Imagine wanting to murder an innocent life just because you don't want to be responsible for it. Just don't have sex lmao
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Imagine wanting to murder an innocent life just because you don't want to be responsible for it. Just don't have sex lmao
None of your business homosexual
>B-but it's an innocent life! It's my business too!
Do you think vegetarians should push for legislation that bans eating meat? They too think it's an innocent life that must be protected.
Animal lives are not human lives. Nobody thinks they should be subject to the same laws except absolute nutters. Animals can't ever consent to the law or abide by it.
Attitudes like this are used to justify slaughterhouses and poor treatment of animals. You are a hypocrite.
>slaughterhouses
How else are they supposed to be killed for meat?
Cook and eat them alive duh
>moron take
13440493 #
Fetus lives are not human lives. Nobody thinks they should be subject to the same laws except absolute nutters. Fetuses can't ever consent to the law or abide by it.
they literally are by biological definition human lives. the same 46 chromosomes and genetic instructions they use after being born is the exact same genome they have once gametes fuse.
everyone claiming that just because youre not born youre not alive should pick up a biology textbook and show me where exactly it says so.
I didn't say they weren't alive, I said they weren't human. They have the capacity to become human, but both Sperm and Eggs have that capability too, Fetuses are just further down the line
>but both Sperm and Eggs have that capability too
No they can't
>Neither Sperm or Eggs can become a human
Lmao based moron
Just wait untill some lil guy pops out out your penis, since sperm has potential to be human being
>I said they weren't human
Then what species are they?
What species is a Sperm or Egg?
they are literally 1n versions of human cells. which means that theyre human. biology as it turns out uses a genetic definition if species.
Ok cool so then cumming in your pants is equal to abortion, gotcha
nope, because theyre not a unique human life. they are your own cells. its like saying that you naturally sloughing of your gastric epithelial cells is a daily abortion.
But the moment gametes fuse, its a uniquely new 2n genome. and killing it means that youre killing a unique human life that is not you.
You don't help your pro-abortion cause by being this ignorant of basic biology, moron.
They are cells you dumbass
>NOOOO NOT THE HECKIN ANIMALRINOS!
>"NOOOO NOT THE HECKON BABYRINOS"
You were a baby once you moron
Nope. I was born a 20 year old man in a lab.
yep but am not now so why should i care
>babyrinos
>baby rhinos
But anon, vegetarians and vegans DO push for legislation AND terrorism at times
Worst take I've seen on this board in a while, almost as moronic as the Arab saying Arabs "invented civilization"
>yeah, im stabbing a guy, mind your own fricking business pally or you'll get it too
right to privacy for abortion is perhaps the most moronic legal argument ever. because why is murdering someone illegal but aborting a human life a private matter?
>abortion is murder
Next thing you'll be telling me that morality is objective too
>Murder is the legal term for the intentional killing of someone or the killing of someone as the result of a complete disregard for their life
i knew IQfy was bad at biology but i didnt think they would make it this easy. life starting at conception has been biological consensus for decades.
>A fetus is """someone"""
Stretching words again to fit your definitions again Rabbi?
fine, lets try another definition.
but im glad we agree that abortion is indeed ending of a human life. even someone as biologically inept as you can understand that
Not a full human
Are you murdering millions of humans whenever you jerk off into your sock?
>Not a full human
It's not a fully developed human being, but then neither is a newborn, a toddler, a child or a teenager. All of them are still human beings though.
>Are you murdering millions of humans whenever you jerk off into your sock?
No, because life begins at conception.
A baby has a functioning mind and functioning body. A fetus does not. A baby will be able to survive and grow with a parent's care, while a fetus would die outside of the womb.
>A baby has a functioning mind and functioning body. A fetus does not
It depends on the trimester. The fetus tends to gain consciousness by the fifth month and the nervous system develops by week 5. As for a functioning body, they generally start kicking midway through the fourth month.
>A baby will be able to survive and grow with a parent's care
A baby would die outside of the womb without a parent's (or someone's) care.
>while a fetus would die outside of the womb
Again, it depends completely on the trimester. Fetuses, or I guess at this point babies, who are 6 and 7 months can survive outside of the womb. There are some cases of 5 month old fetuses surviving too.
The vast majority of aboritons are done before the point that a fetus attains consciousness. Anything after that is almost always because the mother's life is in danger and its a situation where its either her or the baby. For example, something like an ectopic pregnancy has to result in abortion because it will kill the mother otherwise and the fetus will not survive either way.
Regardless of what pro-life partisans like to imagine, abortion providers don't love performing abortions and will generally balk at performing one after fetal viability (around 24 weeks or 6 months)
>The vast majority of aboritons are done before the point that a fetus attains consciousness
It doesn't matter. Just because the fetus hasn't reached certain levels of development doesn't negate the fact that's a living, constantly developing human.
>Anything after that is almost always because the mother's life is in danger and its a situation where its either her or the baby. For example, something like an ectopic pregnancy has to result in abortion because it will kill the mother otherwise and the fetus will not survive either way.
>Regardless of what pro-life partisans like to imagine, abortion providers don't love performing abortions and will generally balk at performing one after fetal viability (around 24 weeks or 6 months)
So are you in favor of banning abortion after the fifth month in all cases other than a mother's life in danger?
>constantly developing
So you admit that a fetus is undeveloped
>human
term of art
>So are you in favor of banning aboriton after the fifth month in all cases other than a mother's life in danger?
I'd expand that to after the second trimester, but yes, and most abortion clinics will not perform an abortion after the second trimester unless there's a very compelling reason (generally the mother's life being in danger)
>fetus is undeveloped
homie humans continue developing until the age of 21. your immune system is undeveloped at birth. so is your heart, so are your bones. and your brain is definitely undeveloped at least until the age of 20.
>human is a term of art
it isnt. its a phylogenetic term that we can define genetically and anatomically.
A baby is developed enoough to survive outside of the womb and has sentience. A fetus does not.
>A baby is developed enoough to survive outside of the womb
As are fetuses starting at 5 months. They'd both die without care though.
>and has sentience. A fetus does not.
We've literally established they do after the fifth month.
>so it would be murder to take a human vegetable off life support
yes if you know with good certainty that they will wake up in 9 months. if you knew your braindead dad is going to wake up in 9 months, you gonna pull the plug?
>developed enough
then exactly what line in the sand are you going to draw and why. Do we not care about the fact that the exact fetus is going to be that same sentient and more developed baby?
You're moving the goalposts from "even if something doesn't have consciousness" to "they may not have consciouness but they will 'wake up' later"
i havent moved the goalpost one fricking bit. my argument is simple
>biology dictates that life begins at conception
>murder legally is the premeditated ending of a human life
>a human fetus is a unique human life by biological definition
>ergo, abortion is murder
you are gay
i accept your concession
>NNOOOO YOU CAN'T TERMINATE THE HECKIN' FETUSIRINO IT'S SO PURE AND INNOCENT
>YOU WILL FORCE LOW-INCOME WOMEN TO BIRTH THEIR SPAWN AND INCREASE THE UNPRODUCTIVE POPULATION
A fetus is not a full person and therefore does not have the rights of a person.
Sure, and neither do people under 18 or 21 depending on the law.
why not? biology would completely disagree with you. tell me, exactly, biologically, what a "full human" is to you? and why a human, after conception, with all 22 pairs of somatic chromosomes and their 2 sex chromosomes in all their cells save their gametes, doesnt count as a "full human", when in biology we are perfectly happy to characterize unicellular organisms as "fully alive"
>why not?
Because they are not biologically independent of the mother. They are a part of the mother's body.
and a toddler isnt?
Correct, they physically exist outside of the mother. They are a seperate being biologically.
>separate being biologically
yeah buddy, so is a fetus, as it turns out biology cares only about the fact that the fetus has a unique genome to be counted as a separate organism, not the fact that its connected to the placenta for less than a year.
>physically exists outside of the mother
for a day before it dies if not nurtured by the mother, sound familiar? exactly, it also applies to a fetus, or even a single celled zygote.
I don't care tbh
>then exactly hat line in the sand are you going to draw and why
24 weeks, the generally agreed upon point of fetal viability and around the point where a fetus gains consciousness.
>So you admit that a fetus is undeveloped
Yes, as are babies, toddlers, children and teens.
>term of art
Adult women can only have human fetuses.
>I'd expand that to after the second trimester
So pretending to care about consciousness was just that.
24 weeks is the agreed-upon point of fetal viability.
>as are babies, toddlers, children and teens
They can all survive outside of the womb. A fetus cannot.
>24 weeks is the agreed-upon point of fetal viability.
It's 22 weeks, which is just after five months. The second trimester ends after 22 or 24 months, regardless.
>They can all survive outside of the womb
With the exception of teenagers and some children, not without care.
>A fetus cannot
In the same post, you literally just admitted they could.
>22 weeks
source?
>not without care
that care comes outside of the womb. A fetus cannot survive outside of the womb even with care.
>you literally just admitted they could
past the point of fetal viability the fetus becomes an infant human
>source?
Literally the first results on Google when you search "when can a fetus survive outside the womb."
>that care comes outside of the womb.
The point is to demonstrate that even after birth, a baby is helpless left to its own devices.
>A fetus cannot survive outside of the womb even with care.
They can after 22 weeks.
>past the point of fetal viability the fetus becomes an infant human
Which is during and before the end of the second trimester, which you said earlier you're willing to perform abortions even after this point.
post the result that comes up when you search my term
>They can after 22 weeks.
Not without extreme support. Try doing that au nautral or in some place with weak maternal care.
It takes extreme support to take care and save any prematurely born fetus, but that's fundamentally irrelevant as they can survive regardless.
>functioning mind and body
>consciousness
damn, good thing murder doesnt mention anything about consciousness of a functioning mind, otherwise we would be able to kill unconscious drunks on the streets or comatose patients
>a baby will be able to survive and grow without parental care
it literally wont. leave a toddler alone for 2 days and it fricking dies. but even if we accept that premise that it is an "independent life", what is your point, that fetus will also be an "independent life" in 9 months
>good thing murder doesn't mention anything about consciousness of a functioning mind
So it would be murder to take a human vegetable off of life support?
>a baby will be ablet o survive and grow without parental care
I'd suggest you read my posts more carefully, because I said the exact opposite of that.
Tbh murder shouldn't apply until the thing you're killing is at least 3 or 4 years old
Everyone gets one mulligan
>fer·til·i·za·tion
>/ˌfərdləˈzāSH(ə)n/
>noun
>the action or process of fertilizing an egg, female animal, or plant, involving the fusion of male and female gametes to form a zygote.
can you read? please tell me you at least understand that gametes are just a 1n version of your 2n cells. i really dont feel like explaining meiosis and reproductive physiology in this stupid ass board
Go back to Twitter, tourist.
You first
Both meat consumption and abortion should be banned, yeah.
"someone" just means "person" which just means a human. A fetus is a human.
Holy shit, you actually typed this thinking you would be making a gotcha moment, kek
Vegetarians DO push for legislation to ban eating meat. Sometimes they just destroy property and steal animals as well. a.l.f.
>Do you think vegetarians should push for legislation that bans eating meat?
Yes
>b-but the animals therefore I can kill my own kids
Feminism, everyone.
https://godhatesgays.com/sermons/outlines/Sermon_20220605_She-Shall-Be-Saved-in-Childbearing.pdf
>None of your business homosexual
it's funded with my taxes though
>tfw no free healthcare, unless you are killing a baby
AMERICA FRICK YEAH
They're not babies
>
Humans ≠ Animals
Your move homosexual!
What's the difference?
Sex is a human right except for incels
No one using the word "incel" has sex
Legalize murder.
Laws exist to protect those who cannot protect themselves. If it can't protect the unborn, it can't protect anybody.
laws exist for everybody regardless of their ability to protect
fetuses aren't really included in that "everybody" because they're not really people
Says who, you? Frick yourself.
Going against evolutionary biology is pretty insane.
Also abortion is a product of consumerism, not leftism. It literally exists so women can spend their money on themselves and not their progeny.
Women without men leading them in love become easy prey.
It seems npcs devoid of imagination are incapable of conceiving sex without penetration. This leads to people getting aids and abortion. NPCs should be outlawed.
the absolute state of IQfy
What about rape or when the fetus has a serious deformity? Not a fan of w*men but we have to take these things into consideration.
Those are, what, under 10% of abortions while the rest are recreational ones used by irresponsible thots.
About 2/3 of abortions are performed on nonwhite women. Do you want to increase the nonwhite population of America?
You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Most wealthy women will still get abortions because money > everything. In the US, most wealthy women are white, leaving only brown and black women behind without proper access. Abortion bans won't stop abortions, but now they're illegal in many states. Those brown and black women are then sentenced to jail or put on death row. Secondly, in many of those states, abortions are now felonies and felons lose their right to vote in those states. Not only are you imprisoning black and brown women, but making sure they have no political power through voting (inb4 >voting >political power). Yes, if voting didn't matter then there wouldn't be a ton of hurdles to go through depending on state. As for poor white women, they won't be punished as harshly and will still have babies.
>Not only are you imprisoning black and brown women, but making sure they have no political power through voting (inb4 >voting >political power). Yes, if voting didn't matter then there wouldn't be a ton of hurdles to go through depending on state. As for poor white women, they won't be punished as harshly and will still have babies.
Wtf I love Pro Life now, ban abortion!
I'm pretty sure LaQueesha will still be able to get an abortion in Democrat-controlled Shitcago, Filthadelphia, and Baltiprostitute.
What about blacks in the deep red deep South?
They have very low abortion rates not only because those states have limited access to it (like 1-2 abortion clinics per state) but also because it's the Bible Belt and people in general are more religious than in Chicago.
>They have very low abortion rates
Do you have those numbers to back that?
That implies that they are having more unwanted kids
>unwanted kids
Oxymoron. If they didn't want kids, why did they breed?
>waaah, waaah, raaape
If they didn't want to be raped, where was her trusted male chaperone? The Quran teaches about this.
>Do you want to increase the nonwhite population of America?
Yes, though I'm still pro-choice.
the majority of abortions are because of possible health complications to the fetus.
it should be outlawed though.
Factually incorrect
Even if this were true,
>this person could potentially become sick, therefore, we should kill them
>ones used by irresponsible thots.
And what kind of single mothers would they be, anon?
Chances are they would get one illegally, which is dangerous, or just put the little guy in an orphanage the moment he or she is born
> which is dangerous
Imagine caring for the safety and health of a literal murderer
>which is dangerous
I, for one, support the death penalty. The welfare of a baby-murderer is irrelevant to me. In fact, I would consider her dying painfully to be a best-case scenario so she doesn't burden the prison system.
This would, of course, mean the death of the child, but that's unavoidable because it if was safe the child would die as well.
10% where r u pulling this from
If you want to ban abortions than radically ramp up childcare and services. Too many anti-abortion just want to control women and don't give a shit about the child.
>People that want mothers to take responsibility for their children before birth also want them to take responsibility for their children after birth
Crazy stuff.
>children before birth
people actually say shit like this with a serious face.
Imagine the kind of person that gets offended at people calling unborn children children.
Not offended, just humored. Keep going moron. Tell me more of your thoughts.
>he admits his position has nothing to do with compassion for the unborn
>he considers abortion an act of compassion for the unborn
it is true though
imagine having a roastie as a mother
It is
Yes, cause unless you're supporting the child through welfare the child dies.
How do you think children were raised before welfare existed, moron. While it's hard for degenerates to conceive, you can survive without welfare by taking care of yourself or getting a job.
It is my mother was a toothless prostitute and I wish everyday I was aborted
Why not committing matricide instead?
Even the Catholic church doesn't have your position fyi.
I doubt very many anti-lifers are devout Catholics.
The Catholic church will excommunicate you for having an abortion and a bishop might deny you communion if he knows you support it or vote for politicians who do.
Catholics will burn in hell alongside abortionists so I don't really care
You are guaranteed to burn in hell and nothing you can do will change it.
no u
That's not really an argument against abortion, it's a personal attack on the people who oppose abortion.
Yes. I, as prolife, am fighting for your right to not be murdered. I don't support the murder of preschoolers either, so this isn't a gotcha
Beating his wife is a man's right.
God works in mysterious ways.™
Seriously, aren't all abortions simply God's will?
because they're done by human hands
What the frick does that have to do with God's will lmao? Or is God not omniscient?
Because humans have free will.
>omniscient
By that I'm guessing you're referring to the argument that God knew abortions would occur but made the universe anyway. Right?
That's a bad argument and I have 2 points on it:
1. Imagine you like watching baseball and want to see the yankees game, but you can't watch it because life gets in the way so you can't watch it live on tv. You decide to record it and watch it a few days later. Before you are ale to watch the recording but after the game is actually played, a friend mentions in conversation that the yankees' pitcher decided to throw a slider instead of a curve ball and they lose the game because of it. Does knowing what happened change the fact that the pitcher had free will? No.
2. The universe is not deterministic like newtonian physics predicts. Einstein famously said "God doesn't play dice" when referring to the purely probabilistic phenomena observed in quantum mechanics. He was later proven wrong by others. (It's one of the few things he was wrong about.) God does play dice. Our universe is probabilistic, not deterministic.
God is outside of time, so he knows all, just like the baseball game example, and He made the universe. We are an iteration, like one child of a generation in a neural net algorithm; there are other universes that He created concurrently with ours, but those who follow his rules and are "saved" and go to Heaven will eternally be part of future generations (if you stick to the neural net analogy).
Why did God make an universe where fetuses could be aborted?
Ummm sweaty my god allows evil because... HE JUST DOES OK
>Because humans have free will.
Prove it homosexual
I hate babies. Crying and shitting and pissing. Legalise infanticide.
Kys then, manchild.
>dude we got to force this rando to have a kid she clearly doesn't want because uhhhh muh religion (even though in my religions hayday people just left unwanted kids to die)
>who gives a shit if the most likely case scenario is another broken family that will burden the state, it will teach the roastie a lesson (which is also highly unlikely)
do you gays even think through the likely outcomes of your stances
the working idea is that there's less roasties if they can't get away with it as easily. if you run the risk of pregnancy you're slightly more likely to keep your legs closed.
>if you run the risk of pregnancy you're slightly more likely to keep your legs closed.
lmao. just lmao.
t. mississippi - a leader in Christian population AND teen pregnancy.
people there keep kids because they're more religious than the rest of the country
anon...
We need more abortions, not less. Every aborted baby is one less instance of degenerate genes being propagated.
Unless the fetus is deformed no
Then look forward to paying for more welfare and foster babies with your tax dollars.
Better than them getting murdered
In the 50s the average woman was not as promiscuous as her modern counterpart because birth control was not so readily obtainable and more people had been raised attending church and would have believed it immoral
>was not as promiscuous
>just ignore the shotgun weddings
>or the fact every poll back then showed most high schoolers already lost their virginity
lol, lmao
Sure, teenagers had sex because teenagers are dumb and have poor self-control. That's always been the case. As for shotgun weddings, the alternative to that seems to be single moms on public assistance, so...
>shotgun weddings depicted as a bad thing
Men and women prostituted a lot in the 50s.
it's a leftist thing where they assume people have no agency and will be unable to do things like practice self-control
This has to be a robot posting or someone who has never been horny in their lives.
Just don't have sex literally goes against the biological urges that are common in nearly every single organism on Earth, save the parasites
>murders 1000 sentient animals for a week's worth of lunches
yum!
>a clump of unconscious pink tissue is binned
MURDER!!! MURDERER!!!!!
how do we abort all pro-lifers?
Nooooo you don't understand that every aborted baby is a future follower of Christ and by aborting them you are contributing to the centuries long degradation of the church NOOOOOO STOP
I'm not anti-abortion because it's murder.
I'm anti-abortion because I hate women doing mental gymnastics to justify whatever they want to do. If they acknowledge it as child killing for their own convenience I'd be fine with them doing it.
Neither animals nor zygote are entitled to the same rights as human beings
Are you willing to shell out large amounts of taxes to pay for the welfare that these unwanted children will need?
No. That's an entirely different political issue that you can complain about after we establish that you can't murder them.
Also, parents are responsible for their children. They don't need any welfare. That just causes degenerates
So aborting babies is bad but droning living berating kids is okay?
Imagine thinking being anti-abortion is "conservative" when actual OG conservative societies were not only into abortion, but also infanticide.
So? OG conservative societies thought slavery was fine too. Conservativism today is different from back then
The anti-abortion movement more or less follows the enfranchisement of women and the rise of feminism. Specifically in America, it was deliberately cultivated because people like Phyllis Schlafly realized that there was a bit of a correlation of being against abortion and for segregation, which they desperately wanted to reinstate.
In other words, older societies didn't care about abortion because women held no power and weren't a threat to the established order of things. It is also doesn't hurt that abortion restrictions disproportionately affect minorities (who can't travel away to have abortions), thus keeping them both poor and with the threat of arrest.
Pro-abortionists are disgusting honestly. Imagine how disconnected from the natural cycle of life you must be to support someone sticking scissors and saws up a womans reproductive organ and shredding the unborn child in the womb
What a sick person you must be
Doesn't happen if you abort in the first trimester, the fetus has not fully developed yet
A baby isn't fully developed yet either
You are when you reach 25 years of age
Youre a sick person. I hope you can some day feel what its like to feel your child kicking in your wifes belly. Theres no way you can understand the gravity of what youre arguing for.
And yes, since the day of conception, that is someones child. Only a sick, sick person could kill their own child.
Ad hominem, can you do better than that?
I wont do better than that. Every single one of your arguments has been refuted itt, multiple times. You debate like a teenager looking for "gotcha" moments, acting like unborn human lives are just pieces on monopoly bpard that you can add or remove at your selfish will.
Grow up
That baby could be Hitler. Was he really innocent?
Abortions are God's will.
>doesn't want the government to stick its nose in their business and life
>wants the government to stick its nose in other people's business and lives
hmmmmmm...............
I'm an antifederalist, pure as they come, but I accept that preventing murder is one of the necessary functions of a government.
Abortion was heavily pushed by second wave feminism primarily from the 60's to the 80's. I wonder ~~*who*~~ were the second wave feminist leaders I wonder?
Abortion (and even infanticide) was commonplace and necessary all throughout the world until the modern period, when overly zealous eggheads rationalized themselves into believing it was immoral and that they had the authority and duty to impose that finding on everyone. The even more modern push for abortion is merely fighting back for a return to normalcy from that modern hysteria.
Why should I give a frick about fetuses? I can't see them and they're not people so why should I force a woman to give birth?
>Fetus is a being which has potential to be human and gain consciousness.
Is killing a sleeping man who is in your house moral?
>potential to be human
you aren't making the point you think you are.
okay, lets do in other words.
>Fetus is human being with forming consciousness
It's the anniversary of Israel's treacherous attack on the USS Liberty and there's not one thread about it on the IQfy board. This board is a disgrace.
https://3lib.net/s/USS%20Liberty%20
>Ok cool so then cumming in your pants is equal to abortion, gotcha
>Just don't have sex lmao
Just don't do drugs lol
>more people than ever doing drugs now
Its based af
If I punched a pregnant woman in the stomach, and she miscarried and the baby died, would I be charged with a crime?
Which crime? And for what reason?
Depends on the state and laws at the time honestly.
Overall I'd say for some states it'd be manslaughter and for others just battery; its hard to give details since laws/bills/legislation are so messy and vary across a bunch of states.
The real winning morons are the states that charge the woman with manslaughter for having a miscarriage at all; women have gone to prison over being victims of violent crime and suffering a miscarriage.
This madaka is one of the few one making sane posts.
If abortion is legal in that countries, then it shouldnt be a crime more than aggresion to the woman, because it were only some cells that were lost, is the logical and should be the legal answer,
*potential life
I step on bugs on a regular basis OP. Snuffing out life is a regular ever day thing.
It's whether or not you decide to care about it. To which I would argue, if you care about a fetus then you should also care about kids. If you can't stomach the later then shut the frick up.
> the life of a human being has the same value then the life of some bug
I dont mind as long as they are extremely expensive and paid by the fricking woman thats having them
Why the frick should tax payer subsidize your mistakes
Abortion should be illegal but not because muh dead keeds, but because women shouldn't have rights
why would you want to ban abortion the world is overpopulated enough and most of these replys r from men that have no say whats so ever when men can give birth they can have a say until then shut the frick up please
if you think the world is overpopulated then do humanity a service and kys
All abortion advocates have this evil look about them I can't fully explain. A part of their soul is missing, maybe they killed their soul
Reminder that this is what religious people look to in a leader
If there ever was something that radiated pure evil it's religious leaders
In order to determine if a fetus is "alive", we must first define what exactly "life" is. While there is no universally accepted list of requirements for life, here is a decent list that most scientists and people with an understanding of biology would agree would be necessary for something to be considered "alive":
>Metabolism – Living things undertake essential chemical reactions.
>Reproduction – Living things produce offspring, either sexually or asexually.
>Sensitivity – Living things are responsive to internal and external stimuli
>Homeostasis – Living things maintain a stable internal environment
>Excretion – Living things exhibit the removal of waste products
>Nutrition – Living things exchange materials and gases with the environment
>Growth – Living things can move and change shape or size
When you consider a fetus' capability to exhibit these basic abilities, you'll find it does not meet all criteria until later in it's development. For one, a fetus cannot maintain homeostasis until about 24-28 weeks post conception. If one were to extract it from a woman's womb before 24 weeks, it would die without serious medical intervention. A fetus at that point cannot maintain its body temperature, and it's skin cells are unable to prevent the unwanted exchange of molecules across their membranes.
While a fetus can arguably engage in metabolic processes before the 24 week point, and even a clump of cells will respond to electrical stimulation, the fetus must exhibit ALL of the requirements to be considered life. It cannot provide its own nutrition, the fetus is dependent on the placenta and then later the umbilical cord to intravenously provide nutrients; it cannot reproduce as well, the sexual organs do not begin to develop until the 7-12th week post conception. While the reproductive organs do develop before 24 weeks, it is still certainly many weeks post conception, contrary to pro life arguments that life starts at the moment of conception.
>have an open wound
>no longer considered alive
>be infertile
>no longer considered alive
>be paraplegic
>no longer considered alive
Kinda based honestly.
>Have an open wound
>Your body will attempt to heal itself to maintain homeostasis
>Be infertile
>You still have sexual organs and despite your particular inability to conceive, you are still capable sexually speaking of reproducing
>Be paraplegic
>Your body has some sensation somewhere on your body
Idk what you're trying to prove here tbh
I'm saying that your argument resembles that of your average Redditor who acts like a missionary of science but has a rudimentary understanding of it at best. The things you cited are indeed features of life, but not every organism has to exhibit all of them at all times.
For example, many insects lack digestive systems in their adult forms, many parasites are extremely reduced and fully dependent on their host, many organisms can spend years frozen and still live on after that.
I'm not trying to be some acolyte to the church of science. I'm merely explaining in long a longer form what constitutes life and why the 24-28 week limit was agreed upon in Roe.
Sure, though I would argue that lacking a digestive system does not necessarily prevent insects being life since they still process molecules in some fashion. Also the fact there are exceptions to these rules doesn't mean the rules are invalid either
But the argument is that a fetus is not alive because, unlike fully developed humans, they do not exhibit all the features of life. The point I'm making is that fetal.viability should be the measure for when a woman can acquire an abortion since it lines up most.closely with our understanding of life
And my point is that your definition is not actually the biological understanding of life, because biology considers the organism's phenotype in its entirety and not an arbitrary point in time.
It...is though? I even said in my OP that there isn't a universally agreed definition but that the things I listed are generally agreed upon between scientists. If that is to the biological understanding of life idk what is. And a fetus prior to 24 weeks does not meet the requirements, if we are going by whether or not it is "alive"
>the things I listed are generally agreed upon between scientists
Citation needed. That these traits must be exhibited all at once, specifically.
Science says all that is or is made of cells is alive, a living being.
Science says once two gametes fuse, they form a new individual of a species.
Thus, Science says a human embryo is a living human being, an individual life distinct from their mother.
And this from zygote to infant and beyond.
So should miscarriage be counted as involuntary manslaughter?
if the mother deliberately takes actions that would lead to the death of the child, yes. if you're pregnant and you jump in front of cars and do krokodil, that qualifies as recklessness.
>well if heres my absurd reasoning as to why I think killing an unborn child is morally ok
It doesn't change the fact that a fetus prior to 24 weeks is incapable of surviving on its own. Also you should talk to a therapist about your hatred of >1% of the population
Neither can a child
Your point?
Oh right, you dont have one
Btw its not hate, rather disgust. The same disgust I feel when speaking to advocates of literal child murder
>Just don't have sex lmao
>gets raped
>gives birth to rape baby instead of aborting it
Question for prolifers, how do you feel about contraceptives and condoms? Are they as bad as abortions, and why or why not?
what part of life begins at conception is difficult to grasp? it fairly simple really
Some people believe contraception is immoral for whatever reason and others don't and I just wanted to hear their opinions on the matter. Your position isn't the only one in existence.
Catholics are against contreceptives but not because they think sperm and unfertilized eggs are human lives. It's because it distorts the purpose of sex and removes God from the action.
Life begins at conception for them too.
These feminazis (lesbians) wanted that straight women had a shitty life and that is why they invented feminism, because of pure envy to other women and wanting to make them miserable and unhappy with their lives till the point to killing his own future baby in his own womb just because these nazis fooled them.
Feminism is a consequence of women to women envy. That is why all feminist look like demons.
Conservatards are funny. They cry and whine about abortion because "MUH RIGHT TO LYFE!!!" but the second that life gets shat out they instantly stop giving a flying frick about it. Hell, they actively endanger it by constantly worshipping guns and advocating for mass gun ownership, which directly leads to the endless mass shootings we have to put up with today.
Hypocritical fricks.
>After they're born, my moral responsibility is over
average conservative
It's the parents' responsibility to take care of their own children. But even so, conservatives give more to charity than liberals.
>which directly leads to the endless mass shootings
Gun crime is most common in states with the toughest gun laws. That's because criminals don't follow gun laws! Who would have thought?
>criminals don't follow gun laws! Who would have thought?
Why do you expect a ban on abortion to be followed? It will still happen whether it's legal or not
It will still happen but at least then it will be discouraged by society and the taxpayers won't be paying for it.
Man homie if all you wanted was to pay less taxes then just fricking say so from the beginning instead of making a moral argument about it
There's two problems here:
1. Killing innocent human life
2. Forcing strangers to pay for your children
If a person isn't ready to have children, they shouldn't have them. If they are having children, they should provide for them and not kill them. Is this complicated?
If you force her to have an abortion then you're responsible. If she has an abortion of her own volition then she's responsible. What's your point?
>If a person isn't ready to have children, they shouldn't have them.
And if they're an irresponsible teen who gets pregnant, they should get an abortion by this logic
>What's your point?
Officer, that anon over there coerced me into getting an abortion
>they should get an abortion by this logic
By "shouldn't have them" I mean they shouldn't get pregnant in the first place.
>but no method of contraception is 100% effective!!!
Abstinence is 100% effective.
>Officer, that anon over there coerced me into getting an abortion
In that case there should be an investigation like any other. If indeed the guy coerced her into getting an abortion he should be held accountable. If it turns out that she's accusing an innocent man then she should be held accountable.
>just don't have sex lol
Nta but abstinence-only doesn't work as a sex education method, it is objectively the worst option outside of just not teaching sex ed at all. Teen pregnancies spike in those isolated communities that advocate for abstinence-only because prohibiting things is just a lazy ban.
>just don't use contraceptives
Married couples can frick and not want kids, are you trying to encourage infidelity? Condoms have a 1% failure rate, which in a population of hundreds of millions means there will be a lot of accidental pregnancies.
People who don't frick trying to ban people from doing so are no different from no-guns trying to ban guns, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
>It's the parents' responsibility to take care of their own children.
The state is mandating that the fetuses be carried to term, so they should be the state should take responsibility for their wellbeing. Americans have difficulty being held accountable for anything, but this shouldn't be hard to understand.
The state didn't make her pregnant. That was her choice in 99% of cases. If you don't want to get pregnant the solution is simple. No murdering babies is necessary.
No, I made her pregnant and I forced her to have an abortion. Who's legally responsible now? Me or her?
What conserbitards fail to realize is that """banning""" abortions will not stop women from having abortions. It will simply incentivize women to be sneakier and more cunning about it. Conservitards HATE cunning women so I'm not sure what their game plan is here