Quote from: Verbatim on May 15, 2016, 05:16:42 PM

Which is nebulous as all fuck, whereas the consumption of alcohol is a direct harm. There is no "potentiality" there--if you drink while pregnant, you ARE harming your unborn child.

You are sure, but as a fetus, it isn't considered human yet, which is one of the reasons why abortion is free game. Since it's not considered human, it shouldn't be afforded the same rights and protections as a human.

Quote from: SecondClass on May 15, 2016, 05:19:14 PM

No, I'm not. I'm talking about reality. Preventing a fetus from being born isn't immoral, it's no different than never having sex in the first place.

Well, that depends on who you talk to, because a sizeable amount of the populace equate it to murder. 

Quote

Forcing someone to not only be born, but born with a serious birth defect, is evil. When you have an abortion, you're only affecting your body part. A human being isn't even in the equation. When you get drunk at bars while you're pregnant, a human being is definitely involved. The baby will be born, and they will have a a birth defect.

The human being isn't even considered human at this point, which is what I am trying to drive through. It doesn't matter that the fetus will become human, at the point of pregnancy it is not given the same rights as humans and as such should not impede on the woman's ability to do what she wants with her body.

First of all, "who I ask" doesn't matter. It's not fucking immoral.

And secondly, the difference here that, somehow, you're still failing to grasp, is that an aborted fetus will never be a human. It begins and ends as a woman's body part. A fetus victim of FAS will grow up into a person. And the deformities that the mother inflicted on it while it while it was a fetus will be inflicted on it while it's a child.

It's no different than destroying your liver with alcohol before you donate it to someone else. "But AT THE TIME, it was my liver." That doesn't matter, because you knew it wouldn't just be your liver for very long.

tbh, if you're going to do things that'll have you giving birth to some fucking retard baby, you should be court ordered to have it aborted. I don't want my fucking tax money subsidizing your child for the rest of its miserable, deformed life.

Giving birth isn't some kind of human right, you're affecting other people by doing so. I think it's sad and vicious to bar women with hereditary disorders from giving birth, but I wouldn't be against it.

Quote from: Verbatim on May 15, 2016, 05:51:58 PM

No, because there are none. Murder is not inherently wrong.

Killing something that isn't human, but will become human, is not wrong.

In fact, you're doing it a favor.

The very fact that since humans were smart enough to think, they attempted to find ways to prolong their life, attempt to create elixirs for immortality, create religions with beliefs about an everlasting afterlife, use science and medicine to increase life's longevity says otherwise. Not everyone subscribes to not existing being preferable Verb, so most would say not existing is terrible.

Quote from: SecondClass on May 15, 2016, 05:54:18 PM

First of all, "who I ask" doesn't matter. It's fucking immoral.

And secondly, the difference here that, somehow, you're still failing to grasp, is that an aborted fetus will never be a human. It begins and ends as a woman's body part. A fetus victim of FAS will grow up into a person. And the deformities that the mother inflicted on it while it while it was a fetus will be inflicted on it while it's a child.

It's no different than destroying your liver with alcohol before you donate it to someone else. "But AT THE TIME, it was my liver." That doesn't matter, because you knew it wouldn't just be your liver for very long.

That person should have complete free rein to do that while it is his, so... But I digress, on this same note, would you be against a woman who has hereditary disorders from procreating as well?

Quote from: Verbatim on May 15, 2016, 05:54:57 PM

Quote from: Zen on May 15, 2016, 05:39:21 PM

a sizeable amount of the populace equate it to murder.

And they are ALL wrong.

le objective morality meme, well spooked.

>advocating moral relativism
>not realizing that means we can just tell you to shut the fuck up and not give a shit about you or fundies' crying

Quote from: eggsalad on May 15, 2016, 06:33:37 PM

>advocating moral relativism
>not realizing that means we can just tell you to shut the fuck up and not give a shit about you or fundies' crying

>implying I care about any of this

A lot of time I argue for the sake of arguing. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest if drinking while pregnant was legal or illegal. Same with abortion.

translation: i got fucked

Always comes back to anti-natalism, somehow.

Quote from: Zen on May 15, 2016, 05:39:21 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 15, 2016, 05:16:42 PM

Which is nebulous as all fuck, whereas the consumption of alcohol is a direct harm. There is no "potentiality" there--if you drink while pregnant, you ARE harming your unborn child.

You are sure, but as a fetus, it isn't considered human yet, which is one of the reasons why abortion is free game. Since it's not considered human, it shouldn't be afforded the same rights and protections as a human.

But it will be a human.

I just want to clarify for anyone participating in this thread that a fetus is a biologically distinct human being, an individual human life that isn't merely a "potential" person or a part of the mother's body by any genetic, biological, or medical definition.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 15, 2016, 09:31:26 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 15, 2016, 05:46:57 PM

Quote from: Zen on May 15, 2016, 05:39:21 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 15, 2016, 05:16:42 PM

Which is nebulous as all fuck, whereas the consumption of alcohol is a direct harm. There is no "potentiality" there--if you drink while pregnant, you ARE harming your unborn child.

You are sure, but as a fetus, it isn't considered human yet, which is one of the reasons why abortion is free game. Since it's not considered human, it shouldn't be afforded the same rights and protections as a human.

But it will be a human.

I just want to clarify for anyone participating in this thread that a fetus is a biologically distinct human being, an individual human life that isn't merely a "potential" person or a part of the mother's body by any genetic, biological, or medical definition.

I just want to clarify for anyone participating in this thread that this little "helpful" comment is complete bullshit and Turkey is, once again, talking out of his ass.

Feel free to cite anything in your favor, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

2) Fertilization

Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O'Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes -- the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being, the single-cell human zygote, is biologically an individual, a living organism -- an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)

In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis; each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts --each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

What's up with NYC and retarded alcohol laws

The law doesn't even treat fetuses as part of a woman's body, though; that's why someone can be charged with two separate crimes for killing a pregnant woman, or can be charged for harming a fetus in general (see: Unborn Victims of Violence Act). The mother-fetus relationship is somewhere in the medical proxy ballpark, where the mother is charged with providing responsible care, but is paradoxically also allowed to end the life she's charged with protecting (within certain time limits) for no medically-sound reason.