Governments, politicians...

abortion is not murder. Im sick of this saying.

>the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
>Killing
>fetuses do not have any detectable continuous brain activity until about the 25th week. before that it's just random spikes here and there from development
>no abortions are occurring past the 25th week, legally, except in cases of risk to the mother (this is in the 3rd trimester).

im so sick of people who say that, it's just coming from an emotional place of "oh my gawd you kill babies". They are literally not even babies yet, they are fetuses.

You fuck. You're destroying all potential for life after an egg has been fertilized. This would be like growing a seedling out of a seed and then fucking destroying it and going "oh well it's not alive". Which is wrong. Just because they don't have brain activity until 25 weeks doesn't mean they're not alive before then. The embryonic stage where major organs are developed starts as early as the fifth week. Are you going to say a plant is not alive since it does not think? Are you going to say a human with a heart beat, with living cells that exhibits all 7 traits of what we define as an organism in the scientific community, as not living? You're fucked in the head.

And you're just quite literally shutting your ears and yelling "LALALALALALA" to keep your own conscience clear. You're trying to objectively define what counts as human, both philosophically and biologically. The fact still stands that you ended potential human life. You've just decided that, this time, it doesn't count. The "loss of potential life" is reflected in all other parts of our culture, expect abortion. People will add fetuses to the death toll of terrorist attacks, shootings and such. Children dying is seen as bad, because they didn't get to live. (Note, I am not saying children and fetuses are unto themselves equivalent, but saying that why the "added sentiment" to a child deaths should apply to fetuses as well)

You can't just say that abortions are a necessary evil, you have to lie to yourself for goodfeels. You're the one who is arguing from an emotional place.

really contentious opinion coming brace yourself, trigger warning:

Being able to get rid of unwanted children brings prosperity. Families have limited resources and being able to control the number of mouths your trying to feed/ clothe /educate can mean the difference between prosperity and poverty. entire bronze age religions were onto this idea and even embraced it. "all life is sacred" isn't a universal cosmological ideology.

Just take your science to another country where there's no regulations.

I don't think this forced meme is taking, kid.

All useful life is sacred. Hence class systems & meritocracies.

>All useful life is sacred
there is no way to objectively rationalize describing anything as sacred. its just a personal decision on what cosmology you subscribe to.

Very shocking, but also very wrong. In agricultural societies people wanted as many kids as possible, (the numbers were kept down because of infant mortality) and killing otherwise healthy infants was a sign of bad times. In agricultural societies more children (I.E more workers) = more wealth. More land can be cultivated, more crops can be harvested. In addition the children will look after the parents when they get old.

People killed children when the times were bad, and it did not really improve the situation. Prosperous periods almost always meant more and more kids.

>In agricultural societies
bronze age marked the transition from purely agricultural based societies to those with specialized trades people. That period in history was the first time when agriculture became efficient enough to support a large percentage of the population specializing in other kinds of work. So having more kids didn't automatically translate into having more hands to help work the fields. My point stands, learn history.

>You're trying to objectively define what counts as human, both philosophically and biologically.
that's exactly what im doing. I dont feel bad about it at all. you know why? because im not using my emotions, it's a bundle of cells, not a sentient lifeform which will miss a life it didnt even know it could have. If i was unwanted, i would want to be aborted, period.
>Just because they don't have brain activity until 25 weeks doesn't mean they're not alive before then.
yes it does, legally, and biologically. don't like it, change the law. I don't really care what either you two think, the law is in my favor, don't like it, change it. Extremely unscientific opinions guys, just emotional bullshit of "it COULD be a kid!". yea, it could if the mother allows it to be. If the mother doesnt, it wont. Simple as that. And the law says thats allowable up to the third trimester.
>You can't just say that abortions are a necessary evil
I don't think it's evil at all. Evil is a buzzword for religiousfags. There is no moral or ethical issue with abortion if you are non-religious. And if you think there is, you've never taken an embryology course.

Well, no shit Sherlock we are talking about religion here. Hence the use of, "sacred".

>all useful life is sacred
define useful, define life, define "sacred" fucking kek. Emotional bullshit, the word "sacred". Sacred is fucking subjective

guess what, human life isnt special, at all. unless you think your life is a miracle among almost 8 billion other miracles

>bronze age marked the transition from purely agricultural based societies to those with specialized trades people.
True, but you're exaggerating it by a lot. 90% of the people were still farmers, even if cities and specialized jobs did exist. For most of human history right up until the Industrial Revolution most humans lived off of their subsistence farming.
>My point stands, learn history.
It really doesn't. Up until our current wage based society kids were almost always a net positive. This being different for a fraction of the population is insignificant in relation to this topic.

Essentially, wearing a condom or using any type of contraception, for that matter, would be wrong bc you are preventing life from happening.

There are no definate boundaries in this talk bc there is a cross between science and morales.

But just think, the world is already heading towards 9 billion. Sooner or later there is going to be a cross where the population will be too vast to support with our finite resources.

>Up until our current wage based society kids were almost always a net positive.
you said it yourself. kids are no longer a net positive. so if a woman becomes pregnant during a time where a child would not be a net positive, it is within her right to terminate the fetus before it reaches the third trimester.

Holy shit. You are doing exactly what I said you were doing, and don't try to pretend you are somehow emotionally detached and a rational genius here. You can't just admit that sometimes killing a human being is necessary, you have to justify it in your head for yourself. Your post is exactly that. You lean on the law as crutch, again so that you don't have to feel bad about yourself. "It isn't a real human! So it's okay! The law is on my side, so it's okay!"
>biologically
By almost all definitions of life, fetuses are alive. The question is whether they are human enough to have human rights, not whether they are alive or not you brainlet. Don't try to pretend biology agrees with you on that point. You're just someone who clearly has a distaste for the concept of killing children and is trying justify it by dehumanizing them.

>A responds to B
>in this response A makes a mistake
>C corrects A
>this obviously means that C is B

>tfw you agree fetuses are alive but you are still pro abortion
Death isn't inherently wrong, you know?
It's only the suffering that comes with some kinds of death what matters.

>not realizing that the "all life is sacred and infanticide is bad" religions are pushed on dirt farmers by the wealthy to make the wealthy land owners even more wealthy.

You really think it takes effort to not give a shit about a bundle of cells?
>You can't just admit that sometimes killing a human being is necessary
i cant? I believe in capital punishment. Except fetuses are not humans. You have a human fetus, which has the potential to become a human. Until it is born, it's not a human, it's a fetus. You can manipulate that all you want but it doesnt change the fact. You're the emotional one, equating a bundle of cells with a human.
>The question is whether they are human enough to have human rights, not whether they are alive or not you brainlet. Don't try to pretend biology agrees with you on that point. You're just someone who clearly has a distaste for the concept of killing children and is trying justify it by dehumanizing them.
biology does agree with me, so does the law (the law follows biology). I don't have a distaste for killing fetuses, i do have a distaste for killing children, stop humanizing bundles of cells you emotional idiot. Even if the law disagreed with me i would still think abortion is fine, because it's a fucking fetus, not born yet. I'd even be ok with third trimester abortions. come at me.

let me guess, you have taken exactly 0 upper level biology classes and are religious.

This is my (, ) point, I don't know if I'm just bad at conveying it.

Fetuses are alive, but it doesn't mean killing them is bad. is doing what most pro-choice people do: they present their philosophical opinion and biological fiction as facts to dehumanize fetuses, in order to feel good because they're "not killing children anymore". Dishonest.

Fetuses are alive but do not have rights. That's really the issue. And they certainly dont have the right to displace the mother's rights.

no you're humanizing a fetus. I am not dehumanizing a child, because it's not a child, it's a fetus.

[math] \mathscr{We}\ \mathscr{must}\ \mathscr{secure}\ \mathscr{the}\ \mathscr{the}\ \mathscr{existence}\ \mathscr{of}\ \mathscr{catgirls}\ \mathscr{and}\ \mathscr{a}\ \mathscr{future}\ \mathscr{for}\ \mathscr{them}\ \mathscr{in}\ \mathscr{our}\ \mathscr{homes!}\ [/math]

I'm not religious, and you're lying through your teeth. The law does not follow biology, and fetuses are alive.
>muh bundle of cells
All living people are made of cells, many organisms much less complicated are considered to be alive.

You're lying to yourself to make yourself feel good.

>all living things*

it's hilarious how people think im somehow lying to myself or deluding myself to believe what i believe. It's really not a difficult thought process. The law does follow biology, or else abortions wouldnt be allowed. The reason the third trimester is the cutoff is because of continuous brainwave activity, which is seen as the beginning of human life, from a legal definition. Why do you think braindead people are sometimes declared legally dead? Bundle cells, no brain function = no life. exact same argument. Yes, pull the plug on them too.

i really dont understand you guys. If you're not religious, you're emotionally manipulated hard into thinking that 1. human life is something special 2. a fetus somehow cares if it gets aborted 3. a fetus somehow feels pain without the brain development necessary to feel pain 4. all fetuses should be brought to term no matter of environmental or socioeconomic condition, because of point 1.

when it comes down to it, i dont really care because again, law on my side, and it's not going to change. Go pray for fetuses, im gonna do research

to add on this, i guess it's easier for you guys to believe im either delusional or lying to myself to come to this conclusion. Well a shitload of people are lying to themselves, including a lot of the people who claim to be pro-life until they find themselves in a sticky situation, looking at you hardcore catholics

to add on this, i guess it's easier for you guys to believe im either delusional or lying to myself to come to this conclusion **then it is to believe that you're wrong or not fully educated on the subject. **

Death is medically defined as destruction of higher brain. It is why we can legally kill braindead but biologically alive people. And rightly so.

In the same way, beginning of a human person should be defined as "brain birth", or the moment when higher brain begins to function. This does not happen until 5-6th month in the womb at the earliest.

It is not any kind of a lie, consciousness/sentience as the basis for human rights is not an uncommon view. It is one reason why most people want early term abortions to be legal while late term ones banned.

I used to think this until I had a kid.

I'm not religious, rationally I know that the fetus was basically a parasite for most the pregnancy. It just changes your perspective holding a 6 month old child and a year ago my wife could have said "lol so bad so sad, my body my choice" and aborted her. Honestly I take a different way to work since my daughter was born because seeing the planned parenthood office on my old route made me want to cry.

You're not going to agree, and that's fine, I'm just trying to get you to understand why people feel the way they do, and that it transcends the very valid points your brought up.

As long as you dont stop others from them, your opinion is valid. I get that, i have a nephew i love unconditionally, but you're being emotional, and you're coming from a place of emotion. My mom had an abortion after she became pregnant after a failed vasectomy, this was after my sister and i were born. As long as you realize there are people who dont make that emotional connection, and don't restrict their access to abortion, your opinion is fine by me.

In the words of Morty from Rick and Morty.

"You're smart, you'll figure it out."

Stop federally funding science and technology. You can't put politics in charge of science and then wonder why science became political. There were plenty of advances in basic science and applied technology prior to 1945. There's nothing magical about government money.

My colleagues spend all their time chasing grant $$$. A private system may or may not spend more overall, but it would certainly spare them the 50%+ that top academics spend on the political song and dance.

>pukes republican small government propaganda
you're a weak minded pinhead

>muh brain wavessss
>muh egg/sperm are potential life
>muh body muh choice
>muh freedom!

Why are murderers so stupid/deluded? The entire thing is settled, and convenience is just about the only excuse.

Just accept your label, murderers.

This would just make private companies super powerful because they would be the only ones doing R&D. Think pharmaceutical industry but in all industries.

>muh feelings

>The entire thing is settled
your right, it's legal.

human. human fetuses.

humans automatic personhood regardless of age.

>humans automatic personhood regardless of age.
that's an opinion. An opinion the law does not agree with. And an opinion most people disagree with. again, emotions "it's a person so it's sacred". it's neither.

>your right, it's legal
Exactly, murderers run around doing whatever they want. You don't need any excuses for murdering because you got mob rule on your side. Psychopathy is a state of being, like there is no need to dress it up like you are being something other than that.

Your feelings(brain waves) are more important!

laws are like opinions, (wo)man.

>pushing your cosmology on other people in a secular country with no established religion of the government.

its a privacy rights issue if you want to get technical. Its none of your business what women do with their own bodies. That's what Roe VS Wade established. its not your business so piss off.

keep using buzzwords like murder. it's not. if legally it were murder, abortion doctors would go to jail for murder.
>Psychopathy is a state of being, like there is no need to dress it up like you are being something other than that.
yea id argue you're the one with the mental illness having an unreasonable attachment to a bundle of cells with no brain function.
good argument.

How long till radical centrism is just another meme ?

Murder is not a buzzword, moron. It's referencing an act. Why are you so confident in your arguments when you are so unaware of even the most basic definitions.
> a bundle of cells
You brain is a bundle of cells, albeit not very interesting!

Men decide the laws, do you blindly worship the lawmakers? The likes of GW Bush, Clinton, Obama and other warmongers?

>Why are you so confident in your arguments when you are so unaware of even the most basic definitions.
why are you? here are the definitions. it does not have rights until it has brainwaves, which is the 3rd trimester. If people without brainwaves had rights, they wouldnt pull the plug on coma victims or that would be murder. it's not.
>Men decide the laws, do you blindly worship the lawmakers? The likes of GW Bush, Clinton, Obama and other warmongers?
no, if abortion was against the law i would still advocate for it, it has nothing to do with who writes the law. Because forcing a woman to carry to term a baby that is unwanted infringes upon the only entity that has rights, the mother. Until the fetus is in the 3rd trimester, but then it is illegal, as it has brainwaves and it is no longer her call.

The empirical results in management seem to contradict that. Faced with groundbreaking technological change, dominant companies tend to be unwilling or unable to adapt and are replaced by new entrants which are not already married to existing ways of doing business. Hence why such advances are called disruptive. It was a puzzle for decades because theory suggested what you're saying: that a dominant player in an industry, especially one with huge economies of scope and not just single industry scale, should be able to maintain its advantage indefinitely. And yet new advances seem invariably able to let small scrappy firms outcompete the megacorps and drive them out. The answer to the riddle was agency theory and political views of firm decision-making. A move might be profit maximizing for the firm as a whole but not be made because nobody currently employed in that firm would benefit. Or not enough people.

So technological advances lead to a punctuated equilibrium model of industry structure.

And btw look closely at the structure of the pharma industry and it's nothing like you're implying. Branding, distribution, and financing are consolidated, but R&D other than simple reformulations is dominated by a healthy and ever-changing landscape of small startups

Much of the privately funded research is government mandated and government managed. Eg pharma clinical trials. When you get to college, ask your professors what proportion of their funding for publishable academic work comes from government vs for- and non-profit organizations. Remember: university funds come mostly from course subs, which come from tuition, which is mostly government dollars.

But if you really believe that chart you're waving, then why so mad? It seems like science is going private anyway and has for decades. Eliminating that last quarter should solve the problem. If you really believed that chart, you wouldn't be so scared of that "minor" source of funding going away

Anything other than abortion is oppressing womynz.

nypost.com/2017/07/17/ny-lefts-radical-opposition-to-funds-for-pregnant-women/

>nypost.com/2017/07/17/ny-lefts-radical-opposition-to-funds-for-pregnant-women/
>nypost.com
lol

Better care options for premature fetuses alters the definition of "viability," which is a concept used in many state laws to define whats and abortion and what is infanticide.

Are people who make money off such ideas be a bigger threat then someone who bible thumps all day? Like big oil interests stifling alternatives to gas/oil? Water powered engines for example and since something like watered powered engines could revolutionize the life of the poor who pay huge sums for transportation(excluding public transport in cities).

(First word should be Aren't)
(This is my post.)
Continuation
.It might make people who are opposed to progress more accepting since they can see how science directly affects their pocket positively.

>all research should be limited to what makes a profit for a corporation
That's a fucking stupid idea.

>But if you really believe that chart you're waving, then why so mad? It seems like science is going private anyway and has for decades. Eliminating that last quarter should solve the problem. If you really believed that chart, you wouldn't be so scared of that "minor" source of funding going away
>why so mad?
Because the proportion of the funding coming from the government should be staying the same or even rising, not decreasing

You're basing this all on the assumption that the market "chooses" the best outcome for people. This isn't the case in science research and pharma, where thing like vaccines and cures for diseases don't have a large affect on rich western populations aren't funded.
You can say something about efficiency, or that the market decides fairly what is worth doing, but that would be wrong and would amount to blind worship no better than religious fanatics.

The centrist is just called both at the same time

>human. Human cells

Therefore cancer cells are chemo and it's immoral to kill them

I dislike this semantics game and how it pertains to lives and the law, since the same arguments used for abortion easily support infanticide as well.

how so? Infants have continuous brainwaves, and are not braindead. Fetuses up to the third trimester are. It's the presence of brainwaves that gives them human rights.

You made an entire argument from authority only to back-peddle.

So a clump of cells we are then, and you obviously don't want to pursue that line any longer since you have moved on to the brainwaves line of argument.

What makes brainwaves more special than DNA that can turn into a human? An embryo is a stage of human life. Basing anything on brainwaves seems like the most arbitrary position to simply peddle some agenda. It's also very inconsistent if you were to compare a comatose patient, worse yet a brain dead person, now to an embryo-a very dishonest line of argument.

>Because forcing a woman to carry to term a baby that is unwanted infringes upon the only entity that has rights, the mother.

We made excellent progress! Yes all women must be able to get rid of that which hinders her when it suits her, because responsibility is not important.

Going back to topic, if an embryo can now survive outside a woman then it will have more rights, and there is no denying that your line of argument has any weight.

>if I anonymously condescend someone on the internet, that must mean I'm winning!
So you're that kind of asshole.

I'm curious, in your opinion when does the ovum become a separate being, and not a constituent cell of the mother's body? It starts as one of her cells, no different than a skin cell or a liver cell, etc., but when do you see it as not being a part of her body? Fertilization? Viability?

I'm not the guy you replied to, and I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just asking what you think.

>What makes brainwaves more special than DNA that can turn into a human?

Because it implies some sort of conscious experience. Obviously you don't want to kill a fetus that can feel pain or terror.

>Yes all women must be able to get rid of that which hinders her when it suits her, because responsibility is not important.

Strawman

>Going back to topic, if an embryo can now survive outside a woman then it will have more rights, and there is no denying that your line of argument has any weight.

Maybe you should ask yourself how they can pass the experimental stage without "murdering" a few fetuses

>So a clump of cells we are then, and you obviously don't want to pursue that line any longer since you have moved on to the brainwaves line of argument.

We are clumps of cells with with brainwaves. Or minds. Call it whatever you want, but that is the ultimate source of any rights and what makes us morally different from inanimate matter. It has nothing to do with cells or biology really, a sentient strong AI simulated in a computer would deserve certain rights, too. As do higher animals. Having at least a simple mind is the basic prerequisite to even begin talking about something like "rights".

No mind, no victim, no crime.

Research in Europe/China

How are haploid cells anything close to being a human?

>conscious
What is this? Brainwaves?

>Strawman
Is it though? Really?

>Maybe you should ask yourself how they can pass the experimental stage without "murdering" a few fetuses
Experimental stage of what? What are you talking about? This isn't even about abortion. You can harvest stem cells without embryos. Are you strawmanning?

>We are clumps of cells with with brainwaves. Or minds. Call it whatever you want, but that is the ultimate source of any rights
Prove it.

The ultimate source of rights, for example: abortion, is might. The government exerts its monopoly on violence to legislate laws, which demand that such a practice is carried out without repercussions. Seems to be a lot of confusion around here.

>Experimental stage of what?

Artificial wombs, genetic engineering.. Are you luddite enough to be against that?

>Prove it.

>asking to prove a subjective moral judgement

Oh, I didnt realize you have solved the is-ought problem. Where is your noble price in philosophy?

I can explain my reasoning, (I already did), but it is impossible to truly prove a subjective moral opinion. Applies to abortion, too, and equally to pro-life and pro-choice.

>The ultimate source of rights, for example: abortion, is might.

That is what is. Not what ought to be.

>genetic engineering
No one can stop a storm. Am I against it? No, and why does it even matter?

>Artificial wombs
So far they have only been tried with animals. And, the first trials of these will be carried out to save the unfortunate who suffer miscarriages or other similar cases... They will be seen as live giving machines.

So you cannot prove it?

>Oh, I didnt realize you have solved the is-ought problem
You haven't either! You have been preaching about what ought to be, but I am only talking about what is... In fact, I have not once said what ought to be. Did I say anything against abortion? Other than it is murder?

>Applies to abortion, too, and equally to pro-life and pro-choice
I suppose you can apply it to murder and other atrocities too? oh, a slippery slope?! Subjective morality but we are all living under it? Wonderful.

>Did I say anything against abortion? Other than it is murder?

This is a subjective, moral statement. It is clearly an ought.

>I suppose you can apply it to murder and other atrocities too? oh, a slippery slope?! Subjective morality but we are all living under it? Wonderful.

Morality is indeed subjective. Get over it. It always ultimately comes down to feelz.

This does not mean we shouldnt discuss it or have moral convictions but it does mean you are being disingenuous when you pretend you are magically objective. As if!

>This is a subjective, moral statement.
Then what is it? The termination of a human stage of life? How would you term such a move? Let me guess, not murder in case of an embryo.

By killing a fetus you are ending what if left alone will be a human life so by killing it you end a life so it is murder by definition

>By killing a fetus you are ending what if left alone will be a human life so by killing it you end a life so it is murder by definition

"killing" a potential human being is as bad as using a condom.

>Then what is it? The termination of a human stage of life? How would you term such a move? Let me guess, not murder in case of an embryo.

It is just killing. Not all killing is morally wrong. To be murder it needs to be an unjust killing of a human person. Abortion is neither unjust, nor killing a person.

>what will be a human life
But it isn't a human life at that time. Religiousfag BTFO

>killing is morally wrong
I did not say such a thing.

It is however the killing of another human who is at a different stage of development.

We all march the path of embryo, toddler, young person, adult, etc., to simply discount such a stage because it suits your agenda is dishonest. Our development is procedural.

>Abortion is neither unjust
Nothing being said about just or justice, don't wander astray.

Is murder subjective to you?

You conveniently leave out semen. Is masturbation wrong? What about nocturnal emissions, which men have no control over?

>We all march the path of embryo, toddler, young person, adult, etc., to simply discount such a stage because it suits your agenda is dishonest. Our development is procedural.

We also march the path of a sperm and an egg. A condom ends the path towards adult human just as surely as an abortion would.

The point is, a mere potential human being has no right to life. Either it is actually a human being in the present, or it is not. What may or may not be in the future is irrelevant.

>Is murder subjective to you?

Ultimately it is. Murder simply means something like "a wrong killing". However what is good or bad is a subjective moral question.

I've already said about haploid cells. We don't exist as haploid cells. IS THIS EVEN A SCIENCE BOARD?? WHAT AM I DOING HERE??

So I didn't originate as a sperm cell in my dad's testicles?

>Experimental stage of what? What are you talking about?

What are you fucking stupid or something? Growing babies outside of wombs

So it's ok to kill haploid cells but not diploid cells?

>We don't exist as haploid cells.

Speak for yourself. I did exist as two haploid cells in the past.

Why should women be forced to give birth and raise a baby they don't want, is she going to magically become a good mother after she gives birth? In most cases no, the child will be neglected and suffer the consequences for the rest of their life. They will most likely become a burden to society. The world is already overpopulated, it's not getting better. People are already dying due to lack of resources, why take away an option that will help?

look at the demographic developments in the us in the past 40 years

>The world is already overpopulated

Only Africa and middle east. The rest of the world has issues with too low fertility.

US inner cities would disagree with you

Women that get an abortion aren't really the ones I want to reproduce.
It's a great way to keep the black and slut population in check.

Not him but that depends on the demographic, the largest rate of births in the U.S. comes from the Hispanic population. Both White and Black populations have lower rates relatively.

That's why you see charts showing the growth rate of the black population in the future roughly maintaining 13% while Hispanics continue to go up to 24%.

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/%3famp=1

So unless you are specifically talking about Hispanics (which is more a immigration issue) they don't agree.