsense. There's something that it's like to be Abraham Lincoln the same way there's something that it's like to drive a red Porsche even when there's no red Porsche's around right now.
>ohh is that what matters, continuity of memories?
No. It is a matter of fact that I laid a claim to my body by virtue of being a person. This would be true even if I went under general anesthesia and then lost my memories.
>raise the distinction that an unborn baby has not yet been conscious whereas an unconscious adult has previously been conscious.
Yes. And this is inconvenient to you because while on your view, the fetus has already been ensouled, it hasn't become conscious yet.
>a corpse was previously conscious, does that mean a corpse is morally valuable?
In some limited sense. It is generally accepted that one ought to respect the wishes of a person after their death assuming that they're reasonable. My body won't be afforded the same protections after I die because I'm not coming back to use it, but if I put in my will that I want to be cremated, you should probably do it.
You lost, low IQ anon.

>>475631287
>abortion reduces lots of stress from mothers
So what? It might reduce the stress of a psychotic murderer to murder babies on a neonatal ward.
reducing stress isn't a valid reason to murder innocent human beings.
It might reduce my stress to murder hermits in their sleep, and according to you there would be no "suffering" since they live alone , but this would clearly be evil , yet according to your evil, anti-human ideology it would be thing for a murderer to murder a hermit in his sleep so that the murderer feels good and reduces his own stress.

>You ignored a lot of what I said also.
What do you think you said that justifies murdering innocent human beings that you think I ignored?

> Problem there is my life is actually really good.
So what are you saying? that you'd be deprived of something that belongs to you that you would appreciate if I were to kill you?
Yes, exactly . well done, you finally got there
Which proves that minimising suffering isn't the most important moral value .
You don't want to be murdered and replaced with an excellent robot because you would be missing out on the rest of your life which is something that belongs to you that you would appreciate.
And the same is true for unborn children. abortion deprives them of something that belongs to them, their life, that they would appreciate.

This the real reason why murder is wrong, not because during the murder the victim experiences a few seconds of pain, or because the victim might have friends who are sad.
Murder is wrong even if both those things are controlled for.
And it also holds for unborn children and people in comas and people who are asleep and people who live on their own in the wilderness.

>>475631290
>under utilitarianism, this would clearly a misallocation of resources that could've been directed elsewhere, like donated to charity.

So? In that case murdering an innocent human being in their sleep and replacing them with a robot that immitates them is ok as long as you live in a post-scarcity world with a big-friendly AI harvesting excess resources to meet all charitable needs.
Wow great utilitarian system you have there. I can tell you're a really serious thinker.

>>475631292
So you think everyone is morally obligated to have as many children as possible? Because if not, then my sperm isn’t attaining its potential as a human being.

>>475631291
>I'm using a philosophical definition
there's no such thing. Either you or someone you're regurgitating has misused the word person and contrived a new meaning in order to try and justify murdering children.
This post-hoc sophistry is as invalid as saying " no abortion isn't murder because the 'philosophical definition' of murder is uh uh unjustified, deliberate killing of someone over 10 months old since conception and unborn children aren't over 10 months old since conception so there."
In reality the meaning of the word person is human being, not whatever proprietary bullshit you've made up in order to excuse your bloodlust.

All your whining isn't going to change the fact that the meaning of person is human being so a zygote is a person.

>you didn't address that I accept a non-retarded version of the principle.
I'm aware you claimed that, but you haven't demonstrated how the principle is retarded so what do you want me to address?
This claim that the principle is retarded is especially dubious considering that you claimed that you accepted the principle before >>475631249
>I agree with your principle
, which doesn't seem like something you would do if it really was retarded.
It sounds like you only later realised that the moral principle commits you to admitting that abortion is wrong THEN after finally realising what the principle commits you to , you then decided that you had to call the principle retarded because you didn't like the conclusion of the principle that you already agreed to.
cont.

>>475631291
>>475631295

>>>There is something that it's like to be me
>>this cringe, tinny phrase is just pointing out that you're conscious, right? but you aren't conscious when you're under anaesthetic.
>It means exactly what it says.
Unsurprisingly the babymurderer declilnes to clarify what he's saying because he can't even give a remotely convincing argument for why murdering innocent human beings is ok unless he resorts to vague , mystic hogwash.

apparently "there is something that it is like to be me" isn't simply pointing out that you are conscious, i.e. you have a conscious experience. In that case there's something that it is like to be anything. there's something that it's like to be a rock. There's something that it's like to be an oxygen atom.

>It is a matter of fact that I laid a claim to my body
And? So what if in the past you laid a claim to your body?
Your past state doesn't matter because the past no longer exists and can't be returned to. Your past state only matters in as much as it can give information about your present and future state.

If you were injured in an accident and turned into a vegetable such that the damage was so bad there was no chance of you being conscious in the future, the previous you may have thought "I love my life, I want to live a long time"
But the current and future you that actually exists and will exist doesn't think that.
So the fact that in a previous state you enjoyed life is irrelevant. You're now a vegetable who will never be conscious.
And thus it's ok to kill you, because you're being deprived of something that belongs to you, your life, but you wouldn't ever appreciate that thing even if you were left alone because you're brain dead.
cont.

>>475631229
that baby could grow up and become a potential child molester or genocidal dictator

>>475631291
>>475631295
>>475631296
And this is infact what people do when they kill people in comas once the doctors estimate that there is a low enough chance of them ever being conscious again.
This demonstrates that the past state of you that doesn't exist anymore and can never be returned to is irrelevant, all that matters is the current and future state of you.

This is why it is ok to kill people who used to be coonscious but are unconscious and will never be conscious but it is wrong to kill people who unconscious but will likely be conscious in the future, whether those people were previously conscious or not.
For example, its wrong to murder people under anaesthetic, it's wrong to murder people in a coma, it's wrong to murder unborn babies, it's wrong to murder people who went into a coma while they were gestating which continued after birth but are likely to be conscious in the future, It's wrong to murder people who were put under anaesthetic then given brain damage that destroyed their memories and their sense of identity.
The reason is because all of these people are being deprived of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate (but for you depriving them).

>>a corpse was previously conscious, does that mean a corpse is morally valuable?
>In some limited sense. It is generally accepted that one ought to respect the wishes of a person after their death
Wrong , in that case it is not the corpse that has moral value, rather it is the living people who are aware of his wishes that have moral value and the value comes from the sense of duty, tradition, closure etc. that the people in that society consider enriching.
If none of those people existed, say if an gamma ray pulse struck everyone dead moments after you had written your will and killed yourself , it would no longer be a moral loss that your will was not carried out.

cont.

>>475631291
>>475631295
>>475631296
>>475631298
So no, pulverising a living (innocent) human being into atoms is wrong but pulverising a deceased human being into atoms is not wrong in itself , because the living human being is morally valuable but the deceased human being is not morally valuable in itself.

>>475631294
>So you think everyone is morally obligated to have as many children as possible?
Not exactly. I believe that being an evolutionarily successful organism is something that every organism should attempt. This isn't exactly the same as having as many children as possible, being evolutionarily successful is more about long term reproductive success rather than having a tonne of kids but none of your kids and descendants want to have lots of kids themselves.
And I believe this for separate reasons from the abortion issue. I don't see how anything I've said regarding abortion commits me to this view, I arrived at this view for other reasons.
>Because if not, then my sperm isn’t attaining its potential as a human being.
and? I didn't say anything about attaining potential.
I said it's wrong to deprive people aka human beings of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate.
A sperm is not a human being, a sperm is a part of a human being, a sperm is a part of you in the same way one of your cheek cells is a part of you but a cheek cell is not itself a human being.
It is only after the sperm cell and the egg cell combine that you get a new , distinct humam being , a new, living human organism. see https://web.archive.org/web/20240117085032/https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
And once you have a human being then it is wrong to deprive that human being of something that belongs to him that he would appreciate.

>>475631300
It’s ridiculous that you think sperm and eggs can be discarded, but AS SOON as they meet, destroying it is murder. That is utter lunacy. You cannot justify this belief without souls.

>>475631301
This is only hard to understand if you're determined to ignore the scientific reality.

A zygote is a human being
A sperm is a part of a human being.
Destroying an innocent living human being is murder and is evil.
Destroying part of an innocent living human being is not murder and isn't evil as long you're destroying a small , trivial part , like a single sperm cell or a cheek cell.

Show which of these statements refers to or relies on "souls".
You can't , you're just a baby murderer spazzing out like a schizo because you don't like being shown that even according to conventional secular morality abortion is evil and murder.

Idk, if abortion isn't murder why not just kill the baby when it's under a year old, not like it can remember anything or have awareness yet?

>>475631302
you’re attached to labels. Let’s forget that man-made labels exist. When sperm and egg meet, what are the magical chemical changes that suddenly allows this clump of biological material to have infinite potential and value that didn’t exist in the separate sperm and egg? Why do you not care if the sperm and egg are destroyed, while you would scream and piss and shit your pants if the zygote died? You have been trapped by language. If you look at the world objectively then your beliefs are built on delusions.

>>475631229
you better be a vegan OP

>>475631305
but humans are special! Murder is defined as killing innocent HUMANS! And not to animals because… well, they’re ANIMALS! And we’re not, we’re special, not just because of souls, but you know intelligence. No this doesn’t mean it’s ok to kill humans with half a brain because that would be evil! They’re still humans after all and humans are special because that’s just how the world works ok

>>475631304
when the sperm and the egg fuse that's when you have a new, distinct human being because that when you have something capable of doing the essential processes of life because only at that point is there something with the full set of chromosomes necessary to progress towards the rest of the human reproductive lifecycle.
Before that happen all you have is the sperm and the egg and those are both just gametes, cells belonging to the parent organisms, so obviously when a part of the parent organism is destroyed, that doesn't constitute a human being dying.
When you scrape the inside of your cheek to look at some cheek cells under the microscope, that isn't killing a human being because those cheek cells getting destroyed are simply part of you.
However the zygote is a new , distinct human being and is not a part of you.
So destroying a new distinct human being is killing that human being and so is murder.

You seem to think that "looking at the world objectively" means denying or ignoring science .
but this shouldn;t be surprising since your worldview is motivated by a desire to be allowed to kill innocent human beings when it is convenient to you, so ignoring or denying scientific facts is a small hurdle.
In reality you're the one whose science-denying beliefs are built on delusions.

>>475631229
>Abortion is murder and evil
By what standard?

>>475631305
why?
>>475631306
lol look at this faggot baseding out like a reddit tranny.

almost this but unironically.
Humans of course matter more than non-human animals. The religious reason for this is because animals were created in order to be of use to humans and the secular reason for this is because all organisms evolved to value beings that are more genetically similar to them more than beings that are less genetically similar to them because of beings that are more genetically similar to you reproduce more than beings that are less genetically similar to you then your genes will become frequent than vice versa so it is a successful evolutionary strategy to value members of your species who share more genes with you more than members of other species.
So yes that is just how the world is, deal with it.

>>475631308
1. zygotes/embryos/fetuses are innocent human beings
proof : https://web.archive.org/web/20240117085032/https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
2. deliberately killing innocent human beings is murder and evil
3. abortion deliberately kills zygotes/embryos/fetuses
C therefore abortion is murder and evil.

If you disagree that deliberately killing innocent human beings is evil and believe that killing innocent human beings is ok then that just makes you a depraved , evil murderer and I have succeeded in exposing the evil depravity that pro-abortionists will reach to in order to try and justify their desire to murder babies

>>475631307
A zygote still needs a womb to develop. It’s not independent yet. Again, take away language. Who cares if it’s human or not? It’s a clump of DNA that no one cares about and no one would cry if it died. It has no consciousness, it doesn’t feel pain, same as sperm and egg. By defining it to be human, just with this simple trick of language, you are equating it with all humans. But let’s be honest. If I killed you, that would cause more chaos and suffering than if a zygote is aborted.

At the end of the day, the effects on consciousness are the only thing that matters. Without emotions, morality would be completely non-existent. When a zygote dies, no one cares. You can make it legal and it doesn’t lead to societal chaos (unlike actual murder).

You are deluded with black-or-white semantics and outdated deontology. And at no point have you even defined what it means for an action to be “wrong” or “evil.”

>>475631307
Abortion is an evolutionary strategy. Why is killing animals justified but not abortion? You want to use secular morality when convenient. Just stop and say abortion is wrong because they have souls

>>475631310
No.
I mean what framework?
Christianity?
Secular?
Is this really philosophical?
It seems like you're trying to argue it to a legal degree.

In the end the idea of a human life being taken, let alone a human life is inconsequential to people like OP.
They just want to punish people for having unprotected sex. Even protected sex. Any sex outside of marriage that isn't for procreation. Especially towards women.
All because people like OP are freak maladjusted weirdos that can't cope with their nonsexhaving lives.

>>475631311
>A zygote still needs a womb to develop.

Irrelevant. This makes absolutely no difference to the scientific fact that a zygote is a human being.
no part of the definition of human being includes "is able to survive in a particular environment"
the fact that a zygote is unable to survive outside the womb (or strictly speaking is very difficult to keep alive outside the womb ) is as irrelevant to the fact that the zygote is a human being as the fact that you can't survive in a vacuum is to the fact that you are a human being.

>It’s a clump of DNA
You're a larger clump of dna. wow way to point out the morally relevant facts champ.
> that no one cares about and no one would cry if it died.
wow so that's morally relevant, is it? So if a toddler gets neglected by his parents and his parents would not cry if he dies and no one else knows about the toddler then it's ok to murder that toddler?

Wow I'm amazed what incredible skill you have for picking out the least morally relevant facts imaginable.

>It has no consciousness,
it is not currently conscious but will be conscious in the future.
See this argument demonstrating why the fact that the zygote is not conscious is irrelevant and does not make murdering the zygote not-evil. >>475631239

>By defining it to be human,
It's just a scientific fact that a zygote is human the same as an octogenarian is human. they're both just words for different stages/ages of the human life cycle.
You don't change species as you age you retard.
Of course a zygote is a human because zygote just refers to the youngest possible human being.

>just with this simple trick of language
It's scientific reality.
unsurprising that bloodthirsty, baby-murdering leftoids ignore science and consider everything to be "tricks of language"

>>475631311

> If I killed you, that would cause more chaos and suffering than if a zygote is aborted.
And? If you killed a doctor it would cause more chaos and suffering than if you killed a homeless person. that doesn't change the fact that murdering innocent human beings is wrong.
Why are you saying so many irrelevant things?

>When a zygote dies, no one cares.
people with a basic, functioning sense of right and wrong care
According to your reasoning, if I killed you in your sleep and replaced you with a robot then no one would care so that would make murdering you okay.
According to your reasoning, if everyone in a village hates a child because they think that child looks ugly so they all murder the child and feel happy about , then since nobody cared that makes it ok.
Do you see how "whether anyone cares" is an invalid metric for whether murdering an innocent human being is wrong?

your moral reasoning is embarrassing. it has more holes than a sieve. every thing you say is obviously either irrelevant or wrong and leads to abject evil and depravity.

>You can make it legal and it doesn’t lead to societal chaos (unlike actual murder).
Murder would be evil even if murder being legal didn't lead to societal chaos you fucking retard.
If you think that murder is ok as long as it is legal and society functions then you must think that post-birth child sacrifice done to ask the Gods to improve crop yields is ok.
look at that. you pointed something out that's of no moral significance again.
Are you really so stupid that you couldn;t think of this yourself? That it never occured to you?
You're the most unintelligent person of all the gay, evil , child-murdering retards in this thread.

>And at no point have you even defined what it means for an action to be “wrong” or “evil.”
see what I said earlier >>475631271

>>475631312
>murdering your own children is an evolutionary strategy
no, helping your children survive and reproduce is an evolutionary strategy.
maybe you're imagining a situation where someone has to get an abortion or else their other children die, in which case that would be no different from if a mother was kidnapped by terrorists and forced to kill one of her children or else all of her children would die , that would be duress and extenuating circumstances not an evolutionary strategy.

> Why is killing animals justified but not abortion?
because humans matter more than non-human animals.

> You want to use secular morality when convenient.
Nope. abortion is wrong both from a secular point of view and a religious point of view and none of my argumentation implies otherwise.

>ust stop and say abortion is wrong because they have souls
But that isn't why murder including abortion is wrong.
Murdering innocent human beings is wrong even you don't believe in souls.
The reason is because you are depriving an innocent human being of something that belongs to them that they would appreciate, their life, which is wrong even if they are not aware i.e. not conscious of the fact that they are being deprived.

>>475631313
either. none all of the statements in >>475631229
are compatible with secular or religious beliefs.

>>475631314
This is what depraved child murderers tell themselves
>oh there's no way anyone cares about me murdering children, they just don't like me having sex.
this is how out of touch they are.
When it comes to abortion I don't care whether you fornicate or let other men creampie your wife or the only thing your penis touches if your hand.
The thing that is evil about abortion is murdering innocent children.

leftoids like you are so demon possessed and steeped in depravity and evil that even obvious moral truths like this perplex you

>>16890289

coward tranny mod moved the thread even though discussions about ethics and philosophy are absolutely allowed on /his/ because I was destroying the evil child-murderer's arguments so badly xe felt like xe needed to hide it

>>16890216
> zygote is a human being
still clinging to language labels to help your case.
> You're a larger clump of dna
But I’m conscious and people value my existence
> wow so that's morally relevant, is it?
You yourself used this exact same reasoning to justify killing animals. They don’t matter so we can kill them. The hypocrisy here is hilarious.
> it is not currently conscious but will be conscious in the future.
So? Animals could evolve to be more intelligent and conscious “in the future.” Doesn’t stop you from killing and eating them. This argument about the future is arbitrary and irrelevant. Sperm could be a human “in the future.”
> It's just a scientific fact that a zygote is human
Yeah, it has human DNA. Irrelevant.
> leftoids
Not even leftist, I just value consciousness and abortion isn’t wrong in that regard.
>>16890222
> Do you see how "whether anyone cares" is an invalid metric for whether murdering an innocent human being is wrong?
Hmm let’s compare that with this:
>because humans matter more than non-human animals.

So… let me get this straight. Killing fetuses is wrong regardless of who cares about them. BUT… killing animals is ok because you don’t care about them?

*mic drop*

>>475631229
I used to be pro choice/pro abortion. Then I watched my first child on a sonogram at just a few weeks. That 4mm little guy had a heart beat and was very much alive. I look at my beautiful son these days and can only realize how obscenely evil all abortion is. I was young and wrong, but I don't blame myself or others for thinking it's no big deal. Forgive them, they sincerely just don't know. They can say the words and understand the facts but they don't get it. If they ever have a child they'll understand and that statement will sound hollow until you're a parent.

>>475631719
Pack it up. You’ve been exposed as a dumb hypocrite. Just admit your morality doesn’t work unless you believe in magic souls. You can’t even define what it means for something to be “wrong” in secular morality. You just say “well things are obviously evil and if you can’t recognize that then… you’re evil!” without ever actually defining what evil means. People will take you a little more seriously when you become vegan, but even then your whole morality rests on the assumption that killing is “wrong,” without actually explaining why. And it’s important to know why, so that we can avoid blatant hypocrisy such as yours.

>>475632432
so if a woman has an abortion but doesn’t feel sad… what makes your feelings superior to hers? Aren’t you admitting that it’s subjective?

>>475631907
>killing animals is ok because you don’t care about them?
Is animals killing other animals ok?

>>475633045
Playing fiddle fuck word games with you is boring and irrelevant. I learned more than twenty years ago that there are people who argue to discover the truth, and those who argue dishonestly and breathlessly because they want to force their views regardless of truth. I have always argued in the former and that's why I can change my views. You will argue in the latter which makes this nothing but spam. There's no string of words or truth that can be demonstrated that would ever change your mind. And that's the part that makes your opinions irrelevant in every way.

>>475633271
I’m all for killing animals. Animals die anyway so we should use them for nutrition. I’m against torturing them etc. But OP thinks it’s ok to kill animals but not fetuses. He’s a hypocrite

>>475633537
If you could convince me that abortion increases suffering, makes society weaker, worsens the gene pool, for examples, then I would agree with you. But “muh feelings” is not an argument because other people have different feelings. My girl has a Down syndrome baby? Abort. She was raped? Abort. She changed her mind and wants an abortion? That’s her choice. I’ll make another.

>>475631719
that was a Christian mod who knew you were about to be embarrassed so he moved the thread here hoping that it would leave the catalog soon.

Here's my ironclad pro-abortion argument

>Abortion kills babies
>The biggest group of women getting abortions are niggers
>Therefore abortion lowers the total number of niggers born
>Ipso facto, proof positive, Abortion is morally good.

>>475634271
Even if you think abortion is evil and only done by dumb women, then abortion is literally eugenics because it prevents those women from reproducing. Or did we forget that genes DO influence one’s moral behavior? I suppose a christcuck would actually disagree with that fact though

>>475634505
>abortion is literally eugenics
Yes. And?

>>475631229
>ZOGotes
Go away kike

>>475633800
>If you could convince me
You don't care about what is, you care about what you believe. Just as I said you would. You start from your ideal and work backward. It's how all liberal and left think.
>increases suffering, makes society weaker, worsens the gene pool, for examples
All presuppositions and irrelevant.

You should go debate other 20 somethings with all of these brilliant ideas. When your find truth one day you'll realize why it was never interesting to discuss with you in the first place.

>>475633609
>I’m all for killing animals.
Humans are an animal kingdom.
>I’m against torturing them etc.
Where is the torture suddenly coming in?
My cats play with their food and it is torture for those poor mice being crippled, chewed around and left for dead and dying once their spine snaps and they cant scurry away fast enough to capture my cats attention anymore.
You know when male lions kill one another they usually start with the testicles while their foe while he is still alive and it can take hours for a big cat to succumb even while being eaten alive.
OP would only be a hypocrite if he considered other animals deserving of equal treatment but as it stands that is rarely afforded across species and not just the hubris of man atop the food chain.

>>475635023
>Humans are an animal kingdom.
are part of the

>>475631907
>still clinging to language labels to help your case.
It's a scientific fact.
You can deny science if you want because you're butthurt about the fact that you are in favour of murdering human beings , but calling scientific reality a "language label" isn't going to change scientific reality.
Organisms don't change species as they age , retard.

>But I’m conscious and people value my existence
If that's what matters then why bother pointing out something totally morally irrelevant like "hurr it's a clump of dna" ?
You're just admitting that you're pointing out things that you know are not relevant, you retard.

>> wow so that's morally relevant, is it? So if a toddler gets neglected by his parents and his parents would not cry if he dies and no one else knows about the toddler then it's ok to murder that toddler?
>You yourself used this exact same reasoning to justify killing animals.

answer the question , retard. obviously you don't want to answer the question because you know the answer is that no. the fact that someone's parents don't care about them doesn't make it ok for the parents to murder their child. Which means that once again you pointed out something "no one would cry if it died" that's morally irrelevant.

>They don’t matter so we can kill them. The hypocrisy here is hilarious.
where did I say that non-human animals don't matter? What I said was tha humans matter more than non-human animals.
And?
So what?
If you disagree with that statement then you're welcome to demonstrate how that statement commits me to believing something evil and depraved, like I have done for all of your abysmal arguments and immoral statements.
But you can't do that.

>>475634933
So far you haven’t said anything other than
>muh feelings
>ugh, you wouldn’t change your mind anyway…

Then why the fuck are you even talking?

>>475631907
>>475635172

cont
>> it is not currently conscious but will be conscious in the future.
>So? Animals could evolve to be more intelligent and conscious “in the future.”
No , no animal can evolve over the course of its life time you retard. that's not how evolution works.

>This argument about the future is arbitrary and irrelevant.
It's not arbitrary or irrelevant at all. see >>475631296

>Sperm could be a human “in the future.”
at that point it is no longer a sperm. Once you have a human being then it is wrong to destroy the human being because that's murder.
Before you have a human being , simply destroying a sperm is merely destroying a part of an adult male, which is not murder any more than destroying your cheek cell is murder

>Yeah, it has human DNA. Irrelevant.
No , it does not just have human dna. a sperm cell or a cheek cell also has human dna , but they are not distinct human organisms, they are part of a human organism.
The zygote on the other hand is a new, distinct human organism aka a human being as explained here https://web.archive.org/web/20240117085032/https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

>Killing fetuses is wrong regardless of who cares about them
correct, because killing innocent human beings is wrong regardless of who cares aboout that innocent human being
>BUT… killing animals is ok because you don’t care about them?
Killing non-human animals is ok because human beings matter more than non-human animals
^ and this above statement would be true even if I did care about non-human animals more than human beings. The above statement is not true "because" I care about non-human animals less than human beings. The above statement is true anyway regardless of whether I agree with the above statement or not.

>>475635172
> If that's what matters then why bother pointing out something totally morally irrelevant like "hurr it's a clump of dna" ?
Are you actually retarded? A clump of DNA is not conscious nor is it valued, which is literally what I think matters, and you ask why I bring this up? Jesus Christ.
> the fact that someone's parents don't care about them doesn't make it ok for the parents to murder their child
Because if such a thing were legal there would be more chaos and suffering in the world, unlike with abortion. I’ve already said this three times.
> What I said was tha humans matter more than non-human animals.
Cool, and humans that are born matter more than fetuses. It’s all relative, you’ve already opened this can of worms. Once upon a time it was ok to enslave and kill humans because they didn’t matter, they were inferior. We still do the same thing to animals and you’re fine with it. But not the heckin zygotes!!!

>>475635231
> Killing non-human animals is ok because human beings matter more than non-human animals
according to whom? Vegans would disagree

>>475632515
>You’ve been exposed as a dumb hypocrite.
no I haven't . show the exact quotes and demonstrate how what I said constitutes hypocrisy
BTW even if I were that would be irrelevant to whether what I was saying was correct.
If I was a child-murderer and I said "child murder is wrong" would the fact that I'm a hypocrite make child murder ok?
Of course not.
So trying to claim I'm a hypocrite is an irrelevant deflection.

>Just admit your morality doesn’t work unless you believe in magic souls.

If that's the case then you should be able to logically demonstrate it. instead you've made the claim 9 times without any kind of logical argument for how what I'm arguing refers to or relies on souls.


> “well things are obviously evil and if you can’t recognize that then… you’re evil!”
Yes, because anytime you have any kind of argument, if someone rejects the premises of the argument then all you can do is demonstrate how rejecting that premise commits them to an absurd or abhorrent conclusion.

So for example if you reject the claim that it is evil to murder innocent people then I'm going to point out that this makes you a depraved, bloodthirsty, evil murderer and show that pro-abortion people are evil and demonic that they'll refuse to even admit that murdering innocent people is evil in order to avoid having to admit that abortion is wrong.

>without ever actually defining what evil means.
see >>475631271

>People will take you a little more seriously when you become vegan
It's vegans who are logically committed to being anti-abortion since they're the one making species-agnostic arguments about the value of life and immorality of killing.

I on the other hand am in no way committed to being vegan since my arguments do not claim to be species-agnostic, I make all my arguments in terms of humans aka people.

so my argument is not hypcritical or inconsistent with rejecting veganism at all.
You clearly don't know what hypocrisy means.

>>475631229
Always keep speaking truth anon. No matter how they try to twist and turn, murder is murder. Muirder of a child in the womb.

File: 432ygg54.png (152 KB, 515x399)

152 KB PNG

>>475631229
>Abortion is murder and evil.
agreed
>Debate me.
but i agree with you
>You will lose.

>>475637132
I’m sorry, where did you define evil? Do it again. I’ll wait. Define it right now. What is evil?

>>475637457
>killing is killing
uh yeah that was kinda obvious

>>475635670
you're as much of a clump of dna as a zygote or embryo you retard.
All that the phrase "clump of dna" means is mass containing dna.
You added "but I'm conscious" afterwards because that's what you think actually matters to your argument , showing that I'm right in pointing out that whether something is a mass containing dna is irrelevant.

>Because if such a thing were legal there would be more chaos and suffering in the world
So according to you, in societiies where child sacrifice is legal , like there have been in the past like the mayans and ancient babylonians as long as it is orderly because everyone agrees that murdering a child in a child sacrifice ritual is ok , according to you in this scenario it's ok to murder children.
As long as you murder that child while they're asleep.

Wow great moral system you have there , retard.

So far you've been forced to agree that it woould be ok to murder you while you're unconscious and replace you with a robot so your family don't miss you , because that will minimise your suffering and so would actually be the better thing to do.
You've had to agree that pushing a button to kill all life would be a good thing to do since that would minimise suffering the most possible.

yoou've agreed that it's ok to murder children in a society where child sacrifice is legal and accepted and done in an orderly way while they;'re unconscious.

this is your brain on utilitarianism lol

>>475635670
>>475639216
cont.

>humans that are born matter more than fetuses
No they don't. if anything humans that have been born have already lived more of their life , so it would be better to save a fetus, other things being equal than a born human for teh same reason it would be better to save a child than an old person.
The only exception to this reasoning is the fact that unborn children are already in a dangerous situation due to miscarriage risk, so just like it migh be better to try to save a middle age man with an 80% chance of being rescued successfully than a child with a 1% chance of being rescued successfully, the same reasoning would also apply to zygotes/fetuses/embryos vs born children.

But aside from that, a zygote is as valuable as any other age of human if not more valuable because a zygote is younger and has more of his life ahead of him or her.

>Once upon a time it was ok to enslave and kill humans because they didn’t matter, they were inferior.
No, in fact it was not ok, people simply mistakenly believed that it was at the time.

>We still do the same thing to animals and you’re fine with it.
yes. see >>475635231

>>475638171
see >>475631271

>>475639216
> You've had to agree that pushing a button to kill all life would be a good thing to do since that would minimise suffering the most possible.
I literally said that this would be horrible since it doesn’t allow us to create positive conscious experiences. Your dishonesty is excessive and I’m done with this circular conversation. Go rape a little girl and pay off her dad so you can marry her like your Bible allows. Idiot.

>>475637457
The tranny mod moved the thread from /his/ to /pol/ even though abortion threads are allowed on /his/ under ethics/philosophy/humanities because I was exposing the evil and depravity and irrationality of these bloodthirsty child murderers too hard.

gonna get something to eat now.

>>475639519
>I literally said that this would be horrible since it doesn’t allow us to create positive conscious experiences.

Hey genius, does murdering an unborn child prevent them from creating posirive conscious experience?

You're going to start condemning abortion because abortion is depriving innocent human beings of something that belongs to them , their life, that they would appreciate - via "positive conscious experience" , right?

no? I expect you probably won't because you're a motivated reasoner , in addition to being unintelligent and bad at reasoning in general.

Notice how "creating positive conscious experiences" violates reducing suffering since suffering comes with conscious experience and the way to minimise suffering is to end all conscious experience

this should tell you that a negative utilitarian framework based around doing whatever reducing suffering is complete garbage.

are you going to listen to this ? I doubt it.

>Go rape a little girl and pay off her dad so you can marry her like your Bible allows. Idiot.
that law has been abrogated, it was the jew's law ,not part of christian law.
even if I did do this , it wouldn;'t be even remotely as evil as murdering innocent children like you defend and allow.