if human life is consciousness then you have to wait for some brain development

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678414)

rock solid reasoning, no tautologies here

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678920)

Like you'd probably agree we need to cut funding to Israel, but I think you'd acknowledge that Pelosi and Psaki would not want to suggest that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678938)

https://streamable.com/yra5bn

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678453)

I mean the procedure is literally called “abortion.”

An abortion if what? Of life.

So it seems like pro-abortion folks have to concede this premise and focus on “oh well it’s morally okay to kill a fetus at this stage or that stage”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678466)

2. If you are genuinely uncertain about the line that needs to be drawn for when life & personhood begins, a reasonable person would conclude that its better to be safe and include fetuses. Its a simple matter of weighing Type 1 and 2 errors. If you are wrong the worst thing you have done is force mothers to carry their babies to term .If you are wrong in the other direction, you have allowed the mass slaughter of the most innocent humans.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678617)

Again, respond to my actual substantive point: If it is ok to kill an 8 month old fetus because of some "consciousness" argument, how does that not apply to a freshly born 7 month old premature baby. Futhermore, if you are uncertain, why would you pick the side that involves the risk for a catastrophic mistake (allowing babies to be killed) instead of the much less damaging risk (women carrying babies to term).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678645)

You may feel like the process of living and growing old is worse than death, but you should not make that decision on behalf of the babies in their mother's womb. Your argument here is one that implies support for suicide assistance, not abortion. Interestingly, you claim that living in this world is worse than death, yet have not killed yourself. Seems like a contradiction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678679)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678739)

Again, its interesting you say all this, yet have not killed yourself. Performative contradiction much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678763)

He's imposing that view on the fetus. You can't get into an argument about whether a fetus is a child and then equate the two as part of your reasoning. Did you to go GULC?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678978)

2. Every stat shows that once Roe passed, abortions skyrocketed. They went from 10 to 50k illegal abortions annually (numbers vary widely obviously) to over a million.

You need to stop. You have not thought about this issue enough.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678656)

None of this personally affects me either, I've never had a child aborted and I'm done having kids. However, it is no less irrational to be morally outraged by abortion than it is to be morally outraged over the actions of the Einsatzgruppen (who equally don't affect me).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678712)

Also, I am addressing the argument "well the baby is going to likely have a hard life so its ok to kill it before its born". That argument is absurd on its face because of its similar application to toddlers born to shitty parents. I was not making a broader point beyond that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678769)

how many times are you going to assume your conclusion as part of your reasoning

if you're trying to prove abortion is killing, you can't assume it's killing as part of your argument

here's an argument: there is a point between conception and birth where abortion becomes wrong because the fetus has become alive but unborn; aborting a blastocyst is fine because it hasn't reached that point; when a woman has been pregnant 9mos and the kid is about to be born, aborting it is wrong because it's an actual human being at that point

i don't know where the line is, so it seems both compassionate and straightforward to allow the pregnant woman to make the decision rather than me imposing my will on everyone, but once you get out of that fuzzy "somewhere around here life-hood attains" then it's fine to make it illegal

that's how we operate pretty much all other laws. Like it's immoral to fuck an 11yo, but it's moral to fuck an 18yo. We argue over where that line is between those two easy value judgments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42679055)

Anytime any pro abortion person retreats to "Well, we don't know for sure" or "its not cut and dry", you have instantly lost because uncertainty leads necessarily to the decision to take the least permanent and damaging route (e.g. letting the fetus live).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678796)

We actually don't have a good definition for the end of someone's life, so physicians are trained to use a series of tests, basically like the balancing and factorial tests we have in law

until relatively recently in medical practice the definition was "his heart stopped"

and it's entirely possible as science advances we'll have to revise it again

if we get good enough at prolonging life and fixing diseases and injuries, it might just be defined as "unable to return to normal function"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42679070)

she was born and physically grows but cannot communicate in any form, walk, move, eat on her own etc. She doesn't even cry when she's hungry or needs something.

Is this person "conscious" in any way that makes humans unique? More so than a dog?

I would say not, however, only a monster would be comfortable with killing this child.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678618)

We may live to see that argument transition in this country.

FYI: most defenders of abortion understand it's murder, they just hold other moral priorities above there aversion to murder in the case of abortion. We may live to see this popular twisted moral framework applied in other contexts in this country.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678582)

i dont think this is true, brother. or at least i hope its not..

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678627)

I used to fuck this girl in DC who worked at planned parenthood. She would have had no problem blasting a newborn baby in the face with a k98 and was perplexed that anyone could believe it would be a problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678643)

i just think most libs dont think alot of issues through logically.. or even if they try to, they get confused and avoid the "scary" lines of thought, and then just end up chalking things up to "nuance", well there's all this nuance you see, all this GREY AREA, you wouldnt be able to grasp it, reptile. you can rationalize almost anything if you make it fuzzy enough.

another point i think many people dont arrive at their own conclusions.. they view opinions the way they view clothing brands. whats fashionable right now? what can i virtue signal with? they adopt those opinions, and pick up the pre-fabricated talking points in "support" of those "opinions" and are gtg!

im saying all this not to remove agency from them. they are adults and are are responsible for their opinions and actions, even if they did not arrive at their opinions on their own.

i just have a feeling majority of them can still be saved, IF they are made to grasp that killing a fetus is killing a human life. i really dont think majority of them have ever though about the issue in those terms, and instead avoid it and focus on "choice", "womens rights", particularly because holding those opinions is "socially acceptable" in any "coastal elite" circles, and it's hard to go against the grain. very few people have the strength of character to go against what majority around them are saying.

how we go about convincing them, is of course a difficult topic, one i do not have an answer to right now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678736)

There is a story (or myth) that there was a German commander in Russia who wanted (or ordered) that all of his soldiers, from private to company staff, had to participate in the shooting of a civilian. The reason he did so was so that all of them would have a reason to defend what they were doing, that all human beings believe that they are a force of good, and if they did it, and their friends did it, it is morally justifiable.

To argue with a woman who has had an abortion that abortion is morally wrong is a no-go. She doesn't consider herself a murderer, and even if she has lingering doubts, she sure as shit isn't going to admit it. There have been 66 million abortions since Roe.

Thus, there will never be a consensus is this country on the issue if solely for the reason that so many have done this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678791)

I agree fully that is probably the state of affairs, at least on the coasts, although i would like to see the data on that statement ("a lot of women have had abortions, and almost all women have a friend who have had an abortion."). I think we have learned very well recently that it is not beyond libs to outright fabricate "studies", "polls", etc, in order to further convince society to move in that direction. And I think likely there have been studies on this very topic that were created solely to convince people "well, everybody's doing it, its ok!"

Again, I conceded I do not have a strategy on changing people's minds en masse on this topic, however I would warn against making statements like "there will never be a consensus is this country on the issue". This strikes me as very defeatist. "Blackpilling" is just not a viable strategy and ultimately just nihilism.

I believe all people are redeemable until they die. Whether they will have a coming to God moment or not, or what would trigger that I dont know. I just think we shouldnt write anybody off.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678862)

This, of course, is not a politically viable argument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678530)

Why should a woman go to law school if she can become pregnant and have to abandon her firm for months due to the baby? How can you expect elite female athletes to train when their athletic careers can be taken away at a moment's notice by pregnancy? How can you expect a woman to achieve financial independence (and the consumer spending that comes with that) if her time and money can be taken by an unplanned child.

The practical reasons why women need abortion on demand go on and on, but the heart of the matter is that they cannot be socially equal to men - meaning sexually equal to men - if they cannot have consequence free sex. So much of society is dictated by sex and access to abortion is a cornerstone of women's social liberation. Nature itself relegates women to a 2nd class status, but abortion on demand frees women from that status.

I would argue that the entire women's equality movement is predicated on access to abortion on demand. Women for generations have understood this, which is why some women will react to arguments about how abortion is wrong the same way that a black person would react to arguments about how the abolition of slavery is wrong, they perceive the argument as being that they should accept a lower status in society.

The reason why women go 'nanas over abortion is because they understand that their equality with men, in every possible way, is predicated on access to abortion on demand.

So some women, and especially hard driven striver women, known damn well that a dead baby or two is a small price to pay in achieving their dreams and goals. And women being women, and women think differently than men, tend to fall back on shitty sophistry to justify themselves on the issue of abortion. However, the issue is equality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42678850)

The second is that this issue is as much ideological as it is practical. I would guess that most professional women do not have abortions. However, it being there if they need it is what is important. There is a similar argument to be made for guns under the 2nd amendment, where the people most passionate about owning a gun are probably the most unlikely to ever use one to shoot another person, but they are the most passionate about their 2A rights.

The truth is that most abortions are done to minorities in blue cities (maybe a vast majority of abortions). However, black women are not the ones in the street marching and screeching about their rights, UMC white women are the ones who are most passionate about this issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42680033)

So if the Bible is OK with "killing a baby" because of the mom being a slut, then surely there are more slam dunk justifications for abortion, like it will be born and writhe in agony for six months and then die, or maybe even "the fetus doesn't have a brain capable of human thought yet"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42679088)

quoted, in part,

"20 . . . if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”"

Some translations use "thigh wasting" presumably because talking about miscarriages was taboo, but the underlying original text is pretty straightforward in that it talks about wombs and miscarriages

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42679117)

which scenario is this? what verse are you referring to?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42679099)

basically if a husband thinks his wife cheated on him, he takes her to a priest, the priest makes a concoction she drinks, and it induces a miscarriage IFF she has committed adultery

technically, it induces a miscarriage if she has EVER committed adultery, even if the current pregnancy is a faithful one, so it's worse than just "terminate immoral pregnancies" it's "terminate any pregnancy if the woman has EVER been an adulteress in the past"

there's scholarship about this concoction, which in part is made from dust scooped off the ground, that suggests the dust might have (unknown to scientifically illiterate people) a fungal abortofascient

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4864017&forum_id=2#42679106)