You're a racist, you specifically chose a dark doctor and a dark patient.

>>18361351
Standing up for truth and life is an inherently good thing to do, even if people don't listen to you. It's their loss, not yours.

Some animals eat they babies

>>18361351
If you believe in eugenics, you should support abortion, since it effectively ends the genetic line that resulted in women who are willing to get abortions to begin with. It's a self-correcting problem.

>>18361351
Abortion and even infanticide were the norm in many pre-modern societies. Even Christian theologians held that abortion prior to ‘quickening’ was permissible.

When you take the slaughter of the preborn into account atheism has been responsible for vastly more death since 1917 than all religions combined in all of history

I remember when I was a Christfag tradcath trying to convince myself that abortion was murder. I wanted to be indignant about it. But it was just difficult. The fact that foetuses don’t have brains, aren’t capable of consciousness, don’t feel anything.

>>18361681
Because you were as unregenerate then as you are now, a man who is not exceptionally wicked does not struggle with this
>The fact that foetuses don’t have brains
Much like yourself then

>>18361351
If you're a Rights of Man type humanist and follow science, you will be completely against abortion. Immediately after conception embryos are genetically unique human life.

Eugenics arguments are valid. You want more smart people and fewer idiots? Yeah, encourage poor 3rdies kill their offspring. But that's not how it works. Those people out-reproduce smart people.

I go with science and protecting human life.

>>18361688
Hmm, that doesn’t seem fair anon. I submitted to doctrine. I just wanted my emotions to line up with what I believed intellectually. It was very difficult however. I don’t see the difference between killing a foetus and never having sex in the first place. No person yet exists. Aristotle and Christian theologians from the Middle Ages even agree with this

>>18361697
>No person yet exists.
Still no evidence of cognitive activity, so we can kill you too.

>>18361697
>I don’t see the difference between killing a foetus and never having sex in the first place
The difference is that the preborn child is a living human being, and the absence of sex is not
>No person yet exists.
So the holocaust was not murder because Jews are not persons?
>Aristotle and Christian theologians from the Middle Ages even agree with this
Aristotle was a pagan fool who is under the wrath of God, the Christian theologians you’re talking about were philosophers whose ideas had more to do with Aristotle than scripture. Even then they were a minority and do not represent the orthodox tradition of the Church. The issue has been unchanged since the early Church, the Didache says “you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born”, and the Apocalypse of Peter says “I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion”. These are unqualified condemnations of abortion as murder.

>>18361709
>>18361708
It’s fine if you’re against abortion for religious reasons, but it just doesn’t square with ordinary moral intuitions to regard it as murder. A quarter of pregnancies spontaneously abort - God literally hard coded foetal death into human existence. Personhood is contingent on having conscious experience, awareness, characteristics. Jews possess these. Merely being a unique human organism is not morally relevant - I don’t believe it would constitute murder to euthanise a baby born without a brain, or to turn off life support for someone who is braindead.

Christians value human life too much and without distinction. You can tell it’s a slave religion. This mindset is why they’re obsessed with opening the borders.

>>18361720
>conscious experience
>awareness
An 8 month old baby doesn't have either of these. You'd be okay with someone plunging a dagger into an 8 month old pregnant woman?
>characteristics.
Fucking everything has "characteristics".

>>18361720
the shit people are willing to make up to justify murder is astonishing. death is "coded" into all life, that doesn't mean murder is acceptable. personhood is a cope for baby killers and means nothing. anyone's personhood can be arbitrarily denied when convenient. the most disturbing part here is you'll grasp at anything to justify the final effect, instead of rejecting the effect

File: 1768536951800960.png (374.3 KB)

374.3 KB PNG

>>18361725
>Christians value human life too
Agreed anon. Christians should value life less, so let's start with you.

>>18361720
I'm against it for a scientific reasons. You're bringing "personhood" (an arbitrary legal definition that isn't affected by science and therefore irrelevant) into what is purely a scientific debate. We either value human life, or we don't. You're looking at some human beings and saying their lack of function makes me them less valuable or worthy of protection.

Miscarriages and abortion are not comparable. We'd prevent them if we could. Abortion is an elective procedure that deliberately ends a life.

But you did admit you'd kill humans based on their abilities or lack thereof. You aren't uniquely in-tune with "ordinary moral intuitions." You have been conditioned to accept casual eugenics. Fair enough.

>>18361740
>an 8 month old baby doesn’t have either of these
Are you fucking retarded? Yes it does (whether you mean a baby 1 month before term or 8 months after birth).
>>18361742
I would be against abortion if I were convinced that it was morally wrong. I don’t have any personal investment in abortion being legal. I spent a lot of time trying to convince myself that abortion was evil and that women who did it were evil babykillers who deserved death. But I just couldn’t do it intellectually honestly. Just because personhood is philosophically difficult doesn’t mean that we should not engage with it. It’s not arbitrary. Would you really consider taking a braindead person off life support to be murder?
>>18361749
Questions of value are not scientific either. There is nothing scientific about valuing or not valuing human life. That is an ethical question. Science can only tell us whether such and such organism is human. But what is it that we value about human beings? Precisely their ability to experience things, to cogitate, to think and feel. Do you think we should keep braindead bodies on life support indefinitely?

>>18361744
It’s the job of Christians to ensure that thieves, murderers and rapists keep being born and the job of liberals to ensure that they stay out of prison.

>>18361760
>Yes it does
When does a baby develop conscious experience and awareness? At what week?

File: 1645128282165.png (164.1 KB)

164.1 KB PNG

>>18361763
>thieves, murderers and rapists
You have the potential to be any of those things, so let's get rid of you, shall we?

>>18361765
Roughly 26 weeks. Abortion should be illegal in the third trimester, as it is in most places.

>>18361768
You’re free to try. But first I think you should go and live in South Africa to test your principles.

>>18361760
how many IQ points does a human need to have to be considered a person by you?

>>18361784
Non sequitur. I never suggested that people of low intelligence are not persons nor did anything about my reasoning imply that could even be a result of my argument. Personhood isn’t contingent on IQ. A conscious foetus is probably exceptionally unintelligent - it still shouldn’t be aborted. A foetus without a brain - whatever.

>>18361794
>But what is it that we value about human beings? Precisely their ability to experience things, to cogitate, to think and feel.

There is an IQ threshold for all of these things

>>18361799
Anyone whose IQ is even measurable possesses them.

>>18361801
measurable by you. how convenient

>>18361804
What?

>>18361805
plenty of people who are not nearly braindead would not pass your personhood standards

>>18361810
For example?

>>18361812
newborns

>>18361814
They can definitely feel, as anyone who has been around them can attest, and are also capable of cognition.

>>18361816
what's the IQ of a newborn?

>>18361818
I’m not sure. It doesn’t matter though, since I never said that IQ has anything to do with personhood. I already told you that babies are probably extremely unintelligent - and still people.

fetuses are also unintelligent and still people

>>18361823
There’s a qualitative between having low intelligence and completely lacking consciousness.

File: f1afe-4w0d.jpg (6.8 KB)

6.8 KB JPG

Daily reminder that this is the human embryo during the first trimester when 99% of abortions take place. It is biologically incapable of having thoughts, it has no ability to feel or experience, if it could feel it would have no ability to comprehend those senses, it is not capable of any mental or behavioral action anyone of any culture at any point in history define as human. It has no more "humanity" in it than any random clump of extracted human cancer cells in a Petri dish. Terri Schiavo was more human when they pulled the plug on her.

>>18361825
qualitative difference*

That’s also why I think abortion should only be legal when a foetus is unambiguously incapable of experience. During the period when it is murky, we should err on the side of caution. This is also what most legal systems think

>>18361351
Do you know that spilling your seed is the same as, or even worse than abortion in the eyes of Hashem?

>>18361842
No? When you have a semen emission God just tells you to wash yourself, your clothes, and you are considered unclean until evening.

Leviticus 15:16 - “If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until the evening.
Leviticus 15:17 - And every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water and be unclean until the evening.
Leviticus 15:18 - If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening.
Leviticus 15:32 - This is the law for him who has a discharge and for him who has an emission of semen, becoming unclean thereby;

File: GxCtiptW0AAE6S1.jpg (124.2 KB)

124.2 KB JPG

>>18361351
For the sake of argument, let's assume that life begins at conception and that abortions, regardless of when they happen, are murder in the eyes of God.

I don't know anons, maybe you think it's all fairy tales, but if hell is real, it must be overflowing.

>>18361847
It’s probably full of unbaptised and reprobate babies if mainstream Christian theologians are to be believed

>>18361850
Pretty sure the EO leave the door open on the possibility of unbaptized babies being saved through the grace of God.

>>18361852
Yeah but he doesn’t have to. It’s perfectly compatible with God’s goodness to send babies to everlasting torture

>>18361827
>that pic

beautiful little thing

>>18361855
When we're specifically talking about unbaptized babies, but I guess, also babies in general, they're almost a universal.

Either He sends them all to hell, or they're all saved through His grace.

Since I can't know the mind of God, I can't say one way or the other. But I can't conceive that an all loving God would send aborted children to hell, so I'll just roll with the assumption that they automatically go to Heaven.

>>18361862
Why would it be a universal? Salvation is already contingent on election and unmerited grace.

>>18361865
I mean, are unbaptized babies not a universal?
What differentiates one unbaptized baby from another one?
inb4
>race

>>18361873
Nothing. But God doesn’t elect people based on what they do or any other predicable traits. It seems kind of arbitrary..

>>18361878
Well, it isn't. God elects based on how sinful we are. We all inherit man's fallen nature, but we aren't inherently guilty of sin.
An unbaptized baby cannot be sinful.

>>18361880
No that’s not true. According to all mainstream Christian denomination, salvation is contingent on predestination. You are elected before birth. You cannot earn it.

>>18361354
you're a racist for noticing skin color

>>18361675
Which Christian theologians?

>>18361887
Aquinas

File: Animaniacs.jpg (51.2 KB)

51.2 KB JPG

>>18361884
kek, okay.

>>18361760
>Science can only tell us whether such and such organism is human.

Yes. I rely on science to direct my morality. living human being = worthy of life and protection

>what is it we value about human beings
Irrelevant. Or rather, it's their life that's valuable, not the value they bring to the table in terms of cognitive function or awareness - this slope is how slavery and other human rights abuses are justified. You're trying to split hairs over human value. It's not even an argument - you're trying to weigh something that doesn't need to be weighed using arguments other than science.

To answer your question, no, but also it's yet another non-comparison. A brain-dead person with some remaining mechanical function and all medical capability saying they can't be recovered is ok to allow to pass completely away. It's obviously different than a developing, gestating life. Are you aware it's an invalid comparison and not an argument for abortion?

>>18361827
>it is not capable of any mental or behavioral action anyone of any culture at any point in history define as human

Those are irrelevant metrics. People don't have to earn their way to being kept alive. Your logic is amazingly bad, because (if that photo is of an actual human embryo) it's still human, even though you conclude it isn't. You have to revamp your logic if it concludes an actual falsehood.

>>18362100
Your reasoning skills seem bad.
Premise 1:
>It’s their life that's valuable, not the value they bring to the table in terms of cognitive function or awareness
Premise 2:
>A brain-dead person with some remaining mechanical function … is ok to allow to pass completely away
Why? It’s their mere fact that they are a living human being that matters. Not their cognitive function. By your ethical standards this is murder.

>>18362139
NTA, a brain-dead person cannot have their consciousness rescuscitated. Part of the problem here is that wording is often confused to mean brain-dead=comatose, but the two are qualitatively different: latter has a chance of recovery while brain-dead=dead, end of story.

>>18361351
It's bad when it happens to white people.
It's good when it happens to non-white people.

>>18362103
They're the most relevant metrics. We value the conscious experience, hence why we tend to pull the plug on people who are in comas and unlikely to wake up. There's nothing intrinsically valuable about cellular activity or a mass of human cells if it not capable of supporting the conscious experience. You can't even call them 'people' because they lack the hardware capable of elevating them to personhood.

>>18361681
>>18361674
>>18361675
Look fellas all we’re saying is people who flippantly create and end life on a whim should not have political rights.
Their civic standing should be closer to a protected animal like a pet or a national bird.

>>18362328
>who are in comas and unlikely to wake up.
a fetus is mere weeks away from "waking up". would you plug out a braindead on a path to recovery?

>>18362525
The difference is that fetus has not yet achieved personhood whereas sleeping or comatose people have achieved personhood and in the case of the former they are expected to regain consciousness.
>would you plug out a braindead on a path to recovery?
Brain death is defined as the irreversible cessation of all brain activity, so by definition there can be no recovery. If you have a braindead human body on a slab but you can use machines to artificially feed and keep the other organs functioning, retain cellular activity and so on - would you be morally required to do so or is that just a meaningless heap of human cells if there's no functional brain or consciousness to steer it? What makes life valuable? Heartbeat? Liver function? A brain capable of having an experience, a personality, interacting with others, expressing preferences and ideas?

>>18362536
>What makes life valuable?
it's nice you consider fetus alive. fetus has both a life and a certainty of development, you have only life

>>18362549
>it's nice you consider fetus alive
Bacteria are alive, cellular activity alone does not make something valuable.
>fetus has both a life and a certainty of development
Certainty of development? Estimates have been made that up to half of them end in miscarriages. There's no certainty of anything other than death and taxes. Now answer the question, would you be morally compelled to keep a braindead body artificially alive or is the cellular activity of a braindead body suddenly not very valuable without a person attached to it?

>>18362554
>would you be morally compelled to keep a braindead body artificially alive
if it was in my care I would

>>18362386
No that’s not what you were saying. If abortion is genuinely murder then we would have to deny it even in cases of rape and incest

>>18361720
>It’s fine if you’re against genocide for religious reasons, but it just doesn’t square with ordinary moral intuitions to regard it as murder

>>18362596
Meaningless. Whether or not abortion is a moral wrong is the point in contention. Substituting for it something we both agree to be morally wrong is not an argument. What I mean by that statement is that revelation and church authority may tell you that abortion is morally wrong and I think it’s fine to abide by that judgement if you have already placed faith in the magisterium of the church. I do not think however that you can convincingly argue abortion (prior to the third trimester) is murder from first principles

>>18362601
>Meaningless
Right the deaths of millions is meaningless in your bankrupt worldview. Moral pygmy
>Whether or not abortion is a moral wrong is the point in contention
Murder is wrong, abortion is murder, therefore abortion is wrong
>Substituting for it something we both agree to be morally wrong is not an argument
Why do you believe genocide is morally wrong?

>>18362604
What do you think of the fact that I desperately wanted to believe that abortion is immoral but the use of my reason convinced me of the opposite position? Do you think that makes me a bad person?
>the deaths of millions
This is just rhetoric. This is only true if millions of people are in fact dying. But if foetuses are not people then it’s not worse than any other kind of biological or cellular death. What we find odious about killing is not the termination of life in itself but the termination of conscious life. But even many people don’t seem to mind killing animals
>abortion is murder
You have to justify this premise first. If you’re the same anon as before, you’ve already conceded that abortion is not murder, just undesirable. Alternatively you hold very unorthodox positions like the belief that the cessation of life support for braindead corpses is murder.
>why is genocide morally wrong
Most of us regard the killing of innocent people to be unacceptable. Genocide is mass murder with extra vices added in like the desired elimination of a culture and way of life.

>>18362607
>What do you think of the fact that I desperately wanted to believe that abortion is immoral but the use of my reason convinced me of the opposite position?
You are incorrect, as you have not nor could use reason for this, but by your own testimony you have been motivated by your own feelings which you have incorrectly taken as facts. The reason you have feelings which take no problem with the murder of children is because you are a perverse beast and your soul is full of darkness.
>Do you think that makes me a bad person?
It doesn’t make you a bad person, being a bad person makes you this way
>This is just rhetoric
No, you deranged sicko, it is a fact. Preborn children are living human beings, they objectively are living creatures, their species objectively is human, and abortion objectively ends their lives. Arbitrarily denying their humanity to justify their murder is no more legitimate than the nazis doing the same thing to Jews. That’s why your evil is so comparable to genocide and raises the question of how and why you would object to it?
>What we find odious about killing is not the termination of life in itself but the termination of conscious life.
This is the exposition of your own aberrant feelings as I described before, and not reality. What is odious about killing is the destruction of the image of God.
>You have to justify this premise first
Sir, you are the one being judged here
>Most of us regard the killing of innocent people to be unacceptable.
Apparently not including you, since you find the killing of innocent children acceptable, but this is not an answer to the question, only another appeal to feelings. In your worldview, there is no reason why any murder is wrong, since you neither have a foundation for moral law, nor do human lives have any value. And I wonder why you would care about a person’s consciousness, since in your worldview it is just two meat robots in different material states?

>>18362555
Why?

>>18362139
>Your reasoning skills seem bad.
They would certainly seem that way to someone whose reasoning skills are objectively bad. You don't comprehend your invalid comparison. Recusal accepted.

>>18362328
>personhood
Irrelevant legal framework. You're too accustomed to dehumanizing others. Keep trying?

>>18362592
Yes that is what I am saying.
>rape and incest
what about it.
If a victim of rape or incest wants to murder their abuser do you think they should get a free pass to do so?

>>18362328
>We value the conscious experience,
oh fuck off, no we dont, liberals value rocks over family members.
you know who isnt having conscious thoughts?
non-Whites
hyperbole sure but seriously, White people due to greater empathetic ability feel more 'deeply' than other races and suffer more from psychological pain, they are MORE sentient, can we use this to justify weighing White lives as more valuable than non-White lives since their level of sentience is greater?
>sentience isnt a gradient
sentience is obviously a fucking gradient considering ALL biotic things show signs of sentience (reaction to stimuli) including trees.

>>18362592
We should. Abortion doesn't fix incest or rape. >"Here little girl, sorry you got raped, but if you're complicit in murdering the innocent life developing inside you, everything will be ok except for the lifetime of abortion guilt + rape trauma you will be saddled with."

Abortionists: "kill the innocent to solve problems"

>>18362829
NTA but rapist genes should not be allowed to survive if there is an at-all moral way to prevent them from surviving. And people can just not feel guilt about an abortion to the extent that the embryo is nonsentient and destroying serves the greater good of not letting rapists pass on their genes.

Being saddled with knowing you had an abortion is vastly preferable to having a half-you half-rapist kid.

>>18362838
>rapist genes
Not a thing.
>And people can just not feel guilt about an abortion
Delusional reality denial.
>>18362841
>vastly preferable
Women who raised their rapist baby are insanely grateful they were talked out of murder. What you believe is not a thing at all - you have no experience.

>>18362851
I don't know if there's a way to prove it, and it's true I've never been in the situation, but as best as I can imagine myself into the situation, I would not feel the slightest amount of guilt about aborting a child from rape even after the point where they were ambiguously sentient. And I don't consider myself to be a generally empathyless person, though I guess no one would. But to me it's that the overwhelming subjective wrongness of allowing a child to be born from rape totally overrides any empathy for a questionably sentient being.
>Not a thing.
Behavior obviously has a genetic component. Just about everything has a genetic component.
>Women who raised their rapist baby are insanely grateful
I imagine they have to tell themselves that to cope, like some kind of stockholm syndrome.

I wonder if the overwhelming obvious wrongness I feel about it that you apparently don't has a genetic component. Maybe you have "women should keep rapist babies" genes and I have "screw that" genes.

>>18362858
>allowing a child to be born from rape
The child didn't do anything. It is not the perpetrator. You lack empathy and are an idiot for pushing such brutal stupidity.
Behavior is learned.
The women who are talking into murdering innocent offspring are the ones coping. They have extremely high rates of mental illness. The women who raise their rape babies experience a lifetime of therapeutic benefits from engaging in healthy natalism, our primary purpose in life. Try to base what you "imagine" on real world outcomes.

>>18362864
I don't think anyone's purpose in life is to carry the baby of a rapist, sorry. Enjoy your very questionable rapist-adjacent possibly genetic moral intuitions.

>>18362867
ok so in cases OTHER than rape/incest you have zero tolerance for abortion right?

>>18362815
I'm not making legal arguments, they're purely moral ones.
>>18362824
You should be able to examine and respond to arguments in a vacuum instead of inventing liberal strawman that you then use to bundle together all the political opinions you don't like, regardless of if it's relevant to the discussion or not.

>>18362820
Yes?

>>18362879
I would allow it with no restrictions up to the point where the fetus is generally suspected to be conscious, because in the absence of consciousness no true harm is done in my view. In the case where the child is the result of rape or incest or is likely to be severely disabled, I would expand the window up to the point where the baby is able to survive independent of the mother or until birth, in a rough attempt to balance the wrongness of harm with the greater long-term good for the mother, society, and/or the child themselves.

>>18362851
>Women who raised their rapist baby are insanely grateful they were talked out of murder
Would like some proofs please, I can't imagine forcing a woman to raise the walking, talking reminder of the time she was literally raped

>>18362902
>"I can't imagine not murdering the innocent for something someone else did"

You do think that, don't you.

>>18362898
>good for the mother
Abortion imparts permanent trauma to mothers.

>>18362867
Welcome to your first time in a debate about abortion. You don't know anything, but suggesting I'm on the side of rapists is a great start to removing yourself from serious consideration - very efficient of you. Maybe you'll do better next time.

>>18362914
>>18362922
Fine trolling sir, you got me. Enjoy your updoots or whatever the fuck kids do these days

>>18362922
As said, my guess is that there could be an irreconcilable difference of moral intuitions, maybe with a genetic basis, at work here. In which case further debate would just be me trying to manipulate you to my side without being able to convey the core behind my position.

>>18362889
>examine and respond to arguments
no arguments were made. nor was the standing principle of behavioral disgust refuted.
>liberal strawman
what does this even mean?
also we arent 'here' to argue and persuade individuals the debate over abortion is about what's best for everyone in balance with what's best for the individual not what's best for any given class or to address every theoretical objection.
>>18362897
And you are against vigilantism too yes?
>>18362898
>no restrictions up to where consciousness is present
Why the arbitrary qualifier?
>no true harm is done in my view
well no one cares about your view, we must put the social good before "your view".

If consciousness or harmfulness is your organizing principle then why shouldnt we extend this to fully functional adults?
We do have a justice system which has the death penalty for conscious adults.
Why shouldnt we use the same calculation we use for abortion, which is simply, the one responsible for the baby gets to make the decision, right?
e.g. if a subset of society lives on say welfare or SNAP (like orthodox jews or blacks) paid for by the productive subset of society (like White labor), then it is perfectly ethical to have the latter simply elect to exterminate the former, you agree with this yes?
The calculation to abortion is identical.

I want a just and consistent civic organization, dont read too much into it :)

>>18361351
>>18361693
>>18361847
>Americans and mixing science with their christian make-believe morals

First, if you don't like killing a young life why eat the meat of young animals?

Of course, you only mean human life: However, it cannot be defined as having personhood because it has not yet developed human traits.
You also conveniently avoid the fact that a fetus before 20 weeks cannot sustain itself. Meaning, the main trait to recognise something truly as alive is metabolism (next to traits like response to stimuli and growth) which a young fetus cannot sustain outside the womb.

To be exact, a fetus is not an autonomous living organism because it cannot maintain systemic homeostasis independently.

That is why every civilized modern country, outside the US, has generous maximum of 20 weeks legally allowed for abortion because they understand these principles

Concluding, you can bitch and moan about this all you want but your so-called christian moral stance in the US on abortion have caused
>Highest amount of single motherhood in the western world
>Higher rates of unsafe abortions
>Disproportionate impact on low-income women
>Persistence of poverty
>Higher rates of child neglect
>Higher burden on education and healthcare

In other words, you only use the excuse of morality to validate backward believe system

>>18362926
>>18362930
people who support abortion while maintaining very liberal values such as 'reduction of harm' or whatever are being inconsistent.
liberals, leftists really, dont actually care about consistency, but this leads to the collapse of civic society from moral erosion - which no one wants (except maybe leftists who think theyll somehow survive and build back better or whatever), 'normal' people want to avoid this.

>youre strawmanning I am actually
we know you come at this from a very liberal and humanistic perspective.
no one exists in a vacuum and if you arent going to take your principles to their logical conclusion then why should we even entertain your position? its the whims of a child at that point.

>>18362937
If you think the presence of consciousness is an arbitrary qualifier, then I fall back on irreconcilable moral intiutions. Debating with you in an attempt to reach a moral agreement would be like debating an AI with a randomly-generated selection of fundamental moral values, like a paperclip maximizer.

OP was right.

>>18362941
>However, it cannot be defined as having personhood because it has not yet developed human traits.
Personhood is an irrelevant legal distinction. It is 100% human life. Your statement is false and also very silly.
>cannot sustain itself
Irrelevant. People in comas or ventilators can't sustain themselves either.
>civilized
No, try again. I'll let you know when you get to our standard of living.
>In other words, you...
...Protect human life. You look at a bunch of social issues and think "killing some our most vulnerable will fix these problems"

>>18362941
>To be exact, a fetus is not an autonomous living organism because it cannot maintain systemic homeostasis independently.
arbitrary distinction.
It is
>alive
>genetically unique
>will grow into a future adult if nurtured in the natural way of life

>excuse of morality
??

>backward belief system
you fucking moron animals cant do abortion and neither could primitive humans, abortion is extremely recent with self induced miscarriage being a mere few thousand years old (homo sap are almost a million years old btw) and reliable abortion being present only the past few decades.
opposition to abortion is a new and progressive position because its object of opposition literally did not exist for 99% of humanity's existence.

contraception in general is unnatural and not wanting offspring is extremely disturbing on a gut level.
it does not pass the disgust test.

Theres technically and in a strict sense nothing "wrong" with 8-year-old girls doing cocaine or being 'consensually' fucked by 90 year old billionaires aside from the civic/social moral element, but morality is just feelings, yet everyone is instinctively and uniformly opposed and disgusted by it. Either morality matters in which case yes moral feelings can negate something like abortion which isnt technically hurting anyone or morality doesnt matter in which case abortion comes down to who can inflict their will upon who, and the "backward" types are much stronger and will conquer and impose upon us once our society is gone from being morally bankrupt.

>>18362946
presence of consciousness IS an arbitrary qualifier because there's scientifically speaking no such thing as consciousness. Its not real, everything is deterministic and so nothing has any kind of conscious being only the illusion of conscious being and your organizing principle being a feel good illusion is silly, dont people like you criticize the religious for their feel good illusions?

>randomly generated
or perhaps we could take the moral values nature has imbued us with.
That is what I am doing.
You have no moral values, you have illusions.
I am basing my case on how we should organize society on nature's morality which has been given to us over many long generations like a riverbed cut deep into a canyon, demonstrating what works and what doesnt and abortion being abhorrent and disgusting to every healthy functional person on a gut level is a cut and dry indicator that I am correct.

You wont address this because nature is illiberal and nature literally punishes your worldview with its decrease in fertility.
If your behavior leads to your extinction, it wasnt good behavior.

not a person not murder, next

>>18362967
>there's scientifically speaking no such thing as consciousness. Its not real, everything is deterministic and so nothing has any kind of conscious being only the illusion of conscious being
Earlier I said debating with you would be *like* debating with an AI, but I guess you've come out and admitted that you are an AI, hence the paperclip-maximizing morality, except instead of paperclips it seems to be human babies.

>>18362962
>contraception in general is unnatural and not wanting offspring is extremely disturbing on a gut level.
>it does not pass the disgust test.
Modern trad tards think everyone in the past was rabidly pro-natalist even though most religious traditions hold that a childless life is superior and most famous religious figures were childless. So dumb

>>18362967
Pro-lifers losing the argument so hard they admit they’re not even conscious
>nature’s morality
Bro the Ancient Greeks and Romans and practically every tribal culture on earth killed infants

>>18362937
>no arguments were made.
I made the argument that we value personhood and the conscious experience, not cellular activity.
>what does this even mean?
Rambling on about liberal boogeymen, whites and non-whites when this discussion could and should entirely be contained within itself.

>>18362952
>>18362952
>However, it cannot be defined as having personhood because it has not yet developed human traits.
>Personhood is an irrelevant legal distinction.
So then are laws against abortion

>It is 100% human life. Your statement is false and also very silly.
That is not an argument.

>Irrelevant. People in comas or ventilators can't sustain themselves either.
Again no argument. These people once were so they are considered alive.

>No, try again. I'll let you know when you get to our standard of living.
As I showed, your standard of living is shit. So no thank you.

>You look at a bunch of social issues...
Caused by not allowing abortion
>and think "killing...
You can't kill something that isn't alive
>some our most vulnerable will fix these problems"
Apparently, it has. You have no arguments

File: l7pwnfesdqha1.jpg (58.4 KB)

58.4 KB JPG

Normally I hate christcucks but on the topic of abortion they are insanely based. Imagine being such a faggy basedboy that you advocate for the right of whores to kill their unborn kids lmfao.

>arbitrary distinction.
A scientific distinction but of course, a Christian thinks it is arbitrary while using science to defend his fantasy man in the sky

>genetically unique
A potato is also genetically unique
>will grow into a future adult if nurtured in the natural way of life
That has nothing to do if a fetus within 20 weeks something is alive now or not

>you fucking moron animals cant do abortion
Apparently we can because we have good healthcare where women do not die.

>abortion is extremely recent
So is evidence-based medicine, laws giving all people voting rights, protecting individual freedom and abolition of slavery.

>Theres technically and in a strict sense nothing "wrong" with 8-year-old girls doing cocaine or being 'consensually' fucked by 90 year old billionaires aside from the civic/social moral element
You are fucked in the head; These are intrinsic harms with well-established physical and psychological damage. You misdefine consent, misclassify harm and collapse fundamental protections into “mere morality.”

>but morality is just feelings, yet everyone is instinctively and uniformly opposed and disgusted by it.
No, you Americans are disgusted by it. We are disgusted by your mistreatment of women over something that isn't considered alive by the all modernized countries except the US.

>Either morality matters in which case yes moral feelings can negate something like abortion which isn't technically hurting anyone or morality doesn't matter in which case abortion comes down to who can inflict their will upon who
Yes, morality matters but there are more arguments then morality alone. However, your fucked up morality is based on some old fantasy book and my morality is based on modern ideas.


>and the "backward" types are much stronger and will conquer and impose upon us once our society is gone from being morally bankrupt.
Sure, Bin Laden. I think your mom is calling to come eat your McNuggets.

>>18362974
>lets build human society around natural human behaviors
>"WTF YOURE MINMAXING PAPERCLIP PRODUCTION"
???
The question of consciousness is something philosophy and science has debated endlessly for the past three centuries.
I dont know maybe read more??
>>18362977
is everyone pro-breathing air? no its implicit, but if a movement that was against breathing emerged then everyone automatically become pro-breathing air as a matter of survival.
pro/anti dichotomy is ahistorical and silly.
people had kids because thats what they did.
just like we breath air.
Its not that a childless life is superior but that a great life often costs having a family and children.
>>18362982
>youre not even conscious xddd? bazinga
veri funi
>everyone killed infants
what does this even mean? They werent killing infants on a whim, they werent killing infants for fun.
They rarely if ever killed their young and throughout history everyone has been repulsed by mothers who kill their children.
The Romans and Greeks also engaged in murder and treachery, as do men today, should we excuse such behaviors too?
>>18363042
>we value personhood
There is no such thing as "personhood".
>the conscious experience
no such thing can be verified empirically.
Personhood is arbitrary and can be taken and given at will, its a silly metric and serves only to give legal standing to a popular opinion. e.g. slaves did not have personhood.

>not cellular activity
but we do value cellular activity.
we value real people over AI, even if AI was "conscious" by all our metrics and had the legal designation of personhood extended to it, we would still prefer a living being over an AI.
Also who's "we"?
>liberal boogeymen
ever and exclusively liberal society has sought to overcome the 'disgust' principle of morality.
>should be entirely contained within itself
well when all women can get pregnant entirely by themselves then they can consider abortion a self contained issue.
until then (You) live in a Society™

>>18363101
>Christian
I think the only serious argument against abortion comes from secular materialism/naturalism.
>a potato is genetically unique
a potato doesnt have human DNA nor will it grow into a human
>this has nothing to do
LOL
cope It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
You are disrupting a natural process by which a human being is formed.
>apparently we can
are we animals? if we are then a morality based on disgust and natural behaviors is supreme, and everyone finds abortion disgusting and repellent.
no one likes haunted pussy
Are we animals or not? If we are, abortion is wrong according to natural law.
>medicine
self-care is not recent. also what a stupid term "evidence based medicine" as opposed to what? irrational medicine? the humors theory existed because it worked, practical application is a form of evidence.
>laws giving all people voting rights
catastrophic, if it wasnt a bad idea, liberals wouldnt be going extinct.
>individual freedom and the abolition of slavery
slavery and a lack of freedom did not exist in nature, you were less beholden in a more natural society, you have in essence a large playpen and have mistaken it for "freedom".

In any case, all of these things are being punished by nature.
>you are fucked in the head
Why?
>these are intrinsic harms
how? They are exercises of liberty.
>physical and psychological damage
like abortion...
>you misdefine consent
nope.
>misclassify harm
nope
>collapse fundamental protections
such as?
>mere morality
morality is either a supreme organizing principle or it doesnt exist.

You have made no refutation here.
I can only assume you concede this point?
>you Americans
everyone actually.
no one likes haunted pussy.
>isnt considered alive
except it is literally alive.
>unique human DNA
>living organism
its alive.
>all modernized countries except the US
can we see the TFR for these "countries"? do they happen to be jewish run shitholes where White genocide is happening too?

>>18363101
>mistreating women is when you dont let them do whatever they want
???
>there are more arguments than morality alone
I agree, practicality plays a role, no one benefits from haunted pussy, so no abortions allowed.
no one benefits from anti-maternalist foids, they should be prosecuted as those who are enemies of the public good.
>your fucked up morality is based on some fantasy book
which is what?
I am basing my morality on evo-psych.
Is an evo-pscyh textbook fantasy?
>modern ideas
what modern ideas?
liberalism? you mean abstractions that dont exist and are being heavily selected against?
>lauds "modernized countries" like Europe
>completely ignores who is conquering Europe solely through violence and high TFR

You trolled me, good one.

>>18361354
People of color deserve representation too, chud.

>>18363066
>As I showed
You didn't show anything and didn't have an argument. Your response was a bunch of denial. I'll keep waiting, maybe you'll come up with an argument.

>>18363128
Incredible crash out

>>18363110
>It’s not that a childless life is superior but that a great life often costs having a family and children.
St. Paul says it is better not to marry but that if you can’t keep your dick in your pants then it’s better than being a philanderer. The Buddha explicitly described procreation as undesirable. Etc. You say that being childless is some kind of natural evil when for the past thousand years or so it was the norm to have at least one male child in the family who would take a vow of celibacy and these men were revered
>They werent killing infants on a whim, they werent killing infants for fun.
Neither are women who get abortions
>They rarely if ever killed their young
This is completely false. Infant exposure was extremely common and to some extent socially expected if the child was undesirable or disabled.

>>18363460
No one said it was a natural evil.
>neither are women
Except they are. The most common reason for abortion is “I don’t want it.”
>exposure was extremely common
No, it wasn’t, and academia settled this recently with grave site analysis, even in the most unforgiving cultures people lived to old age with physical deformities they had from birth, case in point Sparta.
It was long thought, based on primary sources, they practiced exposure and were seen as extreme for it. We have examined Spartan graves and the evidence shows people with physical deformities were kept alive and lived quite long.
Infant exposure has NEVER had hard evidence in support of it, in fact ALL evidence from archeology is squarely against it.
Agesilaus II was a disabled king.

Do you even know what you’re talking about?

>>18363455
>can’t respond to the argument
>“erm you are le mad”
Ok. Reminder that nature is all we verifiably have and nature is extremely anti-liberal.

>>18361351
Any one who argues against abortions but is against the castration of 90% of society is an absolute retard.
The actual great filter, the solution to the Fermi paradox.

>>18361351
Ngl it makes you very cynical about politics. The same people whose worldview is centered around baby murder are the ones moralfagging around Israel for murdering babies. Like it's literally all so fake and gay, I hate hearing normies talk about politics and pretend they care about higher values, morals and society when they clearly don't.

>>18361850
>It’s probably full of unbaptised and reprobate babies if mainstream Christian theologians are to be believed

Not biblical.

David said a baby who died went to heaven and Paul wrote of being "alive apart from the law" (before the age of accountability.) Kids don't sin.

The medievals who thought you had to baptize babies or they'd be chucked (while I do like their architecture) occasionally churned out some Truly Magical Beliefs. Especially about Christian theology. (Still pretty buildings tho.).

>>18361675
>Even Christian theologians held that abortion prior to ‘quickening’ was permissible.
I've seen pro-abortion redditors use this argument. Do you happen to have a source?

>>18363584
>Except they are. The most common reason for abortion is “I don’t want it.”
I'm not much a woman hater but this always sticks out to me. Women can't lead. They can't dictate morality to civilization. They need to be led and their offspring need to be protected from them.

>>18363110
>There is no such thing as "personhood".
Yet you admit to it existing within the next breath, your only caveat is that you think it has been arbitrarily defined in one context that isn't relevant to this discussion.
>no such thing can be verified empirically.
Yet we don't base our social interactions or rules around solipsism, quite the opposite. We value the conscious intentionality behind actions, so much so that we even have it built into our legal frameworks, distinguishing accidents from actions performed with a criminal state of mind.
>but we do value cellular activity.
No, we don't. Nobody would say that a 100kg clump of highly active cancer cells is twice as valuable as a 50kg normal human being. Human cellular activity means fuck all if it does work towards enabling the conscious experience of a human being. You don't value people because skin cells in their left hand are dividing. You value them because they can express ideas, opinions, tell jokes, convey information and so on. This comes from the brain. This comes from the conscious experience.
>ever and exclusively liberal society has sought to overcome the 'disgust' principle of morality.
Different people are disgusted by different things.
>well when all women can get pregnant entirely by themselves then they can consider abortion a self contained issue.
What I'm saying is that you should be answer a question like "Is it okay for Steve to steal from Martin?" without going off a tangent like "WELL NIGGERS STEAL MORE SO WOULDN'T IT BE MORE LIKE TYRESE STEALING FROM WHITES?" just examine the question by itself without plugging all your other pet peeves into it.
>until then (You) live in a Society™
A society which has legalized abortion so I guess you showed me

>>18363888
>you admit to it existing
No. I said it is a construct. A social construct. Not real.
>arbitrarily defined
NO, reread my post. I said it is an arbitrary qualifier. It is well defined by it has no relevance. You merely feel like this legal consideration which has been denied to entire races of people is a meaningful distinction.
A fetus could be granted personhood and nothing would change materially.
>we don’t base our interactions on solipsism
why are you trying to do so?
>we don’t
We do.
>cancer cells
Are you unable to tell the difference between cancer cells and cells that become a human?
If someone had their womb taken out or was castrated, that is merely the removal of cells, however that would be extremely cruel and evil to inflict upon someone in the way that removing cancer is not.
My balls cannot express ideas but I would be at a great loss if they were removed from me. Understand?
>different people are disgusted by different things
Nope. Humans all evolved in one direction and they universally find anti-materialistic ideas to be disgusting. Not a single culture on earth has ever valued the destruction of the youth more highly than the youth.
>erm abortion is unrelated to everything else
It’s not. ALL human behaviors must be understood within context.
Criminal state of mind, remember??
If you were the last man on earth you could commit no crimes. But because you live in a society, the context, imbues a different meaning into every action.

So no you cannot just do whatever you want and it’s silly to argue for anything in the abstract because we don’t live in an abstract world of forms.

Abortion being debated only matters in so far as we reach a conclusion which benefits the good of the people.
As materialists nothing else can be said.

File: SR_24.05.15_global-views-abortion_1[1].png (51.7 KB)

51.7 KB PNG

>>18363933
>No. I said it is a construct. A social construct. Not real.
Concepts like property, ownership, justice are also social constructs. Something being a social construct does not mean it can't be taken into consideration when making moral judgements. Morality itself is a social construct.
>A fetus could be granted personhood and nothing would change materially.
A rock could also be granted personhood, and the people arguing in favor of personhood being the key distinction for moral consideration would also say that it would be nonsensical to extend personhood to a rock. A single cell embryo does not have the hardware of being considered a person.
>Are you unable to tell the difference between cancer cells and cells that become a human?
I'm already of the opinion that cellular activity alone is not valuable, so I make a distinction between bad cellular activity (cancer or harmful bacteria) and good cellular activity (normal healthy function in the service of keeping the brain alive)
>Nope. Humans all evolved in one direction and they universally find anti-materialistic ideas to be disgusting. Not a single culture on earth has ever valued the destruction of the youth more highly than the youth.
Polling is done and the support for abortion is pretty strong in the developed world.
>So no you cannot just do whatever you want and it’s silly to argue for anything in the abstract because we don’t live in an abstract world of forms.
I'm not arguing that you can do whatever you want. Completely separate from any legal argument I'm arguing that abortion up to a certain stage is moral on the basis that it is just a clump of human cells, but not a person worthy of the same moral consideration you would give another person.

>>18361681
what does not feeling pain or having a consciousness have to do with someone being allowed to kill you?
firstly when you die, your consciousness stops existing, so the fact that you had a consciousness before doesn't matter anymore, because it is not there anymore to remember it. it just matters that you at some point will have a consciousness.
secondly you can easily be killed without the process causing you any physical or psychological pain. is your argument that you should only be killed when it doesn't cause you physical or emotional pain?

>>18363933
>Humans all evolved in one direction and they universally find anti-materialistic ideas to be disgusting
Kek what

>>18363648
I’m sure most people would be against abortion if it involved the termination of conscious beings.

>>18364030
>humans evolved a near identical bodyplan
It stands to reason their instinctive psychology evolved similarly.
You don’t see people with four arms in the same way you don’t see people who aren’t repelled by child murder.

>>18363128
>and everyone finds abortion disgusting and repellent
Source? Surely you have evidence for this claim and you're not just a stupid nigger incapable of developing a theory of mind?

>>18363953
Morality isn’t a social construct, it’s the formalized form of instinctual behavior.
>property is a social construct
Yes which is why property doesn’t have the same moral weight as human life.
>a single cell embryo does not have the hardware
Arbitrary.
Personhood is also an arbitrary metric for whether abortion is morally justifiable.
Chattel Slaves do not have personhood. Yet everyone finds cruel chattel slavery an ugly thing.
>cellular activity alone is not valuable
This is just your opinion and completely irrelevant. Also it’s not cellular activity it’s the fact this is a stage in a human life cycle which if left uninterrupted will produce a Man.
>support is strong
No it’s not. The people who support it overwhelmingly support the right to choose not abortion itself, furthermore even those people are on their way out.
The world belongs to the fertile.
>it’s just a clump of human cells
ALL humans are at base just a clump of cells at various stages of life cycle.
Valuing one stage of the life cycle over another is silly from our moral tradition.
We aren’t Bronze Age Greeks worshipping the youthful man declaring Achilles can kill at will because his life is inherently more valuable being at its “Aristeia” the peak of his life cycle and thus his life holds more moral value than all other lives such as the old the women or the children.

Either the human life cycle is equally valued at all stages or it’s not valued at all/its value is arbitrary.

>>18364034
>humans evolved a near identical bodyplan
You clearly have zero understanding of how evolution works.

>>18364038
Not addressing the abortion argument, but you vastly overestimate the universality of morality. The other anon already posted graphs showing high approval rates for abortion in wealthy high IQ countries. Furthermore, May cultures have approved of chattel slavery, infanticide, genocide, child marriage, etc.

>>18364038
>Valuing one stage of the life cycle over another is silly from our moral tradition.
Would you choose to save a box with 100 IVF embryos from a burning building over a 7 year old child?

>>18361742
Murder is codified as any unlawful killings. As the state has declared abortions to be legal they are not categorized as murders.

>>18361784
Mental deficients should be at minimum sterilized for humanities genetic hygiene.

>>18364033
Why? Infanticide was common historically. There's no real difference between that and abortion besides the fact you can physically see the baby in one of these two acts.
The reasoning behind these two acts is also the same. "Oops I have a baby but I don't have the means to raise it, let's get rid of it"

File: circ problems.jpg (101 KB)

101 KB JPG

>>18361351
>society is full of people willing to murder their own children
Society is also full of people willing to amputate parts of their children's genitals for the sake of convention and making sex less enjoyable, but everyone ignores this for some reason, and abortions and trannies get all the attention.

>>18364038
>We aren’t Bronze Age Greeks
Why not?
>Morality isn’t a social construct, it’s the formalized form of instinctual behavior.
Why don't we have the same morality as bronze age Greeks? Do we have different instincts? Were bronze age Greeks a different species?

>>18364173
>why not
because we live in different times.
>why dont we have the same morality
We have the same moral intuitions, but we do not have the same conditions so our intuitions manifest differently.
Furthermore the archaic Iliad heroes were not even seen as moral but as deeply flawed figures, it is a type of warrior's world-feeling that causes them to have this evaluation of human life, and you arent them.

Are you a bronze age warrior?
post your physique.
>>18364096
>infanticide was common historically
This is a myth that has been debunked repeatedly.
>>18364047
>high approval rates for abortion
nope.
No one likes abortion, the approval rating isnt for abortion but the right to choose.
They dont like abortion, they think it is more 'fair' to give a woman the right to choose, they all say this in polling btw.
>wealthy high IQ countries
very nice, now lets see their TFR.
>many cultures have approved
existence =/ approval.
Furthermore they recognized these things as reality not as ideals.
Morality is in many ways something which is itself evaluated when in life or death situations, the situation we are in gives us not only an incentive to be moral but a practical incentive to be moral, to allow abortion is asinine because its the worst of both worlds, it is both impractical and immoral.
>>18364050
>trolly problem
the embryos would save more lives the 7 year old would die less hideously.
Is this the choice women are faced with? abortion or burning 7 year olds?

>>18364067
>>18361784
>>18361760
My main problem with the abortroons is they will fight tooth and claw to explain why exterminating barely sentient ugly as dirt shitskins to make room for beautiful gorgeous young White girls is some horrific evil, but then turn around and say abortion is a human right.

If we permit abortion, why shouldnt we take this evaluation of human life to its logical conclusion and prioritize the strong and the beautiful over the weak and the stupid?
Why shouldnt we exterminate the blacks and give their resources to more intelligent more attractive White people?
Like seriously, why not? If human life being mere cellular replication has no intrinsic value, why cant these shitlibs just accept White supremacy is the sole moral good in the world?

I am serious, its the same calculation they use for abortion.

Iliad is about Achilles crying with Priam.

>>18364218
>because we live in different times.
>but we do not have the same conditions so our intuitions manifest differently
>, it is a type of warrior's world-feeling that causes them to have this evaluation of human life, and you arent them
Sure sounds like a social construct to me.

>>18361351
*women
They are not "people"

>>18361351
Is the pic rel black?

Can a surrogate mother abort somebody else's baby through the line of reasoning "my body my choice", or does somebody else's DNA then suddenly become an argument?

>>18364324
I don't know what the consensus would be, but imo a surrogate mother should have the right to abort just as much as an actual mother. Of course, then she probably wouldn't get paid, depending on the cirumstances that led to her choice.

DNA is not all that morally significant. We don't grieve over cancer having to be cut out or semen being flushed down the toilet. Conscious experience is morally significant, and that seems to require functioning brain activity.

Going by the way most people are fine with animals being treated or killed, consistency would actually require a fairly high level of cognition before something is seen as deserving of moral concern, since many animals have greater cognitive abilities than human infants. But I guess avoiding the conclusion that either moral concern about human babies should be lower or moral concern about animals should be higher is part of what leads people to want to say that humans are the only object of moral concern and it starts at conception.

>>18363074
I support abortion primarily for the poor kids' sake as a lot of the unwanted kids end up going to our messed up foster homes. I don't support it for some stupid ideological/deontological reason of "muh women's choice".

>>18364345
but she might get sued, which opens another issue: if a woman conceives a child in a consensual intercourse and then aborts it, a man might sue that woman for killing his child.

>>18364385
*also, if something like that is already mentioned and taken care of in the contract, the issue only gets further actualized as relevant

>>18364385
The man might sue the woman if he made a contract with her before impregnating her that she should carry to term except under xyz conditions. That's what would make the situations analogous.

>>18364398
yes, also if a woman wants to abort, she can always pull the rape card. this would make men demand consent contract before every unprotected intercourse, or simply go with the abortion every time in order to avoid complications

File: Seneca.jpg (100.2 KB)

100.2 KB JPG

>>18364218
>This is a myth that has been debunked repeatedly
Was it really?

bumping to see if anyone can debunk the rebunking

File: inf.jpg (431.9 KB)

431.9 KB JPG

>>18364768
Yeah, good luck with that lol

black babies are hardier than white babies

>>18364538
>one quote
and yet Roman graves are filled with those who possessed congenital deformities, care to explain?

Where the sources and the hard evidence disagree, rule of thumb, the hard evidence is correct.

>>18364799
see >>18364909

We have hard evidence refuting this myth.
People believed right of first lie was real for over a century, today we know its complete nonsense.
This is much the same.
People believed the Lusitania had no weapons, a total lie.

Hard evidence >>>> everything else.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/rome-ancient-greece-archaeology-infant-exposure
Paywallwalled recent article, but the google description is
>While many infants died young and the ancient Greeks and Romans practiced infant exposure, abandonment was motivated by several...

I'm not really finding much that disagrees with the idea that they did practice infant exposure.

There's also https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/accounts-roman-infanticide-and-sacrifice-all-just-myth-and-legend-006591
>Accounts of Roman Infanticide and Sacrifice All Just Myth and Legend?
However it only says that *some* bones of infants who were thought to have been killed were actually stillborn. But others still are believed to have been killed in large numbers. It concludes
>The latest study simply reveals that not all infants that died early had been victims of infanticide – a somewhat obvious conclusion. Perspectives about the harsh way of life in ancient Rome cannot be discounted so easily.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/twelve_tables.asp
>A notably deformed child shall be killed immediately.

>>18364222

This was more or less the logic of Margaret Sanger. "Human weeds" "the Negro experiment" etc.

File: christcucks black triplets.jpg (472.6 KB)

472.6 KB JPG

>>18361351
Maybe you should be a good Christian and adopt some embryos that would otherwise have been destroyed.

File: NGM2017_01_JAN_001_cover.jpg (403.6 KB)

403.6 KB JPG

>>18364968

Natgeo has been compromised ever since a lefty woman took over, said she'd diversity-geld it in the name of taking it away from white men who thought nudity-and-murder cultures weren't equal, and burned it down.

The full article basically says "those sweet lil harmless pagans never did this bad stuff aww shucks" and it goes against everything I know from three+ decades as a history weeb. Not just archaeology, but classical texts and stuff like ancient letters ("honey yeet the baby if it's a girl I love you.")

>>18364355
Cancer isnt a unique set of human DNA, nor is semen.
We DO care about DNA morally, it is what defines us as individuals.
>conscious experience
There is no empirical evidence of conscious experience, furthermore conscious experience is present in bugs and things that we ascribe zero moral value to, a level of anti-value to such as termites.
pests have functioning brain activity.

>>18364296
social constructs emerge from moral intuitions, however these moral instincts underlie them and supersede them, understand?

>>18364968
>>18364974
>>18364977
There is no other way to explain people living to old age with physical ailments that they had from birth. infanticide was either absent or incredibly rare. Infanticide being present in the past isnt a justification for its practice today especially when the moral calculation is completely different.

A tribe in the past practicing exposure because they can not afford dead weight is utterly different from the way we live now with a colossal welfare state.

File: 1623195327142.jpg (144.3 KB)

144.3 KB JPG

>>18364805
the trade off is black adults are much weaker than White adults.

>>18365043
That some people lived to old age with physical ailments they had from birth just means that some portion of infants who might've been killed were not killed. It doesn't force infanticide to be absent or incredibly rare. It would just mean that some consistent portion of people didn'tt have infanticide as their first resort. Others still might've.

>>18365038
Speak for yourself. don't consider myself to be defined by my DNA, I consider myself to be defined by my subjectivity. If science can't detect it from the outside, that's inconvenient, but it is the most essential part of me regardless. And we can extrapolate from how it seems to work for ourselves to get a best guess at how it works for others.
>conscious experience is present in bugs and things that we ascribe zero moral value to, a level of anti-value to such as termites.
I would ascribe some moral value to bugs and even termites on the basis that they could easily be somewhat conscious. I'd consider it positively wrong to harm them just for entertainment, for example.

One counter to the DNA thing is that, once I'm dead, my body will still be a pile of my unique DNA for some time, but I would be fine with it all being burnt up or buried, while I wouldn't be fine with either of those were I still alive, were my subjectivity still present.

>>18361674
agreed. and they should be exiled to another place, along with career criminals and pedos

>>18364994
reddit face strikes again

>>18364909
>>18364911
Wht is this schizophrenia? What are you even talking about?

No matter what they say, it always has, is, and will always be the murder of an unborn human life. I've seen all the arguments and excuses and they're nothing but copes. Some use fanciful language and others quite literally and openly brag about it and drop any facades. But at the end of the day it is all the same shit. They're only dishonest with themselves because they try to deflect from what they support so they can feel better about it

>>18364909
There are still people with Downs born today. Doesn't change the fact that we also abort many of them.

>>18365046
not an argument, abortion is justified by what is, not what will be

>>18365509
>ever present moment devoid of potentiality and future
This is why Whites conquered blacks.

>>18365985
whites never conquered africa, they ran with tail tucked between their legs. sorry to burst your bubble

>>18365423
We don’t abort them actually. They’re aborted more rarely than they’re born.
The fact graveyards in the past were filled with people who “should” have been aborted and the fact humans are naturally repulsed by infanticide, and that infanticide only is sourced for extreme conditions, all this taken together means we aren’t to do abortions if we can help it, which we can.

Abortion because you have no food or practice hard eugenics is one thing.
Abortion because bab is an inconvenience is another entirely.

Lefties will die to prevent abortion based on eugenics but will piss and shit themselves to defend abortion because “ohhhh chad ghosted me I can let this babi interrupt my best life teehee”

>thats not relevant
You are a brown third worlder, maybe it’s not relevant to you but to intelligent White people who deal with libtroons it is very relevant.

>>18365153
>cite archeology over second hand accounts
This is schizophrenia huh?

>>18365996
>Infanticide was a widespread practice throughout human history that was mainly used to dispose of unwanted children,[1]:61 its main purpose being the prevention of resources being spent on weak or disabled offspring. Unwanted infants were usually abandoned to die of exposure, but in some societies they were deliberately killed.
>Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent. Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Pre-Islamic Arabia, early modern Europe,[2] Aboriginal Australia, Native Americans, and Native Alaskans.

>>18365078
You might not known this but dead bodies DO have rights and legal protections. I don’t know if they do where you live in the Congo but here in White countries it is illegal to do things to/with a dead body.
The dead, devoid of consciousness, have legally protected dignity.
It seems silly to not extend these protections to humans at the beginner stage of their life cycle.

>>18365073
>speak for yourself
I am speaking for all humanity because I am talking about human instinct and categorical taxa.
>but I personally
I don’t give a fuck what you personally identify as. The difference between you and a chimp is DNA.
>bugs have moral value
Should bugs be killed because they inconvenience you?
What about a dog that inconveniences you?
A horse inconveniences you? Another man inconveniences you?
The place where you draw the line is intellectually arbitrary. Instinctually you will draw the line at a reasonable degree of similarity such as mammalians or mammalian like creatures.
Infants are mammals not only that they are unique humans at the earliest stage of their life cycle. Killing them is wrong on an instinctual and intuitive level.

>>18365064
>but it could have existed
Yet we see the vast majority of infant deaths are from disease. Not from exposure or deliberate killing.
We see that many people who fit the criteria for a victim of infanticide living to old age.

I am convinced none of the infanticide or abortion advocates (advocates for abortion not freedom to choose Troons) do not have kids or are rarely around them.
They don’t understand family bonds or how can exist beyond the individual’s experience. The fixation with consciousness is I think a projection of this hyper individualism. It’s the ultimate worship of the ego.

>hah! Why would I do anything for something inanimate/insignificant? It’s a clump of cells, it’s barely even alive
Like bro people used to die over symbols, barrow mounds, the bodies of slain comrades, pieces of armor.

Value exists outside of yourself and your perceptions.
Liberals, and I mean like liberal as in post 1650 moderns, will not understand it.

>>18366005
>I am speaking for all humanity
>I don’t give a fuck what you personally identify as
>Instinctually you will
>wrong on an instinctual and intuitive level

>Everyone's intuition obviously agrees with me about everything and if it doesn't I don't care

>>18365999
Wikipedia is not evidence.
I have already explained not only why we have countermanding evidence and why the reasons given for historical infanticide aren’t the reasons being cited for abortion.
Are going to make an argument or paste the same Wiki quote you posted already (again)?

>>18366018
>we should make clothing for people with two arms because that’s what humans have
> “but what if someone has three arms huh?”
Fuck off.

Yes moral instincts ARE shared by everyone because they developed before people diversified.
You won’t find a tribe whose moral instinct sees murder as more fair and just than generosity.
You won’t see this ever because moral instincts are ancient and their roots are uniform.

Pretending to not understand this isn’t an argument.
Are you conceding? You have yet to make any actual argument in favor of abortion.
“I should be allowed to do whatever I want” this is not an argument.

>>18366241
>I have already explained not only why we have countermanding evidence and why the reasons given for historical infanticide aren’t the reasons being cited for abortion.
No you haven't and the reasons are the same.

>>18362941
>because it has not yet developed human traits.
babies
>cannot sustain itself.
conjoined twins, anybody in a medical emergency etc

next.

>>18362851
>Not a thing.
Absolutely a thing. Look at indians.

>>18362851
You have no experience. Why raise a child of rape? Best case scenario it's raised in a household of neglect, worst case the child is abused and maybe abandoned.
Morning after pill is a good thing to help rape victims.
I bet money you wouldn't think this if you're a woman. And fuck risking passing on a rapist's genes. That's a real thing whether or not you think it is.

>>18363074
Imagine being such a faggot that you don't think aborted baby jokes are funny

>>18365993
A surprisingly sensible post, actually

>>18366426
>the reasons are the same
Western women are getting abortions because they practice hardline eugenics or theyre on the verge of starvation?
That's what you said.
Can you prove this?
You said the reasons are the same.
>you havent
I have actually, let me restate it here, ancient burial sites for infants do not have infants with signs of exposure, they overwhelmingly died of disease or infection, not of exposure.
burial sites containing adults show many remains with congenital deformities, lifelong disabilities that followed these men and women from birth into old age despite these problems being apparent at birth, they were not exposed and left to die.
This is the hard evidence, these are the facts.
citing quotations which if we are to believe are more than propaganda suggest only a very niche and very extreme type of lifestyle is not a case for abortion or infanticide.

Are Western women Spartan matrons breeding soldiers, or Roman stoics living a cruel and harsh life?

>>18367504
NTA but it's a little questionable that you keep asserting "the facts" without providing any actual evidence at all for what you're saying, leaving it to everyone else to find what you're referring to. A link or two wouldn't hurt.

>>18367504
>Western women are getting abortions because they practice hardline eugenics or theyre on the verge of starvation?
>That's what you said.
No, they're doing it because they're financially unable to or simply unwilling to raise them.

File: maxresdefault(3).jpg (102 KB)

102 KB JPG

>>18367519

>>18367542
>they just don’t want to
This is not the reason people in the past practiced infanticide. The reasons are different, they are today extremely petty and self serving which is utterly repellent.

>>18367519
>>18367677
>>18368290
Ask ChatGPT.
Infanticide was extremely rare and the case for infanticide is totally different from those advocating for abortion.

File: 1759046063033150.jpg (135.8 KB)

135.8 KB JPG

>>18368491
>ask the thing known for hallucinating when you ask it leading questions

>>18361674
I don't believe in eugenics since I'm not a psychotic woman.

>>18361681
Fetuses are already humans in potential. If given time, they will mature into a full human. Therefore, by killing a fetus (however small) you are killing a full human.

>>18362592
Sure. Kill the rapist, not an innocent baby who has zero faults. Saying that you support abortion for rape babies means you would go to a person who was born of rape and tell him to his face that he should be dead. Would you do that?

>>18367480
The Church can raise the baby, and adoption has always existed.

>>18365078
And that is why we don't feed dead bodies to hogs or dump them by the side of the street, instead giving them respectful funeral rites.

What are the motivations of anons who are adamantly trying to claim abortion isn't murder?
I'd understand if they were sexhavers who are lying for their own self-interest, but users of this site aren't particularly renowned for having sex

>>18364355
A fetus will develop a conscience within months
A cancer will never devlop conscience
Stop being so disingenous

>>18368943
Pussy whipped. They think that by kissing women's boots they may be granted access to their haunted graveyard pussies.

File: social.png (176.2 KB)

176.2 KB PNG

>>18368943
In my case, the motivation for supporting pro-choice is a mixture of eugenics, the belief that life isn't strictly good (a life can be not worth living), and just not wanting people to be miserable unnecessarily. Granted that the vast majority abortions aren't morally wrong because they take place before the fetus is liable to be at all conscious (It being conscious eventually given that the development isn't interrupted doesn't matter because just about everything is potentially conscious in the sense that it could eventually be incorporated into the body of a conscious being. And every sperm or egg is potentially the seed of a conscious being, but most of them go to waste without complaint.), I see no reason to restrict a mother's freedom to choose to terminate a pregnancy that for whatever reason doesn't look like it's going to result in a desirable situation.

>>18368942
Dead human bodies are potential sources of disease, fostering microbes that readily attack human flesh, and people remain emotionally attached to dead bodies even once they're dead and the person is gone. There are instrumental utilitarian reasons for respecting the dead without making dead flesh and bones with human DNA intrinsically morally significant.

>>18368942
Dead human bodies are potential sources of disease, fostering microbes that readily attack human flesh, and people remain emotionally attached to bodies even once they're dead and the person is gone. There are instrumental utilitarian reasons for practices associated with respecting the dead without making dead flesh and bones with human DNA intrinsically morally significant.

>>18368985
>I see no reason to restrict a mother's freedom to choose to terminate a pregnancy that for whatever reason doesn't look like it's going to result in a desirable situation.
What does that have to do with whether you believe it's murder or not?

>>18369207
Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another. Since what's lawful is contingent on the laws, I translated that to "morally bad" killing. Though another angle might be that until consciousness develops, a fetus isn't a human "being" because there's nothing it's like to be it. Insisting on calling abortion murder is mostly a rhetorical move, like vegans calling meat murder even though it's entirely lawful. What they mean is it involves a morally bad killing of a sentient being.

>>18368935
Good for you anon, my point though is that there does seem to be at least some overlap between people who are against abortion and people who believe in scientific racism, which includes people who believe in eugenics, and this never seemed logically consistent to me.

>>18369011
>without making dead flesh and bones with human DNA intrinsically morally significant.
it is illegal to bury a dead body yourself, not to prevent criminals hiding bodies but like if your relative dies and you ask for the body you will be arrested if you do not find a funeral home to arrange the burial.

There IS a morally significant value attached to the dead which has zero immediate practical utility.
also humans just do respect the dead, its illegal to profane grave sites even if no one is buried there.
its illegal to profane monuments.

You are a richard hanania tier loon.
if moral intuitions are alien to you, stop fucking talking about morality.

>>18368985
>eugenics
this is far more acceptable than
>consciousness
reddit tier.
plenty of inanimate things have moral value attached to them.
family heirlooms, war memorials, grave sites, the remains of the dead.
These are natural things and you not grasping moral intuitions is deeply troubling.
>sperm and egg
this is not apart of the human life cycle.
a fertilized egg IS apart of the human life cycle.

Women should abort babies that are defective. It is not right to bring a child into the world you know will suffer and not be able to live fully. The other arguments are stupid. You can't get an abortion because you're a whore who couldn't close her legs, fuck you take responsibility.

>>18369410
I assume that people with supposedly alien moral intuitions who kept talking about them regardless are the basis of all shifts in collective morality. Rules and allowances pile up in the collective mind for all sorts of reasons, some of which are instrumental but not obviously so, and some of which might be spandrels. And rules and allowances might be instrumental with a moral goal or they might only provide an selfish advantage that causes people to convince themselves it's fine, like slavery.

Regarding opposition to abortion, there are arguments (based on the collection of other moral views that are commonly paired with it) that it's mostly part of a selfish subconscious strategy to privilege one's own sexual/reproductive strategy over others. Or it's alleged to originate from a plain desire to control women. If such motivations are what's really behind it, the person holding the view may not be aware of it. They may just perceive themselves as having a strong "moral intuition" that abortion is wrong. But if they were aware of what was really going on, they might no longer call it a moral intuition. It would be a selfish impulse that may or may not be opposed to more fundamental moral intuitions.

File: IMG_20260226_091801.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

>>18369439

File: IMG_20260228_203906.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>18369459

>>18369415
>sperm and egg
>this is not apart of the human life cycle.
a fertilized egg IS apart of the human life cycle.
After an egg is fertilized, there begins a natural process that will eventually result in a conscious human child
Me banging your mom without protection is also a natural process that if uninterrupted will eventually result in a conscious human child. A condom would interrupt it. Therefore wearing a condom is basically murder.

>>18369439
Why bother abstracting it? An ethnicity that practices abortion will not survive in the long term, so does it really matter whether the moral intuition is based on selfish reasoning or genuine ethics? It's a question of survival.

>>18369601
If you think having kids is so disagreeable that maximizing the ability to choose whether or not to do it will inevitably lead to extinction, then that's a sad commentary on the actual value of life imo. It also comes with a citation needed if the ancients were practicing infanticide regularly as the only anons with actual evidence claim, which is functionally abortion but many times more morally suspect.

And if abortion is allowed or banned equally for everyone, then all ethnicities will fall equally. If you're concerned about white people surviving as is typical on 4chan, IIRC it's actually black people who abort at the highest rate, so proportionally I'm not sure it would help much unless you could ban abortion only for white people, which I doubt would ever be democratically accepted. You might have better luck with a carrot rather than a stick, finding a way to encourage your favoured ethnicity to have more children rather than forcing some of them to have kids whether they want to or not. You'd also have a better eugenic influence that way, encouraging everyone equally rather than blocking the way out for the poor, sick, and otherwise unwanted.

File: 1770538052974575.jpg (967.1 KB)

967.1 KB JPG

Worst case scenario when on the threshold of extinction because no one wants kids personally even though they do want the race to survive: pull the insect colony maneuver and outsource reproduction to a subset of well paid taxpayer-funded professionals

>>18369628
That may not work too well unless you can find a way to do it while maintaining genetic diversity.

>>18369439
>Or it's alleged to originate from a plain desire to control women.
"Desire to control women" is just demagogy though. Everything we do is to control other people. What is politics if not the art of controlling and manipulating others?

>>18369620
Sure ancients practiced it but never really with the same rates of success or to the effect that moderns have. Also having children isn't inherently undesirable, you can make people not want to do it by applying economic pressure for example, but humans are pretty fecund when they aren't being tampered with.

>>18361351
>willing to murder their own children
you would murder them too if you realized that by preventing abortion you will have to double your taxes just to keep all those non-aborted children fed and clothed.

>I want to kill all niggers!!!!
>Total nigger DEATH!!!!
>Right wing deathsquads when?!
>Wait, is th..is that a black FETUS?!?!
>HOLY SHIT HOW COULD YOU WANT TO HARM THIS PRECIOUS VESSEL OF GODS LIGHT?!?! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?!

>>18370864
Ideally you create a state where the thought of feeding and clothing children from another family isn't repulsive to you. Of course you would need some sort of shared identity or value system to facilitate this goodwill and people will argue over what exactly that shared characteristic should be, but it is sort of the key assumption for any model that gets rid of the infanticide strategy we currently have to deal with this problem.