Why aren't abortion advocates honest about their desires?

If a one celled organism is morally the same as a person to you then you have fucked up values.

>What difference precisely precludes the former from a right to live?
If you're going to start bandying about the right to life and apply it to cells then the same goes for animal rights and you probably shouldn't wank either.

But in real life killing is a matter of fact.

But they're both people user

Why not just admit you think infants should be killed in certain circumstances? Why be dishonest? is right.

>Why don't abortion advocates cater to suit my strawmen?
Really makes your crank bank
Really bubbles the brain
Really gets that noggin jogging

Politically motivated moral stances are usually phrased in such a way as to claim some moral high ground because the simplicity of self-righteousness is far more effective in drumming up the mob than anything else. All you're asking is "Why don't these monsters accept the indefensible moral platform I've constructed for them in building my own around something most people in my political big tent have an emotional reaction to?"

Which is the same thing they're asking about you.

You miss the point. Like the ancient greeks or Romans, killing babies instead of putting them in poor circumstances isn't necessarily immoral depending on your worldview.

It's true, everybody hates blacks, no one wants them, except for people who don't live with them (Seattle et cetera). Everybody who has to live with Blacks wants them gone.

>But they're both people user

No they're not. A person has a mind. There isn't a hard line when personhood officially starts - it's a continuum. That might make you uncomfortable, but pretending a one celled organism is one is not the solution.

Personally I'm indeed okay with murder. I don't mention it out of political correctness. Like you said, it is taboo, so there is your answer.
Most other prochoice people are more honest than me, and just less logical. They don't have secret desires, they really believe that there's a point between fecondation and birth where the fetus acquires personal rights.

As for why it is taboo, natural protective feelings towards newborns and fellow humans, and Christianity, are in my opinion to blame.

Your definition of human life seems arbitrary to me. What's the difference between an embryo, stem cells, and a finger ?

Abortion is definitely a way to deal with the consequences of unsafe sex.

infanticide is different from abortion because the problem solved by abortion is different from the one solved by infanticide. If you don't want to *raise* a child it's not necessary that you kill them in order to alleviate this problem, but in the case of abortion it is necessary to kill them in order to alleviate the problem that they are inside your body and you don't want them there. If it was possible to take a fetus out of a uterus at 3 months and put it in a test tube for the next several months after without the kid dying then obviously there would be no reason to use the medical techniques that result in fetal death. But we don't have such techniques.

A heart beat can be witnessed within 24 hours, user..

>Your definition of human life seems arbitrary to me. What's the difference between an embryo, stem cells, and a finger ?
Nothing. It's all human life. In the most technical way.

Saying an embryo is not human life is a bad argument because it's wrong in the most technical, fundamental way.

Arguing that a human embryo is not a person and therefore should not be awarded personhood and can be aborted of course, is different.

Technology is improving though. Recently I read about a serious project to grow a elephant-mammoth hybrid ex vivo. They said it would take them a few years.

That's what people usually mean. That the embryo is not a human, not that it is inhuman.

That being said, you guys should remember that personhood is a mental and legal construct, that makes our social lives easier but does not describe accurately reality. Life is a continuous process, the life of a child is also that of all its ancestors. Furthermore, a human in the present is not the same person as any one in the past.

That's why the other side makes it an issue of women's rights and health.

The government is always trying to buy off its bitches with goodies.

If you care about the actual quality of life of the newborn child, you'd consider aborting it especially if it is unwanted or the parents are unable of taking care of it.

Turning abortion into a discussion about unsafe sex and "Women being sluts" is not productive. Accidents happen, rape happens. Telling those women who were raped or had a condom break on them is adding insult to injury. Shaming people into celibacy has been largely ineffective. Actually teaching young adults about the important of safe sex however has been proven to work.

I'd honestly rather have people have children when they're ready for it and most importantly when they'd actually want to raise it properly. Being stuck into raising a child harms both the child and the parents. The child may not have the resources required for proper growth and development and the parents may grow to resent their child if forced to keep it against their will. Putting the child up for adoption is also detrimental as most Americans are unwilling to adopt so they'll most likely just be shuffled into foster homes.

I'd say putting the quality of life of the potential child and parents first is more important than having the child itself.

There are 7 characteristics that biologists have etablished to determine if a thing is alive.

>Be composed of cells
>Use diff. levels of organization ie. molecular/cellular and organ systems
>Use energy
>Respond/React to environment
>Grow
>Reproduce
>Adapt to environment

if there's a period where the fetus doe not or cannot meet these, it's *technically* not alive.

That being said, abortion is about alleviating the social and financial cost of unwanted pregnancy, not about a desire to kill babies.

Having a baby is a big choice...but it remains that it is a choice. If you're raped, the choice is removed.

If there are health risks, it is not uncommon in nature to see animal abandon their offspring.

If you engaged in risky behavior and cannot afford to care for your child, why force the rest of society to pay for your bad decision?

That being said, people who dislike abortion should then support cheap/free access to all forms of birth control...it would alleviate the "need" for abortion in many cases

alive =/= human

politicized=\=political

thats not the point of the post

the status of living or inorganic or dead has no impact on the status of being a human...human(homo sapien) is a species.

determining if something is alive impacts the decision to kill/abort it

exactly

Adoption is a thing.

It's not the child's fault that it is a product of rape.

You say people should be able to abort unwanted babies because they will not live happy lives. Well what about children who are already born who are not living happy lives? Can we kill them? No? Why does quality of life only matter for the unborn but not the already born?

the OP mentions the debate over when abortion should or should not be performed...if the unobjectionabbly human fetus is not "alive" then abortion should be ok.

I don't get what point you're trying to make. Try a reply that's longer than a Trump sentence.

What does this have to do with history?

You have started a thread about a modern political issue which belongs on /pol/.

The only reason i support abortion is because more minorities do them

Roe v Wade was in 1973.

this is a historical issue as well as a philosophical one. Fuck off with these. The thread is fine and discussion good.

Napoleon's excursion into the east was more his downfall than Waterloo.

>history & HUMANITIES
just because a moral/humannitarian issue become politicized does not mak it a "political issue"

Everything under the sun is "political" if we were to think like you.

education, health, religion...everything

how many kids go unadopted? what is the financial and social cost of caring for these kids until theyre 18? Not to sound cruel, but objectively, they are a "social burden"

>The Spartans
>only having 300 men at Thermopylae
That's not even true, they brought well over 3,000 other soldiers including helots and slaves.

So why not kill those kids waiting to be adopted?

I'd rather prevent those who haven't been born yet having unhappy lives as much as possible so that they don't end up being born into unhappy lives. Those with already unhappy lives shouldn't be killed because they've already passed the point of no return: birth. For those that have already been born, I'd like to help enrich their lives so that they'd have a fighting chance for a better future.

Adoption in America is particular unpopular and I don't see it to be a viable option in dealing with unwanted children. In the case of rape, I'd argue that the quality of life for the woman matters more so than the fetus' life. It's bad enough she was raped, but being forced to bear the child of her rapist is cruel.

I just can't imagine going to a women and telling her she has to go through 9 months of pregnancy so her rape baby can sit through an adoption agency for 18 years.

I agree with you

Actually Hitler's generals didn't even want to attack Stalingrad, Hitler insisted because it had Stalin's name attached to it. The city was of no importance whatsoever, that one decision, based solely on vanity, cost Hitler the war.

By the time they're born, they're citizens right?

>Why don't abortion advocates just admit they think legal infanticide would be better for society
I do think it would be better for society if it was legal to kill retards and rape babies

Whoa, you heard a couple of people following a larger ideal espouse some dumb shit in defense of that ideal? Guess that means the ideal is bullshit.

So what? You can't murder foreigners either, and they're not citizens.

So because someone will be an inconvenience for 9 months, it's ok to murder them?

Why is birth the point of no return to you? What is different between a baby 10 minutes after birth and a fetus 10 minutes before birth?

Again, it's not the child's fault that it is a product of rape.

>straw man

I didnt propose killing conscious beings who have been alive for years.

I proposed avoiding future instances by aborting fetuses that are not conscious or self aware.

a couple with a good risk of giving birth to a fatally ill or disabled child who chooses to not reproduce or to abort is not the sme as killing a 25yo with AIDS or ALS or whatever

What about the Anally Born?

So if someone is unconscious it's ok to murder them? How about if someone is severely mentally disabled?

Choosing to not reproduce is not the same as abortion, and is a fine course of action.

is it the womans fault she was raped? why subject her to the mental and physical suffering and social/financial hardship of carrying a rape baby to term

I do not use the term conscious to mean awake. I use it to mean sentient or self aware.

again, no. killing mentally challenged/ill people is not ok. aborting them? sure.

just because someone ha downs syndrome doesnt mean they arent sentient or self aware....

Because murdering an innocent is worse.

The rapist can be forced to pay for the woman's medical care. He should even probably face murder charges as well, since pregnancies can be life-threatening (albeit rarely). He should obviously not have any parental rights either.

But basically, I think it's disgusting of you to imply that if someone will be an inconvenience for 9 months, it's OK to murder them.

The real solution is to subsidize the pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term.

Is it the babies fault the mother was raped? Should a child be punished for the crimes of his father? No, punishing someone for a crime they did not commit is an injustice. Your argument is hypocritical as fuck.

Why is it ok to murder a downy 10 minutes before birth, but not 10 minutes after?

This. It's why I say it's an inherently dishonest argument by abortions advocates whether they relize it or not.

>calling a daily reminder to the girl and her loved ones of her trauma an 'inconvenience'
>believes an average rapist should face attemlted murder charges and could afford medical bills in America.

tell me...how would a man in prison for felony rape be able to pay the medical bills of an expecting mother...even after he is released???

can he alsoo magically heal the girl, her s.o., and fmly of the trauma?

that wll be with them for the rest of ther life....its not a '9 month inconvenience."

>how would a man in prison for felony rape be able to pay the medical bills of an expecting mother
Repo everything he owns. Make him work in a chain-gang/making license plates.

The woman and her family will be traumatized anyways just by the rape. Murdering the child won't heal her either.

I never argued that birth should be the cut off.

Frankly, I'm not an expert in fetal development, but I do believe that early term abortions should be completely legal.

some childrenn are born or extracted weeks before their due date and survive...but there is a point where that would not be possible

>reproduce

Wow, I didn't know that prepubescent children weren't alive.

>but there is a point where that would not be possible
100 years ago, nearly no premature births were survivable. Who is to say that 100 years from now, we won't have babies born 6 months or more premature?

You're setting up a system that will need to change every few years as medical technology improves. And it still doesn't even change the fact that abortion is murder no matter how early it is.

>in addressing the wrong of rape we should create another by punishing a man back into he stone age.

sure...take away everything he has, let him serve terrible sentence for a few years, and make sure he can never reintegrate into society..yea, he'll be fine and wont ever committ another crime

What makes you think he should ever get out of jail?

If one day I woke up to find someone physically hooked up to me who will die if I unhook them, is it wrong to do so? Do I have a moral responsibility to keep this person alive, even if being attached causes me discomfort and I didn't want to be in the first place?

kys /r/philosophy

Depends. Did the person you're hooked to do it on purpose? If yes, no go ahead and kill him; it's self-defense basically. If no, then you can't kill him. It's not his fault he's attached to you. You two should work together on finding a way to disconnect and both survive.

>implying systems/laws should be set in tone and not change with societal/technological advancements

like the 2A only applies to muskets and the 1A doesn't apply to the internet?

im glad the systems of slavery and burning women at the stake have changed

2A never says 'musket', it says 'arms'. AR15's are arms.

1A says 'press', the internet is basically the press.

You're talking about changing who is considered a person. This is not as simple as including a new kind of gun in the 2nd Amendment. Why would you be happy that the law changed to count fewer humans as "people"?

you're kidding right?
>let's now force society to pay taxes to keep a (first offense) rapist in prison for life.

It's simply cruel. Hell, castrate him, but locking a man away for life like an animal is fucked up.

it really says something about our society that we can go to the moon, cure disease, but can't figure out a way to handle criminals than put them in a box away from other people.

guess drug addicts should just go to prison forever so they cant use drugs.

not to mention there are innocent people incarcerated all the time...just go look up the Buffalo Bike Path Rapist...

Isnt personhood based on birth instead of conception though?

Thats the name of the board asshole, maybe you should try reddit.

Abortion is satanic in a world where the plan B pill exists.

Have casual unexpected hookup sex? First of all, hide your face. Second, go to walgreens and pony up the 100 bucks. Dont kill a half grown baby.

yeah but you're the one who cause them to be in that state. you're directly responsible for that person being in that situation and you being in your situation (rape is a different case)

you're looking at it retroactively through your lense...arms at the time were muskets. Press at the time was the written and spoken word.

The Bill of Rights used to not consider blacks or women people/citizens.

maybe one day alien life will be considered a "person" and our definitions of life will change..

the fact that nobody can agree wht constitutes a living human fkr the sake of abortion is proof that it will be subject to change over time

Surely the best solution to the abortion debate is widespread birth control right? We all agree that sperm are not 'human' in the same an embryo is 'human', so stopping fertilization isn't murder. So everyone gets what they want: women get make their own decisions about whether or not they want a baby and anti-abortionists prevent the destruction of human life.

The best solution is for everyone to start racing to beat India and China in population on the tab of the welfare state.

>drug addicts go to prison forever
No, drug addicts are victims. They go to rehab; by force if necessary.

Hell, most criminals should be rehabilitated in some way. But the most heinous crimes, like rape for instance, should be life sentences.

Innocent people are pretty rarely incarcerated; the ones who are should obviously be let out and compensated generously.

No. Why is a baby 10 minutes after birth a person, but a fetus 10 minutes before birth isn't?

The ONLY hard line that can be drawn anywhere during fetal development is conception. Sperm and eggs clearly are not people. If they were, every woman who's had a period is a murderer, as is any man who's had a wet dream.

>implying this is the problem
wowzers.

>The Bill of Rights used to not consider blacks or women people/citizens.
Change is fine when it is to protect MORE people. It's not fine when it is to protect fewer people.

>Personally I'm indeed okay with murder.

Get out of Veeky Forums. I'm saying this because this is an intelligent, rational post, and this is where posts like that go to die.

Pretty much. Though I'd argue that women have the choice to have a baby or not with or without birth control. They can always choose not to have sex. Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of birth control.

and yet we live in a society of mass incarceration and manatory minimums where people are serving life sentences for possession of drugs or selfies of a topless 16yo

No it isn't.

>The child may not have the resources required for proper growth and development
It might not. But it definitely won't if you murder it.

Why is it OK to murder unwanted fetuses but not unwanted children?

>Did the person you're hooked to do it on purpose?
so you can't defend yourself if the person threatening your well-being is, say, having hallucinations?

>birth control
not 100% effective
>Abstinence
you're in denial about human nature

This...how can you not implement universal sex ed. and access to the tools to practice responsible sex and then criticize people with unwanted pregnancies as irresponsible??

Texas has proved abstinence simply doesn't work by having one of the highest teen pregnancy rates while France, with comprehensive sex ed has a far lower rate than the US.

It depends. Are you in fear for your life? If yes, go ahead and defend yourself. If no, then no you can't defend yourself. Back to your original example, are you just uncomfortable, or are you actually in mortal danger? If you're just uncomfortable, suck it up and try to solve the situation in a way in which no one dies. If you are in mortal danger, save yourself.

Abstinence is 100% effective.

why are you using the emotionally tied word "murder" over the proper term "abortion"? Is it because your argument is based on emotion? Aborting a pregnancy is ceasing the development of an embryo to a full baby. Murdering a child is completely different, don't pretend it's not.

How is "cellular life" not human though? What's your criteria? Nucleii? Number of chromosomes?

Question, how is using a condom or not pulling out abortion? You're intentionally preventing the possible pregnancy from coming to term by aborting the process prematurely. Sounds like an abortion to me.

What is the difference between a baby 10 minutes after birth and a fetus 10 minutes before birth?

Neither sperm nor eggs are people. They don't have a full set of chromosomes. Further, if they were people, every man who had a wet dream, and every woman who had a period would be murderers.

20 minutes. Are you trying to say that people perform abortions 10 minutes before birth? 'Cuz it seems like you're making that argument.

People just don't like condoms.

Where do you draw the line?

& Humanities is cancer that needs to be removed from History.