[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 129 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: 1555163121343.gif (1012 KB, 740x900)
1012 KB
1012 KB GIF
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cnn-guest-when-a-woman-is-pregnant-that-is-not-a-human-being-inside-of-her
Member Log In | Subscribe Now
Friday, May 10, 2019

CNN guest: 'When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her'
by Julio Rosas
| May 07, 2019 05:57 PM
Print this article
Debate on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time" caught fire Monday night after a guest proclaimed that a fetus is not a human being.

When host Chris Cuomo gave Christine Quinn, the former speaker of the New York City Council, the last word, she said a fetus is effectively a body part. Her comments drew Cuomo, Quinn, and guest Rick Santorum into a heavy debate over Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam's comments about whether a newborn baby should be permitted to live and New York's new late-term abortion laws.

"When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It is part of her body, and this is about a woman having full agency and control of her body and making decisions about her body and what is part of her body with medical professionals," Quinn said. "Those are the facts and that is the law."

Santorum replied: "So the baby is their property and they can do whatever they want to it. They can maim the baby or torture the baby."

Santorum has a point. If you can kill it because it's not a human being, if you're blind why can't you pluck out its eyes in the womb? Why can't you take off the arms and legs?
>>
>>395192
https://youtu.be/l4G8AjeB4mM
>>
>>395192
Can I use this argument to avoid all the red tape involved in my research of the developing human embryo? Would certainly save me a lot of headache
>>
I'm a pro choice conservative. There are times when abortion is the correct answer. There are cases where post birth retroactive abortion is called for. But accept what you are doing. You are terminating a life for your convenience.
>>
>>395192
>It is part of her body, and this is about a woman having full agency and control of her body and making decisions about her body and what is part of her body
I wounder what this argument would meanto siamese twins... seeming it follows that siamese twins would be allowed to murder each other at any point in their life
>>
>>395211
We're going down a scientific rabbit-hole where "life" is getting pushed lower and lower since we can now keep premature kids alive.

But if a parent doesn't want a child, that's their choice. Historically life sucks to be an unwanted child, in the present day it's still fucking terrible to be an unwanted child.

Either way god kills more babies than abortion.
>>
>>395206
This is actually a good post. If the child is the womans body, she can allow testing on it
>>
Funny how the conservashits have pulled the abortion maymay back into the light, just to have something to campaign on for the 2020 election.

Very convenient timing.
>>
>>395192
Conservatives STILL can't figure out the difference between a baby and a fetus? Goddamn, at this point I'm thinking nothing can fix these retards.
>>
>>395192
baby not an human being?
Who the fuck can say such a thing?
People don't get that giving voice to this psychotics is such an slippery slope!

Way back when Aztecs believed that sacrificing people was an normal thing, they couldn't comprehend just how fucked up their behavior was, same goes for burning women (as witches) in 1700 A.D., burning Jews in WWII, slavery in southern USA, all those pockets of pure madness were considered normal from up to some point!

Point being that global madness was fairly common problem in human history,
all it takes is that good people don't react strongly/loudly enough and really dumb , debilitating idea could take root in civilization and rot it from inside in just an generation or two.
And babies and fetuses can't fend for themselves, it's a trickle effect where weakest of the weak will get biggest part of the stick.
>>
Ppl still arguing this. When will atheism prevail? It’s a brainless pile of cells.

Abortion has advanced the US lightyears by allowing high risk mothers to not have high risk children.
>>
>>395250
Good post
>>
>>395227
Glad you at least brought yourself to call them a child, instead of labelling them as something dehumanizing out of deliberate self-deception.
>>
>>395251
They already had children.
>>
>>395244
> just to have something to campaign on for the 2020 election.
Immigration blew up in their face, Trump's trade war is hitting the economy, and the housing crisis has yet to hit the majority of the middle class.

Abortion is a convenient straw man to drag out whenever the Republicans need a bogeyman. Ooo, look at the poor murdered bebbies!

As long as they're white, of course.
>>
>>395258
>Abortion is a convenient straw man to drag out whenever the Republicans need a bogeyman
Maybe if y'all would stop trying to legalizing killing babies in the 3rd trimester or "post-birth", it'd be less of a hot topic.
>>
>>395258
>Immigration blew up in their face, Trump's trade war is hitting the economy, and the housing crisis has yet to hit the majority of the middle class.
I seem to recall that a major Court ruling came out stating people wanting asylum could stay in Mexico, they didn't have to be allowed access to us.
And sure, stocks dropped about 4% this last week because of tightening tariffa, but it's still at an all-time high. Also unemployment is something like 50 year low
And houses are plentiful and selling quite well, home ownership among youth is increasing for the first time in a decade
So...
Your objectively full of shit and likely a demagogue
Just give it up already
>>
"When will atheism prevail? It’s a brainless pile of cells." Brainless??? You mean except for the bald head the size of Patrick Stewart's? Then there's the face & human body shape.
>>
>>395258
>Immigration blew up in their face, Trump's trade war is hitting the economy, and the housing crisis has yet to hit the majority of the middle class.
Are you people so scared of trumps lack of failure that you feel the need to repeat this easily falsified bullshit it every unrelated thread?
You people are a joke
>>
A fetus is unquestionably a human, a separate human from the mother. The real question is when is a human worth protecting?
>>
>>395268
this
saying a human fetus isnt human is the same as saying a human child isnt human nor is a human adult
a human fetus is a human hands down
the question is just as you said:objectively at what point and for what reasoning is it ok to take a human life?
>>
>>395258
It is also the only vector they have to attack the progressive wing of the democrats (Bernie and Warren).
Everything else does not work with the people because it's solid policy.
>>
>>395274
its like you people are unable to cope with the fact that unemployment is at a 50 year low, stock market is higher than ever, immigrants seeking asylum dont have to be allowed in the US anymore, and a fetus is objectively a human, than when people post easily falisfiable things like >>395258 and people refute it like >>395263 >>395267 >>395268 >>395273 all you can do is keep your retarded circle jerk going and try to jerk off your buddy instead of actually addressing anything that objectively makes you wrong
>>
>>395268
if it can't survive on its own outside the mother's body it is officially not a separate human. I mean at what point does it stop, do we start locking up every person for killing millions every time they nut on the floor?
>>
>>395246
Okay. So then explain to me
If a woman can kill a fetus, why can't she pluck the eyes out of a fetus? Why can't she torture or maim it. It's her body.
>>
>>395281
Simplifying your argument: if you require an external apparatus to sustain life functions, you're not human. So if you require a heart-lung machine, ventricular assist device or even a pace maker, you are not human since you'd die without their support. Do we also consider those in a coma not human, since they'll die without constant assistance?
>do we start locking up every person for killing millions every time they nut on the floor
Jizz isn't a zygote.
>>
>>395286
That's a false equivalency. A fetus is not and has never been capable of sustaining a human consciousness. Just because it might one day does not give it special status, because then again what difference is there between it and sperm? Both have the potential to one day become something capable of sustaining a human consciousness, but neither are yet capable of doing so. A person in a coma is already a fucking person with all that personhood entails and they have the potential to regain that again. It's totally different from something that has never been a person because it is not a person. You have to be born to be a person, you have to be able to survive and draw breath and form memories and experience things. None of that is even vaguely possible until at least 20 weeks into the pregnancy. I've studied this in depth with the latest neuroscience reading a ton of papers on the subject, it's just not possible to call anything a fetus has before that consciousness, most of the brain development in humans happens very late.
>>
>>395281
As far as I understand it
Sperm and ovum have half the genes. But those half of the genes are the same as the person. So your sperm has the same dna as you do.
But a fetus has different DNA. It's a distinctly different being with half the genes from the mother and half from the father.
And what republicans are saying is that once a heart beat can be detected it's protected.
>if it can't survive on its own outside the mother's body it is officially not a separate human.
What about 1 month olds. they can't survive without parents either. Are they not human?
>>
>>395291
>That's a false equivalency. A fetus is not and has never been capable of sustaining a human consciousness.
so if the true equivalency is being able to or having at one point been able to sustain human consciousness then I guess dead bodies are people and we are burying them without their consent
You fucking retard
>>
>>395291
good luck coming up with a rigorous definition of what is or is not human consciousness for your argument to hold weight because we haven't been able to do that the entire length of human history and without it your argument holds as much weight as saying a magic leprechaun grants people Humanity once they're born
>>
>>395276
Its a big friggin' hoax, though.
We're not really doing better. Shit's pretty stagnant and stats can be easily manipulated out of bias.
>>
>>395291
>That's a false equivalency. A fetus is not and has never been capable of sustaining a human consciousness.
But it will be able to host a consciousness. And if you look at the behaviour of 1 month olds they don't pass the mirror test until 18 months. 1 month olds don't pass most tests of consciousness. So are you in favor of post birth abortions? After all they're not really concious
>>
>>395291
>A fetus is not and has never been capable of sustaining a human consciousness. Just because it might one day does not give it special status,
How about a person who's asleep?
They don't host a conscious. As far as our testing we can't test that a sleeping human has anymore of a conscious then a sleeping cow. It will host a consciousness if not interrupted in time, but at that moment we can't prove that they are concious.
So. Should we be able to murder people who are asleep?
After all they may die in their sleep anyways, and not be able to host a consciousness.
Why is it okay to kill one and not another? Both will host a conciousness if left uninterrupted
>>
>>395274
>Socialism works
>>
>>395281
would you be able to survive if we cut you off from every social connection you have? would you be able to "live on your own"? no, you have to buy shit from people, you have to talk to people, you need others to survive. moot argument
>>
>>395293
>>395294
>>395297
>>395300
>>395304

You morons are all missing the fucking point. If we agree that it's okay to step on an ant or a dandelion and kill it, then it's not life that is important, it's PERSONHOOD. It is wrong to kill a PERSON. A dead body is not a person which is why we put it in the ground, a brain dead corpse being kept alive on life support is not a person which is why we put it in the ground. A week old zygote that a woman passes with her period is not a person which is why we put it in the trash. A baby is a person. You can interact with it, you can hold it, it won't die if it's not literally inside of you. The point at which a life becomes wrong to take it is the point at which a person comes into existence, ie at birth. Consciousness is only the most important factor for determining whether something is a person or not, but it's not the only one and getting caught up in bullshit like sleep shows how fucking stupid you are and how you're completely missing the point.
>>
>>395263
> And houses are plentiful and selling quite well
Bush claimed the same thing 6 months before the Recession. Then gas prices rose and triggered the cracks in the system.

Now gas prices are rising again. And just like lemmings, the millennials refuse to learn from the lessons of even 10 years ago. Go ahead and jump off that cliff. You've been warned.

> Unemployment is something like 50 year low
The surest sign that the government is trying to inflate consumer confidence is to drag out the u3 numbers and claim how good they are. Take a look at the u6. The only reason the unemployment is so low is that the formerly unemployed are running out of benefits, and taking lower paying, part time jobs just to survive.

And that's not even mentioning the trillion dollar loan debt that's waiting for a trigger to turn the economy.

The way I see it, the only hope the Republicans have is to hold the economy up until 2020, then blame the incoming Democrat. Just as the Red propaganda machine did in 2008.
>>
>>395300
>Should we be able to murder people who are asleep?

Democrats should live or die by the nonsense they spout.
>>
>>395258
The thing is about projection...you can see it from a mile away. Amazing really
>>
>>395316
>it's not life that is important, it's PERSONHOOD. It is wrong to kill a PERSON
We need a form a definition on what personhood is. All you are doing is shifting definitions around to avoid the fact that a zygote then turned fetus is a genetically separate human from the mother.
>A week old zygote that a woman passes with her period
If a zygote didn't take then it is a miscarriage, and natural abortions aren't what we're debating. We are talking about intentional abortions.
>A baby is a person. You can interact with it, you can hold it
You can interact with fetuses, they respond to you, people often talk and play music to them and touch them when they're kicking. They do remember sounds and people's voices from that time after they're born, and also develop taste from what their mom eats.
>it won't die if it's not literally inside of you
Are premature births not 'babies' to you? They rarely survive without intensive medical care simulating gestation that was missed. All babies will die fairly quickly without direct dependence from other humans, they lack even the necessary microbiome to digest food without getting it first from the birth canal and then breast milk over their first year. Also, have you heard of SIDS?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome

>the point at which a person comes into existence
They come into existence when they become a distinct biological being from their parents. All you're saying is that you think they're worth protecting only after birth. Newborns are largely no different for the first few months than when they were inside the last few months, and are actually more vulnerable and dependent post-birth as the mother's body isn't automating much of the burdens unconsciously anymore.
>Consciousness is only the most important factor for determining whether something is a person or not
What additional factors are necessary? Can other animals that appear to have consciousness be considered persons?
>>
>>395316
What if we change the rules to say that someone else isn't human. Like say black slaves. As long as we have a consensus, what's the problem? They're not a baby they're a fetus. They're not a person they're a slave
>>
>>395211
>You are terminating a life for your convenience.
Yes because forcing someone to be a parent is any better. All you pro lifers care about is hollow "moral" victories without any extensive thought beyond feels
>>
>>395399
Who is forcing them to have sex?
Less than 0.5% of abortions are because of rape. Seems like 99.5% of abortions aren't having someone force them to have a kid, it's them choosing to have sex. And sex leading to babies is one of those things known to happen
>>
The only kind of sex that should be legal is rough mating press with the intention of exploding putrid NEET semen into wombs for procreation purposes.
>>
>>395427
Look. Republicans are forcing people to be broke.
When I gamble all my money away at the casino, by not giving me more money you're forcing me to be broke
>>
>>395291
>A fetus is not and has never been capable of sustaining a human consciousness
how do you know that? Just because it can't talk to you doesn't mean it lacks consciousness, whatever that means, however rudimentary or underdeveloped. Downs syndrome patients and those in comas don't cognate on the same level as the rest of us, does that make them objects? Some kind of non-human animal fit to be treated as such?
>>
>>395211
Yeah but conservatives generally dont give a crap about what happens to a child after it is born
>>
>>395316
a person in a coma can come back, did they stop being a person and suddenly just gain personhood again? Where'd it go? Is it ok to kill them inbetween before they get re-personed?
>>
>>395461
they care about it having choices on schooling (ex charters), they care bout it getting taxed on its parents savings just because they died, and they care about them growing up in a country that they fit into, one doesn't hate them for being white or straight or male or religious in a way that isn't muslim or jewish or newage
>>
>>395461
Do you want this guy to be murdered?
>>395463
If you don't, will you pay for his food? Will you invite him into your home and provide him shelter?
Just because you don't want him to be murdered, it doesn't mean you have to pay his rent. That's his job. And if he's a child, that is his parents job, as the child is a responsibility of the parent and not the state.
>>
>>395481
>they care about it having choices on schooling (ex charters)
Charter schools are bullshit. They just expel their low-performing students and dump them on the public school system, then claim that their students are performing better.
>they care bout it getting taxed on its parents savings just because they died
Even before the estate tax was repealed, it didn't come into effect without a multi-million dollar estate. Most people would never pay the estate tax.
>and they care about them growing up in a country that they fit into, one doesn't hate them for being white or straight or male or religious in a way that isn't muslim or jewish or newage
But fuck everyone else, of course.
>>
>>395506
I'm not stating I'm in favor of any of those particular policies or ideas, merely that conservatives do care about babies after they're born, despite what pro choice advocates like to meme
>>
>>395443
This post is so truthful it hurts.
>>
>>395461
strawman

always great when a leftist pulls this one out, because it means they truly have no argument.
>>
>>395427
>What are contraceptives and birth control
Glad to see the cuckservatives are still living in ooga booga times when sex was for the Express purpose of procreation in the missionary position
>>
>>395427
>Who is forcing them to have sex?
Nobody because sex is a choice just like having a child is a choice of a woman
>>
>>395498
Here's the problem. Conservatives are dead set (pun, get it?) on viewing abortion from an imaginary person's perspective. Liberals are dead set on viewing abortion from a living person's perspective. Just like you said. you are not morally or legally required to pay for another person's food. You are not morally or legally required to provide shelter and invite another person into your home. Even if it saves their life. Absolutely even if it saves their life. Just like you are not legally or morally required to donate your organs. Just like you are not legally or morally required to donate your blood. Think about how many lives you could save if that shit was mandatory? Do you think about those "murdered" individuals? Of course you fucking don't. So why give a shit about the idea of a baby? Body autonomy over all else. The baby needs to be given permission to have access to a person's body. Just like a stranger needs to be given your permission to have access to your body. If permission is not given, that's that. Even if the stranger/baby dies, it's no skin off your nose. All this emotionally driven high-ground bullshit needs to fuck off. The discussion begins and ends at autonomy.
>>
>>395512
Yes. You can use birth control.
I don't get it. How is this forcing women to have children?
>>
>>395515
And so if you choose to leave a baby in a cradle and it starves to death, what happens? Is there any consequences? It's their choice if they want to raise a child right?
>>
>>395518
How exactly are these examples correlated in any form?
>>
>>395516
Because if you murder your children you get thrown in jail
It's not a hypothetical. They're growing up in your uterus and have a heart beat.
It's not a stranger, it's your child. Half the DNA is yours. The other half is the father of the child. It's not a stranger. It's your child, and you're responsible for that child.
If you don't give food to a man on the street and he starves you're not responsible. If you don't give food to your kids when they starve to death you are. Because they're your children. They only exist because you chose to have sex with a man. And sex leading to babies is one of those things that is known to happen. When you have sex with a man and don't use birth control you're deciding to take on the potential of raising a child. That's biology.
>>
>>395520
It's women choosing whether or not they raise the child.
They can just decide not to raise a child. Post birth abortions
>>
Just let them do what they want with their own body.
>>
>>395524
And some people don't want to deal with that. Babies are as natural as anything else living people don't want to deal with that technological advancements have allowed us to change to improve living people's lives. Body autonomy. Beginning and end. You will not guilt me into living a lifestyle I am not interested in living. Sorry.
>>
>>395527
Is that how it works? If you don't want to deal with your kids you can just murder them?
If you don't want to deal with consent you can just rape people?
>>
>>395525
>They can just decide not to raise a child. Post birth abortions
Why should a woman Have to carry a child 9 months if they don't want to raise it or give birth?

>because they have sex :D
That doesn't answer the question
>>
>>395531
Good thing a fetus isn't a kid
>>
>>395526
it's not their own body tho, it's someone else's body
>>
>>395531
Sure, if that's the bizarro world you live in where apples are oranges and oranges are apples. My body, my choice. That's person's body, that person's choice. The clump of cells growing in my body doesn't have a say when it is actively using my resources against my will. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if another person was using your resources against your will. If your only argument is biology, then you shouldn't have a say either, as a man, since you can't fathom the same concept on the same level. But there's a term you guys have for when something's taking what you have while you can't do anything about it. It's on the tip of my tongue... what is it... I think it starts with "c" and ends in "ucking". Or something. I can't really be sure.
>>
>>395527
People in 1850 didn't want to deal with working. So they just enslaved other people
It was legal. They weren't real people at the time according to the law.
Was that right?
Were abolitionists wrong for trying to guilt people into a lifestyle they weren't interested in living, of not having slaves?
>>
>>395532
Why should a woman have to raise a child for 18 years if they don't want to raise it?
Why can't they just murder the child when they're 11 months old?
>>
>>395541
Is it your body? Or someone else's. Because it seems like that fetus has different DNA than you do. And it's own heart beat.
>>
>>395542
No, because they changed the entirety of society to meet their views and immensely improved the lives of slaves as free men. When we have a respectable foster system and a healthy cultural view of single mothers/single fathers/foster parents, then maybe I'll happily carry a child to term and give it up for adoption. I think this is the argument you're making? It's hard to tell because, again, apples =/= oranges. Sorry.
>>
>>395545
Again, using my resources without my consent, it can fuck off. You're making the exact argument that bike cuck comic was making. "It's okay that I got a lot sadder because my resources were stolen, but I got a little happier knowing someone who stole my resources is happier!" Imagine arguing for the rights of a thief to steal. For the rights of a rapist to rape lmao
>>
>>395546
In both cases you're saying that a human isn't human. It's entirely the same question
There are 26 couples waiting for a baby for every baby put up for adoption
There is a lot of couples out there wanting children.
I would say that stopping the abortion of a child would incredibly improve the life of that child, by giving it a life to live. We opposed to having no life.
Which is why the solution to slavery wasn't murdering all the slaves.
>>
>>395548
Okay. So children after you're born are using your resources too.
Why is it not okay to murder your 11th month old when it's out of your body, but okay to do so when it is?
>>
>>395540
But it is their body.
>>
>>395548
what a subhuman way of thinking. dont reproduce please
>>
>>395549
You're either deeply misinformed or blatantly. Either way, it doesn't disprove my point.
https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics
>428k in adoption a year
>135k get adopted a year
If just a little over 1/4th of all foster kids actually get adopted and there are 26 couples waiting for a baby for every baby put into adoption, it doesn't sound like the system is working, right? See my first point. I'd love to see your sources on the 26 couples part btw.
And again, apples and oranges. Slaves were already living humans stolen and enslaved by others, so defending slaves as human beings is more in line with my argument, than, say, your argument.
>>
>>395544
Are you being retarded on purpose?
>>
>>395550
Because at that point, the 11 month old actually occupies space in the world outside of a direct parasitic relationship with their parent. At that point, the parent has committed to the child and WANTS to keep them alive as opposed to HAS to keep them alive, on a pure biological level. Can you really not tell the difference between a one week to seven week abortion and an eleven month old? This is the most baffling argument anti-choice people make to me.

>>395553
That's the plan, bud. I'd like to keep it that way without you getting in my business. Thanks.
>>
>>395550
>Why is it not okay to murder your 11th month old when it's out of your body, but okay to do so when it is?
Because an 11th month old baby and a fetus are two completely different things with two completely different circumstances as well as definitions. You don't look at a child and call it a 19 month old fetus do you?

This isn't rocket science I don't know why you keep wording this question like this either
>>
>>395557
Both cases they rely on their mother.
If you leave the house to go party for spring break and leave your child in a cradle it will die.
>>
>>395552
So then why does it have different DNA?
My arm is part of my body. It doesn't have it's own heart beat nor is it genetically different from the rest of me
>>
>>395563
>Both cases they rely on their mother.
So what? They're still two completely, utterly, different things why do you keep trying to reduce it to fit these analogies?
>>
If you're pro life I really hope you're anti-masturbation
>>
>>395555
https://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/09/thirty-six-couples-wait-for-every-one-baby-who-is-adopted/

If you are pregnant and considering adoption for your unborn baby, it will be up to you to choose the perfect adoptive parents to raise your child. But, as you scroll through the profiles of hundreds of families waiting to adopt, you may feel overwhelmed by your options. How will I find the perfect family waiting to adopt? Are there many options out there for me? Just how many families are looking to adopt?

It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.

Consider this: about 10 percent of women in the United States — 6.1 million — have difficulty getting or staying pregnant. While not all women facing infertility will pursue adoption, a 2002 study by the Centers for Disease Control shows that more than half (57 percent) of women who use infertility services do consider adoption.

In addition, these numbers do not take into account how many parents want to adopt for reasons other than infertility. Many more hopeful parents choose to grow their families through adoption, whether they are unmarried individuals, members of the LGBT community, or anyone else who feels that they are meant to adopt.

In fact, according to the Donaldson Adoption Institute, about 81.5 million Americans have considered adopting a child at one time in their lives. That’s about 40 percent of all U.S. adults, up from 36 percent in 1997. It’s a statistic that will likely continue to grow as more Americans understand how beautiful adoption can be. While many of these people will not actually complete the adoption process, these numbers clearly demonstrate that there are a significant number of loving families who are interested in adoption.
>>
>>395570
Very nice. See? This is an argument I can get behind! Guarantee my health and safety and financial stability when I inevitably have to take time off from work when the pregnancy becomes physically too much for me, and I'll be more than happy to help one of those 36 couples. Until then? Sorry, I'm going to think of me first. Call me selfish. In the realm of not-so-science-fiction though, I can't wait until we can grow abortions in lamb stomachs and put those up for adoption. Eventually, technological advancements will lead to a wonderful compromise and make this entire debate even more meaningless than it already is.
>>
>>395570
>a 2002 study by the Centers for Disease Control shows that more than half (57 percent) of women who use infertility services do consider adoption.
Not him
So Abortion would benefit the thousands of children in the system and reduce the strain on the government?
>>
>>395564
Does your arm have different dna?
>>
>>395558
>direct parasitic relationship
It is not a parasitic relationship, it's mutualistic or at worst communalistic.
>WANTS to keep them alive as opposed to HAS
You could say that about a child's entire life. Several points in time and place in human history killing or abandoning your children was a socially acceptable option. In the West it wasn't even that long ago that this was a fact.
>>
>>395566
Sperm aren't mini humans, they're just specialized cells of a man until one combines with the other specialized cell of a woman. At that point it's a different entity than either the sperm or ovum that made it.
>>
>>395584
So? Do you know how many thousands of potential mini humans you'd kill just for five seconds of pleasure?
>>
>>395206
You joke, this is unironically why the left supports abortion, the massive corporations that control them use developing human tissue for a multitude of unethical practices that would be banned if serious legislation was passed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC123709/
https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/fetalproductsall.pdf

Useful retards known as 'the left' cannot help themselves from slobbering over their favorite corporate entities and simply move in lockstep with whatever they recommend, abortion was just one of those issues. Note this snopes article where the argument against fetal tissue being used to test food additives is instead strawmanned into "THEY'RE PUTTIN' IT IN THE FOOD" (a claim no one made and was created for the purposes of putting a big fat 'False' at the top so dumbshits don't read into it further than 'The groupmind told you to love it, so you must love it'.)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/senomyx-flavor-additive/
>>
>>395595
Sperm have a half life within the body as well and only 1, or rarely 2, of the millions ejaculated will ever fertilize an egg. So no matter what you do you can't satisfy the strawman that you are trying to push. Even a saint who never masturbates would still waste sperm. Additionally any time a woman has her period would also fall under this category as that is a wasted egg. It makes sense to say that zygote on is where to draw the line as that avoids the need for pedophilia
>>
>>395595
There is no potential unless there are egg cells floating in my onahole, the magic zygote is able to latch on to the insides of the onahole, and the onahole is able to support gestation. Until then masturbation is just expelling my own DNA for pleasure.
>>
>>395604
So? That doesn't change the fact that more masturbation directly leads to less children because you're getting rid of the sperm cells that are capable of fertilizing. Why wouldn't you want to keep your population's fertilization chances as high as possible?

>>395608
>There is no potential
I didn't realize humans were asexual
>>
>>395604
>So no matter what you do you can't satisfy the strawman that you are trying to push.
Oh shit, it's almost like the entire argument of capacity and potential is retarded to begin with.
>>
>>395595
Gametes by themselves can only ever be single-celled clones of their parent. Only when combined into a zygote do they become unique individuals.
>>
>>395609
Have you ever been to a sex ed class in your life? That's not how sperm cells work.
>>
>>395566
>If you're pro life I really hope you're pro-vasectomy
FTFY
Mandatory vasectomy for males at puberty would be the best solution if we really wanted to kill abortions but this is another flawed bill that's gonna get torpedoed in the next 5 years or so

A vasectomy completely nullifies the chances of an unwanted pregnancy and is a process that is reversible. Criminalize not telling your partner you are capable of having children the same way we criminalize not informing your partner of an STD. Really it's quite simple but this law is entirely based on muh feels, bible thumpers, outdated thinking from several decades ago, and the state of a country where women are a minority in terms of representation in lawmaking and government
>>
>>395612
Great let's constantly allow uncountable fertile sperm cells to never reach their full potential for no reason and curtail population growth. It isn't like birth rates keep falling. This is fine.
>>
So women are more important than men in birth but they're not allowed to have a say as to if they want to carry a fetus and undergo extreme biological changes? What's next you'll tax them without representation?

[emoji]thinking[/thinking]
>>
>>395609
>getting rid of the sperm cells that are capable of fertilizing.
That only makes sense if you were going to have sex for procreation and you intentionally masturbate beforehand so you had less sperm and less chance of fertilizing the egg.
In the story that's oft mentioned in masturbation discussions, Onan had a duty to impregnate his sister-in-law but always pulled out since the kid would be raised like it was his dead older bother's. God wasn't happy about that and killed him for rebelling, not masturbating. So if you're rebelling by fapping or pulling out to reduce your chances of being the father when you're supposed to be the father, you're fucked.
>>
>>395619
>that only makes sense if you were going to have sex for procreation and you intentionally masturbate beforehand so you had less sperm and less chance of fertilizing the egg.
From your reasoning, intent is the king here. So if a woman doesn't intend to have the child, she's fine.
>in the story that oft mentioned in masturbation discussions
The story that no one thus far as used and has no bearing on US law because of its religious context?
>>
>>395575
No.
It's the same as me
It's not a distinct organism, it is my body
>>
>>395572
Why don't you just not have sex without birth control, when you don't want to raise a kid?
>>
>>395573
Yes. There's not enough children though
Which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.
>>
>>395595
>>395609
See
>>395300
Fetuses are human beings in time.
If you have a person who is asleep, if you do nothing he will wake up, and become conscious.
If you have a fetus, and do nothing, it will be born and become conscious.
If you have sperm in your balls, and do nothing, it doesn't become a person.
>>
>>395300
> How about a person who's asleep?
> They don't host a conscious.
They absolutely do. Your brain is still very active while you're asleep, it's just focusing on itself more than on the rest of the body. The idea that sleep is the same thing as inactivity is just wrong.
>>
>>395630
>From your reasoning, intent is the king here.
In regards to the train of thought of the anon that bought up masturbation and potential fertilization, yes. And only in that regard since this is a side discussion to the abortion topic. I think this tangent is retarded since sperm aren't mini humans, but we're already here so might as well run with it.
>The story
When masturbation is brought up in a "fapping kills gorillian babies" context, it's usually based on religious, superstitious or pseudoscientific beliefs so I felt it was interesting to bring up since it sometimes comes up as a argument against masturbation. Ignore it if you want.
>>
>>395647
Okay.
So how can we test to prove that a human is conscious while sleeping, compared to the brain of a cow?
Or the brain of a Pig?
>>
>>395524
>It's not a stranger, it's your child. Half the DNA is yours. The other half is the father of the child. It's not a stranger. It's your child

Since when did conservatives start using appeals to emotion.

It's a child, sure. I don't give a fuck. It's not mine and what it will grow up to be if forced to be born unto a negligent mother who will hate it ismost likely a criminal piece of shit. Or are you going to personally police every parent to make sure they're raising it right. Hey lets set up a branch of the government to do that, because surely some form of protective service for children couldn't fail to save children who need to be taken away from abusive pare- OH WAIT A MINUTE
>>
Ok, abortions are illegal, but fathers are forced to not drink or smoke, maintain restriced activities and take hormone supplements to make them utterly fucking horrendous to be around, for the complete length of the pregnancy. Afterwards he will pay the required child support, not until the child is eighteen, but for as long as that child chooses to live with his or her mother. If the kid is a NEET piece of shit, buck the fuck up for child support well into its thirties/forties/until its energy drink and cheeto fueled heart failure. He will also only work as many hours a week as the mother does. Not only that, but the father is required to pay half the cost of any medical treatments on top of their child support. If the mother chooses to breastfeed he is required to wear one of those fake tit things that allows him to faux-breastfeed and must do this in public if the mother breast-feeds in public as well.

This is fair now. Or do you have a problem when you're expected to do something other than just go HEY CHAMP every now and then to your kid.
>>
>>395643
A sperm is literally a human being with time and effort. How is that supposed to be a arguement for the devaluation we have of sperm?
>>
They need to do way instain mother
>>
>>395688
>It's not mine
It is though
What are you talking about.
It's not a stranger it's literally your child, and you have an obligation to your children
>>
>>395697
It's not though.
If I go about my day, that sperm won't become a child
If a woman goes about her day with a fetus in under 9 months she will give birth to it
>>
>>395688
Anon stop how will our prison economy survive of we don't have poor, angry, stupid people?
>>
>>395609
Sperm cells die regardless of whether you masturbate or not. To extend your logic, you would need to support pedophilia to maximize fertilization chances. You aren't a pedophile, are you?
>>
>>395702
Where did that fetus come from?
What part of humans not being asexual don't you understand? What is the retardation in protecting a single part of our reproductive process but leaving the rest up to whim?

>muh abortion is murder!
I don't give a shit either go all in or don't. This is a waste of an opportunity that's only going to serve to keep our reproductive economy in tatters as our birth rates drop
>>
>>395695
>Ok, abortions are illegal, but fathers are forced to not drink or smoke, maintain restriced activities and take hormone supplements to make them utterly fucking horrendous to be around, for the complete length of the pregnancy.
Men aren't women
Men and women have different biology
We are not capable of making men women, or women men. The differences in the sexes exist.
>>
>>395565
It's a valid argument and the crux of the matter. At what point is the fetus a human being? Is a 7-month old premature baby a human being? What about the 9-month old that's still in the mother's uterus? Based on the quotes in the OP's post, that 9-month old baby is still a part of the woman's body, thus it's the mother's property and she can do whatever she wants to it.
>>
>>395653
Imagine still talking about killing imaginary babies like a fetus and sperm instead of addressing the part where I specifically moved on from hyperbole and talked about maximizing fertility at all times
>>
>>395711
Yes anon a fetus is the same thing as a birthed child. I don't see any difference with this smear of cells and that 20 pound shit factory. I don't see any differences between the needs and wants of each, their cognitive functions, or the biology of the mother. I agree.
>>
>>395706
How fertile are we talking anon hahaha.
what age is optimal hahaha.
Pedophilia is wrong
>>
>>395715
>Yes anon a fetus is the same thing as a birthed child.
A child can be birthed at 5-months and live. A child can still be in the uterus at 9-months. According to OP's post, that 5-month-old is more of a human than the 9-month-old, which isn't a human being, but still a part of the mother's body. Does that really make sense to you?
>>
>>395723
Absolutely a birthed child is a completely different classification and creature than a fucking fetus
>>
>>395706
No you don't. I'm not retarded like Gerogians and think you have to go to the nuclear option to get something done.
>>
autism??
>>
>>395698
It was on the news this mroing
>>
>>395726
How so? That "fucking fetus" has been developing for four months longer than the premature baby.
>>
>>395723
So basically...

(fertilization)-------------> (5-months gestation) - born prematurely = not okay to murder
(fertilization)-------------> (5-months gestation) ---------> (9-months gestation) - still in utero = okay to murder
>>
>>395715
If they have a heartbeat, they're not a smear of cells
>>
>>395709
So then an issue that affects women more should be decided more by women? Or is there a problem with that too.
>>
>>395769
>So then an issue that affects women more should be decided more by women? Or is there a problem with that too.
Sure, so long as you apply the same standard to men. If you don't want men voting on abortion, you wouldn't want women voting on war, given the soldiers on the front lines are almost all men
>>
>>395771
men are way more likely to send men to war than women are

if you want our boys in khaki to die in masse so there are more women for you, this would be a good idea, but if you want them to stay alive you have a strong interest in making sure that women are able to vote on it
>>
>>395772
The obvious reply would be
>if you want them to stay alive you have a strong interest in making sure that women are able to vote on it
If you want girls in the womb to stay alive, you have a strong interest in making sure that men are able to vote on it.
Going back to square one.
>>
my pary are with the father
>>
>>395639
Accidents happen.
>>
>>395192
I'll support limiting abortions once conservatives start supporting the social programs that prevent these unwanted babies from becoming criminals. Being pro-birth is not a social policy, its a personal principal. Either they start giving a shit about people after they're born or right wingers should have no say what happens to fetuses.
>>
>All this support for big brother government
Yes pls more government
Bigger
Unf
BIGGER!
>>
>>395316
You're still dancing around the fact that abortion kills a being which has the capacity to become a human child, and treating it as if it was a toenail or hair follicle, all for the sake of convenience. Animals which are considered non-sentient have more rights than a fetus does at this point.
>>
>>395810
Contemplate the concept that not only is forcing human beings against their will to remain pregnant for the sake of ideological/evangelical principal is not only creepy as fuck but an insanely inefficient and, ultimately, cruel prospect when you consider that the failing business of caring for unwanted children comes with a price tag of hundreds of billions of dollars. Consider the possibility that the people who occupy this planet here and now should have more of a say in what happens to them and their bodies than lumps of genetic material that have neither thoughts, feelings or consciousness.
>>
>>395818
Nobody is forcing them to do anything. The predictable consequence of sex is children, and killing an unborn child is an indefensible position outside of health complications. Whether or not a fetus is a part of a mother's body is irrelevant, considering that there are definite laws which restrict what a person can do with their body.
>>
>>395823
That's great. Nobody gives a shit. You want to force people to carry? Provide for them and guarantee a good life for the child. It is cruel and irresponsible to bring a child into the world when no one is prepared for it,
>>
>>395823
>have sex with condom
>condom breaks
>”oh well guess I have to carry to term”

And it’s not an unborn child it’s a clump of cells.
>>
>>395192
Everybody who is so keen on preserving the life of these “unborn children” should be forced to care for em when they care birthed. If you cared for them then, then you’ll have to care for em throughout their life.
>>
>>395320
>unemployment benefits are cut
>more people work
That’s a good thing parasite
>>
>>395265
Why do boomers type like underage retards, or why do they come to this site is beyond me.
>>
>>395826
You are technically a clump of cells too.
>>
I look at it this way. So many people (often leftists) get so incredibly angry after seeing birds and animals either killed, tested on, eaten (killed), made into clothing, etc. But yet they seem ok with terminating a child inside a mother's body. Stop the double standards. Are people more important then animals? Do you feel as though you are a murderer if you step on an ant and thus you deserve the punishment of such a crime? Or do you forget about it and think "its only an ant." Are people the same? Can one truly forget about it and say "its only an unborn child" and not have it be entirely immoral and quite frankly evil? I understand there are many complications to this however. I understand that things go wrong and maybe you dont wan to go through pregnancy based on an accident. Or based on something worse like rape..but it comes to a point where you must then live with your problems (or blessing as some may view it in the future) or live with yourself after ending the life of a child. A child who had endless and unlimited potential. A child who could have been president of a country. A child who could have been a professional sports player. Or singer. Or actor. Or maybe just a genuine loving person who maybe wasnt successful...but that the child was a good person. You must live with yourself knowing...that although the situations weren't great...and although financially, mentally, emotionally, and physically you weren't prepared..you still ended what was truly endless potential. What is murder anyway..?
>>
>>395276
I wouldn't call having people work 3 jobs just to stay afloat a great situation. Stock market is not really a reflection how middle class and low class is doing...
>>
>>395517
Abstinence is the only method with 100% accuracy.
>>
>>395882
Also blowjobs, handjobs, footjobs, anal, rimming, most BDSM play.
>>
>>395825
Then don't have sex.
>>
>>395885
No.
>>
>>395849
But I’m a person and it is not. I think and it cannot. I have intention and it does not. I am physically independent and it is dependent on another. I can act out my will and it cannot. What makes a person anyways?
>>
>>395516
Hi.
The permission you give to that baby is sexual intercourse.
Fucking idiot.

Sex = babies.
No sex, no pregnancy. or SAFE sex, less chance. But people want all of life's pleasures with none of it's reality. I hate this planet.
>>
>>395887
Then take responsibility for your actions.
>>
>>395889
You're forgetting the key word in this context: "yet"
"I think and it can not, yet." "I have intention and it does not, yet (though I would argue, the babies intention is to fucking survive, but what would i know, i was never a baby!)
And were you never dependent on your mother? I think we should post-birth abort you as reparations.
>>
>>395869
My sister, my boyfriend's sister and mother have had them. Early, less than 3 months, but still enough to hold and see your dead child in a cup. It was traumatic for his mom because she already had 2 kids, she said she could see its eyes and little body forming. It's really sad.
>>
>>395891
I will. By getting an abortion. Die mad about it.
>>
>>395890
Lol no. People had methods of inducing abortions even millennia ago. Also you don't account for accidents. If I don't want kids, I won't have kids. I'm not a vessel for a baby. I'm a living human who will not make way for the concept of one. I also really, really like to fuck. Die mad about it.
>>
>>395892
>yet
>*yeet

So when does it become a person? The moment a sperm and egg collide? 5 minutes after?
>And were you never dependent on your mother?
Ain’t denying that. Just saying that the diff between me and a clump of cells is that one can survive without a host. The other will simply biodegrade. Besides, if’n my mother got an abortion, I wouldn’t have existed to know it.
>>
>>395320
>The only reason the unemployment is so low is that the formerly unemployed are running out of benefits, and taking lower paying, part time jobs just to survive.

Thats a good thing. Your fight should be making sure the switch isn't a huge cliff where its better to stay on welfare.
>>
>>395869
Did you just step out a fucking time portal from 1920?
>>
>>395818
>Consider the possibility that the people who occupy this planet here and now should have more of a say in what happens to them and their bodies than lumps of genetic material that have neither thoughts, feelings or consciousness.
A fetus shows brain activity by the 6-week-mark.

>>395826
Morning after pill?
>>
>>395924
Yes.
>>
>>395924
>>396027
Can you tell me where to find it? I want to escape this fucking progressive nightmare.
>>
>>395688
>It's a child, sure. I don't give a fuck. It's not mine
Leftists confirmed to believe in the stork, ITT
>>
I don't understand why people think terminating pregnancy is such an easy thing to do. My wife, who was my fiance at the time, would have died from the complications of her pregnancy. I'm glad we could abort. Sucks, but I would still choose my wife everytime over that. She was devastated after it and it really fucked her up, but we both moved on. I wouldn't trust republicans to make correct decisions about abortion if they're going to want to gut social services too.
>>
>>395276
I wish people would stop saying unemployment is low because of Trump. It's so childish to believe anyone's economic policies have an effect that quickly. You're really seeing late-term Obama-era shit if anything.
>>
Off topic tho
>>
Are you ok with throwing birds nests off of trees? Cutting down trees that have eggs in them? Are you ok with stepping on turtles eggs? Most of you females would barf out your butt if you saw someone do this..and if you are ok with that..well then you are truly sick. Kill a grown man. You get the death penalty. Kill a baby, you deserve to die. Right? You are sickening. It's not your body. It's not your choice. Live with it and get financial help if you need it. There are organizations specifically for emotional and physical aid during pregnancy. Then give the baby to a family who will raise it and love it.
>>
>>396074
> t. incel who didn't read any of the previous discussion and came to sealion
>>
>>396105
>t. mentally ill person who cares more about the lives of animals than people
>>
To lady to rest
>>
>>396060
>I don't understand why people think terminating pregnancy is such an easy thing to do.
I think it is for some people. I've known some of them. It's a little disturbing that it was such a minor thing for them. The response of your wife sounds like the normal reaction of a decent human being, and you both had a legitimate reason for choosing abortion (i.e. you didn't just do it because a kid would be inconvenient).
>>
>>396171
That's the thing. Theres a never a legitimate time to do it. Yes birth can be life threatening. And that sucks big time. It hurts and it's so saddening. One of freinds sister died giving birth. But she believed that even if it was life threatening, that it was her duty to try and see her child get a chance to live. Many things are worth dying for. Bringing a child into this world is. I understand you may chose your wife over your child. And you guys can always give it another try. A second chance. But that child doesnt get a second chance. Doesnt get a second try. That's what's even more saddening. I'd die for someone I love who's living as an adult. I'd die for my child who's living...but unborn.
>>
>>395889
Half of the things you listed are not true for a very large majority of grown adults. If you want to dig into the bedrock of what makes a human "human" then you will invariably reach a point where the line is drawn well after pregnancy.
>>
>>395947
>A fetus shows brain activity by the 6-week-mark.
Source?
>>
>>396188
>Theres a never a legitimate time to do it.
That seems extreme. There's instances where trying to carry the baby will likely kill both the mother and child. Better for one to live with certainty than both to die with almost certainty, yes?

>I'd die for my child who's living...but unborn.
Would you die for a parent? Would you want a parent to die for you? Would you prefer your parents to be dead with you when they could have continued living?
>>
>>395615
>A vasectomy completely nullifies the chances of an unwanted pregnancy
you say that, but they can reverse themselves
>>
>>395723
>according to this, a 5 month old birthed child is classified as more human than a 9 month old in the womb, does this make sense to you?
>>395726
>yes, because that is how it is classified

google "tautology"
>>
>>395947
Pills can fail. Then what? Abortion only occurs when the mother to be realizes she’s conceived but doesn’t want to carry to term. This can happen despite precautions being taken. Abortion is a last resort - I doubt people go to great lengths just to terminate it.
>>
>>396210
Sorites paradox. When does a zygote turn into a human? When does a human turn into a person? I mean, pro-lifers and the church consider a zygote a human from that point on, but it’s no different from the other cells in our body. The potential for a human to emerge form the zygote shouldn’t matter, as the zygote can easily self-terminate by itself, without human intervention. As the zygote develops into a embryo, the viability of it increases. As such the cutoff period for an abortion in law is usually around this point, the first trimester, if I’m not mistaken. Until science gets a better definition of when life in the womb starts, I’ll have to agree for now with the legal definition.
>>
>>396235
There is no question of whether or not a human zygote is human, or a human is a person. It's just a matter of determining when you think it's acceptable to terminate that life, and the metric you use to justify that decision.

Democrats seem to operate under the notion that the mother should be given the right to terminate a child regardless of term, and Republicans think that's morally reprehensible, but at the end of the day there is no meaningful distinction between late and early term abortions outside of social taboos. This argument is more about whether or not people should treat children as physical property rather than individuals, which is a treacherous fucking path to tread.
>>
>>395291
>A person in a coma is already a fucking person with all that personhood entails and they have the potential to regain that again.
A person in a womb is already a fucking person with all that personhood entails and they have the potential to gain that.
>>
abortion should be legal up to age five
>>
>>396240
women are too dumb to make those kinds of decisions responsibly, only the father should be allowed to decide on abortions. girls can decide what color the curtains are or some other unimportant shit that nobody cares about
>>
>>395192

jews doing jew shit talking to distract everyone from real problems. .
>>
>>396228
Can you show me in a medical journal where a human fetus is not classified as human until birth?
>>
>>396240
If I terminate my 8 year old child then that's just a late abortion.
>>
>>396243
Correct.
>>
>>396247
If men were the sex to give birth there would be 99.99999% less abortions
>>
>>395527
not him but I'm pro choice, and I can't stand when you fags delude yourselves into thinking you aren't killing your child for your convenience. It's ok to do that, just be honest that you're an irresponsible fuckup
>>
>>395536
too bad it is
>>
>>395541
>using resources against my will
are you aware the humans are designed to gestate babies? They aren't ticks, they don't have the means to forcibly extract resources from you, your body is consensually giving the baby nutrients, just as you consensually let someone else give you the cum to make it. You made the choice to potentially have the baby, now it's a done deal. If you're irresponsible and would rather kill it to keep having fun, fine, I'm pro choice, you can even delude others about your choice if you want but at least be honest to yourself
>>
>>396384
Don't even try arguing with these idiots
They would argue that they went through the process of buying a car, and now that they are stuck with it it's using gasoline against their will
>>
>>395560
>they're different
no they aren't. A 7 month old premie can survive outside their parent, and a 10month late birth can still be inside. The only difference is how the mother gives them food, blood vs milk.
>>
>>395276
20% of the population own 94% of all stocks, it means nothing to the vast majority of the population
>>
>>396408
i make 60k a year and my stocks have been making me about 5-6k a year, so i really like them.
most unemployed welfare queens like you dont realize that people also have 401k's or ira's in their retirement fund, and those are managed and grow by stock investing as well
>>
>>396060
>I don't understand why people think terminating pregnancy is such an easy thing to do
Murdering your wife also isn't an easy thing to do either
I'm sure it was a very difficult decision for most first degree murderers.
Doesn't mean it's right
>>
>>396232
If the pill fails and the condom fails and the 99% effective birth control method and 95% effective birth control method fail, perhaps you should understand the 1 in 1000 odds are some kind of sign
>>
>>396235
>but it’s no different from the other cells in our body.
Except it has entirely different DNA and is thus unlike any other cell in our body.
>>
>>396452
you must not realize that half of a fetus's DNA is the mothers and the other half is generally the person she decided to have sex with
>>
>>396448
>i make 60k a year
Solidly in the top 40% of household income with your income alone and over
twice the median income of the average individual.
>welfare queens
Imagine being a brainlet that believes in myths. It might be a little much for you to understand, but nearly all welfare in the US requires you to work or be told to fuck off. No one is buying lobster with their SNAP cards, smoothbrain.
>>
>>396458
Look when you combine the chromosomes it's not like the bottom half is the woman and the top half is the man's.
It's a different structure using the
Whatever
The DNA is not like any of your other cells because it's not you or the father, it's a mix of the two forming a new person
>>
>>395192
I understand what she's trying to say but oh boy, she's gonna regret that choice of words for years to come.
>>
>>396377
Keep singing that tune when your condoms break and your pills expire
>>
>>396451
I don’t need a sign and I don’t need a baby.
>>
>>396496
>but it’s no different from the other cells in our body.
What I meant by that is that it’s a living cell just like any other. It’s unique DNA doesn’t make it any more special.
>>
>>396615
All of your other cells are totipotent with virtually limitless capacity to self renew?
>>
>hah! so dead bodies are alive?!
>if genetic material can become a human at any point then obviously it's human at all times!
>you think month old babies aren't human because they don't recognize themselves in a mirror!
>ok so then when people go to sleep their, like, consciousness vanishes or something so they're no longer humans
>SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS infants born with birth defects, temporary illnesses, or no verifiable problems whatsoever aren't human because they need outside help to survive!
Last and certainly least:
>you need resources and assistance outside yourself to live comfortably so if I deprive you of those things then you're no longer a human! gatcha!
Hahaha, holy shit. I honestly can't tell if some of you are comedic geniuses or if you should be forced to wear a helmet at all times
>>
>>396610
Uh.
I will
Because I have sex with my girlfriend and not random thots?
>>
>>396611
Well, when the abortion fails, and you suffocate your baby to death after it's born, you'll be able to live your life without a baby
>>
>>396467
Making 60k literally just requires not being a lazy fuck. You can do it easily with a high school diploma, a year of trade school and a few years of work in your field.
>>
>>396451
>perhaps you should understand the 1 in 1000 odds are some kind of sign

Oh fuck off. There's a one in a billion chance that I was the sperm that my dad shot into my mother, you should consider the billion to one odds that I'm here to tell you to fuck yourself with the end of a rifle and discharge it into the underside of your stomach as a sign to do it you fucking mental midget.
>>
>>396627
lol
>>
>>396628
You would still be you if you were those other billion sperm cells
>>
>>396617
>what are stem cells
>what is bone marrow(?)
I mean, people inject that shit into their skin for a beauty makeover
>>
>>396622
You were wearing a condom and taking pills for a reason. If you wanted a baby at all you wouldn’t have taken those prophylaxis(es). But to those who do, and still suffer from failures, what else can they do?
>>
>>396624
Why go so far? Abortion’ll deal with it all
>>
>>396638
I’d be the first man on mars instead of staying on this godforsaken board. So no, I wouldn’t be the same me
>>
>>396835
It's the same thing.
>>
>>396638
That's not how that works anon. Hell, that's why you can make a girl or a boy. The individual sperms are that different.
>>
>>396832
It doesn't last.
>>
>>396852
Yes. But if you have blonde or brown hair, brown or blue eyes. You'd be the same person
>>
>>395192
You know, he's actually right.
>>
>>396832
>what are stem cells
Adult stem cells are multi/unipotent due to heavy fate restriction. Bone marrow contains HSCs which replenishes blood. These cells are not totipotent

>people inject it
And they are retarded to do so. At best it does nothing and at worst they get a tumor. Just get botox
>>
>>396856
You don't understand how an individual sperm cell can form a completely different person. It's not like they're all exact genetic reflections of each other with the only difference being gender.
>>
The acceptable abortion is chopping off your balls. Other than that, its murder.
>>
>>396853
>>396870
You miss my point. I say that the zygote is no more special that the stem cells we use for mundane purposes, like face lifts. Why so special a distinction?
>>
>>396942
the ratio of men chopping off their balls should be equal to women chopping off a fetus, going by philosophical outside perspective perhaps, but its not, go figure. hmm, maybe im just be rhetorical somewhat idk
>>
why do consecutive's want so many black babies? this mainly affects niggets
>>
why do demicanton's want so many dead babies? This mainly affects infanticiders
>>
Why do Democrats and Republicans want more debates on CNN? This mostly effects their ratings
>>
>>395246
They're not talking about a fetus. I'm okay with fetal abortion. They're talking about an actual baby, a baby that if born is formed enough to survive on its own outside the womb. At that point, that is a BABY.

Personally I don't believe you should be able to abort a fetus after it begins to respond, but aborting a viable baby is absolutely ridiculous.
>>
>>397189
Because a zygote is a progenitor cell for every other cell whereas the cells you are discussing can only make one or a few types of cells? Using your logic, why can't I fertilize a human egg and grow it out past 2 weeks in culture without the government getting on my ass about it? After all, they are just stem cells so why the special distinction?
>>
>>397326
Who’s says you can’t? Two weeks ain’t a baby.
>>
>>397343
The US government. If you want federal funding, you kill the embryo at 2 weeks
>>
>>397343
>Who’s says you can’t
Federal law. And I think some sort of international law too
>>
>>397348
>>397349
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6127884/

Background of the 14‐day rule

In 1978, the birth of Louise Brown, the world's first IVF baby, marked a major clinical breakthrough and demonstrated that it is possible to create and sustain human embryos in vitro. These embryos could be used for research or to attempt a pregnancy. In response, the Ethics Advisory Board of the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare held a detailed consultation and published a report in 1979, which cautiously supported human embryo research. However, one of the key conditions that the report proposed was that embryos will not be kept alive in vitro longer than 14 days after fertilisation or the stage of development that is equivalent to when embryos finish implantation. At the time, it was still a challenge to keep embryos alive in vitro and 14 days seemed like more than enough time to conduct research on them.

In biological terms, the 15th day of embryo development is the point when the primitive streak forms: that is, the beginning of gastrulation when three layers of germ cells differentiate. The 14th day is therefore notable, because the embryo is then individuated and can no longer become a twin. Consequently, the 14th day has, until recently, represented a natural and convenient biological turning point at which to restrict any further research on embryos.

From this it seems that the 14 day rule was arbitrarily made because it coincided with the natural expiry date of a test embryo. The embryo would die then anyways, so creating a two week limit would just fit in.

Pt1
>>
>>397368
Pt2

The individualism of the embryo also coincides with 14 days as well which fits too. Still, extending it to 28 days for example would give greater gains at no trade off, as >...at 28 days, no functional neural connections or sensory systems exist in the embryo (Hurlbut et al, 2017). It is therefore impossible for the embryo to experience sentience, pain or suffering within this extended period of research. While concerns related to pain and suffering should be taken seriously, it does not appear that they apply to our proposed period of extended embryo research.

With this, even a simple extension of two more weeks can be argued for, as the embryo does not develop to the point of becoming a viable fetus. Yet still, perhaps we ca push the deadline even further, as science uncovers more into the development of such embryos. In the end, my point was there has to be a hard point or threshold in time when a embryo begins to form into a viable fetus, and thus a human. The current 14 day limit is an outdated and arbitrary threshold, and can be replaced by a 28 day threshold. And sometime down the line can perhaps be replaced with a 2 month threshold, a 3 month threshold, etc. In the end, a final limit of “embryo viability” is fleshed out. Until that is determined, the new zygote/embryo should be seen as nothing special than any old cell - and an outdated 14 day standard should not be seen as lending any credence towards the embryos purported special nature. Just a cell bro at least for a good deal of time.
>>
>>397368
>>397375
This kills the anti-choice cuck.
>>
>>395512
Ooga booga times? Contraceptives like condoms have existed to allow pleasure without conception since the time of the goddamn ancient Egyptians.

You seem to be stuck in "ooga booga times" where condoms, birth control, IUDs, injections, implants, internal condoms, spermkiller, etc. haven't been invented yet.

These things aren't costly. WAY fucking cheaper than a goddamn abortion and a HELL of a lot less invasive to the woman who would carry the child. On top of that, some of them (like condoms) can prevent STDs.

Fuck off with that bullshit. There's no fucking reason to kill a baby that is responsive to stimuli and able to survive outside the womb except for rape (which is 0.5% of abortions), severe deformity, or imminent danger to the mother.
>>
>>397450
Contraceptives can fail.
>>
>>397466
Hence why there are several to choose from. Some can even used with others!
>>
>>397466

>"Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?

They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school."

>"The state health department estimated that every dollar spent on the long-acting birth control initiative saved $5.85 for the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than three-quarters of teenage pregnancies and births. Enrollment in the federal nutrition program for women with young children declined by nearly a quarter between 2010 and 2013."

Free birth control works and it saves our country a shit ton of money.
>>
>>395251
atheism's net contribution to western civilization is widespread moral decay, political and corporate corruption and pretentious internet shut-ins.
>>
>>397495
At least atheism is not actively stifling progress the same way religious conservatism is. More damage has been done to the people of this country in the name of God than atheism ever has.
>>
>>396834
Sure.
But sometimes fate forces my hand.
If I get handed a winning lottery ticket my life changes, even if I don't buy lottery tickets and don't for a reason.
>>
>>397505
That’s fair enough. But just as you choose to keep it, so shall others choose differently.
>>
>>397474
Contraceptives can still fail.
>>
>>397495
Don’t think atheists diddle kids. Or at least they don’t flaunt their leanings while doing it
>>
>>397555
And adoption is still an option
There are 27 couples waiting for every infant put up for adoption
Stats are skewed by older children.
>>
>>395883
STOP, I can only get so HARD
>>
>>397368
>>397375
So are you pro life now or are you going to continue to shift your goal posts as to what is life?
>>
>>397569
I’m pro choice and my post was about how stupid the mainstream idea of the beginning of life is. Give a damn and read it again
>>
>>397563
Why go so far? They can just pick up a kid in China - there’s lots of em. They need the help too
>>
>>397495
>widespread moral decay
Maybe you should actually read the laws of the bible. "Western civilization" laws do not and have never reflected the moral code of the bible.

>political corruption
Christian activist and the GOP strategy has made it impossible to win a presidental election without pretending to be christian in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate

>corporate corruption
Ill take tax-free, evangelical mega-churches telling people to skip their chemo and send their life savings in so God will cure them for 500 alex.

>pretentious internet shut-ins
Ya know as a (new testament only I assume) christian you are not supposed to judge your fellow man. You better ring up the trinity and ask them to forgive you.
>>
>>397563
>Our condom broke
>Just carry the child to term for 9 months, disrupt everything about your life, possibly die during birth, pay the thousands of dollars for drugs and hospital bills, and allow your body to go through massive hormonal changes that could end up making you suicidal. Then just give the baby, that you brain is now chemically induced to care about more than anything, up to an orphanage and move on.


Or I could just take a fucking pill you psycho.
>>
>>397629
>Or I could just murder my fucking child you psycho.
Projection is a hell of a drug
>>
>>397630
Presumption is a hell of a complex
>>
Thank god im not a woman so I don't have to worry about being raped and having any future plans for jobs or education be ruined, have my entire life ruined.
>>
>>397450
>places like Planned Parenthood give out contraceptives
>Conservatives are consistently trying to shut down Planned Parenthood, thus driving women to get abortions
>Conservatives also consistently try to get workplaces to drop birth control from their health plans because muh beliefs

Conservatives say they only want to stop abortion but their policies don't reflect that. You can't criminalize abortion and then at the same time defund programs that actually stop abortion.
>>
>>397882
Their policies do.
They are encouraging people to get married and have kids through tax credits for being married and having kids.
Kids born to a mother and father who are married have the best results.
>>
If a woman consenually is made preggers and the guy wants to abort it but the woman does not shouldn't that clear him of the child support payments?
>>
>>397883
Their policies don't do fuck all because people don't care. People aren't interested in that shit. You are not going to revert to your golden imagining of what you think the 50s were like. You're just fucking not. People born in poverty don't have the same opportunities, people born in the ghetto don't have the same opportunities. Do you know what has universal results? Even amongst those who want "people to get married?" Good sex education. Handing out free contraceptives. Making sure people know they have options. Conservatives oppose every single last one of those things because there is nothing that keeps people in poverty and stupid and controllable as easily as having a bunch of kids that they aren't prepared to care for.
>>
>>395638
Yeah and it's their body.
>>
>>397883
please explain to me the mental gymnastics you went through to get to that conclusion
>>
>>397890
It's the baby's body?
>>
>>397891
If you get married and have children with your spouse you won't have an abortion?
>>
>>397895
smooth brained jordan peterson drone. Tax credits are not encouraging most people to get married and have kids. I don't even know how you can argue against this
>>
>>397901
They're literally a tax incentive.
Incentives encourage people to act in a specific way. It may not be a strong incentive but they're laying their cards on the table
>>
>>397902
Pretty sure raising kids costs you a cool 200K a year. Nothing a tax credit can recoup
>>
>>397902
Incentives reduce costs, they don't eliminate them.
You don't make money from kids, as they aren't a product, so any cost is loss.
>>
>>397928
Sure. But having kids is something people desire. The demand is high. So reducing the cost increases the supply of people having kids.
>>397910
How do some migrant families manage to have 5+ kids without making a million a year?
>>
>>397932
>But having kids is something people desire.
Something that SOME people desire. That's a niche market. So costs aren't determined by demand, or else kids would be as cheap as lettuce.
Also, it's all cost. The parent makes no money for having the kid, so no matter what market you argue it under, it's still a complete loss for the parent.
Until it's free/profiting, you don't have a leg to stand on here with the "costs" argument.
>>
>>397883


>"Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?

>They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school."

>"The state health department estimated that every dollar spent on the long-acting birth control initiative saved $5.85 for the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than three-quarters of teenage pregnancies and births. Enrollment in the federal nutrition program for women with young children declined by nearly a quarter between 2010 and 2013."

Free birth control works and it saves our country a shit ton of money.
>>
>>397894
It's their body.
>>
so when does a baby become human? i think human life only starts at 25 years of age. you're just a barely animate clump of cells prior to that.
>>
>>397984
A lot of other Republicans believe that too, given how freely they allow kids to be gunned down in schools.
>>
>>397997
if all the kids had guns they would heroically slay their attackers instead of being helplessly slaughtered by them

guns for everyone
>>
>>397495
>widespread moral decay
mmhmmmmmm yep totally not like the three biggest religions out there shame people for sex and masturbation and try to subjugate and oppress women. nope nosiree. not like they had massive crusades that were purely for expansion but the public excuse was that they were done "in the name of god"
religion is what prevents a society from progressing in any meaningful way, its no wonder the most secular nations are the most progressive and happiest in the world.
>>
>>398009
>mmhmmmmmm yep totally not like the three biggest religions out there shame people for sex and masturbation and try to subjugate and oppress women.
for the majority of human history, these attitudes aided the progress of society, because strong family structures helped create stable societies and created particular incentives that strengthened the material prosperity of the societies they lived in.

societies throughout history have historically progressed not by being nice, but by attempting to secure prosperity, stability, glory, and the ability to beat the shit out your neighbors and simply happening to progressing as a side effect of the above.
>>
>>398014
so why is the middle east or india doing so poorly if these are strong attributes to the progress of society. Seems like your logic falls flat
>>
>>398014
I can tell you don't know much about history. The existence of Incan, Roman, Greek and Egyptian societies stand in direct contradiction of the drivel you're spouting.
>>
>>398026
>Incan, Roman, Greek and Egyptian
every single one of these societies (maybe not the inca? i'm not as familiar with their social structure) disapproved of promiscuity and relegated women to second-class citizens.
>>
>>398028
What you've said is not true. None of these societies were exclusively monogamous and at least two of them had women in high positions of power. These cultures were far more separated by money, influence and bloodline than they were by gender. You genuinely have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.
>>
>>398030
>None of these societies were exclusively monogamous and at least two of them had women in high positions of power.
and yet women were profound exceptions to the rule and men held the power something like 99% of the time.

>exclusively monogamous
what, exactly, are you referring to? all of these societies admitted the death penalty for adultery.
>>
>>397932
>How do some migrant families manage to have 5+ kids without making a million a year?

I mean, they don’t live in an American economy for instance. Being a parent in America is suicide for your wallet. Shits cheaper elsewhere. And if anything, children are used as labour in some societies so having kids is more to reduce workload - though that may be an outdated example
>>
>>398031
>and yet women were profound exceptions to the rule and men held the power something like 99% of the time.
That is again, incorrect. It is clear you have no idea what you're talking about and at this point are now just pulling numbers out of your ass. These societies were majority plutocratic. Yes, men held the most distinguished positions of power but matriarchs during the time, depending on their social status and bloodlines, were also quite powerful themselves. Matriarchal and patriarchal roles were more far more defined and structured but your insistence that 99% of women were relegated to second-class citizenship is historically false.

>what, exactly, are you referring to?
The fact that marriages were essentially legal contracts between families and that having sex with other people during the period was not considered violating the sanctity of marriage? In fact, having sex with slaves and prostitutes was a common and accepted practice. High ranking women, of course, were not included in this rule. They were expected to be educated, strong of character and active in maintaining the social standing of her family. Responsibilities were much different but "second class citizen" is not even close to accurate. Seriously, dude, have you read any material on the subject you're talking about? Literally everything you're saying is false.
>>
>>398056
>These societies were majority plutocratic.
a quick list at the lists of lists of the holders of pretty much any leadership role or political office is overwhelmingly men. rule by the rich does not exclude rule by men.

>matriarchs during the time, depending on their social status and bloodlines, were also quite powerful themselves
quantify matriarchal power in some way instead of just claiming it. the fact that females were occasionally able to ascend to the throne (exclusively by their relationship to a former occupant of said throne) and command power before being inevitably topped by some other man did not change the fact that women enjoyed reduced rights in every one of these societies compared to men: they did not have the franchise in rome and could not own property in greece.

>The fact that marriages were essentially legal contracts between families and that having sex with other people during the period was not considered violating the sanctity of marriage?
men got to fuck around because men have historically loved to fuck around and it doesn't threaten the perpetuation of the family unit. "anti-sexuality" throughout most societies and religions has been primarily based on making sure married women didn't fuck around and cast doubt on the paternity of the next generation even if dressed in equal terms.

>Responsibilities were much different but "second class citizen" is not even close to accurate.
the fact that you have to salt your posts with insults instead of facts is a testament to either the fragility of your position or your ego.
>>
>>398059
You stated that women being relegated to second-class citizenship is what drives societal progress. I highlighted several of the most powerful societies in recent human history in which that was not true and now you're trying to scoot the goalposts and state you were only talking about certain positions of power and certain rights. The things you said were incorrect and baseless now you're trying to muddy up your own argument to avoid admitting it.

>men got to fuck around because men have historically loved to fuck around and it doesn't threaten the perpetuation of the family unit
You specifically said that all of these societies admitted death penalty for adultery. You also specifically said that all of these societies disapproved of promiscuity. These are both false. Now, again, you're moving the goalposts again because you didn't bother qualifying your own statement. Either you weren't knowledgeable enough on the topic you're discussing to know the information or you knew the information and were just too intellectually lazy to put together a properly worded argument.

>the fact that you have to salt your posts with insults instead of facts
The fact that you somehow think calling your statements inaccurate is an insult is a testament to how poor your reading comprehension is. You somehow managed to use an ad hominem in the process of incorrectly accusing me of using one. That's a new one for me. Bravo.
>>
>>398064
>You stated that women being relegated to second-class citizenship is what drives societal progress.
i said that the vast majority of societies ever have relegated women to second-class citizenship. which is true. you CLAIMED that this was not true in many societies, but provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. now you are pretending that you have won the debate in order to win the debate.

>and certain rights
not having equals rights means pretty much by definition that you are a second-class citizen.

>You specifically said that all of these societies admitted death penalty for adultery.
they all have, in the case of married women.

>You also specifically said that all of these societies disapproved of promiscuity.
they do. roman emperors, for example, were constantly criticized for (real or imagined) sexual licentiousness, which was an indication of poor character. rumors that they went about fucking too many people was an important contributor o the poor reputations that nero and caligula have amassed over the years. it simply happens that it was not a mortal sin for men.

>The fact that you somehow think calling your statements inaccurate is an insult
claiming that people have never read anything about a topic is an insult.
>>
>>398069
You've scooted your goalposts so far that they aren't even on the same field anymore, anon. This conversation is going nowhere. You win. I tap out. I suppose battering people over the head with stupidity until they're too exhausted to continue is one way to win an argument.
>>
>>398072
in every single one of the societies you named, women were second-class citizens, promiscuity was was disapproved of, and adultery by married females was severely punished. i'm glad we could amicably come to a conclusion that literally every single scholar of history in history has always known.

>You win. I tap out. I suppose battering people over the head with stupidity until they're too exhausted to continue is one way to win an argument.
literally every time you debate anyone, anywhere, you throw dozens of insults at your opponent and claim they're wrong, then abandon the debate once faced with actual facts. it would be hilarious if it weren't so incredibly sad.
>>
>>398069
Cleopatra is a pretty popular example if you need to be spoon-fed grade school history. If your argument is to be valid, you'd need to prove it's a fluke, which is pretty hard but you're free to try.
Different rights aren't the same as unequal rights, but again that claim is on you to prove, again hard.
Death penalty in all, one more, you prove, hard.

You have a tough toad ahead of you, so take your time. I can wait.
>>
>>398075
>Cleopatra is a pretty popular example if you need to be spoon-fed grade school history. If your argument is to be valid, you'd need to prove it's a fluke, which is pretty hard but you're free to try.
ancient egypt had 7/170 female pharoahs, which is a 4% female succession rate, which makes it a fairly rare phenomenon.

>Different rights aren't the same as unequal rights, but again that claim is on you to prove, again hard.
there are many rights that men have had that women have not had: for example, the ability to vote, the ability to hold office, and the ability to own property. i have yet to hear by any identification by a historian or anyone anywhere of a right that females had in these societies that males did not.

>Death penalty in all, one more, you prove, hard.
"The Code of Hammurabi (18th century BC) in Babylonia provided a punishment of death by drowning for adultery. In ancient Greece and in Roman law, an offending female spouse could be killed, but men were not severely punished. " - encyclopedia britannica
>>
>>398077
Rare and vast majority aren't the same, but if you'd like to argue statistical insignificance or the like, you still have work to do.
>i have yet to hear by any identification by a historian or anyone anywhere of a right that females had in these societies that males did not.
Oracles in Temples if female God's would probably be the most drastic I can think of off hand.
>In ancient Greece and in Roman law, an offending female spouse could be killed, but men were not severely punished.
That's not a death penalty as it's the citizen, not the government. Also, source the Babylonian law and implementation instead of just on the books.
>>
>>398075
>be Cleopatra
>first female ruler in your dynasty capable of causing your equals to quake
>rule always glued to the hip of husbands, brothers, and co-rulers anyway
>inherited increasing reliance on Roman Republic
>be removed from power in a civil war because your brother doesn't want you around anymore
>Rome is not a fan of this sudden instability
>Caesar shows up to secure continued economic benefits for Rome
>sets Cleopatra back on throne because she's a useful ally that puts Egypt in a more indentured position
>Cleopatra continues to sit on the throne by coddling Roman penis
>two millennia later some anon on a Kashmir carpet selling site says that this particular ruler is a standard that negates the norm for female authority and not a literal fluke of circumstance
Wow even a middle school understanding of Ptolemaic Egypt beat your grade school understanding.
>>
>>398077
>ancient egypt had 7/170 female pharoahs, which is a 4% female succession rate, which makes it a fairly rare phenomenon.
Allowing females to be pharaoh is not second class citizenship. That's what you said.

>i have yet to hear by any identification by a historian or anyone anywhere of a right that females had in these societies that males did not.
You mistake the difference between rights and roles. Matriarchs in these society were entirely responsible for child-rearing and education. They were responsible for maintaining the reputation and social standing of their families and households. Aristocratic women were responsible for running what was essentially a small corporation as their families often owned several villas or properties and sometimes hundreds of slaves. Women were also incredibly involved in business and often owned business, acted as money lenders and invested money on behalf of their estate. While women were not allowed political office, political influence was a different thing entirely. Depending on your standing in society a lot of aristocratic women had incredible sway in the senate and often times acted as formal advisors to their husbands in official capacities. You're also incorrect about property ownership. During the beginning of the Roman empire women's rights were very strict but as early as the 5th century BC, Roman women could own land, write their own wills, and appear in court. It was also common during this period for women during this period could also divorce their husbands and reclaim their dowry. The other anon was right, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>>398092
Having an easy job is still having the job.
>>
>>398092
You were wrong about women being second class citizens when someone highlighted that a woman was the ruler of an entire nation now you're trying to scoot your own goalposts again by trying to argue that, while she was pharaoh it somehow doesn't count because she was bad at her job.
>>
>>398088
>Rare and vast majority aren't the same, but if you'd like to argue statistical insignificance or the like, you still have work to do.
if 96% of egyptian rulers were men, then the vast majority of rules were men, and female rulers were rare.

>Oracles in Temples if female God's would probably be the most drastic I can think of off hand.
that is a right, to be sure, but it is exclusive to virgins and limited to an extraordinarily limited subsection of the populace.

>That's not a death penalty as it's the citizen, not the government.
if you truly insist on nitpicking it, then the law provides for the execution of female adulterers should the "victim" seek such redress. very progressive.

>Also, source the Babylonian law and implementation instead of just on the books.
there aren't any fucking court records from ancient babylon just sitting around, that shit was a LONG time ago. unless you have some reason to know that the law wasn't enforced i don't see it should be untrustworthy.

>>398093
>Allowing females to be pharaoh is not second class citizenship. That's what you said.
the vast majority of women in these societies were second-class citizens. the same thing is true in ancient china, ancient japan, and most societies everywhere even if women occasionally ascended to the throne via their relationship to a male regent. we can all agree that female empresses had more rights than male slaves. step away from slaves and emperors and you reach the level of citizens who enjoy citizens rights, and women enjoyed less of these than men did.

>While women were not allowed political office, political influence was a different thing entirely.
the fact that a woman can convince a man to use his political influence on her behalf is not a right of the woman. it is a complete fiction.

>Roman women could own land, write their own wills, and appear in court.
nobody ever argued that women had literally no rights whatsoever. what they had was reduced rights.
>>
>>398103
i'm trying to comprehend the sheer historical ignorance of whatever school of thought proclaims that an instance of a female reigning emperor means that women enjoy equal rights in that society. i can't even begin to imagine a historian making this argument literally anywhere.

if you want to look at the rights women enjoy in society, you look at... the rights... that women enjoyed in that society. you don't look at incredible historical exceptions regarding the very top of society and then extrapolate that to make conclusions about that culture's society in general. i hope to god nobody in this thread thinks that chinese women enjoyed rights equivalent to those of men in the first millennium AD and the fact that empress wu reigned for a bit in the eighth century shouldn't change that in the slightest.

incidentally, >>398092 wasn't me. i was going to write about how she used a borrowed roman army to get the throne but at the end of the day each individual example is less important than the overall pattern of rulership.
>>
>>398104

>the vast majority of women in these societies were second-class citizens.
I just listed all the ways that they weren't and now you're trying to scoot the goalposts to say that all the power women held during these times doesn't count because they weren't a majority. That isn't what you said. That wasn't your argument.

>the fact that a woman can convince a man to use his political influence on her behalf is not a right of the woman.
That isn't what I said, you are also mistaking rights and roles again. Being a political advisor is not equivalent to convincing someone to use their political power on your behalf. I explicitly stated how, in their own right, women wielded an incredible amount of their own political power. Being the adviser and spouse of an officially elected politician was a massively influential position and was levied in all sorts of personal and professional ways. This is another example that contradicts your "second class citizenship" narrative.

>nobody ever argued that women had literally no rights whatsoever. what they had was reduced rights.
You're confusing rights with roles again. You're somehow thinking that the ability to vote or hold political office held the same societal significance to both men and women thousands of years ago that it does today and it doesn't. Women held massive positions of power and influence in their societies that men did not. These positions of power served different roles but "second class citizen" is not accurate. Owning land, running businesses, and peddling influence is not the characteristics of a second class citizen. The fact that men had more government sanctioned power is irrelevant. If you want to claim that rights bestowed upon citizens by the government was the only thing that mattered in terms of societal power and position then you're wrong.
>>
>>398104
>Moving goalposts and don't have source for claims
:/
>>
>>398111
>I just listed all the ways that they weren't
you listed some rights that women had. this is literally zero ways indicates that they have the same rights as men. if you don't have the same rights as another group (and don't receive an equivalent set of alternative rights) you are a second class citizen.

>all the power women held
power held by individual women by chance and circumstance does not mean that women, in general, are not second class citizens. how many egyptian women were there? millions? the fact that seven of them were able to break away from the standard set of rights enjoyed by women (not that many) and ascend to the top position that women, the other however million and 999,996 of them who were not empresses were not second-class citizens compared to the male peers in their lives.

>Being a political advisor is not equivalent to convincing someone to use their political power on your behalf.
an advisor has zero power compared to the person exercising the power because an advisor can only advise. one can argue that an empress consort had lots of power because she may advise the consort to do things. but at the end of the day they, like advisors, are 100% dependent on another to actually do something with that power.

>in their own right
you precisely did not do this. every single exercise of power you've identified by a non-regnant woman took place through a man.

>Women held massive positions of power and influence in their societies that men did not.
a woman who was a head of a wealthy household could exercise control a household's business and slaves, but only on behalf of the true head of household: the man. in these situations, a woman's will would not prevail over that of the man's if they could not agree on a course of action.

>>398113
i'm literally the only person in this entire thread who has cited any sort of authority for any claim whatsoever.
>>
>>398122
>ascend to the top position that women, the other however million and 999,996 of them who were not empresses were not second-class citizens compared to the male peers in their lives.
that should read "did not mean that the other million and 999,996 of them who were not empresses were not second-class citizens"
>>
So what laws say women in these societies are second class? Cause that's something we can talk about with actual authority.
>>
>>398136
the law saying that women could not vote or hold office
>>
>>397563
are you going to pay for the hospital bill?
>b-but private charity
fuck you, not reliable
>>
>>397883
could it be the reverse?
could it be people who have the best results come from families that have the economic and cultural stability to remain together and not be split apart by the stresses and demands of everyday life.
>>
>>398138
I guess that means children are second class citizens currently?
>>
>>398145
they are, in fact. they lack an extraordinary number of rights that adult citizens have. other second-class citizens in america include felons and the mentally disabled for the same reason: they do not have all the rights that ordinary citizens do.
>>
>>397658
Yes. I'm presuming your child is your child
Because of the fact half of the DNA is yours. And half is the father. And you became pregnant after you had sex with him. And if you do nothing for the 9 months they will be born. Unless you kill them
>>
>>397888
Why is taking money someone else worked for, and using it to pay off political allies "showing you care"? It's not your money. It costs you nothing.
>>
If abortions are illegal, clearly we now also have guaranteed maternity leave, free condoms,and government funding for postnatal care and any hospital payments for things like ultrasounds and actually giving birth. Oh wait, these are republicans, doing everything they can to protect the unborn, just so they live long enough to get fucked in the ass.
>>
>>398166
>presumption is a hell of a complex
I was referring to the presumption that abortion is murder, but ok. It’s not even a person to even count as murder. Or are cells on equal footing as people now? Guess every time you get dandruff, it’s a fucking genocide. The ICC wants a word with you
>>
>>398210
>If abortions are illegal, clearly we now also have guaranteed maternity leave, free condoms,and government funding for postnatal care and any hospital payments for things like ultrasounds and actually giving birth.
Why?
How does abortion being illegal entitle you to other people's money for those reasons?
>>
>>398361
I think the hat guys post meant more that abortion being illegal means that other options are available for preventing pregnancies (and abortion) like contraceptives and the like - oh wait.
>>
>>395276
Asylum seekers don't have a right to leech off Americans even if their lives are on the line.
In the case of rape, the human baby, who is a person!, is in exactly the same position as the asylum seeker.
>>
>>398367
Other options are available?
You can get free contraception at planned parenthood various clinics, any college campus and other areas across the country.
>>
>>398350
Does your dandruff become another human being if you do nothing out of the ordinary over the next 9 months?
>>
>>398381
Do you ask retarded questions? Yes.
Is tsygote a person? No.
>>
>>398377
>Oh wait, these are republicans, doing everything they can to protect the unborn, just so they live long enough to get fucked in the ass.
Did you even read >>398210 full post? Or mine?
>>
>>398381
It can become a cancer cell for all you know. Thank god it flaked off. But my point was that both dandruff and a zygote are cells and not people. Don’t deal in potentials. As a zygote can potentially become a human, so can a skin cell potentially become cancerous. And here we have chemo for cancer cells and abortion for zygotes. But you wouldn’t call chemo murder now would you?
>>
>>398403
A fertilized zygote is not going to become a cancer cell, quit acting obtuse.
A zygote is the first stage of a complete human life form, maybe inert like a comatose person but does that mean we can kill a vegetable?
>>
>>395772
It's also way more likely that men send our boys back home than women. What's your point?
>>
>>395778
i am truly sorry for your lots
>>
I'm tired of this "not a living thing" argument.
I'm pro-life. I realize it is killing, but I don't believe we can force a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to and her rights beat out the rights of the thing inside her.
However, the argument is utter shit:
>claim baby is not a living thing
>man stabs preggo lady in belly
>woman lives, baby dies, man is charged with murder
>HE KILLED HER BABY!
>man and his lawyer be like, "Yo, baby aint a living thing"
>gets charge lowered to assault and agrees to 5 year plea deal
>woman who lost baby totally cool because baby wasn't living thing.
>goes on vacay to beach after stitches heal
>man looks her up on facebook five years later and apologizes
>she accepts and forgives him since it was just a cut and it's not like something died
>>
>>399202
samefag
meant to say pro-choice. Muh bad.
>>
>>399102
Who says zygotes can’t become cancerous? And a vegetable was once a person. A zygote never was. It’s wrong to kill a vegetable for he was a person once. But a zygote is no more unique than any other cell.
>>
>>399102
>A zygote is the first stage of a complete human life form
So it is not a "complete" human life form by your own standards, then
>>
the abortion argument has to be the most emblematic symptom of the complete psychotic detachment of the average modern human.
>>
>pregnant woman has car crash
>wakes up in hospital
>screams "is my baby ok>"
>doctors ask "that thing on the table?"
>woman looks over to see crushed fetus laying on a table next to a Burger King wrapper and an empty 10-piece nugget box
>woman starts screaming and crying
>doctors tell her she is being a drama queen because baby wasn't a living thing
>>
>>399207
>zygote is no more unique than any other cell
Yes it is. No other cell is totipotent. That is pretty fucking unique no matter how you slice it. I don't even give a shit about your and that other faggots argument over when a person is a person, but don't base your arguments on faulty premises.
>>
>>399227
Kek
>>
>>395192
Is it a rock? No. Is it a living being which is naturally developing into a sentient being, unless you end its life? Yes.

Is this sentient being a horse? No. Is it human? Yes.

...so it is indeed a human being.
>>
>>399560
>developing into
>a human being
So it wasn’t one to start? You just refuted your own argument
>>
>>399253
I was talking about personhood as a quantified of uniqueness. I don’t give a shit about it’s totipotency. The zygote is no more a “person”, if at all, than any other cell. If you regard a zygote a person, then why not a skin cell? A cancer cell?
>>
>>400049
I have no qualms with your premise per se, just the argument that a zygote is "no more unique than any other cell." Just letting you know in case you choose this line of thought in future arguments as it is inherently faulty and any person with even a basic understanding of developmental biology will use it as a way to discredit you.
>>
>>395699
It's only 'your' child if you allow it to be. If someone were to abort a fetus, then they have already given up on allowing it that status. That status can also be passed on to children from other parents; by adopting a child, you've made it 'your child'.
>>
>>395706
And fetuses can also die regardless of whether or not you abort them, which can endanger the mother. Any argument you can make for preserving a 'fetus' is an argument that can be stretched to the ridiculous extreme of preserving every single sperm or egg a person produces, since they all have the potential to become a fully-fledged human being.
>>
>>395892
Every single sperm in your balls is a human being, it just hasn't reached an egg YET. So why aren't you freezing your sperm every time you whack off for potential future fertilisation?
>>
>>396074
How many fried, boiled and scrambled eggs have you eaten in your life, fucktard?
>>
>>396323
On the contrary, if it was Seahorse World tomorrow we'd see clinics on every second street corner. Children have always been a bigger problem for women than for men, so it makes absolutely no sense for someone with a penny's stake in an issue to speak for someone who's invested a million dollars.
>>
>>397505
If that's the case, then why argue for gun ownership for 'self defence'? If you're in the crosshairs of a mad gunman, God must want you dead anyway, so why even bother?
>>
>>397563
So you're arguing that fetuses are too precious to kill, yet you're casting them off like trash as soon as they're born anyway? You're arguing that the State shouldn't have a say in abortion, yet you're fine with handing off your handiwork to them? What the actual fuck?
>>
>>400051
Sure, it's biologically 'unique', but does it deserve especial rights over other cells? Stem-cell research has advanced to a point that you can induce any somatic (i.e. non-reproductive) cell in your body to return to a pluripotent state, then use this stem cell to produce offspring genetically identical to you. Now billions of cells in your body have equal claim to 'personhood'. What do you say to this?
>>
>>395246
By this logic, it's okay to abort pregnancies 7-8 months into the term.
>>
>>400062
I would say that I was only arguing that the zygote is a biologically unique cell. iPSCs are pluripotent, but that is still not quite totipotent. They are more similar to the inner cell mass, which is where we derive ESC cultures, a population which arises in the blastocyst around the time of implantation. These cells make the embryo proper, but do not contribute to the extra embryonic tissue, such as the trophectoderm and placenta.

So no, current technology does not allow for what you are describing in the latter half of your argument. In the future it may, but I was never arguing the philosophy of what may be and instead focusing on the current scientific reality.
>>
>>395211
Thoughts and prayers.
>>
>>395233
They do fetal testing without asking the fetus.
>>
>>395206
At what kind of backwards shit-hole lab do you work at if you haven't switch over to induced Stem Cells yet?
>>
>>400077
You do know that embryonic tissue is used to better understand the mechanisms driving organogenesis and development in vivo so that we can better derive those systems in vitro, right? For example, we can't create a functioning brain in vitro with current technology, but through studying the developing embryonic brain we are making progress towards understanding how the brain forms. Using this we can then develop protocols to derive more complex organoids. Making iPSC is all well and dandy, but without a method to convert them to your cell of interest they aren't exactly going to get you a publication.
>>
>>395250
Has there been much of an improvement after switching your meds in your own opinion? Because it isn't readily apparent to the average sane reader observing you.
>>
>>395192
>When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her
Well, a fetus (or even a newborn up until 6-9 months) isn't a person so it definitely shouldn't have any rights. So this should end at that.
>So the baby is their property and they can do whatever they want to it. They can maim the baby or torture the baby.
Yes, because it's not a person. It's a baby. You're not a person until you can communicate, be self aware and a part of a social group. A newborn isn't conscious. You can't be called a person if you lack consciousness. That's why people in comas are called plants.
Parents chop baby dicks in America, so it's clear that they already have (and should have) full control over what happens to their babies.
For fucks sake, will we give corpses human rights too?

>>395211
So is literally every man when he masturbates or any person that buys meat or eggs. Some life must die so that other life can live.
>>
>>395268
"Do no harm" I'd say, but pregnancy is really something completely unique and can't be compared to other situations...
I think we should just try to minimise the casualties in case of imminent death.
Then again there are pregnancies by rape, the harm to the mother is pretty much already done. I think the loss of a life is more significant than 9 months of whatever mental issues the mother might have.
>>
>>400230
Pst parents can legally decide anything concerning their baby AS LONG AS THEY BRING NO HARM TO IT.
Is taking care of baby Susie too expensive and stressful for you Karen?
Fucking kill her I guess
>>
>>400230
>le masturvation argument
Sperm is haploid, lacks the ability to replicate itself and will die after some time within the man regardless of whether he masturbates or not. So please, explain your position beyond memes
>>
>>400230
The kind of eggs we eat are NOT fertilised.
Sperm on each own has zero potential. Can't grow, can't eat, would probably die in a few days anyway. They're not even the most basic of organisms.
Fetuses grow really fast. They consume nutrients, have developing sexual organs, complex multicellular structures to perceive and interact with the environment ... It's as if they're alive or something.
>>
>>400226
Not an argument.
>>
>>400238
>9 months of whatever mental issues
Are you fucking serious?
It is this level of ignorance about the issues that makes this debate so difficult.
>>
>>400281
I'm ready to be educated
>>
>>400057
lol this is satire right?
>>
>>395600
>Useful retards known as 'the left'
How can that be when the left is about the working class taking what’s rightfully theirs?
>>
>>401863
What along this chain of events do you find objectionable? Where is the working class being robbed of what is rightfully theirs?
>Jeff Bezos creates company, starts by selling books out of his garage, he's raised by a single Mom, puts out a service people use and allows hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to have jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist
>People like it, it becomes popular
>Goes public, groups like Pensions, banks, private citizens, all want a piece of Amazon, there's a limited supply of stocks so they drive up the price and let all kinds of people get a little piece of something they consider to have a big future.
>Since Bezos owned the company he created, his shares are valuable and he is the richest man on Earth
His employees could have made a competitor. There's no barrier to entry to make a website to sell books online. They
had different priorities, some wanting a reliable paycheck so they could ensure food on the table for their children, or midnight phonecalls with problems that starting your own company entails, so they took less risk and less reward by taking a salaried position.
>>
>>401875
Also he got all that money as a result of voluntary transactions. People aren't forced at Gunpoint to get Amazon Prime. They would rather have the benefits than the money in their pocket. Unlike taxes which are collected at threat of force
>>
>>395192
Reminder this all exists because of the destruction of the nuclear family and in turn the desanctification of sex. If human beings would come to terms with the value of sex and it's purpose as a means of life then none of this would be happening.
>>
>>395246
There is a difference between a baby and a fetus- a few months.
>>
>>401875
How many people do you expect that to happen to? Especially when we are in the situation where a lot of people inherited their wealth, not worked for it. This man may have been lucky, but how can you even justify the amount of abuse a lot of working class children suffer through? How can you justify the fact that people simply won’t have the same opportunities to even start a business? How can you justify the fact education isn’t equal, and it will have a heavy effect on the prospects someone will have? How can you justify a hard working man staying poor and earning less than someone who does fuck all, despite having an important job?
>>
>>395192
I still dont get how some people can deny something so obvious as the fact that a fertilized egg is a unique new individual, and not a spare organ. Like, you add 50% daddy and 50% mommy to create 100% new person who has half his fathers stuff and half his mothers stuff. It ceased being only yours when combined with someone else's. Are these people willingfully blind? Because at this point I'm convinced that this rethoric serves only to soothe pro-choicers and make them feel like there is nothing inherently wrong with abortion. If you want to have one, just admit that you're killing a thing developing inside you, don't invent lies to make you sleep better at night.
>>
>>402474
Okay, it's murder, let's pretend we all accept that.
Abortions are allowed now, then? As long as we accept how wrong it is to you? Otherwise you're just bitching and not looking for a solution, just punishment and control.
>>
>>402491
There can be no solution, people are just gonna argue forever.
>>
>>402474
A parasite is just an individual, doesn't make it a person. Only killing people is wrong. Something that didn't become a person shouldn't have human rights.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.