Thread 40744958

Liberals are already turning on us and even deeply bluepilled mothers would be able to justify it because of the child having a hard life from the discrimination. I'm starting to think abortion might have a hard political boomerang incoming that turns it into a de facto eugenics program against us.

>pro life tranny
go back to thailand

>get to die before ever experiencing the lifetime of misery and persecution that is gender dysphoria
sign me up all aboard the eugenics train
only trenders are happy being trans

>>40744958 (OP)
OK

>>40744958 (OP)
Leftism was the worst thing that happened to homosexuality and autogynephila since Christianity. We were in the right path to acceptance but Marxism came to fucking lobotomize everyone

>>40744958 (OP)
I don't see why it would even be contradictory to be pro-legalized abortion and anti-screening embryos for queer genes. There's no contradiction between saying you have the right to decide whether you want a kid or not but not the right to play god and pick what kind of kid you get. I honestly don't even think doctors should be legally allowed to tell you the sex of the baby until it's born.

>>40744958 (OP)
i frankly wouldn't mind if they got me in utero.

>>40744958 (OP)
Okay so I am pro choice. And the way to solve what is mentioned in the image is to make it illegal for doctors to disclose the gender or sexuality (if that can even be detected) until birth.

>>40745063
People can already "play god" by picking parners with specific genes.
Your reasoning is caveman sci fi

>>40745063
Human life begins at conception

>>40745092
highly dependent on your definition of 'life', and if you leave it at this then it remains to be proven whether it even matters. some lives are worth more than others, and in my mind at least an embryo's life is quite low on the totem pole.

>>40745063
>>40745081
Making gender reveals illegal would enrage 99% of all cis people. Children are their property and they feel no love for them, only retirement income and grandkids to further torment if they play their assigned roles right.
Also the fact that many still consider mental illness to be disabilities, and gender dysphoria or homosexuality to be mental illnesses, doesn't bode well given that disabilities are already fully legal to be screened for and culturally acceptable to abort a child over. It is not a far stretch at all to think that would include queer kids getting aborted once that's possible.

>>40745120
New human individual is created at conception

Lets be real, most trannies would rather have been aborted

>>40745143
changing the word from 'life' to 'individual' has no impact on the substance of the situation.

There's a tight relation between abortion amd ruining my life, I am against it.

>>40744958 (OP)
Putting everything else aside, we should be pro-choice because pro-choice abortion policy produces a healthier society. If you know anything about the impact of abortion policy, you know that criminalizing abortion inevitably results in harm to society because so many people are forced to raise children they are unprepared for in subpar circumstances and this results in higher crime as those children come of age with little prospects for success in life. It increases unhappiness and suffering. Therefore, it's bad policy based more on religious ideas than on tangible benefits.

>>40745138
>Making gender reveals illegal would enrage 99% of all cis people. Children are their property and they feel no love for them, only retirement income and grandkids to further torment if they play their assigned roles right
1) Tell me something I don't know
2) That's sort of exactly what I think needs to change, the societal conception of children as property is barbaric
>>40745088
>Your reasoning is caveman sci di
What does is that even supposed to mean? Is that seething techbro babble for "REEEEEEE I CHILDREN SHOULD BE PROPERTY THE FLESH IS WEAK"

>>40745163
It does

>>40745176
Why isn't this also justification for killing criminals and the depressed as is? And if it isn't, why are they allowed to turn their lives around or keep living despite their evil and/or suffering, but the unborn are not?

>>40745194
They are already living humans in the world. Embryos in the womb are not. They are at best potential living humans in the world. There's a pretty big difference there.

>>40745138
> Making gender reveals illegal would enrage 99% of all cis people.
It would lol.

>>40744958 (OP)
If we can ban abortion we can just ban testing for the gay gene

>>40745207
What makes an unborn child not a living human? I know that life begins at conception, scientifically as well, so killing someone off at any point is pretty abhorrent.

>>40745230
I'm not going to debate with you. I'm here to spit facts and that's it. Criminalizing abortion is bad for society and it's bad for living humans with lives to think of. Everything else is just an excuse for you to try to make people support bad policy for bad reasons.

>>40744958 (OP)
I don't see the problem. For one, parents can already choose to abort a child that is shown to be guaranteed disabled, and two if a gay or trans child is born to hateful parents that can't terminate their known to be gay/trans child, then what? It would be even worse than what happens now because the parents begin their resent of their child even in infancy. People trying to find solutions about making this kind of knowledge illegal are being completely ridiculous, it would only attach a black market price tag, not stop it.

>>40745230
>>40745230
>I know that life begins at conception, scientifically as well, so killing someone off at any point is pretty abhorrent.
abortion is much less about when it's okay to kill someone and much more about whether mothers have an obligation to let fetuses leech off their body, which they don't.

>>40745267
>I'm here to spit facts and that's it.
Odd, because the facts I'm spitting directly disprove yours. Oh well, you'll either come back as anon later or actually go away.

>>40745298
What I've said is a fact. We've seen it play out over and over again in the real-world. Abortion bans are ineffective and harmful draconian policies implemented for bad reasons (mainly religion) and they should be opposed.

>>40745188
Caveman sci fi is reactionary attitudr towards any innovation, claiming humans are "going too far", or "playing god" that ends up looking silly after the innovation becomes commonplace
Organ transplants, in vitro fertilization, even lightning rods had people claiming "playing god" when they got introducef

>>40745285
>and much more about whether mothers have an obligation to let fetuses leech off their body, which they don't
So for anyone that you could be considered responsible for you have a right to kill them? Does this go for any kind of dependant, like breastfeeding children or disable people?

>>40745063
>>40745138
artificial wombs will solve this
china is going to be the first country to use artificial wombs to manually determine their population and gender balance, justified by their mistakes with the one child policy
lots of westerners will be really mad about this

>>40745063
>I don't see why it would even be contradictory to be pro-legalized abortion and anti-screening embryos for queer genes. There's no contradiction between saying you have the right to decide whether you want a kid or not but not the right to play god and pick what kind of kid you get. I honestly don't even think doctors should be legally allowed to tell you the sex of the baby until it's born.

I am extremely pro-LGBT but we shouldn't ban the ability to look at any gene of an embryo or blastocyst. Abortion is potentially a moral concern in the third trimester. Throwing a blastocyst in a trashcan is as morally bad as sneezing out a bacterium. And the philosophical argument about there being fewer gay or trans or deaf or furry or emo people being born is nonsense.

>>40745229
The entire genome gets sequenced at hje same time. If you want to ban looking for a gay gene (if that even exists) you have to ban all genetic analysis

>>40745313
Abortion bans allow more children to experience being alive and to chose their own path through it, which is a fact, and have been very effective at letting children live no matter how evil their parents wish to be. That is a good for the world that is immeasurable no matter what you believe in.

>>40745316
Somehow I think it's pretty easy to distinguish genetic screening-enabled eugenics as a very different kind of playing god than all of those examples you cited, which without exception serve to preserve life rather than preemptively scrub entire categories of people out of it...

>>40745322
the alternative to breastfeeding a child is giving them formula.

>>40745352
Who pays for and dispenses the formula? It's the mother, which makes the child a "leech" on them. So they can kill them, right?

>>40744958 (OP)
i support lgbt rights because we exist and dont deserve to suffer, i dont care about hypothetical faggots that arent concious people

you presuppose the personhood of the fetus here and thats even if a gay/tranny gene exists

>>40745348
There is nothing wrong with scrubbing out traits if you're doing it in the virtual realm before a being is born. Superbaby engineering is cool.

Plus transness and gayness are so complicatedly polygenic, environmental, and subject to chaos and even psychology that there's no way that even if 100% of parents did this that gay or trans people would stop existing in the future. There might be fewer gay people but trans rates might actually go up as people start to reframe transness as a preference rather than an aversion. You can't weed out a preference.

>>40745337
>And the philosophical argument about there being fewer gay or trans or deaf or furry or emo people being born is nonsense.
How so? Gene editing is going to happen eventually, and to support it further discoveries about fertility are going to eventually be made. There's already plenty of evidence suggesting that hormone imbalances in the mother heavily contribute to mentally ill or queer children, so it's a small leap in logic from screening for the mother's hormones to aborting if they're too out of line, given that aborting children that have other disabilities is already normalized.

>>40745337
>it's not a moral concern that people would seek to eliminate 'undesirable' categories of people from society via selective abortion
Why? Because you personally would not do that? Or because you somehow have arrived at the conclusion that it's not genocide as long as it's merely preventing more untermenschen from being born rather than killing them?

>>40745360
so they can put them up for adoption :/
and yes, i know it's not quite that simple in reality. however, i am willing to advocate for a system in which that's easy for the sake of logical consistency.

>>40745322
Not exactly, the analogy goes that you would never be forced to give blood, give an organ, etc to someone even if they were direct family, 100% match only you can give this kidney, under no circumstances would your bodily autonomy be infringed upon to force giving of your body for that
>>40745344
>immeasurable good
This is a matter of philosophy and not science, actually your whole "an embryo is equal value to any other human life at any other stage" is only philosophy, and a very recent one at that. For the vast majority of human history life was considered to start when a baby drew it's first breathe outside its mother's womb.
You can have your own outlook but acting like it's an authoritative one is disingenuous.

>>40745410
>This is a matter of philosophy and not science
If people are not alive they cannot experience any society or culture, no matter how supposedly good or better it would be if people can kill them before they see it. That is not a philosophy, that is a fact.

>>40745348
>Somehow I think
>muh feefees

Nobody should be forced to have a child they dont want and nobody should be forced to be born with screenable genetic problems. Life doesnt have to be a gacha just because people of the past didnt have the means to remove the random.
Lightning rods removed the randomness of lightning strikes
Dams removed the randomness of floods
Vaccines removed the randomness of getting killed by a lot of diseases
In the past people believed all those things were punishments from the gods

In the future your stance against genetic screening will be no diferent from the stances against lightning rods because they "obstructed god's will"

>>40745365
I get that but it will be used to eradicate lgbt people

>>40745440
The *judgement* of these scenarios as good or bad is what is philosophy, we are all familiar with the facts anon.

>>40745451
First, it wont work, as other anons alreafy explained
Second, even if it did, so what?
The problem was never wether lgbts existed or not, but that the ones that did exist were subjected to suffering due to discrimination snd "correction" attempts

>>40745446
Okay Khan Noonien Singh, I'm sure that people of the future will place absolutely 0 limits on genetic screening and definitely won't look back on people like you who thought only 'normal' people should exist as nazi freaks who were thankfully roundly ignored by mainstream bioethicists.

>>40745486
>The *judgement* of these scenarios as good or bad is what is philosophy
Okay then, that means society is not scientifically better when abortion is legal. To claim that it is would be philosophy, which is apparently banned from a discussion about the worth of human life.

>>40745392
>Or because you somehow have arrived at the conclusion that it's not genocide as long as it's merely preventing more untermenschen from being born rather than killing them?

That. Like, do I think wishing to be the opposite sex or feeling attraction to the same sex makes you untermeschen? Obviously not. If anything it possibly makes you übermenschen, and I say this as a straight cis white guy. But it seems morally neutral if society decides to remove certain traits from the pool, unless the traits they preserve increase suffering of the individual or others. Traits aren't moral patients. People are.

Things like deafness and blindness should be culled. Things like homosexuality are morally neutral to cull. Things like cancer-protective genes are morally neutral to cull.

There's an argument that gender dysphoria leads to great suffering with low chance of that suffering being reduced to below the average baseline of someone without it in one's lifetime, though there's also the argument that gender dysphoria seems to correlate with higher intelligence and creativity, so the particular merit analysis there is tricky.

>>40745385
I'm saying it's morally irrelevant if that occurs, not that it won't occur.

Then again, I think it's morally irrelevant if tigers go extinct, while I also think it's morally heinous to kill a tiger, so maybe I'm weird.

>>40745508
Sorry, that last sentence is obviously "cancer-protective genes are morally wrong to cull"

>>40745503
>but that the ones that did exist were subjected to suffering due to discrimination snd "correction" attempts
If a queer child exists in a mothers womb, and they're killed because of it, isn't that discriminatory killing and an attempt at "correcting" the child's gender or sexuality?

>>40745527
>it's morally irrelevant if [queer people are scrubbed from existence]
Odd thing to say on the LGBT board. You here from /pol/?

>>40745344
forcing women to give birth is not the win for society you think it is

>>40745508
Lmao this is just soft-nazism. Who the fuck died and made you the great decider of who is and isn't lebenswertes leben? There are plenty of deaf and blind people who lead perfectly happy lives, and the same can be said for trans people. The idea that scrubbing types of people who have been part of the species as long as the species has existed is 'morally neutral' because it wouldn't involve killing is morally depraved. It is barely distinct from the logic of the Germans who decided, having consulted themselves, that they did not need to share this world with the poles or the jews. The world judged their project...harshly.

>>40745508
So because you personally believe that your morals around trait culling are just, that everyone will hypothetically follow them? What happens when someone who has the opposite views as you gets pregnant somewhere between when this option is invented and you rule the world?

>>40745583
killing children is not the win for society you think it is

>>40745506
>0 limits on genetic screening
How do you put limits on that? Please explain
Genome is sequenced, all genes are revealed at the same time, if parent doesnt like it they can choose to abort
Then what? Do you ask them why they chose to abort? What if they lie? How do you prove anything?
Its an all ot notjing deal.
Are you so spiteful that you would force children to be born with preventable genetic diseased just to force the straighties to have gay children too?
Why do you even want that?

>>40745549
An embryo is not a child
>imagine being a faggot and a christcuck at the same time

>>40745609
there's a distinct difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing a child

>>40745562
No. I am pro-LGBT and even think LGBT people are overall superior to the rest. I just don't believe in this sort of logic. But as I said, it's too polygenic to wipe out, anyway.

>>40745586
I am actually kind of a meta-Nazi in that I think all Nazis should probably be extrajudicially exterminated due to how evil they are. Eugenics is independent from Nazism, however. I'm a pro-eugenics left-liberal. (To be very clear, I do not think being gay or trans is dysgenic in the slightest. I think being born deaf or blind is dysgenic, though.)

Lebenswertes leben means life unworthy of life. I am talking about traits that are morally neutral to remove. Traits aren't lives, or individuals, or people, or consciousnesses, or souls. Hypothetical non-existent people aren't being genocided if a trait is removed.

My being pro-eugenics is also actually totally irrelevant to that subject of trait morality as well. That's just me being in favor of parents engineering their children to be more intelligent, have better memories, age less quickly. I suppose one could possibly make an argument that maybe being trans is often associated with good traits so that maybe transness should even be selected for or implanted, but the suffering induced by gender dysphoria would morally complicate that.

if somebody doesn't want to grow a gay or trans or any other kind of baby inside themselves then I don't want them to be forced to do so because I'm not a sick freak that wants to tell people what they can do with their bodieis

>>40744958 (OP)
I'm currently applying to an anti abortion organization to help them with their website. Really hope I get it. Foids don't deserve the gift they were given

>>40745668
I'm atheist. An embryo is a developmental stage of human life, which is it's own unique entity from the moment of conception. It does not have to be consciousness to be alive because consciousness does not define life and it'd be ridiculous if it did, as it would exclude you from being alive if your were asleep or knocked out.

>>40745672
>there's a distinct difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing a child
Such as? Children are alive both in and outside the womb anon. Killing them is the same action regardless of where it happens.

>>40744958 (OP)
i hope that we haev artificial wombs before this becomes a problem because then trannies can just get 1 million kids to make cis foid heartlessness moot, as part of our replacement of them.

Why does an embryo hold equal importance to a born child to some people? It makes no sense to me, it's like considering sperms alive and "spilling seed" to be the same as murder.

>>40745360
anon it's my turn for attention. respond to >>40745407? please? :]

>>40744958 (OP)
I'm fine with abortion being an option for women but it really should not be as common as it is
it should be strongly discouraged and regarded as the tragedy that it is
not celebrated like it often is in liberal/feminist spaces

>>40745745
next you're going to tell me a woman ought to be charged with a crime if she miscarries

>>40745680
>it's too polygenic to wipe out
What that means is that if it's not genetic, then it's environmental, which is must easier to wipe out than a genetic factor.

>>40745704
Which one? I like rehumanize, but they're very small. PAAU is also another one and has even made the news once or twice. Both are extremely pro LGBT and atheist.

>>40745783
I missed your reply. Why can't they put them up for adoption after they give birth? What makes the responsibility different if the child is a "leech" while inside them vs outside besides present day legal precedent?

>>40745745
Im gonna put you in a crazy ass Spiderman scenario where im green goblin holding 1 car full of embryos that will be inserted into a women's uterus and fertilized and 1 car holding 1 (one) singular crying baby

pro abortion is not pro eugenics

>>40745794
No? That's as absurd as saying you're a murder if someone passes away while visiting your house.

>>40745745
ants are alive

>>40745824
>promoting a program that's advertised as helping cull the non-white, poor, and disabled is not eugenics

>>40745850
abortion isn't a program

>>40744992
Love that movie

>>40745194
>Why isn't this also justification for killing criminals and the depressed as is? And if it isn't, why are they allowed to turn their lives around or keep living despite their evil and/or suffering, but the unborn are not?

Because your stupid nation is too pussy to invent death penalty

>>40745846
They are. If you burn them with a magnifying glass or pour boiling water in their hills, you're also pretty fucked up.

>>40745858
>semantics

>>40745871
what about extracting them from your womb in a way that kills them

>>40745829
tell that to ohio and georgia and other states where women have been prosecuted after losing pregnancies

>>40745813
because forcing them to support it with their own body for several months and/or give birth is unacceptable.

>>40745745
>atheist essentialist
Lmao, are you an anarcho communist or any other self contradicting ideology as well?
An embryo is human, but so is a kidney, yet a kidney is not a person and neither is an embryo
What makes a person be a person is the human ecperience, which for an embryo has no not started, so it isnpt a person
A sleeping or comatose person has already begun their human experience, and it is ongoing if they are dreaming
Personhood is maintained since acquired by having a human experienceand is lost only upon death
To say otherwise would imply a human kidney removed from a body and attached to a life suppory system is a person on itself

>>40745899
Sure, can you get them on a call so I can say that to all of them?

>>40745907
And breastfeeding or otherwise rearing a child is not supporting them with your body?

>>40745884
that's not a semantic rebuttal, you treat abortion like it's a program or a movement or an agenda, it isn't

>>40745912
An embryo is a human body in it's entirety at that stage of life. It's not any different than saying a baby is a human body despite having a lot of growing left to do until adulthood.

>>40745924
yeah man hang on

>>40745912
personhood is just a category we put people into or don't

>>40745924
do you want women to be forced to breastfeed lmao

>>40745924
>And breastfeeding or otherwise rearing a child is not supporting them with your body?
these things are quickly and easily remedied by the means i've already laid out in >>40745352 and >>40745407.

>>40745939
abortion is a program and killing children is what the program is about

>>40745950
>human body in it's entirety
Is that your definition of a person? Amputees arent people?

>>40745958
>personhood is just a category we put people into or don't
So, "person" is a category that can contain "person"?

>>40745966
>these things are quickly and easily remedied
Yes, like letting the child come to term and then putting them up for adoption if they don't want them. Why place an arbitrary line between when killing them because you're responsible for them becomes okay or not?

>>40745979
That's not my argument and you know it isn't.

>>40745958
>personhood is just a category we put people into or don't
wow socrates so if someone places an embryo into the personhood category what happens

>>40745967
it's not a program it's a procedure, it's a thing you can do

>>40745994
it's a category we collectively police
are androids people? there's no objectively right answer, we just decide if we let them in the club

>>40746012
that person would presumably see embryos as people, the assignment to the category doesn't change anything material

>>40746004
>Yes, like letting the child come to term
in what way is experiencing pregnancy for several months and giving birth quick and easy? could you do me a favor, anon, and ask your mother if being pregnant with and giving birth to you was an experience she'd describe as quick and easy?
the mother has a right to get the fetus out of her body, and she has a right to do it immediately insofar as that's practically possible.
the line is not "arbitrary". the reason it's acceptable to kill the fetus for an abortion is that we have no better solution. if it could be transplanted to an artificial womb or something, i'd advocate for that every time.

>>40746036
>more semantics
whatever you call it it's a killing of a child and any ethical person will take a stand against it and any structures that support it

>>40746004
>That's not my argument and you know it isn't.
>"my logic works because I say so"

nah, your logic broken
Also, an embryo with a genetic condition that would botch its development and cause a miscarriage before the 2nd trimester has the same body as a healthy embryo. Yet one has the potential to become a fully grown human and the other doesnt
Lots of these early miscarriages happen without the mother even realizing, do you consider all those to be people too?

>>40746097
>nah, your logic broken
You say this but can't point out where. If you can claim it without evidence or argument I can dismiss it without evidence or argument.

>>40746107
Your logic is broken because it requires a complete human body to be a person, which excludes amputees

>>40746067
>whatever you call it it's a killing of a child
I'm not sure what you think semantics are, because I'm not making a semantic argument, you are attributing some kind of bigger cause to abortion, some context it must exist in unable to be free of, but that's not true, you can have an abortion without doing it for eugenic reasons
also, you're making a semantic argument yourself, you're defining an embryo as a child so you can use the weight of the idea of killing a child, which sounds like you're blowing the brains out of a ten year old, when really you're killing something far less sophisticated
>look at this word look at this word, look at the weight it holds, don't you feel bad?

>>40746133
Where and how did you come to this conclusion? I never said either statement and disagree with you.

Being pro choice it's the easiest way to stop folks like me /poor broke losers/ (chaotic evil creatures;) from existing and running your perfect worlds

>>40746134
>using a word for anything is semantics actually, heh owned
this argument is a joke that writes itself
>you can have an abortion without doing it for eugenic reasons
i'm not op
>you're defining an embryo as a child
you're defining a child as an embryo so you can say it doesn't matter if they're killed

>>40746165
>>40745950
>An embryo is a human body in it's entirety at that stage of life. It's not any different than saying a baby is a human body despite having a lot of growing left to do until adulthood.

Right there, you say that an embryo is a person because it is an entire human body

Gun owners bad
pro choice bad
sex work bad
Free speech bad

I like rhetoric of this site
Nice

>>40746227
I didn't say using a word for anything is semantics
I didn't say you're op
I didn't say a child is an embryo
I didn't say it doesn't matter if children are killed
you seem to be arguing in bad faith

>>40744958 (OP)
honestly i kind of support this is that bad

>>40746244
>you say that an embryo is a person because it is an entire human body
No? Please show your work on how you arrived at that conclusion, because I can't see how what I said was interpreted that way.

>>40746282
>demeaning canned response in an attempt to incite anger

You have lost and you know it. Whats next? You gonna tell me you were just pretending to be stupid?

>start with the premise that an embryo is a human body in its entirety
>claim that killing the embryo would be no different from killing a baby
>killing a baby is bad because a baby is a person
>therefore, you implied the embryo is a person
>so, you started from the premise that the embryo is a human body in its entirety at that stage of life, and concluded that it is a person
>in other words, you claimed an embryo is a person because it is an entire human body

then
>an amputee is not a human body in its entirety
>the premise is missing
>according to your logic, the amputee is not a person

>>40744958 (OP)
i mean im generally pro life but i don't understand why you wouldn't support some kind of eugenic solution to sex dysphoria. i wouldn't want anyone else to have to deal with this if they didn't have to

>>40746477
You seem to be pulling out the bad faith weirdness even more but I'll at least tidy up the confusion you seem to have.
>in other words, you claimed an embryo is a person because it is an entire human body
This is where you lost me, because that's not what I was saying. An embryo is that child's entire body at the stage of life they're in. They have personhood because they have their own human body. It was in response to you saying they were equal to something like a kidney, which is a part of another person's body and eventually (well hopefully) the child also has their own kidney(s) that can be a part of their human body.

You then started to rage at me over amputee's because you somehow assume that I mean someone without a kidney is no longer a human body, so that would also mean someone without a limb is also no longer a human body. That is not true and not even close to what I said. An amputee would still have a human body, just without a limb that's usually there, because their arm was not their personhood, just like their kidney isn't. Their whole human body, in it's entirety, limb or no limb, is what gives them personhood. They factually exist in the material world with a human body.

If you were to remove their entire body piece by piece until they were no longer able to live in that body, then it becomes more questionable if they're still able to be defined as an entire human body, rather than a disjointed set of pieces that were formerly part of a living human body. If you agree that any human's body should not be torn apart or away from them, especially if killing them in the process, then you also agree that abortion shouldn't be practiced, because that is exactly how they kill children when in the embryo or fetal stage of life. They tear their body apart into pieces so they can no longer live in it.

Hopefully this clears things up for you.

>>40746633
>i dont know how to construct an argument and its everyone elses fault

So, you start from the premise that an embryo is a child despite that being the very thinh we are debating, and you dont back this claim with anything

So, you actually dont have an argument

>>40746004
anonn pay attention >>40746060

>>40746718
Let's have a recap. You started with the unfounded claim that
>>40745668
>An embryo is not a child
despite providing nothing to back up that claim yourself. I responded with the clarification that
>>40745745
>An embryo is a developmental stage of human life, which is it's own unique entity from the moment of conception.
with the first statement being my claim against yours and the second part being at least a cursory backing up of what I said.

So yes, I have an argument. Maybe you're also confused on what that is considering the one you presented in response to it, but I can probably help you understand that too if you help work out where the misunderstanding is.

>>40746633
what's wrong with killing an unborn baby anon? is it because you put it in the category of "child"? because that's a weak argument, you can group anything in any kind of way

>>40746848
>that's a weak argument, you can group anything in any kind of way
What an amazing insight. It's so amazing it could redefine literally anything you wanted to with it, literally.
>What's wrong with x? You just group it with y.
I'm astonished and my morality is crumbling.

>>40746838
>>An embryo is not a child
>despite providing nothing to back up that claim yourself. I responded with the clarification that
An embryo is not a child because it does not have, and has never had a human experience

we are debating wether or not a embryo is a person
You caim it is, and mention that embryo is a stage of human development, however, and embryo can split and create twins
can a person with a single body become two people?
who was the single embryo before it split in two? sibling A? sibling B? both? neither?
this is nonsense, you cannot split a person in two and get two people, but with an embryo you can, because an embryo is not a person
an embryo might or might not develop into one or more people, but it is not a person yet

also, your dismissive professor roleplay attempt makes you sound like a butthurt asshole

Also I am heading out for a but. I have life stuff to do. Yes I have to say this or else I'll come back to pic related everywhere.

>>40746970
>What an amazing insight. It's so amazing it could redefine literally anything you wanted to with it, literally.
not an argument
>I'm astonished and my morality is crumbling.
not an argument

seems like you don't actually have an argument as to why it's wrong to kill unborn babies

>>40746979
>An embryo is not a child because it does not have, and has never had a human experience
I guess I can nip this in the bud quickly before I go. I define being a person as having a body in the physical world, which happens at conception. You define it as some odd wishwash of experiential consciousness that cannot even be defined for walking talking adults.

>>40747020
ants have bodies in the physical world

>>40744958 (OP)
Contrary to popular misconception, there does not exist empirical evidence to support the claim that all cases of non-heterosexual sexuality or all cases of transsexuality in human beings are biologically determined. Put more simply, no “gay” or “trans gene” has ever been found. Therefore, it is impossible for human beings to detect a “gay” or “trans embryo” or “fetus”. (Opinion: The notion of a “gay” or “trans embryo” or “fetus” is specious; it’s unlikely that such a one has knowledge of the existence of other beings [or even of itself], and thus unlikely that it can have a sexual orientation; regarding a “trans fetus” or “embryo”, there is no such thing: no fetus or embryo has a transgender gender presentation; no fetus or embryo has ever undergone transsexual hormone replacement therapy; no fetus has ever undergone a transsexual operation.)
The “born this way” narrative became popular not because it’s an accepted scientific theory, but only because it was politically convenient at the time. What the relevant empirical evidence does suggest is that non-heterosexual sexualities and transsexuality in human beings arise due to a complex interplay of many biological and environmental factors; there is likely no single cause of all cases of non-heterosexual sexuality or transsexuality in human beings.

Sources and further reading:
https://juliaserano.medium.com/biology-sex-and-transgender-people-a-resource-page-4f11b1058103?sk=2ff90c6014f81c6b5a57ea19a77516f1 (see the video essay in particular)
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/17/its-time-to-rethink-born-this-way-a-phrase-thats-been-key-to-lgbtq-acceptance/

>>40747020
>makes dumb claim
>runs away
>leaves picture of anime girl to try to defend him

Got too scared of the twin thing?

>>40744958 (OP)
I support the eventual future where we use eugeniks to promote high funktioning autizm to kreate a better sosiety overall
Autizm is harmful to the individual but more benefisial to the sosiety ,and so we ought to selekt for it to eventually kreate a sosiety where even to the autist the sosial benefits of autizm outweigh the negatives of being autistik

>>40747183
gender is obviously inborn. david reimer and other children who underwent similar 'treatments' are the best demonstration of this imo.

>>40747213
Insufferable spelling convention aside, this position is evil; you acknowledge that “Auti[s]m is harmful to the individual” yet support a eugenics that would select for Autistic individuals.
The most ethical vision of a future society is one in which human beings (or our posthuman descendants) have been biologically engineered to be incapabble of suffering. https://www.hedweb.com

>>40747365
>The most ethical vision of a future society is one in which human beings (or our posthuman descendants) have been biologically engineered to be incapabble of suffering.
That reminds me of something read
Apparently, all domesticated animals have smaller brains than their wild counterparts
It seems they have lost a big chunk of their capacity to suffer, which probably helps them survive in the painful environments of factory farming, where sustenance is practically guaranteed and they dont need to think

>>40747278
Define “gender”.

>>40747414
God, I wish that were me. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that neurotypical human beings have evolved in a similar fashion.

>>40747418
well there's gender the concept and there's the gender you or i have.
gender the concept involves the sex-based social groups we have evolved to sort ourselves into, those being men and women.
the gender we have refers to one's innate sense of belonging to either of these social groups.

>>40747365
Im talking about selektion for karakteristiks
If we have in depth genetik engineering ,thats a whole nother story
Additionally ,I pretty klearly outlined that this would end up benefitting the autistik individual more than had they been born neurotypikal in a neurotypikal sosiety ,so the benufits outweigh the drawbakks
Please explain how that is evil
Also yknow ,an autistik sosiety would naturally be less hard on neurodivergents kompared to the existing one ,so the diffikulty to the individual would be redused

>>40747414
>It seems they have lost a big chunk of their capacity to suffer
is there any evidence for this or is it just a cope to justify eating meat?

>>40747526
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
The society that you describe would likely be very like to France.

It's ironic that you guys all consider yourself subversive, and is arguably true, subverting gender expectations. (even though gender expectations are dumb.) You've even gone on about astroturfinf groups and "le Russian bot farms".

The irony being you can't detect that political groups and fundamentalists are infiltrating and subverting ideals?

Just the mastercard thing should have been a massive wake up call once a "pro life radical feminist grassroots group" with ties to lobbyists, government members, media, and religious fundamentalist think tanks, managed to get a massive multinational corporation to cut a heap of profit in order to reflexively institute a "moral clause".

Water is beginning to boil fellow frogs.

>>40747607
Kloser to the Nederlands I think ,but with faster sosial progress (whic itself means sosiety will take on better forms and reforms faster) ,more effisient organization ,and other benefits we have yet to see

>>40744958 (OP)
yes I support that. Problem? Sucks for us but the mother gets to decide.
Abortion is already helping to eliminate retards like Downies, it's a good thing.

>>40744958 (OP)
Liberals != leftists

>>40747521
Do you believe that feral children or children raised in confinement have a “sense of belonging to […] social groups”?

you guys were not prepared for the internet and you're certainly not fucking prepared to be attempting to wrangle big hairy things like ontology or phenomenology against potential future technology.

>>40748481
being raised in that kind of setting leads to such divergent development that i doubt one's sense of gender is preserved.

>>40747545
>or is it just a cope to justify eating meat?
It always is.

>>40744958 (OP)
>Is it even possible to deny this?
Yes.

>>40744958 (OP)
picrel is right practically but wrong morally. being pro choice as a tranny is both morally correct and demographic suicide, like most morally correct positions ie., being pro immigration even if many of those immigrants are conservative. the society would not have a place for ppl like me. morally we probably should not exist. i wish i was aborted honestly

>>40749712
*the ideal society srry im drunk and v stupid and should have been detected by science and not allowed to be born

>>40744958 (OP)
So if you're assuming we can get to a level in science where you can detect from chromosomes or biomarkers in a fetus's blood whether they will be trans or not with high accuracy.
If we're at that insane level why wouldn't everyone just have designer babies like GATTACA making this whole conversation moot?

>>40746979
>however, and embryo can split and create twins
>can a person with a single body become two people?
>who was the single embryo before it split in two? sibling A? sibling B? both? neither?
Are you trying to make some kind of argument that people have souls, and there can't be two souls from one body? I'm atheist as already stated. I also just don't see why twins make a difference to what kind of person an embryo is.
>this is nonsense, you cannot split a person in two and get two people, but with an embryo you can
...and? If you clone someone then that clone is also a human being. I'm not sure what else you're getting at here because there doesn't seem to be any valid argument behind it, it's just random embryo facts. I've already established the body changes throughout life stages, which should be a concept you're familiar with if you're capable of longterm memory, and the twins thing is just one of many other random things that become possible or impossible as a person moves through them.

>>40747087
They do. Ant bodies. But not antibodies. Know the difference, it could save your life one day.

>>40747207
>him
Oh the misgendering is starting, now I know you're going all in on bad faith.

>>40747660
Are you implying I could be getting paid for being pro life? Where do I sign up? A shame it's apparently a religious group paying out but abortion is an issue worth cutting across different beliefs for.

>>40749712
>the society would not have a place for ppl like me
You can be pro life without being religious or conservative. I've never once considered wanton murder of children to be a morally just or compassionate position to have, which is supposedly what you lump it in with like immigration.

>>40749750
> wanton murder of children
i do not consider them children is the issue. ironically, i am religious which is a contradiction, but i dont think being pro-life is a considerate position to actual human beings who have been born and lived life and want the control over their bodies that they deserve, even if it on some level goes against what i believe and want

>>40744958 (OP)
sounds good to me

>>40745330
Artificial wombs will also get rid of gay men as mothers body is not able to feminize them anymore.