Why can't pro-lifers admit that they are pretty much all dualismfags...

>but for some arbitrary reason not sperm cells, ova
>arbitrary reason
Jesus you are retarded. Sperm and egg on their own wont develop into a fully grown human. A fetus on the other hand will

Look faggot, even if you're not religious you should at least admit that abortion is a necessary evil and not morally neutral. The life that is terminated will become a human being which means that teenage materialism does not apply.

I consider myself a humanist, and I even I concede to the religious that abortion is abhorrent even though I think it should be up to the individual woman whether or not she goes through with the procedure.

But isn't that a purely idealist viewpoint?
From a purely physicalist viewpoint, how would you justify it? It's probably a better way to frame the whole question than what I have posted yet.

Fetuses are humans in an early stage of development. A sperm or an egg on its own will never become a human. A fetus will

At what point does a fetus become a human?

A fetus is a human

What the fuck defines "a human being" and why does it have value?
This shit is pretty subjective.

I'm an atheist and pro-abortion for eugenic reasons but the idea that abortion is not murder seems ridiculous to me.
Say a woman is pregnant and she, knowing the risks, puts a lot of alcohol and thalidomide in her system. The baby is born with malformations and she is obviously responsible for damaging the developing embryo and its potential healthy life. Now, if she destroys it she hasn't kill it by stoping its potentiality you say. Maybe I'm not seeing this from your perspective.

You are diluted. The human in embryonic form still has its complete and unique genetic code. The entire string of information that make it human is there. A human is a collection of cells. Human cells. An embryo is a small collection of cells, functionally incomplete, but still a collection of human cells.

You seem to want to define human existence as the capability for thought, or the ability to have certain thoughts. That is a fatal flaw if your logic that opens the door to being able to kill anyone that doesn't think as you do. Anyone not above this IQ for example should be executed. Anyone who doesn't exist the way I think they should, you are free to kill.

An embryonic human being is incomplete functionally but as long as its genetic code is not faulty, then it has everything it needs to finish development. Destroying that potential development is not more or less ok because a human body is at a certain developmental stage. Or do you also think we should execute all old people who are less than 100% functional as a 20 year old autistic meet faggot like yourself.

Abortion is an aberration of human society based on egotistical ideals. Your body is your body. Nobody has right to take that from you or destroy it. The same can be said of your future. It is yours. The embryonic human has its own unique genetic code and its own slowly and yes parasitically developing body. And future.

Dualism. Fuck of. There is only a dualism of human bodies during pregnancy. A parasitic relationship of two distinct generic individuals in different phases of human development. So take that dualism and go murder more humans. Or here's a thought, dont blow your babies into a vagina until you want to make another human. Fucking degenerates everywhere.

>I'm an atheist and pro-abortion for eugenic reasons but the idea that abortion is not murder seems ridiculous to me.
This is the conclusion I’ve reached as well. I’m fine with abortion, but is definitely the taking of a human life

>I'm an atheist and pro-abortion for eugenic reasons

The best kind of eugenics is the fact that women aren't attracted to fat, balding manlets.

It's a grey area of when you would draw the line of human life. I think that the "pro-life fags" who draw it at gestation in the womb are more rational than the "pro-choice fags" who draw it if the same exact body has went through a vaginal passage.

But isn't that still a form of idealism to give importance to potentials instead of what things already physically here?
I'm not really a big fan of humanism, in a lot of way their morality is based on idealistic thought, a form of dualism, like with their dubious objective morality,etc...like some kind of secular spirituality or religion.
I think that a fetus should be considered an extension of their mother (lower forms of life like invertebrates don't even have individual rights so I don't think babies up until birth deserve these more from a logical viewpoint) then abusing them should be considered animal abuse, then get extended legal protection like apes, and finally the same legal rights and protection as today children once they become smarter than these.

If your mother is seriously thinking of aborting you there's a high chance you're not going to be the most useful member of society. That's my eugenic point, but I'm not saying the State should enforce it of course.

Like you?

>I think that a fetus should be considered an extension of their mother (lower forms of life like invertebrates don't even have individual rights so I don't think babies up until birth deserve these more from a logical viewpoint) then abusing them should be considered animal abuse, then get extended legal protection like apes, and finally the same legal rights and protection as today children once they become smarter than these.
Great, and what's your metric for "smart enough to be considered human?" Are you pretending to be retarded, or actually retarded? An infant child is just as vulnerable to neglect as a zygote.

>But isn't that still a form of idealism to give importance to potentials instead of what things already physically here?
Pseudo intellectual word salad

>I think that a fetus should be considered an extension of their mother
They don’t have the same genes

How is that an argument?
Can you give me a purely material reason to give special importance to unthinking fetuses?

Why should we give you any rights? Why shouldn’t I be allowed to rip you apart? You’ll be dead soon anyway? Why should we do anything? Why do you ask such stupid fucking questions?

Being able to make coherent sentences seems like a good test, obviously with some disabilities more extended tests would be needed but we can compare young children and apes quite well.
Sub-sapient humans could still be kept as pets or institutionlized like they are today, I just think that giving rights to beings because they have a "human nature" is irrational and incomptatible with my physical monism.

I am sapient.

So it's entirely arbitrary by how you feel? Got it, actually retarded instead of pretending.

>human pattern recognition.
how deep did you have to push your finger in your ass to pull that one out?
Listen man, potentials are real, an existing potential implies an existing force, you want to deny forces next?

So? A fetus will also be sapient in a very short amount of time.

And as you age you will become less and less intelligent. Is it ok to kill you when you get old?

We could burn down your straw man.
But the reason I am against abortion is because I think its wrong, and i work my reasoning backward from that.

>Yes, potentials are not real,
Fetuses are not potential humans, they are humans

How is that not a more objective of being human? It's giving rights to the sapients and sapience is something measurable.
Looks less sentimental and based on feeling than considering human everything that is human-looking enough to hurt our feelings if we treat these things badly.

>And as you age you will become less and less intelligent. Is it ok to kill you when you get old?
If I stop being sapient? of course altough like I said earlier it could be considered a form of animal cruelty.

Of course forces exist in discrete moments, but the "process" itself is not a thing and potentials are not yet real.
It's like seeing several frames of a film, we are the ones symbolically seeing the film as a distinct thing than the individual frames.

>But isn't that still a form of idealism to give importance to potentials instead of what things already physically here?
A fetus doesn't represent "potential" in the way you are suggesting. The potentiality of human life has already been realised by that point, if left unimpeded what you have is a human baby. We shouldn't kill fellow humans without a good justification.

I know you think this seems very reasoned and intelligent but honestly this is one of the most gobsmackingly stupid things I have read on here.

>a logical viewpoint
everybody that has to call their own points logical is a major dumbass lmao

>A heart has the potential to keep beating.
>If you put a knife through it and stop it's potentially is not murder because potentialities aren't real lmao.
Are you stupid? Living things follow biological programs.

>lower forms of life like invertebrates don't even have individual rights so I don't think babies up until birth
So a mother has the right to abort a 9 month old "fetus" ?

I'm Catholic and I'll admit that you have a point. Saying that the moment of conception is when the sperm inserts into the egg is arbitrary, most fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out by the body, so does that make God the world's largest (by far) abortion provider? You could make an equally compelling argument that life begins the moment that the fertilized egg embeds in the wall of the uterus as you could that life begins with the first heartbeat, the first neuron firing, or that life 'began' billions of years ago and is an ongoing process with fuzzy lines between what constitutes "life" and what doesn't. If they're all equally valid, then they're all equally worthless, the only way we can justify it is with the presence of a supernatural essence or "soul", for which there is not a shred of proof.

None the less, I am still opposed to abortion on grounds of the harm that it does to society, or rather that it is a symptom of a larger malady. A lack of domestic growth means a decline and eventual displacement of our cultural traditions. We shouldn't be a society which forces women (and their male partners!) to choose between childless independence and financial stability, or parenthood and more or less guaranteed financial impoverishment. They simply make the choice of waiting until they are financially equipped to raise children, which means waiting until late middle age, and only having three or less, i.e. below sustainable rates. We need to be doing more as a society to encourage people to get married, stay married, and have more children, whether that means expanding state services, tax incentives, paid maternal and paternal leave

But unlike most Catholics, I'm not in favor of an outright ban. Google "decree 770" if you want to know why but the tl;dr is that the super-poor, i.e. the least qualified, get stuck raising way more children than they could possibly afford, who become an underclass of revolutionaries that hates their society's guts.

The moral issue (distinct from legal and policy issue) has two prongs. 1) Moral patient status of the fetus. 2) Right to kill fetus even if fetus is a moral patient.

>Saying that the moment of conception is when the sperm inserts into the egg is arbitrary, most fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out by the body, so does that make God the world's largest (by far) abortion provider?

The difference is intent. A miscarriage or a stillbirth aren't the same as abortion. When life begins is muddy indeed and I don't believe there will ever be consensus on it, but I can't imagine a more correct time than the moment of conception.

Would it be wrong to say that most humans identify with their consciouness or brain?
If we consider a human baby already truly human before they have a human consciouness, then are we giving it some kind of shared human nature, an idealist notion without a physical reality? an human essence that is not truly based on something physical. (Not the human consciouness, not being a living being with human DNA, not looking like a human being,etc...)
Without a hard physical element to base the definition of being human upon then it's hard to not fall prey to some form of human essentialism or definition based on what our feelings consider human. (Killing fetuses is probably seen as bad because they remind us of children for obvious reasons)
Why do you think this is wrong? practical sociological consequences or because the idea is merely emotionally painful?
Yes, I think this is the only rational thing to do even if even I find it gruesome, our emotions are just not rational and fully attuned to our physical reality.
That's cool to get someone who understand.
I have nothing against pragmatical reasons against abortions, your reasons are sound imo and I understand the point of not wanting to eliminate the symptoms of the problem.
Why? I genuinely think it's the most logical way to do.
Why do you think it's stupid?

Would it be wrong to say that most humans identify with their consciouness or brain?
If we consider a human baby already truly human before they have a human consciouness, then are we giving it some kind of shared human nature, an idealist notion without a physical reality? an human essence that is not truly based on something physical. (Not the human consciouness, not being a living being with human DNA, not looking like a human being,etc...)
Without a hard physical element to base the definition of being human upon then it's hard to not fall prey to some form of human essentialism or definition based on what our feelings consider human. (Killing fetuses is probably seen as bad because they remind us of children for obvious reasons)

You're looking at this in a very binary manner, that what makes a human is either switched on or switched off. A baby, or a fetus for that matter, is a human in a stage of devlopment, as in their minds and bodies are developing. You also seem to have some kind of problem with concepts, human nature is a concept we have used to propagate our species.

>You're looking at this in a very binary manner, that what makes a human is either switched on or switched off. A baby, or a fetus for that matter, is a human in a stage of devlopment, as in their minds and bodies are developing. You also seem to have some kind of problem with concepts, human nature is a concept we have used to propagate our species.
How do we define what is a human being without making the word "human" a buzzword?
The problem I have the concept of human nature is that I see it as incomptatible with a purely physicalist worldview, I feel like the concept itself ask us to see human nature as a thing in itself, a concept with an inherent idealistic existence that defines being human by having the property that is human nature instead of human nature being a description of the hard physical things that makes the whole human.
Human consciouness = human is without these problems.

>this is the only rational thing to do even if even I find it gruesome, our emotions are just not rational and fully attuned to our physical reality.

>human beings aren't rational
>I am though because I call myself rational

That is the problem with a purely physicalist worldview and you're going to run into it again and again. Part of what makes us human is our capability to define abstract concepts outside of the realm of physicality. The simple answer is that we have developed a sense of humanity and morality to keep the species alive. Everything else is an extension of the will to survive. The deficiency is in your philosophy, because itis more narrow than actual human experience. We aren't purely rational beings, nor should we be.

>Babies are nothing until they get a decent brain
No, they're unique human organisms from conception.

What you need to do is figure out if you're okay with slaughtering other humans or not. If you're not okay with it, it's time to admit that you're pro-life.

Everyone is okay with slaughtering other humans for the right reason though.

>they're unique human organisms

About as human as a liver is human until a certain development. Do you have a problem eating liver?

The heart beat and brain function develop in the first week or so. If you were to isolate one of the organs of the fetus (as they have different organs) you'd be making an apt comparison. As it stands now you aren't.

>will a liver get a PhD if you leave it 28 years? What a moronic thing to say

>The heart beat and brain function develop in the first week or so

In the same manner that a vegetable does. Again, do you have a problem eating vegetables?

If our universe is purely physical yet our emotions wrongly act under a dualistic paradigm, these emotions and our most intuitive modes of thoughts are even biaised in favor of wrong views leading to magical thinking and even eventually spiritualism (like the belief in souls), then how is it not the case?
We are able to see that the world is physical despite our emotions and most intuitive modes of thought wrongly telling us otherwise, thanks to human reason is it indeed possible even for us flawed human beings to accept the truth of physicalism.
I kind of see your point but isn't that admitting that we are just not fully adapted to the truth rather than pure physicalism not being true? Idealism could just be a lie we cannot separate ourselves from or survive without, altough in that case it's still as false and we should confirm us to it only when is it rationally better for both our happiness and surety in a utilitarian way.

>In the same manner that a vegetable does.
Vegetables don't have functioning organs. Fetus's have functioning organs. The same organs you have now developed early in your mother's womb.

There's no guarantee that a child will get a PhD in 28 years. It could even be the next Mengele. With no certainty but the needs of the mother, the mother has the right to remove the unwanted presence from her body and life.

>Vegetables don't have functioning organs

You fucking retard what do you think roots, stems, and leaves are?

By your logic OP we should genocide abos since the average adult abo has less brain development than a 6 week old White fetus.

Way to ignore the rest of the post.

Agree OP. Let's just sterlize everyone as there is nothing but futility i life.

The post that started with you saying complete and utter total bullshit that invalidates your argument?

Indeed there is no guarantee that it will, but I'll promise you a fucking liver won't.

Explain to me how a functioning human heart and brain is the same as roots/leaves of a plant.

Neither will the aborted vegetable-like clump of cells.

See
We should test whether or not they talk coherently, if they can't then we should test them against apes.
If they are better = humans, roughly equal they are intelligent animals who deserve extended protection and if they are much worse then they are ordinary mammals.

>unless you believe in souls
Pro-lifers, by and large, do believe in souls. So do I.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_(anatomy)#Plants

Your mother should have aborted you, nigger

>there are also no processes

It might, if you don't abort it.

>Wikipedia link

>I believe in things that don't exist which is why I should have the right to ruin your life

Religion is cancer. There should be a mandatory screening for religious attitudes in a fetus, and abort all those who result positive. The world would be a better place.

It might not even if you don't abort it, and the mother's life will be most certainly ruined for it. That's why women want abortion, it is certainty that their life at least is safe.

>truth
Like capital T "Truth"? How do you even conceptualise that in your purely physical model? Sometimes we treat things as real when they are not, potenial is a good example. Talk to me about utilitarianism? There is utility in abstraction as it helps us make sense of the world you dingus.

>logical fallacy

Post-partum abort yourself, nigger.

Fine, to be honest I think you are completely wrong about the nature of reality but at least you are being unlike non-religious pro-lifers.
You have integrity, you just happen to be wrong.
Good luck, I hope that someday you will see the light too.

0.00001% of abortions are because the mother's life is in danger.

>it's another moving goalpost episode

I'm not talking about physical life, I'm talking about quality of life.

>and the mother's life will be most certainly ruined for it.
Woah we are hitting the crux of it... Nietzsche reckoned all Philosophy is autobiographical... Why do you hold resentment?

Sure but they are tools, caring about a definition of human nature that is not based on physical reality is missing the point of a tool.

What? You are using a multitude of non physical tools to have this conversation

>caring for the continuation of the kind is not part of physical reality

I think so.
There are only successions of physical states, only our human mind is seeing processes as something more.
Same things about objets with parts (like a table and its atoms), only the basic building blocks have an inherent existence, seeing objects as more than structures made of these is an human perception.

ok OP we get it you are baiting
sage

>says he cares for the continuation of the kind
>stays a virgin
>doesn't care to be a good respectful husband to a woman and a nurturing father to his kids

>tools without physical basis are fine because they have utility just not human nature because I have over-thought why we should allow abortions.
This sophistry is getting old, OP.

If nothing happens why should I care for physical reality

Who are you quoting?

But after the "moment of conception" most fertilized eggs simply pass through the body and get flushed out with the period. So God is, in fact, killing people after the religious consensus tells us that they are a person. It's only the rare egg which embeds in the uterine wall and begins the process of growing into a person

Every bitter virgin on Veeky Forums.

I don't believe in God though. I'm not going to insist that we ban natural processes

>Prove anyone has a soul
>You can't??
>Heh, nothing personal kid
>*Pulls out shotgun from trenchcoat

Humans are part of nature, everything humans do is a natural process.

Sure but I try to avoid concepts that are not descriptions or approximations of physical reality, otherwise we create concepts unrelated to anything real and give them a kind of inherent, non-physical idealistic existence.
Concepts are useful is they are used to describe reality, it's bad if they are without a physical basis.
The problem I have with "a fetus is just the second it becomes a fetus" is that it's a definition of human beings that is not really based on anything, people get use it backward to justify that anything that is human is human without a hard physical reason, fetuses are humans because they have an human nature and is human what has a human nature, as if humanity was given by the transcendant concept of human nature itself as a kind of soul.

Being human is the secular soul of the secular god Human Nature, functionally non-religious people who simply say that fetuses are human think the same way as religious pro-lifers.

And I think that the only way to base human nature on the physical world and so to make it something actually real is to base it on human consciouness as other methods seem to be based on considering human anything that is human-looking to feel us bad if we kill it.