Abortion

Why the fuck we keep legalize this shit Veeky Forums?
Is there any scientific data that tell us whether fetuses are just simple biological machine ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

cant disprove the obvious mate

Science doesn't decide morality.

Is there any research that tells us people aren't just simple, biological, machines?

Science has already shown what it is ABLE to show. Coming to us on what remains an ethical problem is not wise of you. This question would be best asked on Veeky Forums so the philosophy majors can masturbate over it for 300 posts.

Honestly, I don't think it matters even if they are people. If you can't care for a kid, the only humane option is to kill it.

Well when you consider that humans don't even gain self awareness until around 3 years old I don't see what the big deal is. If anything abortion restrictions should be loosened.

Funny thing is if it wasn't for my mom having an abortion when she was 20 she would of never given birth to me 25 years later.

...

Technically it is a part of your body until it is viable.

That's stupid reasoning.
If you can't take care of a kid you should be able to give it to a facility that could provide care for it.
From my point of view abortion is being used as a tool to exempt the mother from the responsibility of bearing the child they consented to have.
In a situation where there is no consent in sex you could start a debate on wether or not abortion should be perfomed, in that case it does make a bit more sense. Nevertheless, abortion should be illegal if both man and women consented to the sexual relationship. People should be educated and aware that there are risks to having a child even if you use physical protection such as condoms.
And if you wanna look at it from a scientific prespective, you could argue that at the point when sperm cell and ovule meet a "potential human" is generated, sure it can't reflect on it's own existence, but give it enough time and it will most likely become a fully fledged human. By performing an abortion you are denying someone's life before they have the ability to decide on their own fate.
And im not saying this cause "Oh cause jesus preached it" or whatever, im Athiest.

Argument aside here, I would really like to know your point of view, because I really can't grasp what it's logical basis is meant to be.

Living breathing adults are nothing but souless biological machines you sperg. There is no right or wrong answer to this one, just one that is convinent and one that isn't.

A fetus is not part of your body because it contains different genetic material. It's a mish-mash of mother and father, It's own thing.
You should really re-take biology if you seriously believe a fetus is part of the mother's body.

I don't see a problem with murder in the first place. It has its uses. Like prisoner executions.

If someone wants to snuff out their genes. Let them. You don't want to breed with that person.

Although I agree with that statement to some extent because I find myself thinking Nihilistic thoughts from time to time, it's foolish to assume our existence in this universe is purposeless without scientific proof. We delude ourselves pretending to understand the universe by attempting to apply our own arbritary concepts on top of it. Do they work? Yes, of course they work, im using a computer built on the basis of science right now. However, you do have to agree there is a limit to what can be explained through our limited ability to observe reality.
A meaning might be hidden in there, or maybe not. But the worst and most unscientific thing you can do is to stop questioning and decide upon an answer even though an answer is impossible from our insignificant prespective.

Logical basis is that preserving life simply for the sake of preserving life is a moral argument that's based on nothing but feelings and naïveté. It's more rational to say, hey, there's a lot of people on this planet. We aren't exactly dying out. What's the big deal if we let a few slide?

This form of Nihilistic reasoning will only bring the collapse of our way of living.
It's the social contract my friend.
In the far future someone may say the very same thing to you. Either we all lose a little bit of our own ability to carry out our instinctive thought, or we live in constant fear of our own twisted morals being used against us.

That's an understandable point of view, but it's base d on ignorance. You are assuming none of us have any intrinsic value, like I said before, it may very well be the case, we may be living in a meaningless void that is existence, however, it's impossible to prove this, just as it's impossible to prove we do have value.
The smarter choice is to remain agnostic on topics you can't prove or disprove.

Define value.

>Is there any scientific data that tell us whether fetuses are just simple biological machine ?

Absolutely, but hurr, durr, Bible.

Luckily, law and science is not a popularity contest.

Unluckily, Trump being elected as president was a popular contest (that he technically lost).

That's not a very easy definition.
I guess you could say value is wether or not we have a purpose to exist. That purpose (if it's real) would give us value. It would be nice to give you a more concrete definition but I don't know much about Philosophy.
I do lean more towards the Nihilsitic side of things, but I would never claim we don't have any value or that we do since that would mean I would have to assume something I can't prove or disprove.

>(that he technically lost)

No, you salty cuck.

The campaign was a contest with clearly defined rules. You need to please the states.

What you saying here is like saying that an acrobat lost because even though he got the most points by the judges, the audience did not cheer as loudly for him.

Retard.

I'm not trying to sound selfish but when it comes right down to it you have to do what's best for your self. Why should someone put their dreams on hold or completely give them up just for a clump of cells they never wanted in the first place. Sure some would say just give it up for adoption but we already have enough kids out there with no parents/homes. Put put more stress on the system and take away resources from those kids who are actually alive?

While I believe that abortion is morally wrong and showed be frowned upon, I can see how millions of unwanted children will fuck up society. Then again, is our society worth defending if we have no qualms about women terminated pregnancies with little to no restriction and reproachment?

Why don't women say my body my wallet? instead of feeling entitle to the money the welfare state gives them? don't I have a saying to her body the moment she takes money by force out of my pocket with the welfare state?

Other countries don't have the electoral college system in place. The united states is one of the few that actually use this sort of political organization.
It makes no sense whatsoever, it does not represent the mayority of the population which goes against the concept of the people having the right to choose their leader.

If you have sex you should be aware that whatever you do (unless it involves surgery) the possiblity of having a child always exists.
By consenting to sex you should be ready to deal with the consequences if it does happen, otherwise don't have sex, it's as simple as that.

I am not disputing that. I am not salty either. Trump winning against Clinton is what I knew and hoped would happen anyway.

>Other countries don't have the electoral college system in place. The united states is one of the few that actually use this sort of political organization.
That's because the country is literally a collection of semi-autonomous states. The problem back in the day was that smaller states wanted equal representation among the states, whereas the larger states wanted representation based on population. The Connecticut Comprise solved this issue. Because of this, politicians are forced to listen to voters outside of major urban areas.

You browse Veeky Forums yet you are for a guy that denies climate change and appointed people that deny it too.
I really don't know what to say.
Does being ignorant of science and nodding along to whatever else this guy wants to do outweigh retaining logic and common sense?

>It makes no sense whatsoever, it does not represent the mayority of the population which goes against the concept of the people having the right to choose their leader.

Sure, but Trump didn't choose to be born in the US.

I did not say that I like Trump or support his policies. I think Clinton would have been a much better president.

Strategically, I think a fire to clear the underbrush is a good thing in terms of long-term strategy.

>Trump is anti climate boogeyman
not true tbqh. he is getting rid of the government bloat surrounding it.

Well, I guess that's where we differ. Way I see it, value can only be defined by the effect you have on the world, and that's too complicated of a thing to ever begin to assess. Because chaos theory. Factor in that what's good for humanity might not be good for the world, or even the universe, and you might as well give up thinking about it. So I say, there is no value. It's all a crapshoot that's out of our hands and understanding.

So default to the natural model, where babies die in untold number daily, across the animal kingdom, because that's just how things are. See acorn scene in "Antichrist", etc..

Tl;dr, I don't halfass my nihilism.

What?

The mayority of the US population lives in urban areas in this time period, the rural population is around 20%.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States

I don't think it really serves its purpose anymore.
Here is a nice solution to your political dillema. Ditch the "winner takes all" system and replace it with proportional representation.
You guys are stuck in the past.

>Why the fuck we keep legalize this shit Veeky Forums?
its as if christ cucks want the black population to explode or something.

I guess that's a positive way of looking at it. When people realize how stupid their way of thinking it they might ditch it in the future.
However, it comes at the risk that he may cause short-term damage to the country.

>a person isn't a person if he needs an external device to keep him alive
>everyone with a pacemaker can be killed without repercussions

Is it really worth sacrificing a life if you can never be sure if it does or does not have any value? How does it detract from your life to assume there is one just in case?