The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Dude Snakes]

"Beyond the Pale For ANY Civilized Society to Consider" - Newly Introduced California Abortion Bill Could Legalize Infanticide For Several Weeks After Birth

How far down does the slippery slope go? A newly proposed bill in the California State Legislature could expand the ghastly practice of abortion to include infanticide – the killing of a newborn child – for several weeks, months, or even years after a child is born. According to the pro-life...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

By allowing abortion we have paved the way to outright infanticide, may God have mercy on our souls.

 

[snailslime]

"Beyond the Pale For ANY Civilized Society to Consider" - Newly Introduced California Abortion Bill Could Legalize Infanticide For Several Weeks After Birth

How far down does the slippery slope go? A newly proposed bill in the California State Legislature could expand the ghastly practice of abortion to include infanticide – the killing of a newborn child – for several weeks, months, or even years after a child is born. According to the pro-life...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

By allowing abortion we have paved the way to outright infanticide, may God have mercy on our souls.

go back to your containment thread

 

[AnOminous]

"Beyond the Pale For ANY Civilized Society to Consider" - Newly Introduced California Abortion Bill Could Legalize Infanticide For Several Weeks After Birth

How far down does the slippery slope go? A newly proposed bill in the California State Legislature could expand the ghastly practice of abortion to include infanticide – the killing of a newborn child – for several weeks, months, or even years after a child is born. According to the pro-life...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

By allowing abortion we have paved the way to outright infanticide, may God have mercy on our souls.

But suppose a child is born and is found, after examination, to be a furry, or worse yet, a Canadian?

Obviously in the eyes of God, anything that could end such an existence would be an act of pure kindness.

 

[Epic Fail Man]

"Beyond the Pale For ANY Civilized Society to Consider" - Newly Introduced California Abortion Bill Could Legalize Infanticide For Several Weeks After Birth

How far down does the slippery slope go? A newly proposed bill in the California State Legislature could expand the ghastly practice of abortion to include infanticide – the killing of a newborn child – for several weeks, months, or even years after a child is born. According to the pro-life...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

By allowing abortion we have paved the way to outright infanticide, may God have mercy on our souls.

abortion is based since it prevents overpopulation

 

[5000% Sure]

It's weird seeing the thread get this long. This is a question that's pretty much been conclusively answered for a very long time, and the reasoning isn't that complicated. I skimmed through and didn't really see anyone laying out the entire anti-abortion argument in 1 post, so here goes:

First we have to draw a line between when something is human and when it isn't. A newborn baby is a human. A baby that will be born in 5 minutes is still a human too (you don't suddenly become human after exiting the birth canal, because humanity doesn't depend on the physical location you're in). It doesn't seem like there's any point in development you can really use (e.g. organ development/function) to determine humanity, because they're all not only arbitrary, but all happen at different times depending on the specific embryo in question (not all develop brain function at the same exact time), meaning that trying to prescribe laws for when an abortion is OK and when it's not based on function, and to have those laws be in line with morality, is practically impossible.

So since there's no developmental marker we can use to determine humanity, it leaves the question of at what point something actually does become a human in the first place. The answer is conception, the point at which the zygote is formed. A zygote starts as 1 cell, and eventually grows into an adult human over time. Even as a single cell this is still a human since, again, you can't identify any other point in development after this that isn't completely arbitrary. The reason why conception isn't arbitrary is that it's the earliest possible point where the thing actually grows up to be a fully-formed adult human. Prior to this, all you have is a sperm and egg cell separated from each other, and neither of these are humans because they literally only contain half a human genome each and will do absolutely nothing by themselves if left alone.

Since sperm and egg cells are obviously not humans by themselves pre-conception, it's fine to kill them or prevent them from meeting each other. Any form of contraception which does this, by extension, is completely fine. It's only the killing of a formed human zygote that's the issue. It's important to point this out just to say that anti-abortion people really aren't just there to fuck over women's rights (no reasonable anti-abortion advocate would say that non-abortive contraception is morally reprehensible; it's perfectly fine for women to have those choices and to use them), it literally is just about protecting innocent human lives and being morally decent.

 

[Eto]

"Beyond the Pale For ANY Civilized Society to Consider" - Newly Introduced California Abortion Bill Could Legalize Infanticide For Several Weeks After Birth

How far down does the slippery slope go? A newly proposed bill in the California State Legislature could expand the ghastly practice of abortion to include infanticide – the killing of a newborn child – for several weeks, months, or even years after a child is born. According to the pro-life...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

By allowing abortion we have paved the way to outright infanticide, may God have mercy on our souls.

That's not what it says. Reading over the bill, it states that criminal penalty will not be brought upon an expected mother if she has done something to cause a stillbirth, a miscarriage, or an unauthorized abortion.

123467.​

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.

Perinatal death is a bit vague from my understanding, as that encompasses a lot of situations from death from low weight to other comoridities; with perinatal referring to a time frame of weeks before and after birth.

I'm also going to jest here for a moment and say that even if it's infanticide, it's Californians. What I also found interesting about the bill was the use of "pregnant person," because holy shit that's funny in a fucked up way.

 

[Dude Snakes]

That's not what it says. Reading over the bill, it states that criminal penalty will not be brought upon an expected mother if she has done something to cause a stillbirth, a miscarriage, or an unauthorized abortion.


Perinatal death is a bit vague from my understanding, as that encompasses a lot of situations from death from low weight to other comoridities; with perinatal referring to a time frame of weeks before and after birth.

I'm also going to jest here for a moment and say that even if it's infanticide, it's Californians. What I also found interesting about the bill was the use of "pregnant person," because holy shit that's funny in a fucked up way.

If this passes there will be sickos that use it as an excuse to smother their unwanted children within this perinatal timeframe. They will be more likely to get away with murder. Human life's value has been cheapened to nothing in the minds of lefists thanks to abortion/abandonment of faith. This bill must not pass we are already heading down a slippy slope it needs to stop.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

i'm pretty sure 90% of pro-choice people don't support abortion past the 22nd week, approximately when the baby begins to develop the ability to feel pain.

Ability to feel pain is an arbitrary criteria for not killing it, and is inconsistent with the fact you don't support killing people with CIPA.

a lot of pro-lifers also aren't really pro-life, they just want the government to be able to control women's bodies.

Source.

A month old pregnancy isn't even vaguely in the same league of development as a newborn let alone a 3 year old and its fucking absurd to pretend otherwise.

"A newborn isn't even vaguely in the same league as a 3 year old let alone a 6 year old and it's fucking absurd to pretend otherwise."

You're only asking this so you can whine and dispute whatever limit i give

 

[snailslime]

It's weird seeing the thread get this long. This is a question that's pretty much been conclusively answered for a very long time, and the reasoning isn't that complicated. I skimmed through and didn't really see anyone laying out the entire anti-abortion argument in 1 post, so here goes:

First we have to draw a line between when something is human and when it isn't. A newborn baby is a human. A baby that will be born in 5 minutes is still a human too (you don't suddenly become human after exiting the birth canal, because humanity doesn't depend on the physical location you're in). It doesn't seem like there's any point in development you can really use (e.g. organ development/function) to determine humanity, because they're all not only arbitrary, but all happen at different times depending on the specific embryo in question (not all develop brain function at the same exact time), meaning that trying to prescribe laws for when an abortion is OK and when it's not based on function, and to have those laws be in line with morality, is practically impossible.

So since there's no developmental marker we can use to determine humanity, it leaves the question of at what point something actually does become a human in the first place. The answer is conception, the point at which the zygote is formed. A zygote starts as 1 cell, and eventually grows into an adult human over time. Even as a single cell this is still a human since, again, you can't identify any other point in development after this that isn't completely arbitrary. The reason why conception isn't arbitrary is that it's the earliest possible point where the thing actually grows up to be a fully-formed adult human. Prior to this, all you have is a sperm and egg cell separated from each other, and neither of these are humans because they literally only contain half a human genome each and will do absolutely nothing by themselves if left alone.

Since sperm and egg cells are obviously not humans by themselves pre-conception, it's fine to kill them or prevent them from meeting each other. Any form of contraception which does this, by extension, is completely fine. It's only the killing of a formed human zygote that's the issue. It's important to point this out just to say that anti-abortion people really aren't just there to fuck over women's rights (no reasonable anti-abortion advocate would say that non-abortive contraception is morally reprehensible; it's perfectly fine for women to have those choices and to use them), it literally is just about protecting innocent human lives and being morally decent.

define "life" and one good reason why it starts at conception. what do scientists say?

Ability to feel pain is an arbitrary criteria for not killing it, and is inconsistent with the fact you don't support killing people with CIPA.

so what is a good criteria then?

Source.

look at what most of them say and do.

"A newborn isn't even vaguely in the same league as a 3 year old let alone a 6 year old and it's fucking absurd to pretend otherwise."

false equivalent.

 

[gang weeder]

He's retarded and angry he's been subverted. For his whole life begins at conception stance he reversed course in 90 minutes earlier. I've argued for longer just because someone annoyed me.

Where did I reverse course on the claim that life begins at conception?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

so what is a good criteria then?

Scientific criteria, naturally.

look at what most of them say and do.

"Trust me bro" isn't a proper source.

false equivalent.

How so?

 

[snailslime]

Scientific criteria, naturally.

source saying that life begins at conception?

"Trust me bro" isn't a proper source.

Do you support welfare for single mothers or free college? I doubt it.

Do you support the death penalty? If yes, you are very much not pro-life.

Are you a vegan? If not, you are not pro-life.

How so?

a fetus isn't a living child with a developed brain, heart or nervous system.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

source saying that life begins at conception?

Your phrasing seems to imply a philosophical tone, I'm referring to the fact that even a zygote meets the criteria for life scientifically.

Britannica: "The ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks."

This is why when the pro-abortion side compares human offspring at any stage to a "virus" or call it a "clump of cells" it shows a lack of understanding of science. A virus is not considered life because it does not meet the more specific criteria for life (it isn't made of cells nor does it grow, etc). Also, we're ALL clumps of cells.

If you guys understood this you wouldn't say such ignorant things.

Do you support welfare for single mothers or free college? I doubt it.

No. I support free college for all American citizens without serious criminal backgrounds, not just single mothers.

Do you support the death penalty? If yes, you are very much not pro-life.

As much as I like the idea of the death penalty in theory, I'm against the death penalty as implemented because innocent people have been executed. If we would apply it only to people who are undeniably guilty, then I'd support it.

And either way, that's not inconsistent; pro-life in this context, on this topic refers to unborn human offspring--not animals or criminals or enemies, it's not pro-life absolutism that anyone is advocating for here.

There's an inherent difference between a heinous criminal who deserves death and an innocent, helpless life which only exists due to the mother's willful, informed choice in the vast majority of cases. So yes, I'm still pro-life in either case.

Are you a vegan? If not, you are not pro-life.

See above. All life is not equal. Someone trying to kill me will be killed in self-defense, that's not going to void my pro-life stance, and neither will eating a burger. That's ridiculous.

a fetus isn't a living child with a developed brain, heart or nervous system.

I said it was life, and it is factually living, and of the human species. If you have a source which defines life as only with "a developed brain, heart or nervous system" then let's see it. Even an amoeba is life.

 

[gang weeder]

I said it was life, and it is factually living, and of the human species. If you have a source which defines life as only with "a developed brain, heart or nervous system" then let's see it. Even an amoeba is life.

But in my opinion life only begins after someone passes through the birth canal. I can't explain why or how, it just does. And science agrees with me because I say so. Checkmate, religious misogynist bigot.

 

[Eto]

As much as I like the idea of the death penalty in theory, I'm against the death penalty as implemented because innocent people have been executed. If we would apply it only to people who are undeniably guilty, then I'd support it.

And either way, that's not inconsistent; pro-life in this context, on this topic refers to unborn human offspring--not animals or criminals or enemies, it's not pro-life absolutism that anyone is advocating for here.

There's an inherent difference between a heinous criminal who deserves death and an innocent, helpless life which only exists due to the mother's willful, informed choice in the vast majority of cases. So yes, I'm still pro-life in either case.

I've actually explained this point in an earlier post. Speaking as someone who is pro-choice, I understand this logic because you're dealing with a soon-to-be person who has done nothing compared to someone who has made their choices clear when it comes to the death penalty. I see no inconsistency with this logic, and it's nothing more than a game of semantics.

As for her point in regards to pain, she's saying she would rather a pregnancy be terminated before the fetus is able to perceive pain, not that personhood is assigned to pain. Would you rather it feel pain, or would you rather it not?

But going back to your point, you are correct that that's how life is defined. And you are correct that we assign arbitrary standards when we come to what we value in a life form, such as humans and animals. My question is why exactly do you assign value to something that is in the early stages of becoming a fully-grown human? In the first month of pregnancy, it's not until the 5th week that vital organs like the heart and brain begin to develop, and it's not until the 24th week where consciousness begins to arise. And before you bring up the point of coma patients, I mean in a scenario where consciousness has yet to be developed, not that it's been taken away. I want to understand your position more. Ignore this, I forgot that you assign value at conception, as you're using the biology definition of what "life" is. It's a more philosophical question, and I'd rather not go that route.

 

[gang weeder]

But going back to your point, you are correct that that's how life is defined. And you are correct that we assign arbitrary standards when we come to what we value in a life form, such as humans and animals. My question is why exactly do you assign value to something that is in the early stages of becoming a fully-grown human? In the first month of pregnancy, it's not until the 5th week that vital organs like the heart and brain begin to develop, and it's not until the 24th week where consciousness begins to arise. And before you bring up the point of coma patients, I mean in a scenario where consciousness has yet to be developed, not that it's been taken away. I want to understand your position more.

How exactly could you propose that "consciousness begins to arise" at such a specific time as the 24th week? This seems impossible to measure or quantify from outside of the person's own mind.

As for her point in regards to pain, she's saying she would rather a pregnancy be terminated before the fetus is able to perceive pain, not that personhood is assigned to pain. Would you rather it feel pain, or would you rather it not?

The presence or absence of pain does not determine whether it is moral or not to kill someone. For instance, if I shoot you in the back of the head and you have no idea it's coming, you will very likely feel nothing--no fear or anxiety even, as you won't know you are about to die. You will just stop existing with no warning. Despite this, it would obviously still be wrong for me to execute you in this manner.

 

[Eto]

How exactly could you propose that "consciousness begins to arise" at such a specific time as the 24th week? This seems impossible to measure or quantify from outside of the person's own mind.

I'm just reading off medical sites, but I'm assuming where the fetus begins to show awareness of the body, ex. external stimuli and the movement of limbs. However, it's theorized that it's preprogrammed.

The presence or absence of pain does not determine whether it is moral or not to kill someone. For instance, if I shoot you in the back of the head and you have no idea it's coming, you will very likely feel nothing--no fear or anxiety even, as you won't know you are about to die. You will just stop existing with no warning. Despite this, it would obviously still be wrong for me to execute you in this manner.

I'm not going to disagree. If you've looked over my earlier posts here, we're in agreement on that end, as there are people with neurological disorders that stops the perception of pain, and then there's anesthetics. I'm simply giving more details into her reasoning, as no one with a conscience wants to cause harm to someone if there's a way to prevent it.

 

[gang weeder]

I'm just reading off medical sites, but I'm assuming where the fetus begins to show awareness of the body, ex. external stimuli and the movement of limbs. However, it's theorized that it's preprogrammed.

How could response to external stimuli possibly be evidence of consciousness? Even bugs do that.

 

[snailslime]

Your phrasing seems to imply a philosophical tone, I'm referring to the fact that even a zygote meets the criteria for life scientifically.

Britannica: "The ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks."

This is why when the pro-abortion side compares human offspring at any stage to a "virus" or call it a "clump of cells" it shows a lack of understanding of science. A virus is not considered life because it does not meet the more specific criteria for life (it isn't made of cells nor does it grow, etc). Also, we're ALL clumps of cells.

If you guys understood this you wouldn't say such ignorant things.

What scientist says that a zygote meets the criteria for life?

By the way, if you want to get technical then here is the definition of Murder: It says Human Being and not Human Fetus.


And here is the definition of a Human Being. Women, men and children are not fetuses.

No. I support free college for all American citizens without serious criminal backgrounds, not just single mothers.

So you don't support welfare for single mothers?

As much as I like the idea of the death penalty in theory, I'm against the death penalty as implemented because innocent people have been executed. If we would apply it only to people who are undeniably guilty, then I'd support it.

So you're not unconditionally pro-life.

And either way, that's not inconsistent; pro-life in this context, on this topic refers to unborn human offspring--not animals or criminals or enemies, it's not pro-life absolutism that anyone is advocating for here.

What makes a fetus without a developed brain, nervous system or heart more worthy of life than a living, breathing, feeling animal?

There's an inherent difference between a heinous criminal who deserves death and an innocent, helpless life which only exists due to the mother's willful, informed choice in the vast majority of cases. So yes, I'm still pro-life in either case.

Except this is blatantly false. And it's usually not a life yet.

See above. All life is not equal. Someone trying to kill me will be killed in self-defense, that's not going to void my pro-life stance, and neither will eating a burger. That's ridiculous.

Who are you to decide this?

I said it was life, and it is factually living, and of the human species. If you have a source which defines life as only with "a developed brain, heart or nervous system" then let's see it. Even an amoeba is life.

So is eating vegetables murder? Plants are alive.

How exactly could you propose that "consciousness begins to arise" at such a specific time as the 24th week? This seems impossible to measure or quantify from outside of the person's own mind.

That's what scientists say, and you can tell by measuring brain activity and development.

The presence or absence of pain does not determine whether it is moral or not to kill someone. For instance, if I shoot you in the back of the head and you have no idea it's coming, you will very likely feel nothing--no fear or anxiety even, as you won't know you are about to die. You will just stop existing with no warning. Despite this, it would obviously still be wrong for me to execute you in this manner.

Do you support physician assisted suicide or the death penalty? If you do, you are being hypocritical.

Are you ever going to address my points, which I verbally murdered you with?

How could response to external stimuli possibly be evidence of consciousness? Even bugs do that.

How do you know a person experiences consciousness? Maybe it's by measuring brain activity and using the scientific formula. Otherwise it's a philosophical/religious question.

 

[gang weeder]

By the way, if you want to get technical then here is the definition of Murder: It says Human Being and not Human Fetus.


And here is the definition of a Human Being. Women, men and children are not fetuses.

Well I mean, it doesn't say "human infant" either, now does it? Therefore I posit that Human Infants are not Human Beings and are therefore fine to smother.

Who are you to decide this?

Who are you to decide?

That's what scientists say, and you can tell by measuring brain activity and development.

Ah yes, the almighty scientist said so, and that means it simply is. As I said before, raw appeal to authority is not an argument. Troosting the heckin' experts is a terrible epistemological strategy as they will flat out lie to you due to political pressure--most """scientists""" would also try and tell you that men are women, for example. Not because they actually believe it (I mean, some of them might, idk), but because if they say otherwise they'll lose their jobs. Abortion is right up there with trannies in terms of politically sensitive topics for """scientists""" to weigh in on.

Measuring brain activity with an fMRI or something is certainly a more interesting road to go down than any of the other extremely flimsy copes put up by abortionists. This still fails, though, because consciousness is not defined by electrical activity in the brain. It is defined by self-awareness, which cannot be perceived from outside of the person's own, y'know, consciousness. It is therefore impossible to objectively "measure" and determine in a yes/no fashion. If you put some electrodes on my head as an infant and take some readings, I'm sure there was all kinds of electrical activity firing around in those neurons (just like there would be for a fetus at 24 weeks), but in my opinion I was not conscious yet because I do not have any memories of laying around in a crib screaming and shitting myself (and neither do the vast majority, if not all of the rest of us).

Are you ever going to address my points, which I verbally murdered you with?

I address the ones that I feel like addressing, typically because I feel that those "points" are touching on something where there might actually be something substantive for me to contribute, as opposed to just repeating something that's already been explained. Most of your incoherent "points" are ignored because you are either legitimately retarded or a bad faith actor to the point of coming across as a troll.