If a society legalizes abortion,lets say abortion in the first month...

You're very dumb.

There is a legal definition of "illegal termination of pregnancy" in my country's penal code, distinguinshing from involuntary and voluntary and all that crap.

Keep calm and define the shit out of everything.

Because that would be stupid.

What part of intent don't you understand? Are you autistic?

The world isn't black and white.

>an individual living human with unique DNA is not alive

Not an argument

The laws on the subject are currently a series of compromises that are not really consistent with any individual's views. Nobody really supports the reasoning behind BOTH of those laws.

>the abortion question specifically deals with the rights of a fetus to be considered a living human being
I thought it dealt with the rights of the practician to terminate a pregnancy (the life of the fetus, if you prefer) and/or the rights of the relatives to request said termination. It is extremely similar to the discussion of the rights of the practician to terminate the life of a comatose patient and/or the rights of the relatives to request said termination.

What kind of retarded debates do you have in your primitive country?

And? Intent abortion would be terminating the live of the fetus as much as the agression. Why in one case the fetus does have rights while in the other it doesn't?

this entire argument is literally just bitching about words with no relation to what it's supposed to relate to

A cancer cell also has unique DNA.

killing a death row inmate is murder too, retard

Explain why, without invoking rights. Think of it as a challenge.

That's why you're still here

Never said that it wasnt. Maybe you are the retard.

#JusticeForHeLa

a fetus is always human, mindless, but human
this is no debating ground
the intent of the woman to have her child however is
hitting a pregnant woman and causing an abortion would be a crime, even if its the womans intention to get an abortion, the abortion should be made legally

Because abortion recognizes the legal right of the mother to terminate a fetus before it develops a gains it's own rights. The cut off for this is when the fetus develops a brain and can respond to outside stimuli. At that point it is alive and has its own rights.

Now here is the grey area, if a woman is not going to get an abortion it is recognizing that the fetus will become life barring unforeseen circumstances. She has the intention of giving birth. Somebody assaulting her and terminating the fetus is ending that life before it develops against the wishes of the mother. That could be argued as murder.

This has actually gotten me curious as to if there is legal precedence on the subject already. Going to look into it.

A cancer cell isn't a human.

Because life literally does not have a discrete beginning, it is a continuous cycle. The sperm and egg are also alive, also contain all the information of a human, will also become one if allowed to do so. The reasons we value individual human lives and not single-celled organisms (which a zygote is) all have to do with the mind, which does not begin at a set point either, but develops over time (and certainly does not exist at all at conception). Note the distinction between a mind and a potential mind, tje latter of which quickly devolves into absurdity if you consider it a person (e.g., abstaining from sex = murder).

But if a fetus is a human,why should it be able to kill legally? On no other ground than the Mother's selfishness?

>The sperm and egg are also alive, also contain all the information of a human
Not separately, each only contains half, they are not individually human.

If a society legalizes the genocide of Jews, who are we to say they violated a law?

So a mother can kill her 17 year old child. Good to know.

>minors have no brain and no rights
Good to know.

A cancer cell does not contain the coimplete genes for a unique human distinct from the host.

>Not separately, each only contains half,

So if you publish a book in two volumes then it ceases to exist? The information is all there.

That's a shitty comparison and you know it.

They didnt violate the law. They just created a law that doesnt respect life.

it answers your question but by all means please keep moaning at strangers

the motives behind and their acceptance or not is an entirely different story

>Using a scientist for anti-abortion dialogue when the vast majority of the medical community approves of contraception and abortion.

No it isn't. You're just frustrated because you don't have a counterargument.

How does it answer the question?

>a 17 year old is the same as a fetus without a nervous system or a brain

Im being trolled aren't i?

>the vast majority of the medical community approves of contraception and abortion
And the vast majority of them are probably going to hell.

But disregarding the religious argument, abortion is objectively a violation of human rights.

Only if you are the aborted kid.

>If a society legalizes abortion
>Can they really accuse a criminal of homocide
yes. same principle.

But how can a case be murder and the other isnt? How can it be justified?

>The sperm and egg are also alive, also contain all the information of a human, will also become one if allowed to do so.
A human cannot grow from a sperm or from an egg. But a fertilized egg does hold that potential.

Once you allow that it is acceptable to destroy a realized potential of a human, where to draw a line? Why ban exposure of babies if you allow abortion? What magical threshold is crossed when a baby pops out of a vagoo, that is somehow more relevant than fertilisation?

>>If a society legalizes abortion
>>Can they really accuse a criminal of homocide
So the fetus is a human to you,and the goverment is just legalizing a way of murder then.

Power, popular will. Mostly power though.

>the goverment is just legalizing a way of murder
Yes, that is patently absurd! Governments would never do that!

It has a brain and a nervous system. It is technically alive as an individual entity. Once that occurs it officially has rights.

Terminating a fetus before that is acceptable. After that is murder and is actually illegal.

>It has a brain and a nervous system. It is technically alive as an individual entity. Once that occurs it officially has rights.
By what metric?

I was trying to find the moral justification of it. Maybe I didnt express it properly,as English is not my native language

>they didnt respond how i hoped but instead of acknowledging what they said ill just pretend they implied this implication

When were your rights conferred to you? At majority, or sooner?

>It's okay for mothers to murder their children.

>It has a brain and a nervous system. It is technically alive as an individual entity.
So were parts of my dinner at some point.

Also, you're just formulating characteristics without giving a reason why those would be valid. Give the reason why those are valid lines to draw, and not insemination.

They both sound arbitrary to me now.

yes. they do that. governments are organized violence. there's a little bit of vaguely motivated bitching about each application but no one really cares about it as a principle.

Were I killed as a fertilized egg, I would be dead now.

Were you to not eat you would also be dead, so what?

a pity, but there's not really a way to predict such things.

If I were to be killed as a baby, I would also be dead.

Therefore, both these things are bad for me. Using the categorical imperative as my guide, I would therefore want no one to do these things to others - there but for the grace of Reason go I!

So there.

I would not have been murdered though.

Any point past conception to say "it's a human" is arbitrary and dangerous.

/pol/ misses you. go back.

Yes.

It's like when a next-of-kin is on life support.

Their condition might be terminal, you may have picked a day to pull the plug, but if a guy comes in and stabs them to death one week before that day, they have committed murder.

Just as the next-of-kin decides when a terminally ill member of their family will be let go, the next-of-kin decides when a potential member of their family will not be.

Before the second trimester, the fetus is morally equivalent to a terminally brain-dead coma patient. The next-of-kin can decide if or when to stop keeping their bodies alive, but there is no person in there.

So the same rules apply. Just like a person is still guilty of murder if they kill someone who would have died anyway, a person is still guilty of murder if they end the life of a fetus.

>/pol/ misses you. go back.
I don't even give a fuck about this argument but clearly you were being fucking retarded. were you killed as a fucking sperm or your grandfather was you'd be equally dead.

/pol/

don't forget to click report on these, guys, I know it can be hard to remember.

>It's like when a next-of-kin is on life support.
>Their condition might be terminal, you may have picked a day to pull the plug, but if a guy comes in and stabs them to death one week before that day, they have committed murder.
Has nothing to do with this. The fetus nor the mother are on risk of death. And the person that choses to kill the terminal person,should at least have some consent for the terminal person a priori.

it's a legit humanities question, just because it involes abortion doesn't make it bait

This thread is about a humanities topic,morality,I thought that this board was about humanities too.

In the first trimester the fetus is not a person, they are like a person who was alive, but is now brain-dead, they have a biological life, but nothing going on in their minds, they have no minds at all.

If a person is brain-dead, they cannot be recovered, but their biological life can be extended by artificial means. It's up to the next-of-kin, or ideally would be, to decide if and when to cease keeping the body alive.

Risk of death has nothing to do with it. There is an argument about whether a late term abortion might be required if there is a risk of death, but during the first trimester, this does not need to be a consideration.

>tfw killing and experimenting on one single black woman via her cancer cells is commonplace

I wonder when SJWs will find out about and subsequently get pissed off about this.

The whole issue with a cancer cell is that it is mutated. So it is distinct from the host DNA by definition.
Moreover how do you deal with circumstances where the host DNA is identical to the DNA of the fetus (Just imagine any scenario)?

About 30% of fertilized eggs result in a miscarriage so it's not that great of a starting point.

I don't think the state should get involved with that, it's not murder.

If your vegetable auntie got stabbed, solve it with a blood feud or whatever.

>30%
That means a 70% survival rate. Better than children before 10 in the ancient and third world.

So by that token, you would be okay with child murder at some point in history.

I was never just a sperm.

I was the winning sperm that penetrated the egg.

Have you any knowledge of human biology whatsoever?

If you were killed in the first trimester of your gestation, you would be dead now.

You were a clump of cells then, and you are a clump of cells now.

how the fuck do you convince yourself to hit 'post'

But their is a huge difference between the cases. The fetus will gain conscience sooner rather than later while the terminated person will probably most likely die,and has probably authorized his relative to make the call.

I wasn't around during the first trimester.

I don't believe I had a thought in my head before I had synapses, and I know I didn't have synapses before the twentieth week of development, so certainly not in the first trimester.

I'm now a clump of cells with some measure of self-awareness. There is a big grey area of brain development that extends from the first synapses to the end of your life, but there is a clear black area where there is not yet any development.

If someone other than the mother decides to kill the fetus in this stage, it's murder. If the mother decides to kill the fetus in this stage, it's the moral equivalent of pulling the plug on a brain-dead relative.

Since when is a sperm "you"? It's like saying the steak your Dad ate before generating the sperm that inseminated your Mom's egg was "you" because its protein was used to create the sperm cell.

It's fair to say that "you" didn't exist as an individual until conception, if by "you" we mean an individual human being with unique DNA.

So the fetus will gain it eventually, meaning it doesn't have it currently. So the fetus is not alive in the most important sense.

>If someone other than the mother decides to kill the fetus in this stage, it's murder. If the mother decides to kill the fetus in this stage, it's the moral equivalent of pulling the plug on a brain-dead relative.
How? A relative is only able to choose when to disconect a person whem the chances of recovery are null. If the person can recover,the option is not open. In the case of the fetus is the later,the fetus will gain concious at some point.

>you can make a strong case that this is the black and white moment when a person is created

Said no scientist ever. A person is created over 9 months. There is no "black and white" moments in nature.

If the person is most likely going to recover,the option of disconecting the person is not open. The same applies to the fetus.

So what at what amount of "personhood" is one granted rights? What constitutes "personhood"? Determining whether or not to kill something based upon these criteria would be foolish, they're too arbitrary.

"Personhood" is synonymous with being a human, personhood starts when humanhood starts, and this is conception.

>or they could just charge him with assault?

And what is the problem with that?

That the punishment from assault is lighter than the one from murder.

if things happened differently in the past relating to events that resulted in your creation you wouldn't be alive now.

>nuh uh i was really implying things about some arbitrary lines i was drawing due to contrived reasoning no one asked for when I replied to accusations of drawing arbitrary lines by making an unrelated statement

there isn't a sufficient way to berate you for this

>How? A relative is only able to choose when to disconect a person whem the chances of recovery are null. If the person can recover,the option is not open. In the case of the fetus is the later,the fetus will gain concious at some point.

>If the person is most likely going to recover,the option of disconecting the person is not open. The same applies to the fetus.

If the person is never going to recover, then they lack what the fetus does not yet have, the essential element of life. The fetus is morally equivalent to someone who will not recover, because they do not have, and have never had, the essential element of life.

A person takes longer than that.

There is a long grey area from the second trimester, through childhood, through puberty, through adulthood, and even to death, as the brain continues to develop. There is no grey area before brain cells form any connections, or after those connections are destroyed.

>if things happened differently in the past relating to events that resulted in your creation you wouldn't be alive now.
That's why we need to throw away the entire notion that "potential" has anything to do with the argument, it's a dead end.

>A human cannot grow from a sperm or from an egg.

But it can grow from a sperm AND an egg, which is what I said. They don't even have to be right next to each other, as those little buggers can swim.

>But a fertilized egg does hold that potential.
>Once you allow that it is acceptable to destroy a realized potential of a human,

Again, a "potential human" is not a thing, or else not having sex is murder.

>where to draw a line?

I'd say around 12-15 weeks in.

>Why ban exposure of babies if you allow abortion?

Babies have minds.

>What magical threshold is crossed when a baby pops out of a vagoo, that is somehow more relevant than fertilisation?

There is nothing "magical" about it, and it's not a definite threshold. It's a gradual process. Any line you draw is going to be arbitrary, including the one you're trying to draw (fertilization).

>If the person is never going to recover, then they lack what the fetus does not yet have, the essential element of life. The fetus is morally equivalent to someone who will not recover, because they do not have, and have never had, the essential element of life.
This is just sophistry. You dont need conciousness to be alive.

Interesting note, wouldnt that mean that the assaulter could get out of a murder charge by proving intent to abort, whether or not she actually wanted to abort?

Then it would be your wish that, following the destruction of your brain, you next-of-kin should keep the rest of your body alive for as long as possible? The loss of your consciousness permanently would not be considered to be tantamount to death to you?

>So what at what amount of "personhood" is one granted rights? What constitutes "personhood"? Determining whether or not to kill something based upon these criteria would be foolish, they're too arbitrary.

What this argument boils down to is "I am not comfortable with indistinct boundaries," which really has no bearing on anything. Indistinct boundaries exist whether you are comfortable with them or not. That's biology for you.

>personhood starts when humanhood starts, and this is conception.

I assure you every human comes from other human life, it does not begin from nothing.

>Human rights
Sounds spooky.

>You dont need conciousness to be alive.

Of course not. A jellyfish is alive and not conscious. But you don't care about killing a jellyfish, do you?

>Human value is determined by women

No wonder it's completely worthless.