High Effort proving abortion is immoral

[SkiSquadJPG]

Impossible. Never done before
If i find a child in the woods and rape it, butcher it and eat its organs absolutely nothing happens naturally. No punishment, nothing
I just get healthier and satisfy my needs. It's good for me and bad for them, there's no general goods and bads
All of them vary from person to person depending on what flavor of behavioural control brainwashing you received but the natural state is none

And no human has inherent value, that doesn't even mean anything in the first place, vague ass term

You get health complications from eating raw brain especially human

 

[tension]

The chance that an abortion procedure will cause permanent harm to a woman for life is higher than the chance that it will occur after childbirth

According to what?

I'm not against you, I've just never heard that and it sounds unlikely.

 

[IAMNOTANINCEL]

You get health complications from eating raw brain especially human

Good goy.

 

[tension]

It has no intrinsic fucking moral value its a lump of cells without any capability of deploying conciousness. Life is not inherently positive, it should not be created unless the mother (or other caretaking parents) want it. Thinking life begins at conception is a conflation of a biological definition with a moral claim. Unless there is a cortex thalamus connection there is no reason to assign any value to it. If you think that as much life as possible should be created, then it would only be morally consistent to desire an ever-rising human population. No one wants that so its retarded to be against abortion. I guess if you want to control women but then get a life

I'll respond to this when I'm done with dinner.

 

[ltn gooner]

Dnr but agree with title

 

[abracadabra]

@Duckmaxxer speak something u fucking puppy in the shadow like a wasted nut , mother should of aborted u giving me little boy energy


And ski stop trying to speak back bro ur polish u eat meat jelly its over I know u came on here to ragebait niggas

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

Skimmed through it now, shitty thread.

"This proof assumes the inherent value of human life and will base itself on the belief that for any action to be morally good it must be just."

Making an assumption about the only debate that matters

im not writing a 20 page essay on why killing humans is wrong and the literal basis of morality

"An unborn human is not conscious/aware. This implies that all humans that are asleep are unequal to humans that are awake which is unjust and therefore wrong."

1. They have the ability to regain conciousness (If they don't, we typically pull the plug on them)

2. there is a brain function threshold (even though I personally ont think this is the best argument)

Even more reason for why it cant be classed as dead

3. Having the potential to become a person is not the same as being one. As I mentioned in my other post, to be morally consistent you would need to be for an ever growing human population and against all forms of birthcontrol. Are you for that? I don't think so, you're just letting your feelings delude your judgement

link the post

 

[Mess]

You get health complications from eating raw brain especially human

Kuru only happens when someone eats a brain with prions. I'm guessing that you're referring to kuru anyways.

 

[Alexg_lover]

link the post

Post not thread retard Its up here

 

[X3737LMOGZ]

I was asked to prove the christian moral framework logically and will start with abortion as it is the most disputed subject.



This is the logical proof of why abortion is morally wrong unless in the circumstance that giving birth may lead to death or severe harm to the mother, death of the child, or in the case that the child has such severe deformities or mental defections that it will die shortly after birth. In all other circumstances it is morally wrong to perform an abortion. This proof assumes the inherent value of human life and will base itself on the belief that for any action to be morally good it must be just.

I will first prove why it is morally wrong to kill a human in all other cases than the aforementioned. Then I will prove why an unborn human has the same inherent value as a born human.




Scenarios where you kill a human for the same reason some people kill their unborn children:


-Not killing the human would cause inconvenience to you for many months ending with a 6 hour period of physical pain and you are responsible for putting yourself in this position. In this scenario it is morally wrong to kill a human as a life is more valuable than a period of inconvenience. Especially if you are the reason such a choice must be made.
-Not killing the human would mean economical hardship to you and you are responsible for putting yourself in this situation. In this scenario it is morally wrong to kill a human. The human life is worth more than any sum of money for which giving away that money doesn’t lead to starvation and death, which is not the case in this scenario. Especially when you are the reason such a choice must be made.
-Not killing the human would mean an end to your degenerate behaviour (partying, whoring, drinking etc.) In this case it is morally wrong to kill a human as you cannot justify a moral wrong by claiming it leads to a negative consequence. Then you are giving reason for why it is wrong.
-You were forced into any of the aforementioned scenarios (rape). The only effective difference between leading yourself into these scenarios or being forced into them is psychological. Your temporary psychological suffering is not worse than the death of a human and therefore it is still morally wrong to kill a human in this scenario. Note that the psychological suffering is temporary as you do not have the obligation to keep supporting the human after birth as there are adoption centres and foster care that can take care of your child if you so wish.
-The human would, according to you, suffer more throughout his/her life as a result of dysfunctional family, economical hardship or other than if you killed them. Since the person in question is not capable of deciding that them selves and you do not have mandate over their life taking such action is trespassing their right to life and is therefore morally wrong.








An unborn human has the same value as a born human:


First we will establish that an unborn human is human through:
Biology- They have the DNA of Homo Sapiens
Law- Irrelevant as law should be based on morality and not viceversa

Then we will establish that an unborn human is alive:
Biology- Their cells are replicating and converting energy which implies he/she is alive
Law- Irrelevant as law should be based on morality and not viceversa
Anatomy- There is the argument that brain activity is needed or the person is considered dead however this only applies to born humans as they have no way of gaining their brain activity back through any means other than a miracle while the unborn human will gain brain activity



Then there are arguments that an unborn living human is not as valuable as a born living human:

-An unborn human is not capable of surviving outside the womb. This implies that people in need of continued medical assistance are not equal to people without that need which is unjust and therefore wrong.
-An unborn human is not conscious/aware. This implies that all humans that are asleep are unequal to humans that are awake which is unjust and therefore wrong.
-An unborn human does not have any memories or experiences and is therefore not valued. This implies that younger humans are less worth than older humans and that people experience long term memory loss through dementia or other are less valued. This is unproductive and unjust and therefore wrong.
-An unborn human doesn’t look like a born human. This is irrelevant as we have established that it still is a human. It also implies that people should be valued based on how much they look like a regular born human meaning people with deformities or mutilations or less valued. This is unjust and therefore wrong.




To summarize:
An unborn human is proven to be a living human and has also proved to be as valuable as a born human. Killing a human for aforementioned reasons has been proven to be morally wrong and therefore performing abortion on your child in any case except when the mother or child will die during or soon after pregnancy is morally wrong.


@Jimcel @CloudyCuck

Dnr but I agree

 

[enlightful]

dnr + retard + anyone who don't support abortions are either extremely obsessed with the white race or sub 100 iq

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

Kuru only happens when someone eats a brain with prions. I'm guessing that you're referring to kuru anyways.

no im not reffering to kuru but to animal disease in general, but to be fair a random child in a forest wouldnt have those disease

 

[Wexilarious]

According to what?

I'm not against you, I've just never heard that and it sounds unlikely.

There's no proof of life lasting damage after giving birth, you can google, like, it can happen, but they just don't indicate it so we can't compare really (ai just gives gibberish about 33% of 1 day - 6 months damage that heals + other sites)

But i can give you chances of life lasting damage after surgical abortion from ai

Surgical abortion is a very safe procedure with a low risk of long-term damage (less than 1% for major complications in legal settings), with complications arising more frequently in later-term or unsafe procedures. Rare, potential long-term risks include Asherman’s syndrome (uterine scarring), chronic pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) from untreated infections, or injury to the cervix.
Factors Affecting Risk

• Gestational Age: The risk of major complications rises from about 2 per 1,000 cases at 7-8 weeks to 6 per 1,000 at 13-14 weeks, and increases further after 20 weeks.

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

found the post

It has no intrinsic fucking moral value its a lump of cells without any capability of deploying conciousness.

to us as a species it has value since it provides continuation of our existence

Life is not inherently positive, it should not be created unless the mother (or other caretaking parents) want it.

if a mother accepts dick into her pussy she should want it, if she does not just use a fucking condom or atleast birth control

Thinking life begins at conception is a conflation of a biological definition with a moral claim. Unless there is a cortex thalamus connection there is no reason to assign any value to it.

do you believe cells with an intact genetic structure constitutes life?

If you think that as much life as possible should be created, then it would only be morally consistent to desire an ever-rising human population

I think whatever life has been created should be kept alive

No one wants that so its retarded to be against abortion. I guess if you want to control women but then get a life

Youre literally just a reddit feminist ally arent you? this has nothing to do with women or feminism you gotta be retarded or brainwashed to think antiabortion is all about controlling women

 

[Tenres]

im not writing a 20 page essay on why killing humans is wrong and the literal basis of morality

A simple proof would be good. If you believe in self defense and also the right to life, then you agree rights can supercede other rights.

Also it's not at all intuitive that we should value an unconscious and never conscious human life. What is their to value if they have no experience?

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

A simple proof would be good. If you believe in self defense and also the right to life, then you agree rights can supercede other rights.

sure i will include in my next post about christian morality, the person i answered to wanted me to logically prove why justice is to be sought after which I doubt i can do in less than a dozen plus pages assuming i can at all

Also it's not at all intuitive that we should value an unconscious and never conscious human life. What is their to value if they have no experience?

read the thread

 

[Tenres]

It has no intrinsic fucking moral value its a lump of cells without any capability of deploying conciousness. Life is not inherently positive, it should not be created unless the mother (or other caretaking parents) want it. Thinking life begins at conception is a conflation of a biological definition with a moral claim. Unless there is a cortex thalamus connection there is no reason to assign any value to it. If you think that as much life as possible should be created, then it would only be morally consistent to desire an ever-rising human population. No one wants that so its retarded to be against abortion. I guess if you want to control women but then get a life

I mostly agree but I would say by the precautionary principle we should ban second and third trimester abortions and increase access to birth control.

 

[Tenres]

sure i will include in my next post about christian morality, the person i answered to wanted me to logically prove why justice is to be sought after which I doubt i can do in less than a dozen plus pages assuming i can at all

read the thread

No just lay out the argument lol. Why are cells morally valuable?

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

No just lay out the argument lol. Why are cells morally valuable?

because those cells will become human and humans are essential for the survival of humans. the ultimate moral good for any species is its own survival

 

[Alexg_lover]

Well....

to us as a species it has value since it provides continuation of our existence

You cannot be serious? We are literally overpopulated, the only way for us to continue living with a decent standard is to decrease our population. I am pretty sure I've read that the scientific ideal population is 200 million, not our current, and rising, 8.3 billion. Yes its important long term that we get kids but thats not really an issue, is it? We are still birthing too many kids.....

if a mother accepts dick into her pussy she should want it, if she does not just use a fucking condom or atleast birth control

Birthcontrols don't work 100% of the time, either way this is reductionistic and a mysigonistic argument again (not saying you can't be a mysigonist, but I will return to that later)

do you believe cells with an intact genetic structure constitutes life?

"Life" is a manmade word and has no moral bearing. As I mentioned, having the capability, or at least the potential for conciousness is.

I think whatever life has been created should be kept alive

Why? Just because? If no one suffers there is no reason for that to be the case. You are using a general statement with no moral reasoning behind it, applying it to an arbitrary definition of life, and using that as an argument against a societally and emotionally important procedure. Its way too principle-driven

Youre literally just a reddit feminist ally arent you? this has nothing to do with women or feminism you gotta be retarded or brainwashed to think antiabortion is all about controlling women

That was a conclution based off my arguments retard I mentioned it as it was the only other possibility

 

[Alexg_lover]

I mostly agree but I would say by the precautionary principle we should ban second and third trimester abortions and increase access to birth control.

Yeah I agree. I think week 18 is where I would draw the line personally, but even week 12 is fine honestly

 

[Tenres]

because those cells will become human and humans are essential for the survival of humans. the ultimate moral good for any species is its own survival

Even if we grant this random potential person would benefit society, I don't think people are obligated to maximize the benefit for society in sacrifice of themselves unless there is a clear harm they are committing.

This would seemingly commit to things like giving up any extra money you have to charity, any extra property you have, any extra food. Or in more extreme cases of giving up everything you have if other people have better uses for it.

 

[Knid]

youre either the right branch of chrsitianty or morals do not exist. dont larp your own morals out of thin air they are either created by the right true god that you follow or we are all atoms floating on a rock o algo and they are just your subjective emotions

what denomination are you?

 

[Knid]

Even if we grant this random potential person would benefit society, I don't think people are obligated to maximize the benefit for society in sacrifice of themselves unless there is a clear harm they are committing.

This would seemingly commit to things like giving up any extra money you have to charity, any extra property you have, any extra food. Or in more extreme cases of giving up everything you have if other people have better uses for it.

One is compelling action (actually giving up your property,) and the other is compelling INACTION, just don't kill your kid.

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

Well....

You cannot be serious? We are literally overpopulated, the only way for us to continue living with a decent standard is to decrease our population. I am pretty sure I've read that the scientific ideal population is 200 million, not our current, and rising, 8.3 billion. Yes its important long term that we get kids but thats not really an issue, is it? We are still birthing too many kids.....

fearmongering, the only overpopulated places are china and india and we have nukes for that (i am not being funny in case thats what you think)

Birthcontrols don't work 100% of the time, either way this is reductionistic and a mysigonistic argument again (not saying you can't be a mysigonist, but I will return to that later)

Its not mysogonistic, you left out the part i said about condoms because you want to frame this as putting all responsibility on the woman while its not

"Life" is a manmade word and has no moral bearing. As I mentioned, having the capability, or at least the potential for conciousness is.

life is when something can convert energy and reproduce

Why? Just because? If no one suffers there is no reason for that to be the case. You are using a general statement with no moral reasoning behind it, applying it to an arbitrary definition of life, and using that as an argument against a societally and emotionally important procedure. Its way too principle-driven

As ive said because its unjust to kill an innocent person, if we really want to solve the supposed overpopulation we should kill the not so innocent people, especially in china and india

That was a conclution based off my arguments retard I mentioned it as it was the only other possibility

no youre a kazakhstan agent trying to frame me for misogony

 

[Knid]

Well....

You cannot be serious? We are literally overpopulated, the only way for us to continue living with a decent standard is to decrease our population. I am pretty sure I've read that the scientific ideal population is 200 million, not our current, and rising, 8.3 billion. Yes its important long term that we get kids but thats not really an issue, is it? We are still birthing too many kids.....



Birthcontrols don't work 100% of the time, either way this is reductionistic and a mysigonistic argument again (not saying you can't be a mysigonist, but I will return to that later)

"Life" is a manmade word and has no moral bearing. As I mentioned, having the capability, or at least the potential for conciousness is.


Why? Just because? If no one suffers there is no reason for that to be the case. You are using a general statement with no moral reasoning behind it, applying it to an arbitrary definition of life, and using that as an argument against a societally and emotionally important procedure. Its way too principle-driven


That was a conclution based off my arguments retard I mentioned it as it was the only other possibility

""Life" is a manmade word and has no moral bearing. As I mentioned, having the capability, or at least the potential for conciousness is."

Yo, my nigga, the words we use refer to something IN REALITY. All words are manmade you dumb faggot, the fact that humans at ALL stages of development have the 8 characteristics that we sum up in the word "living" is true regardless of whatever words you wanna use.

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

Even if we grant this random potential person would benefit society, I don't think people are obligated to maximize the benefit for society in sacrifice of themselves unless there is a clear harm they are committing.

This would seemingly commit to things like giving up any extra money you have to charity, any extra property you have, any extra food. Or in more extreme cases of giving up everything you have if other people have better uses for it.

this is what i meant when i said im not writing a proof for human value, i dont have the time to waste days writing a post that will be spammed with dnr

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

""Life" is a manmade word and has no moral bearing. As I mentioned, having the capability, or at least the potential for conciousness is."

Yo, my nigga, the words we use refer to something IN REALITY. All words are manmade you dumb faggot, the fact that humans at ALL stages of development have the 8 characteristics that we sum up in the word "living" is true regardless of whatever words you wanna use.

a cuck entering a state of sheer panic as he realizes not everyone is chemically castrated and its actually only over for him:

 

[FoidCucker]

Im personally raping the family of anyone saying dnr

dnr

 

[Knid]

No just lay out the argument lol. Why are cells morally valuable?

Individual cells aren't intrinsically valuable, except for in the case when the individual human is composed of a single cell. HUMANS are valuable, because they have a rational nature. It's not about consciousness at any particular point, or the ability to feel pain, etc. If you think that what makes humans valuable is one of these attributes like consciousness, tell me and I'll point out the absurdity that arises

 

[Tenres]

One is compelling action (actually giving up your property,) and the other is compelling INACTION, just don't kill your kid. View attachment 4777366

Both of these would be based on the same ethical framework, if not you are creating different ethical frameworks based on a distinction in syntax (you can phrase anything positive as negative and vice versa)

 

[tension]

There's no proof of life lasting damage after giving birth, you can google, like, it can happen, but they just don't indicate it so we can't compare really (ai just gives gibberish about 33% of 1 day - 6 months damage that heals + other sites)

But i can give you chances of life lasting damage after surgical abortion from ai

Surgical abortion is a very safe procedure with a low risk of long-term damage (less than 1% for major complications in legal settings), with complications arising more frequently in later-term or unsafe procedures. Rare, potential long-term risks include Asherman’s syndrome (uterine scarring), chronic pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) from untreated infections, or injury to the cervix.
Factors Affecting Risk

• Gestational Age: The risk of major complications rises from about 2 per 1,000 cases at 7-8 weeks to 6 per 1,000 at 13-14 weeks, and increases further after 20 weeks.

Yeah this doesn't really prove anything.

Surgical abortion isn't as common as just taking a pill.

Also, I think that pro-lifers and pro-choicers can both agree on the fact that giving birth is more dangerous than getting an abortion.

Still, that doesn't mean that I agree with abortion in most cases.

 

[Tenres]

Individual cells aren't intrinsically valuable, except for in the case when the individual human is composed of a single cell. HUMANS are valuable, because they have a rational nature. It's not about consciousness at any particular point, or the ability to feel pain, etc. If you think that what makes humans valuable is one of these attributes like consciousness, tell me and I'll point out the absurdity that arises

The human cell has a rational nature?

Sure, I think consciousness creates moral worth while other features can modulate that worth but not remove it fully.

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

please daddy im sorry ive been a misbehaving slut,

its okay kittygirl, just dont speak up again or i will never give back your hymen

 

[Daddy's Home]

Morality is man made, a fairy tale; it does not exist in nature

Just a few hundred years ago, cannibalism, the rape of women and children, cold-blooded murder and torture to death as methods of punishment in front of the public and children were as normal in human society as going to the grocery store is for us today

Women can do whatever they want with their pregnancy. No one can force them not to have an abortion at home if they don’t want the pregnancy

That is exactly why we are fortunate to live in an age of modern medicine, where women can have a safe and secure abortion at a hospital

A woman’s life is far more important to society than an unwanted or unborn child

Therefore, society must protect them and provide them with the support they need

Any other argument is completely irrelevant. If you ban abortion, women will perform them on their own, just as has happened throughout the entire history of human society

 

[Mess]

Your stance on abortion will waver based on the axioms that you hold, so you cannot truly prove that it is immoral.
There's no objective answer to any sort of moral debate, end of. If you truly are against abortion, just advise your loved ones against it.

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

Yeah this doesn't really prove anything.

Surgical abortion isn't as common as just taking a pill.

Also, I think that pro-lifers and pro-choicers can both agree on the fact that giving birth is more dangerous than getting an abortion.

Still, that doesn't mean that I agree with abortion in most cases.

Giving birth is very safe thanks to modern medicinal advancements, although abortion through pill is mostly harmless (except for fucking up hormones) i doubt childbirth is more dangerous than abortion in general

 

[tension]

It has no intrinsic fucking moral value its a lump of cells without any capability of deploying conciousness. Life is not inherently positive, it should not be created unless the mother (or other caretaking parents) want it. Thinking life begins at conception is a conflation of a biological definition with a moral claim. Unless there is a cortex thalamus connection there is no reason to assign any value to it. If you think that as much life as possible should be created, then it would only be morally consistent to desire an ever-rising human population. No one wants that so its retarded to be against abortion. I guess if you want to control women but then get a life

1. A fetus isn’t just random cells, it’s a developing human organism going through an early stage of life.

2. If moral value only comes from consciousness, that would imply newborn babies or people in temporary comas don’t have value either, which most people don’t agree with.

3. You don’t have to want unlimited population growth to think ending an existing human life is wrong. Those are separate issues.

 

[tension]

Giving birth is very safe thanks to modern medicinal advancements, although abortion through pill is mostly harmless (except for fucking up hormones) i doubt childbirth is more dangerous than abortion in general

Yeah, neither are "dangerous"

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

[insert retarded take]

I disagree

 

[Knid]

The human cell has a rational nature?

Sure, I think consciousness creates moral worth while other features can modulate that worth but not remove it fully.

Yes. Things have natures, which define the essence of a thing as it acts. Humans are rational animals, that is their nature, and so they have a built-in tendency to achieve rationality. This applies to all humans, at all stages of development, even if they can't exercise rationality.

 

[Alexg_lover]

fearmongering, the only overpopulated places are china and india and we have nukes for that (i am not being funny in case thats what you think)

Its not mysogonistic, you left out the part i said about condoms because you want to frame this as putting all responsibility on the woman while its not

life is when something can convert energy and reproduce

As ive said because its unjust to kill an innocent person, if we really want to solve the supposed overpopulation we should kill the not so innocent people, especially in china and india

no youre a kazakhstan agent trying to frame me for misogony

"you left out the part i said about condoms because you want to frame this as putting all responsibility on the woman while its not"

I adressed it. I am not fearmongering you are not debating only the west, and either way all of us are overpopulated (just them especially).

"life is when something can convert energy and reproduce" Wrong, then a fetus wouldn't biologically be alive. Its alive because of its cellular acivity and continuing developing process. But the definition for life is way more complex than you make it out to be and its context dependant. EIther way its just termonology and has NO moral bearing as I said.

"As ive said because its unjust to kill an innocent person, if we really want to solve the supposed overpopulation we should kill the not so innocent people, especially in china and india"

Its not a person yet you freak. Bro is so racist he doesn't see chinese and indians as propper humans wtf. I agree that they are to blame and that they should use population restriction policies but saying they should be killed over a fetus is wild.

no youre a kazakhstan agent trying to frame me for misogony

Where the hell did this come from I'm norwegian btw. Lower effort than previous post but I have no desire to continue this conversaiton

 

[SkiSquadJPG]

Your stance on abortion will waver based on the axioms that you hold, so you cannot truly prove that it is immoral.
There's no objective answer to any sort of moral debate, end of. If you truly are against abortion, just advise your loved ones against it.

 

[Alexg_lover]

1. A fetus isn’t just random cells, it’s a developing human organism going through an early stage of life.

2. If moral value only comes from consciousness, that would imply newborn babies or people in temporary comas don’t have value either, which most people don’t agree with.

3. You don’t have to want unlimited population growth to think ending an existing human life is wrong. Those are separate issues.

Read the other posts from my discussion with OP you retard. Most basic reductionistic and principle-driven arguments ever

 

[Alexg_lover]

View attachment 4777440

We can agree on that at least

 

[Daddy's Home]

 

[tension]

Read the other posts from my discussion with OP you retard. Most basic reductionistic and principle-driven arguments ever

I don't have time for allat

Either respond to me here or we're done

 

[Tenres]

Yes. Things have natures, which define the essence of a thing as it acts. Humans are rational animals, that is their nature, and so they have a built-in tendency to achieve rationality. This applies to all humans, at all stages of development, even if they can't exercise rationality.

Ok so does a man who's mentally disabled have a "rational nature"? If not then the universal instantiation does not work. If you believe a mentally disabled person has a rational nature, then nature does not mean "the thing as it acts" so you contradict your definition which means you have no workable concept.

 

[Knid]

Your stance on abortion will waver based on the axioms that you hold, so you cannot truly prove that it is immoral.
There's no objective answer to any sort of moral debate, end of. If you truly are against abortion, just advise your loved ones against it.

moral realism is true brochacho

 

[Alexg_lover]

I don't have time for allat

Either respond to me here or we're done

Bro you used the same arguments just read it jfl