- Joined
- Feb 2, 2019
I want to frame this, laminate it, gold crust it and hang it over your bed.
The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.
- Thread starter Sweetpeaa
- Start date
I want to frame this, laminate it, gold crust it and hang it over your bed.
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
I love the "muh science crowd". Post a scientific definition that doesn't distinguish between a sperm cell, an ovum and a fertilized egg and I'll eat my hat.
Well, you think like one so it's an easy mistake.
FEETLOAF
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
This sentence reads identically to me as someone invoking the bible as dogma. It's not an argument. The scientific definition can be wrong. You are also implicitly totally confirming my statement that you literally only look at the present.
I don't recall even implying that you're a woman. I don't give a shit who you are.
Johan Schmidt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
That's...objectively wrong.
It's a zygote the very second the two gametes join, after duplication it becomes a pair of blastomeres, and so on, so forth. You can argue at what point you consider that to not be a 'clump of cells' as people put it, and becomes a fully fledged human; but you're wrong to say it's no different, it's literally the most different it could be short of coming from a 3rd unrelated person. All human cells come from a three layer development during the gastrulation process in embryogenesis; endoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm. Human totoipotent stem cells can only develop when present with other human cells (The best we have made in the lab halt at Morula stage).
If you want to talk science, then you should probably know that everything that a human being 'is' purely in terms of physical components is already there the moment the two gametes make contact and is simply being unpacked from that split second onwards. Unless you subscribe to the theory of there being some spiritual component to things; humans are a product of DNA and cellular machinery, that is also true of animals. Personhood under a purely scientific definition can be as simple as there being the human DNA and active cellular machinery present. If you expand personhood to something like 'Is a distinctly featured creature different from the mother' then that's also true of the single cell stage as well; or at the very least the five day post gamete meeting point as that's around when zona hatching occurs and the last material directly from the mother is shed. Cognition relies on developments created during the initial short period of 2n to 4n that the cell undergoes before blastomeres are formed. If you interrupt that the cell survives it would be heavily damaged as a child.
It's only when you begin to look at the less scientific that you approach the problem of peoples feelings which is the crux of the matter. The baby doesn't have any, the mother it's in does. No one cares what the baby feels, people care what the mother feels. Human beings, like all living things, are ships of Theseus; we start as information and remain information. You are not your skin and bones, you are your neural tissues and the changes that is has undergone; and that neural tissues develops from cells created after the first minute of fertilisation, and expanded during the three layer stage; and changes made to you also impact your DNA, which in turn slowly churns out new bits of you. At no point do you not come from DNA.
Science cannot definitively say when a human is a human, because science cannot definitively say what a human is when you render us down. What parts can you remove and a man not be a man? The closest answer we have is DNA, but that can be assembled inside cell free extracts in test tubes with little issue. If you remove pluripotent cells from a man; recreate his DNA from oligomeres, then replace the DNA from that cell with the one you have made; reimplant it and allow it to develop into new parts of the man, does he have someone else cells in his body because the DNA in there was made in a lab outside of his own body? Or is he the same because the DNA is - from an informational standpoint - the same.
So no; scientific definition doesn't say there is no difference; not from a purely materialistic perspective. Science does not comment on when someone is deemed human. It is immaterial individuality and runs the gauntlet from 'Humans aren't people, ever.' to 'Sperm and eggs are individuals without ever even meeting' (If you go by intelligence as a metric of humanity; the genes for that are already expressed in both human eggs and sperm)
Also as an aside, the sheer autism and retardation from this has made me no longer pro-life. I am for the species wide cleansing of humans as a whole. No more people, ever.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
Probably already been covered, but afaik "the pill" doesn't prevent egg fertilisation, it prevents implantation. Given that, and some people here having hardline stances on "life begins at conception" are you anti "the pill"? leaving depo, "the cross", and barrier (I'm sure their might be a few more birth control methods I'm neglecting.)
The-Mad-Asshatter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2020
In a way though, shouldn't it be?
'Abortion is murder' seems to be a significant underpinning of why some of these babies end up being born. Even to guilt other women into continuing a pregnancy even when they learn that their baby has a lethal condition.
What is pertinent is not abortion per se, but whether or not abortion can be considered murder in a biblical sense, since a lot of the pro-life people seem to go by what they think the Bible says about it.
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
I'm fine with it, I think. I mean, it makes women fat(ter) and crazy(er) so it's deeply immoral in that sense but as a practical matter there's no way to know whether an egg is ever fertilized (in some cases the women might be infertile and not know it, for instance), whether it would have implanted, etc. In the case of abortion we know it's growing by the time the salivating Satanists sacrifice the seed to Moloch.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2016
Wasn't he saying it should be made easier for women who want to be sterilized to get the procedure? It's currently very difficult for younger women or women who haven't given birth to get one, depending on their location.
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
His exact words were he supported state funded "voluntary" sterilization programs * because those have never ever been abused at all * for women as opposed to "baby murder" of week old embryos.
Still an autistic straight up incel thing to say regardless of how he meant to phrase it especially after he admitted he wouldn't hold the other sex to the same standard because not enough of them would agree to be sterilized * but for some magical reason he thinks women would lol *again his words.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2018
Direct back to my earlier post. You’ve had multiple Pro life/Christians on this thread disagree with what these trash parents are doing. Why? Because we understand context. It’s not that hard to get.
The majority of people who get abortions aren’t people who have Frankenstein babies growing within them. Hartley Hooligan potatoes are as rare as Willy Wonka Golden Tickets - they’re not a mass produced item. To think that aborting a healthy baby is the same thing as aborting a baby that will have no brain requires you to make a HUGE leap. The potential suffering and hardships the baby may have going forward in life plays a large role in how people consider the situation - why do pro abortion people keep conveniently ignoring this? As I said before it’s not hard to get.
As another user said already - we’re not here to fill the thread with pro abortion or anti abortion posts. We’re here to talk about what piles of shit these parents are. Let’s stick to that.
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
Keep putting those scare-quotes in, it's super effective. So your quibble with voluntary sterilization is that it may be abused? All systems can be abused. For instance, women abuse abortion to get their rocks off every day.
We're on a website where my words are easily found and understood by people who can read, all you're doing is proving that you either can't read or can't reason (or both. it's both.) Still, it's fun reiterating so you can misunderstand again.
I'm not trying to hold anybody to any standard: this is all a hypothetical, voluntary arrangement that you'd probably back if you weren't so busy simping for m'ladies. I made no claims about how many of either gender would take that option because it's no concern of mine. I would prefer that people who don't want children make every effort to prevent a pregnancy that they may be tempted to abort. Pretty simple stuff.
Where's that scientific definition that conflates sperm, egg and embryo, anyways? I felt sure you were going to win that round. You were so sure, you know?
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
It must suck to be so unattractive to women that you gotta try and get abortion outlawed because you're upset that women are having sex with men that aren't you
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
Also if they ever do manage to impregnate someone they know that chick is gonna about that shit ASAP
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
Probably doing both the world and baby a favor tbh.
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
Imagine trying to get laid on KF by cheerleading for abortion when the only tail consist of fatties, troons, fat troons, legbeards and mentally unstable lesbians (who are also fat legbeard troons).
Many such cases.
Many such cases.
FEETLOAF
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
I'm against the pill cause it turns the fricking frogs gay.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
you should read a book
FEETLOAF
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
what if instead of murdering your baby you just went to church
- Joined
- May 10, 2020
I think that every pro-lifer should go and adopt a baby, cause it's easy to advocate for letting that baby be born if it's not gonna be your problem afterwards. Especially if there's a high chance that it will turn out disabled.
The-Mad-Asshatter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2020
The potential 'suffering and hardships' or whether or not healthy babies are aborted is not the issue. I'm talking about whether or not abortion falls under the Biblical definition of 'murder.'
If it is, then ending a potato baby's life is considered murder. If it isn't, then even healthy babies can be aborted without it being considered murder.