It doesn't matter though if you think it is a woman's right to choose or not. Because legal or not...if she doesn't want the kid...she is going to kill it. Want to get Marines to start tying their ankles together and stand over them for 9 months? How far do you want the govt to go with it? I am in favor of smaller government. I don't think it is fair that you want to put even more taxpayer money towards enforcing this.
Fetus cannot think or feel or opinionate. Fetus is part of, inside of the woman's body and thus her property until birth to extend personhood rights to, or deny. Until 5 months development a fetus cannot even feel pain. Self-awareness does not develop until after birth, 1 1/2, 2 years, WELL after the need for abortion even exists, b/c born babies can be adopted and fetuses can't. Human dna is meaningless- my foot has human dna but it is not a person, and it needs me to function.
@AMPatriot4Life Yes, a fetus can BECOME a person.. but that is potentiality, not actuality. I never knew of a fetus that became president, cured cancer, or serial-raped or mass-murdered, you know. You need people for that, and not developing human shells. I'm not insulting you, or trying to pick a fight, by the way. I'm just stating facts. How much do you know about brain development/function.. neurology, psychology? Also, how many human fetuses can love, hate, grieve, rejoice, fear?
A fetus inside of a pregnant woman is a human being. That is a scientific fact. Homosapiens look it up, that fetus that you hate so much is a member of the same human family as you and I.
@AMPatriot4Life Human, and human being are two different things. I think you are confusing the two terms. No, I don't hate fetuses- why do so-called pro'life'rs always have to lie about pro-choicers and decide what they think/feel? I don't hate fetuses one bit. Hating a developing hunk of human meat that cannot even think is just stupid. It is sad that image is all that matters to pro'life'rs- the IDEA of a 'cute little baby'.. the image, not the actuality. Shallow. 'Boobs=better than brains'
@AMPatriot4Life Define human being, and opposed to human. Tell me which criteria fits the fetus, and fits the woman. =) Please? Or should I do it for you?
A human fetus inside of a human woman is a human being, a homo sapiens, just as much as you and I. This is a simple SCIENTIFIC FACT, and yet somehow we legally allow them to be non judicially executed just because they are at a different stage of human development than the executioners.
@AMPatriot4Life Define 'human being' as opposed to 'human'. Also, do you know what lethal force is, self defense primarily, and why killing another human is not always illegal OR immoral, such as when one human puts another at imminent risk? Rape, carjacking, burglary, kidnapping? And are you implying/forgetting that no pregnancy ever directly, NEGATIVELY affects a woman's life in a way that cannot be undone if allowed to continue, via physical or emotional, even social damages? I can elaborate.
What you are saying is that you support lethal force is justified if someone causes social or emotional damages. YOUR VIEWS ARE VERY DANGEROUS AND VIOLENT. I am glad that the rest of society does not generally support lethal force against our fellow human beings just because of the potential to cause perceived social or emotional damages. What you are advocating is INHUMANITY.
I do not deny anyone the use of lethal self defense but it must only be if your LIFE is in danger.
@AMPatriot4Life So you are against a woman using lethal force to prevent/stop herself from being raped? From a child using lethal force to prevent molestation/kidnapping/battery, against burglary, carjacking, assault, war, and police force? Wow.. I'd love to see how well that ideal of yours stands up when some fuck comes climbing through your window some night. either you are DELIBERATELY ignoring my point, or you are fucked in the head, man. Potentiality can mean a lot of things, but you -c
-c have to consider the risk- is it high or low? How high is the potentiality of killing yourself if you put a pistol in your mouth and pull the trigger? Get it? If a woman faces VERY REAL, VERY LIKELY risks, then abortion is perfectly moral.. if the risks are minimal or nonexistant, then she should not abort, plain and simple. What exactly, is human life? My foot is alive.. but can it think, feel or impact others? Or are you talking about my PERSON being alive- my SELF? Woman>fetus. Soul>image.
@AMPatriot4 Let me get this straight....your right supercedes that of the women who is actually carrying the embryo/fetus. You think you should have control over another person's body, to be able to force them carry an embryo/fetus and undergo childbirth regardless of their wishes. Some people used to have this type of control over other's bodies, lives, and childbirth - they were called slave owners. Slavery's been abolished and abortion is LEGAL so it's all moot.
Dude, you're an idiot. It is her right, given to her by the law of the land. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one! Oh wait, that's right, you don't have to worry about a pregnancy! Shut the hell up!
We Christians must pray for these Pro-choice Evildoers for their murderous hearts of stone to be converted into Pro-Life hearts of love and respect for their fellow Citizens. We must pray that these wicked Pro-choice Advocates of Satan's culture of death renounce their sin against Almighty God our eternal Father, their denial of another Citizen's right to life, and Crime against Humanity that they be redeemed from the fires of everlasting HELL that awaits all unrepentant Pro-choice Murderers.
IF YOU WANT TO TREAT WOMAN LIKE FARM ANIMAL MOVE TO IRAQ AND FIND A WIFE THAT YOU CAN FORCE TO BEAR AS MAY CHILDREN AS YOU WANT. BUT HERE IN AMERICA WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABORT. SO PRO-LIFER SHAPE IN OR SHIP OUT. OUT OF AMERICA THAT IS.
I see many of your commentators didn't "get it"....and I see the difference is still vast between those viewing their children as blessings and those viewing them as burdens.
pro-choice is to support a woman's right to an legal abortion.
well, it doesn't if you don't support abortion or not.
woman has a civil and constitutional right (13th and 14th amendment) to have a legal abortion because unwanted pregnancy counts as involuntary servitude.
@FREEAMERICANOW69 He's stupid because his opinions differ from yours? Matter of fact, your post makes absolutely no sense at all. Translation, please?
"Unwanted pregnancy counts as involuntary servitude" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Love these pseudo-intellectual "constitutional scholars" such as yourself gracing us with your YouTube lectures, lol.
yeah, he's stupid because he's lying about what "pro-choice" is, duh!
sorry, i forgot the "forcing a woman to have an" and it does count as involuntary servitude.
because RvW said that abortion was constitutional and the state can have it's say after viability, duh again.
to there is no law saying a woman has to stay pregnant against her will, civil and constitutional rights, so no law= no due process= unconstitutional.
"Choice USA, an activist, abortion-promoting group, claims that women must be informed about their safe and legal reproductive health choices. They say these choices include abstinence, contraception, abortion, adoption, and parenthood. If you take a closer look at America, however, you begin to see that this same pro-choice movement has basically eliminated abstinence, adoption, and parenthood from a womans list of options"
WHAO - you agree with the 2nd amendment right for a woman to protect herself however she wants - what if that includes removing a human being that she doesn't want using her body from her uterus by force causing it's death (then it's not okay??) - so it's not okay for the woman to interfeer with the health and safety of the person using her body, but it's okay for the fetus that IS using her body to do the same thing? Trust women!
To PROTECT HERSELF!! Not to kill a baby who is in no way, shape or form threatening her life. Is she killing the baby she DOESN'T WANT saving her very life? You are not to interfere with the life of the baby that you indeed, helped to create.The baby had no way of avoiding his/her circumstances, the mother had all the 'CHOICE' there. Now that she has had her 'choice' , the new life has to be given his/her choice!! There is nothing cruel in saying,once you have created the life,you have no right
I believe in the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, to put your baby up for adoption if you do become pregnant, and to sterilize yourself to prevent pregnancy. That is a lot of choices, I'm prochoice, prolife, and anti-abortion!
everyone with half a brain knows that the term "pro-choice" is never intended to imply that pro-lifers are opposed to just any choice in an abortion debate.
There actually are more choices in this world than the choice of killing your own child or not. That is only one of the trillions of choices that people can make. To claim that someone is against ALL choices just because they oppose ONE choice is either dishonest or idiotic.
i never said you had to be ALL of them but when you type in pro-choice guess what the number one result is about? allowing women to ADVOCATE the legal right to obtain an abortion. i dont jumble the definition to suit my needs, i just read the facts as they are.
so, please for all our sakes just go fuck yourself to help keep from repopulating the stupidity.
Pro-Choice, when talking about abortion, means that you support a woman's right to have an abortion. You are clearly talking about abortion in this video. The term is not meant to apply to all choices that a person can maker, so what is the point of this video? You could have just as easily said " a fetus is a human being and nobody has the right to end another human being's life ".
Calling pro-choice people who are pro-abortion is a dirty dangerous euphemism. Pro-choice is a way of avoiding to say:"pro-I-kill-my own-son/daugher-when-ever-I-want", it is as twisted as calling the Holocaust "final solution", or taking Jews to torture and death champs,"re-location",it is a coward, criminal way of hiding the truth.Killing babies because they will be handicaped is also nazi, they did so.Women who "commit" an abortion are selfish criminals.We must start naming things properly.
In other words, people don't want to be held accountable for their actions. If this were the case, people shouldn't be given DUI's because they were drinking to have fun, why should they be punished with a DUI? Because it's a decisoin they make knowing full well the consequences if they get caught.Just as with conception,do these women know what causes pregnancy?If so, they must take responsibility for their actions.
angelshoulders, the last time i heard from you felt like about 3 months ago and now you decide to leave me 5 comments about BS i dont care about anymore? MOVE ON!!!! OMG you are so lame. get a life. the only reason i left a comment on here was because this guy is a hypocrite!! he claims pro-choice and pro-life. by definition they are opposite of each other.
Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement
Oh my God. Shut the fuck up already. Women deserve reproductive rights. Oh and also, abortion is not illegal you idiot. Roe v, Wade !!!! you don't even know what you're talking about so do us all a favor and stop. Just stop. You're just another mindless follower of God. Sheep !
Nice job lying in order to steer the debate away from the positions i actually advocate.
If you would like to try and counter my statements with some facts or logic i would be more than happy to refute you. Otherwise please stop making false assumptions.
ampatriot...LMAO you dont even understand what his insult was stating.
usually those who are pro-life are typically christians because "killing life" is a SIN. and thus they assume people who are so adament about abortion are just followers because theyre interested in everyone elses business but their own.
thats my understanding of his statement.
AND again learn the definition of what you are following and the assumption why someone might think you are christian.
The killing of children is NOT a religious issue but a human rights issue& it is as a "human rights issue" that this battle must be fought.Along with being the organization that is 100% responsible for killing these human beings the American Medical Association is exploiting ALL women by claiming that all of the killing that has taken place so far & all of the killing that will continue to take place into the future is a woman's fault,or as they call it a "woman's choice".
So,not only are children being killed by the American Medical Association,but women are being placed in a situation where they MUST accept the blame because it was"their" choice,not a man's.&if you want to see actual proof that it was a woman's choice all you have to do is refer to the millions upon millions of signatures on the orders of execution - each&every one of them belonging to a woman
The American Medical Association is responsible for the extermination of millions,upon millions,upon millions of human beings.They are doing in under the guise of a medical procedure&they are expoliting women in order to profit from the extermination of these human beings.Any person who says it's a"woman's choice"has bought into the propaganda of blaming women for the extermination of these humans beings.
To make absolutely sure that future generations have proof that women are the ones responsible for all of the killing they demand that a woman(ONLY a woman) sign the order of execution before a member of the AMA will perform the killing.That is to say that every child that is killed by a member of the American Medical Association has a woman's signature associated with the killing.Without this "mandatory" signature of a woman(the mother),the child gets to live.
angelshoulders, youre feeding propaganda!! lets say you happen to overheat your car and just added water to cool it off. after a week your car seems to run just fine nothing seems to be wrong, at the same time you decided to take it for an oil change. the mechanic says you need to have your engine cleaned and check for cracks etc. the car is fine you say and just get the oil change. 9 months down the road your car randomly breaks down for no reason. you soon find out there is water in the oil.
how did you get water in the oil?? why does the oil look so nasty looking?? if you didnt believe the mechanic was feeding you propaganda and just spent several hundred dollars to fix it before any of the BIG problems then your use-to-be-nice car would still be in great shape! now you have to spend a couple thousand just to repair it.
my case and point is that not everyone is trying to scam you dude.
what youre talking about is just business. you see a need, make it a convenience for others.
maybe instead of killing the baby we can remove the fetus from the womb and see if it can live by itself. nobody has the right to live inside another person and use their organs to live.
you are once again demonizing the opposition. integrity and autonomy are states of mind? fine, give me your address. ill bring my saddle and strip you naked and ride you through town. lets see how well your "state of integrity" holds up. i would never be enslaved for 9 months because i was the victim of a violent crime.
OK... Then by using you very own logic, abortion is perfectly fine so long as it happens before the first trimester is up... I mean the fetus doesn't have a functioning brain, a beating heart or any fingers or toes up until a certain point.
they need things for their benefit just like a dying person needs new organs. but that doesnt mean we should be compelled to give them ours. and i have explained before that abortion is stopping the fetus from controlling my body not the other way around. if anybody tries to turn me into an incubator they better start running.
i have every right to dictate someone elses life when that life is imposing itself upon me. yes YOU would choose to. that is not for you to force on me. pregnancy is a heinous offense when it is FORCED. no born person has a right to life at the expense of my body. neither does a fetus. abortion is not like rape. only if it is a forced abortion. the unborn need and want nothing. i am only denying the fetus what it had no right to to begin with. my body. not yours mine. end of story.
to be more important, than just say so. but dont act like you are not advocating a truly heinous offense against the woman in question. a womans feelings are not for you to dictate. she isnt wrong for feeling how she feels. you have no business inside my most personal space, my own body. i am pretty sure if someone was trying to force you to carry something around in your body you did not want there, you would be pretty ticked. it is an object like it or not.
dont even try to argue that forced pregnancy is not a violation. you are sounding desperate. anyone with any sense of raitonality can see that it is. the only violation is the presence of the child? uh yeah!!! we cant use the organs of dead people to sustain human life without prior consent. and yet you want to with human females. you are doing the exact same thing as a rapist does. forcing a woman to use her sex organs against her will. if that is fine with you because you deem the child
abortion doesnt overrule the childs right to live. it has none until it is viable. it has no right to life because its survival is violating her bodily sovereingty. you cant force someoen to carry an unwanted object INSIDE them let alone one as draining as a fetus.
It's always: Women get to choose. IT'S THEIR BODY!
But WHAT ABOUT THE CHILD'S rights? When women choose to get rid of their babies, they are running away from their problems. It was their fault in the first place by having unprotected sex and they should deal with that responsibly. You want the best for your child, don't you? There is adoption. Thousands of parents are looking to adopt a child and give it the love and care they need. Also, abortion causes problems PSYCHOLOGICALY.
Hey Buddy don't forget DRUGS and PROSTITUTION are illegal. So making ABORTION illegal will change nothing...I lived in MEX for 8yrs a PRO-LIFE catholic country where there are over 500,000 abortions a year. Oh and DRUGS are illegal as well and you won't believe how many DRUG DEALERS i knew. The only way you will end ABORTION is not through GOV. but like GWB said by changing peoples HEARTS and i couldn't agree more.
And there are over 500,000 RAPES each year in this country despite it being illegal, The only way to change that is by changing peoples HEARTS.
But guess what some assholes have evil hearts and do messed up things regardless. So just because something is gonna happen anyway doesnt mean that society should endorse and decriminalize it.
you're an ass, and you are just going on your conservative views that your parents and you CHURCH forced down your throat when you were young and impressionable, get some views of your own..
Murder is not a matter of science...murder is a legal term for the unjustifiable killing of another with legal personality. As a fetus does not have legal personality, it might be killing, but it is not murder, you're just a redneck.
Logic? Here's some logic for you. You are easily the most inarticulate person I have seen to date on YouTube. Logically, one would argue that you therefore aren't doing your side of the argument any favours with your poorly constructed, poorly substantiated little rants against women's rights. When you are put in a position where you have to make that decision for yourself, then you can preach to me, so be sure to let me know when you fall pregnant.
I know eh , like they should all just die -_- they dont know what we have to go through for it , they should have to have the baby and not us , and see how they feel about it then .
You are male, therefore incapable of having an unintended pregnancy. Your opinion is invalid.
A fetus is not a human. A human is aware it exists, feels pain, fears, responds, lives. A fetus lives off of the well being of its mother, therefore making it parasitic.
It cannot think, feel anything at all, and therefore is not human. Without the mother, it could not exist =Parasite. It owes its existence to the mother, and you claim she cannot chose to do with it as she wishes?
A pregnancy can bring on terrible mental and physical strain. This endangers her life. My friend nearly killed herself during her short pregnancy before she aborted. I do not wish to raise arguement, but merely give you some food for thought. A pregnancy, especially an unwanted one, can lead to great trauma and termoil that can scar women for life. In many cases, it's just not worth it to keep it due to the hazards. The fetus is hurting her in this way, and she can protect herself, right?
4. Fetus is not an independent organism until 24 weeks, but oftentimes even later. As ugly as it sounds, up to this stage fetus operates as a parasite.
Fetus is not an independant organism. Woman is. Slug also has it's own body, plus it does have brain wave activity.
Young fetus is not even aware of its own existance. To this stage, chimpanzee is more "human" than the fetus.
If "sanctity of life" played such a major part in lives of anti-abortionists...How come they don't try to FORCE the rest of population to give organs to those in need to CONTINUE an actual human existance, to SAVE a life?
roarintheforest, I agree the fetus is dependent, but dependency does not necessarily make someone a non-human. And forcing people to artificially give their organs to others is not the same as the natural mother/child relationship.
It could be argued that a chimpanzee or even a dog has more functional ability than a newborn infant. Do you therefore think newborn infants are not fully human?
How come, in every civilized western nation, decision on when to pull out the plug is entirely based on brain wave activity? Person with a damadged brain is more human than fetus.
Newborns are AWARE of their existance, capable of living outside of woman's body.
A new wave of research suggests that the 32-week old fetus can feel and dream.
Yes, 'even' a very YOUNG fetus or zygote is a POTENTIAL life but it is NOT in fact a living being by the definiton of Christian grief councelors. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings—and not parts of beings—survive by reason. Woman's body, woman's choice.
roarintheforest, isn't a chimpanzee aware of it's existence and capable of living independently? So then tell me why you consider a newborn infant fully human when a chimpanzee or even a dog can surpass it in personal function.
To begin with, a young fetus is not a phisologically independent organism like a baby or an adult.
Babies, adults and developed fetuses survive by the use of reason - unlike cows or trees; therefore a physiologically independant human form is actually human.
An unvoitile fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host.
True, the behavior of a chimpanzee does surpass an infant's behavior when it comes to "humanity"; however a baby is phisiologically independant human with a sense of self and abilities such as feeling and dreaming, unlike an undeveloped fetus.
I asked: how come people aren't FORCED to give organs to those actually unquestionably living, to save an existing life?
How does being dependent on another human make an embryo not a human? Biologically that doesn't work. It's a dependent yet distinct organism from the mother and it's species is human.
My answer to your question was that organ donation is a different situation from abortion. People aren't obligated to artificially give up their organs for someone else. However, abortion deals with a natural dependency between mother and child.
'Real' alive thing is physiologically independent or at least developed to be independant of its host's body; organism with no brain activity is not really alive. It may grow to be alive, yet is not alive at the time. There is no such thing as to 'unquestionably' enslave someone's body.
Organ donation or possible inforcement is no different than abortion - the fact that we're dealing with bodies of BOTH alive humans.
roarintheforest, the embryo/fetus is an organism. An organism is by definition something that lives. Therefore it is alive.
No, organ donation and abortion are not the same. Organ donation is ARTIFICIALLY giving an organ to a human so that they will avoid a NATURAL death. Abortion is ACTIVELY KILLING a human rather than allowing them to exist in the NATURAL place they belong.
"Human organism" is a potential life, but it is not in fact a life. If there is no brain wave activity then the organism is NOT yet alive. And I repeat: Undeveloped fetus does not deserve any rights to take any actions but survive on suistence of its host. That is how a fetus differes from a baby, child or an adult.
No, an organism with no brain activity is NOT alive in an animal form. It is questionable whether a common plant is aware of its own existance. Do you cry every time you step on grass?
An egg is not a chicken; it has all the DNA. Do you mourn skin cell loss?
"How is a fetus only part of it's mother when it is a distinct organism"- it is a part of its host and there is no right such as to enslave someone's body if you're not alive (acitive), not aware of your presence and can't even feel.
If by "not alive in an animal form" you mean it has no brain activity, then I agree. I've never said an embryo has brain activity.
However it certainly IS alive in the general sense. And unlike a plant or a skin cell, it has the natural, inherent capacity to have brain activity and perform personal acts.
So who says a developing human can have no right to use her mother's body?
"However it certainly IS alive in the general sense". Growing does not exactly make it alive. It will become alive, but is NOT YET alive, therefore it does not deserve the right of an alive human, while the mother certainly does. A woman is not a breeding pig for the state.
If you look at the statistics of the misery of unwanted childgren, you will discover that "pro-life" is ANTI-LIFE.
The precedent is well established: no nonliving creature has a right to enslave someone's body.
So by your definition of "alive" you are in effect saying a human which has not yet developed brain activity does not deserve the rights of one who has. Why should we ignore their inherent capacity for fully human brain activity?
And where is the precedent for saying a HUMAN which is by nature PERSONAL has no right to it's own mother's womb until it can reaches the point of brain activity?
"Why should we ignore their inherent capacity for fully human brain activity?"
I don't mean to offend you but this one is quite laughable. Why ignore the woman's right to HER OWN body? We are entiled do our own bodies, no?
Second point: by nature, a sperm is 'supposed to' reach the egg. Then you may also state that condoms are unnatural. Why does a WOMAN have to be PUNISHED for an unprotected sex?
An organism that is not alive does NOT deserve to right to use the body of the living.
I never said that we should ignore a woman's right to her own body. That right should be balanced with whether or not it unjustly violates someone else's right to THEIR body. So the question still stands: why should we ignore inherent capacity in humans? Do you treat infants as animals?
And again why must a human reach brain activity before they have a right to live in their own mother's womb? You can't just say because it's not "alive" when you are defining "alive" as brain activity.
I never said we should ignore problems with unwanted children. So explain why you ignore capacity with the early fetus but take it into account with infants. Sounds like a double standard to force the results you want.
I realize the early fetus cannot function like a conscious animal. But if you're going to value it according to it's CURRENT functionality...why not consistently apply the same reasoning to other stages of development? Why not value an infant as less than fully human since it cannot yet perform all human functions? Do you see the double standard?
You're basically just saying they have brain activity right? But their brain activity is not equal. So why do you consider them equal when their brain functionality is not the same?
"equal when their brain functionality is not the same"
Brain activity differs, yes. But an an older fetus or an infant is a-l-i-v-e (unlike lets say a zygote), so therefore it is considered a life, less or more functional but it is then a life.
So then a dog with a functioning brain is "a life" too. If it's brain functionality surpasses a newborn, why should the newborn be more valuable? If you say because it's a "human" life, what does that matter?
"So then a dog with a functioning brain is "a life" too".
Human life is valued when there is an actual existing life. In all accepted medical science, life begins with the apperance of brain waves. I think I already went over this.
That might be what initially causes someone to think that way. But people can reject those influences too. And people can have reasons for what they believe.
So you don't think there is any reason to value humans outside of people telling you to do it?
"might be what initially causes someone to think that way". Yes, stimuli of the society. For better of worse, we are the products of our society (every sociologist will tell you the same).
If you were raised in the malevolent cannibalistic society, you would not value an actual human life nor believe in equality.
Uh. Of course it's alive. Life didn't start at conception, life started billions of years ago, once, and it's a continuous process. It's always been a life, from sperm and egg and way before that.
Yes, that is true. But you can't claim that it isn't alive (that just gives pro-life people fodder.) You can say that life has no value until it has a functioning brain (you can even say life has no value until we as a society place value on it, considering how many soldiers and inmates we kill). In medieval times we didn't consider a newborn a person until it survived a few years and its survival was a little more assured. Fertilized eggs die ALL THE TIME, naturally or from abortions.
Yes, I statemented "life that we value". Perhaps I didn't elaborate myself well; I meant to say "life that we tend to unconditionally protect", which would indicate children, teenagers, adults, and elderly (with active brains, sens of self, ability to feel pain, hear and think).
About 50% of pregnancies end up miscarriages, especially in early stages (like for instance, two weeks).
We DO value them less. They can't vote, drive, be remotely independent, assemble, petition, speak, etc., and so they have less rights. They aren't even responsible for their own criminal actions until they can be tried as an adult at age 18.
Double standard? THE LAW IS FULL OF DOUBLE STANDARDS. We have different levels of rights depending on our age. A child isn't allowed to drive because s/he will one day have a driver's license. An acorn is not an oak tree; to treat them the same would be ludicrous.
Yes, however, what applies to zygote or fetus in a way applies to an adult on life support as well, hence the family [having consulted the doctors] makes a decision on when to pull out the plug.
Fail; fetuses don't have rights. To give a fetus /embryo/zygote rights would be a completely unfeasible process, especially giving them rights over a developed human woman whose humanity and personhood is unquestioned.
Women do not have late-term abortions for the same reasons they have early-term ones. Those abortions constitute less than 1% of all procedures are virtually all of those are to save the life of the woman. In fact, the usual reason a woman waits to have an abortion is because she can't afford it right away.
No, it was passed. It moved from 24 weeks down to 20.
Yeah, it does piss me off greatly that there is "partner consent". As though the man irresponsible enough to accidentally get me pregnant should be responsible for my womb.
The cause of banning it in the UK was detecting brain activity in a single 20 week old fetus (hope I'm correct on the matter). Here-because the procedure LOOKS inhumane. I'm not opposed to having ended this procedure, I agree with UK's reason.
AND partner consent...if the guy doesn't sign the form, his decision technically overrules woman's choice over her body...
because they are not yet human, and they are not more important than a living breathing conscious woman. They are also not completely ignored. They are taken into consideration as a lesser being. Even after it has brain activity, it shouldn't have rights to her womb unless she agree to let it.
It should have the right to use her body if she chooses to let it, but when it overrides her right it is wrong. The important word to focus on here is "developing". If it is developing, it is not yet human and should not have rights over the mother, who is undeniably human.
Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual, phisiologically independant human being.
a natural dependancy between mother and child? that doesnt mean it can be forced. just because something is natural doesnt make it moral or desirable. pregnancy is not a mandate. like any other sexual or reproductive situation, it must be taken upon solely through free will and not through force or coercian. it is genetically distinct but that doesnt make it an individual. if it was, we could remove it without it dying. as long as it exclusively needs my body for survival, it is my decision.
Well since you like to stick to the dictionary, probably the most common use of the word "lie" refers to *deliberately" trying to deceive someone. And it's absurd to suppose that the person in this video was deliberately trying to convince people Roe v. Wade never happened. It's also absurd to suppose he just isn't aware that Roe v. Wade happened. So the reasonable conclusion is he meant something else other than your literal interpretation.
Abortion is NOT "illegal", as you said! I have yet to see a pro-life advocate that can tell the truth. Its an amazing phenomenon! When you lie, you lose all credibility, & your ideas are then moot! Also, the fact a fetus has ten toes dosen't matter much when a woman dosen't want the child..and may even hate it. Lastly,you forgot to mention one other reason to kill people...the death penalty, which if often done to cheering crowds. PRO-ROE...PRO-WOMEN...PRO-CHOICE.
C'mon sueezee, don't you think he knows abortion is legal? Couldn't he have perhaps meant that is illegal in relation to other laws so that the law contradicts itself? I understand you feel strongly about this issue, but jumping on him and accusing him of lying seems a bit over the top.
sukov: don't you think he knows abortion is legal? Couldn't hemeant that is illegal in relation to other laws so that the law contradicts itself I don't deal in semantics, so abortion is not illegal..period. I don't care how the person "sees" it. Saying abortion is murder or illegal is a pro-life advocartes favorite song, and it's a lie. Don't blame me, blame Webster.
This has been flagged as spam show
"180" movie......on youtube, very informative on pro choice and pro life, only 33 minutes long, check it out
10cannons 1 month ago
I TAKE IT BACK I HATE THIS VIDEO YOU SUCK!!!!!
marypatrice3 3 months ago
I love this.
marypatrice3 3 months ago
this makes me sick.
katieking94 5 months ago 3
Women have rights but abortion is wrong.
4theroof 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4theroof says:abortion is wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~ Wrong according to who? You? Sorry, youre not the judge of whats right and or wrong for the worlds people
Sueezee1 5 months ago
Great video!
mooney137 11 months ago
It doesn't matter though if you think it is a woman's right to choose or not. Because legal or not...if she doesn't want the kid...she is going to kill it. Want to get Marines to start tying their ankles together and stand over them for 9 months? How far do you want the govt to go with it? I am in favor of smaller government. I don't think it is fair that you want to put even more taxpayer money towards enforcing this.
10cathrun 1 year ago 2
Fetus cannot think or feel or opinionate. Fetus is part of, inside of the woman's body and thus her property until birth to extend personhood rights to, or deny. Until 5 months development a fetus cannot even feel pain. Self-awareness does not develop until after birth, 1 1/2, 2 years, WELL after the need for abortion even exists, b/c born babies can be adopted and fetuses can't. Human dna is meaningless- my foot has human dna but it is not a person, and it needs me to function.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat ..."Fetus cannot think or feel or opinionate"
1.Obviously you are not very good at doing these things either.
2. Lets clarify exactly what we are discussing it is not just a fetus IT IS A HUMAN FETUS.
3. YOU used to be a fetus
4. I never knew of a foot that grew up to win a Nobel Prize.
5. So far every winner has been a FORMER FETUS.
AMPatriot4Life 1 year ago
@AMPatriot4Life Yes, a fetus can BECOME a person.. but that is potentiality, not actuality. I never knew of a fetus that became president, cured cancer, or serial-raped or mass-murdered, you know. You need people for that, and not developing human shells. I'm not insulting you, or trying to pick a fight, by the way. I'm just stating facts. How much do you know about brain development/function.. neurology, psychology? Also, how many human fetuses can love, hate, grieve, rejoice, fear?
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat
A fetus inside of a pregnant woman is a human being. That is a scientific fact. Homosapiens look it up, that fetus that you hate so much is a member of the same human family as you and I.
AMPatriot4Life 1 year ago
@AMPatriot4Life Human, and human being are two different things. I think you are confusing the two terms. No, I don't hate fetuses- why do so-called pro'life'rs always have to lie about pro-choicers and decide what they think/feel? I don't hate fetuses one bit. Hating a developing hunk of human meat that cannot even think is just stupid. It is sad that image is all that matters to pro'life'rs- the IDEA of a 'cute little baby'.. the image, not the actuality. Shallow. 'Boobs=better than brains'
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@AMPatriot4Life Define human being, and opposed to human. Tell me which criteria fits the fetus, and fits the woman. =) Please? Or should I do it for you?
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat
A human fetus inside of a human woman is a human being, a homo sapiens, just as much as you and I. This is a simple SCIENTIFIC FACT, and yet somehow we legally allow them to be non judicially executed just because they are at a different stage of human development than the executioners.
AMPatriot4Life 1 year ago
@AMPatriot4Life Define 'human being' as opposed to 'human'. Also, do you know what lethal force is, self defense primarily, and why killing another human is not always illegal OR immoral, such as when one human puts another at imminent risk? Rape, carjacking, burglary, kidnapping? And are you implying/forgetting that no pregnancy ever directly, NEGATIVELY affects a woman's life in a way that cannot be undone if allowed to continue, via physical or emotional, even social damages? I can elaborate.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@ryddelwearsahat
What you are saying is that you support lethal force is justified if someone causes social or emotional damages. YOUR VIEWS ARE VERY DANGEROUS AND VIOLENT. I am glad that the rest of society does not generally support lethal force against our fellow human beings just because of the potential to cause perceived social or emotional damages. What you are advocating is INHUMANITY.
I do not deny anyone the use of lethal self defense but it must only be if your LIFE is in danger.
AMPatriot4Life 1 year ago
@AMPatriot4Life So you are against a woman using lethal force to prevent/stop herself from being raped? From a child using lethal force to prevent molestation/kidnapping/battery, against burglary, carjacking, assault, war, and police force? Wow.. I'd love to see how well that ideal of yours stands up when some fuck comes climbing through your window some night. either you are DELIBERATELY ignoring my point, or you are fucked in the head, man. Potentiality can mean a lot of things, but you -c
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
-c have to consider the risk- is it high or low? How high is the potentiality of killing yourself if you put a pistol in your mouth and pull the trigger? Get it? If a woman faces VERY REAL, VERY LIKELY risks, then abortion is perfectly moral.. if the risks are minimal or nonexistant, then she should not abort, plain and simple. What exactly, is human life? My foot is alive.. but can it think, feel or impact others? Or are you talking about my PERSON being alive- my SELF? Woman>fetus. Soul>image.
ryddelwearsahat 1 year ago
@AMPatriot4 Let me get this straight....your right supercedes that of the women who is actually carrying the embryo/fetus. You think you should have control over another person's body, to be able to force them carry an embryo/fetus and undergo childbirth regardless of their wishes. Some people used to have this type of control over other's bodies, lives, and childbirth - they were called slave owners. Slavery's been abolished and abortion is LEGAL so it's all moot.
milomilo55 2 months ago
Dude, you're an idiot. It is her right, given to her by the law of the land. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one! Oh wait, that's right, you don't have to worry about a pregnancy! Shut the hell up!
dirtboyfsr 1 year ago
You are really good man!
fintyrock 1 year ago 3
I disagree with you man, Im pro choice, but I think youre a cool guy. You are making your decision on principle. Thats cool.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We Christians must pray for these Pro-choice Evildoers for their murderous hearts of stone to be converted into Pro-Life hearts of love and respect for their fellow Citizens. We must pray that these wicked Pro-choice Advocates of Satan's culture of death renounce their sin against Almighty God our eternal Father, their denial of another Citizen's right to life, and Crime against Humanity that they be redeemed from the fires of everlasting HELL that awaits all unrepentant Pro-choice Murderers.
RalphMariedeLargo 1 year ago
IF YOU WANT TO TREAT WOMAN LIKE FARM ANIMAL MOVE TO IRAQ AND FIND A WIFE THAT YOU CAN FORCE TO BEAR AS MAY CHILDREN AS YOU WANT. BUT HERE IN AMERICA WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABORT. SO PRO-LIFER SHAPE IN OR SHIP OUT. OUT OF AMERICA THAT IS.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
@PALOMITA694 what, whose killing a human? irony
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
I agree....but abortion is legal... lol
meganmedellin4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
are you gay?
i bet your gay.
GAYBO.
i bet you take it up the BE-HIND
Ha XD
samiekay4 1 year ago
I see many of your commentators didn't "get it"....and I see the difference is still vast between those viewing their children as blessings and those viewing them as burdens.
I'm a grandma and I'm with ya!
jedati73 1 year ago
wow, this guy is fucking stupid.
pro-choice is to support a woman's right to an legal abortion.
well, it doesn't if you don't support abortion or not.
woman has a civil and constitutional right (13th and 14th amendment) to have a legal abortion because unwanted pregnancy counts as involuntary servitude.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
@FREEAMERICANOW69 He's stupid because his opinions differ from yours? Matter of fact, your post makes absolutely no sense at all. Translation, please?
"Unwanted pregnancy counts as involuntary servitude" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Love these pseudo-intellectual "constitutional scholars" such as yourself gracing us with your YouTube lectures, lol.
longlivetheking58 1 year ago
@longlivetheking58
yeah, he's stupid because he's lying about what "pro-choice" is, duh!
sorry, i forgot the "forcing a woman to have an" and it does count as involuntary servitude.
because RvW said that abortion was constitutional and the state can have it's say after viability, duh again.
to there is no law saying a woman has to stay pregnant against her will, civil and constitutional rights, so no law= no due process= unconstitutional.
FREEAMERICANOW69 1 year ago
im glad you think i am funny! that is exactly what i think of you. MY gigantic comment i left literally responds to everything you said.
i have compared you to the scumbags of of mechanics. you act just like them. you think i should feel guilty because you gave a reason to.
thats why i am responding, so you know i dont fall for your "propaganda".
you are just as guilty as an entrepreneur.
fokensheatman 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Choice USA, an activist, abortion-promoting group, claims that women must be informed about their safe and legal reproductive health choices. They say these choices include abstinence, contraception, abortion, adoption, and parenthood. If you take a closer look at America, however, you begin to see that this same pro-choice movement has basically eliminated abstinence, adoption, and parenthood from a womans list of options"
angelshoulders 2 years ago
you are not pro-choice.
she can protect her body and safety from born people but she can't protect her body from an unwanted embryo that is inside her body?
wow epic fail.
FREEAMERICANOW69 2 years ago
WHAO - you agree with the 2nd amendment right for a woman to protect herself however she wants - what if that includes removing a human being that she doesn't want using her body from her uterus by force causing it's death (then it's not okay??) - so it's not okay for the woman to interfeer with the health and safety of the person using her body, but it's okay for the fetus that IS using her body to do the same thing? Trust women!
sarakai 2 years ago
To PROTECT HERSELF!! Not to kill a baby who is in no way, shape or form threatening her life. Is she killing the baby she DOESN'T WANT saving her very life? You are not to interfere with the life of the baby that you indeed, helped to create.The baby had no way of avoiding his/her circumstances, the mother had all the 'CHOICE' there. Now that she has had her 'choice' , the new life has to be given his/her choice!! There is nothing cruel in saying,once you have created the life,you have no right
angelshoulders 2 years ago
I believe in the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, to put your baby up for adoption if you do become pregnant, and to sterilize yourself to prevent pregnancy. That is a lot of choices, I'm prochoice, prolife, and anti-abortion!
dandice2006 2 years ago 2
i agree with you. i am all for pro choice.
lolcatsrcool 2 years ago
which are you? pro-life or pro-choice?
fokensheatman 2 years ago
You imply that in order to defend innocent life one must also be opposed to all choices in the world.
When you are talking about the choice of torturing and killing an innocent baby i am against that choice.
AMPatriot4Life 2 years ago
everyone with half a brain knows that the term "pro-choice" is never intended to imply that pro-lifers are opposed to just any choice in an abortion debate.
this is an incredibly pointless video. no facts.
n3gativ3infinity 2 years ago
OMG. i asked you 2 fucking questions and you say i am implying something?
did you not read what i posted?
i shall make it simple.
pro-choice - advocating the legal right to obtain an abortion
you make up your own definitions too dont you?
do i dare post the pro-life too? and let everyone really know the difference.
opposed to the choices in the world?
fokensheatman 2 years ago
pro-choice - advocating the legal right to obtain an abortion
youre an idiot!! learn your definitions.
fokensheatman 2 years ago
There actually are more choices in this world than the choice of killing your own child or not. That is only one of the trillions of choices that people can make. To claim that someone is against ALL choices just because they oppose ONE choice is either dishonest or idiotic.
AMPatriot4Life 2 years ago
i never said you had to be ALL of them but when you type in pro-choice guess what the number one result is about? allowing women to ADVOCATE the legal right to obtain an abortion. i dont jumble the definition to suit my needs, i just read the facts as they are.
so, please for all our sakes just go fuck yourself to help keep from repopulating the stupidity.
fokensheatman 2 years ago
Comment removed
angelshoulders 2 years ago
Pro-Choice, when talking about abortion, means that you support a woman's right to have an abortion. You are clearly talking about abortion in this video. The term is not meant to apply to all choices that a person can maker, so what is the point of this video? You could have just as easily said " a fetus is a human being and nobody has the right to end another human being's life ".
dearyou1994 2 years ago
Calling pro-choice people who are pro-abortion is a dirty dangerous euphemism. Pro-choice is a way of avoiding to say:"pro-I-kill-my own-son/daugher-when-ever-I-want", it is as twisted as calling the Holocaust "final solution", or taking Jews to torture and death champs,"re-location",it is a coward, criminal way of hiding the truth.Killing babies because they will be handicaped is also nazi, they did so.Women who "commit" an abortion are selfish criminals.We must start naming things properly.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
In other words, people don't want to be held accountable for their actions. If this were the case, people shouldn't be given DUI's because they were drinking to have fun, why should they be punished with a DUI? Because it's a decisoin they make knowing full well the consequences if they get caught.Just as with conception,do these women know what causes pregnancy?If so, they must take responsibility for their actions.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
angelshoulders, the last time i heard from you felt like about 3 months ago and now you decide to leave me 5 comments about BS i dont care about anymore? MOVE ON!!!! OMG you are so lame. get a life. the only reason i left a comment on here was because this guy is a hypocrite!! he claims pro-choice and pro-life. by definition they are opposite of each other.
fokensheatman 2 years ago
Comment removed
angelshoulders 2 years ago
Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement
fokensheatman 2 years ago
Oh my God. Shut the fuck up already. Women deserve reproductive rights. Oh and also, abortion is not illegal you idiot. Roe v, Wade !!!! you don't even know what you're talking about so do us all a favor and stop. Just stop. You're just another mindless follower of God. Sheep !
briot13 2 years ago
You are the only one here who mentioned God.
Nice job lying in order to steer the debate away from the positions i actually advocate.
If you would like to try and counter my statements with some facts or logic i would be more than happy to refute you. Otherwise please stop making false assumptions.
AMPatriot4Life 2 years ago 2
ampatriot...LMAO you dont even understand what his insult was stating.
usually those who are pro-life are typically christians because "killing life" is a SIN. and thus they assume people who are so adament about abortion are just followers because theyre interested in everyone elses business but their own.
thats my understanding of his statement.
AND again learn the definition of what you are following and the assumption why someone might think you are christian.
*SIGH*
fokensheatman 2 years ago
The killing of children is NOT a religious issue but a human rights issue& it is as a "human rights issue" that this battle must be fought.Along with being the organization that is 100% responsible for killing these human beings the American Medical Association is exploiting ALL women by claiming that all of the killing that has taken place so far & all of the killing that will continue to take place into the future is a woman's fault,or as they call it a "woman's choice".
angelshoulders 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So,not only are children being killed by the American Medical Association,but women are being placed in a situation where they MUST accept the blame because it was"their" choice,not a man's.&if you want to see actual proof that it was a woman's choice all you have to do is refer to the millions upon millions of signatures on the orders of execution - each&every one of them belonging to a woman
angelshoulders 2 years ago
The American Medical Association is responsible for the extermination of millions,upon millions,upon millions of human beings.They are doing in under the guise of a medical procedure&they are expoliting women in order to profit from the extermination of these human beings.Any person who says it's a"woman's choice"has bought into the propaganda of blaming women for the extermination of these humans beings.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
To make absolutely sure that future generations have proof that women are the ones responsible for all of the killing they demand that a woman(ONLY a woman) sign the order of execution before a member of the AMA will perform the killing.That is to say that every child that is killed by a member of the American Medical Association has a woman's signature associated with the killing.Without this "mandatory" signature of a woman(the mother),the child gets to live.
angelshoulders 2 years ago
angelshoulders, youre feeding propaganda!! lets say you happen to overheat your car and just added water to cool it off. after a week your car seems to run just fine nothing seems to be wrong, at the same time you decided to take it for an oil change. the mechanic says you need to have your engine cleaned and check for cracks etc. the car is fine you say and just get the oil change. 9 months down the road your car randomly breaks down for no reason. you soon find out there is water in the oil.
fokensheatman 2 years ago
how did you get water in the oil?? why does the oil look so nasty looking?? if you didnt believe the mechanic was feeding you propaganda and just spent several hundred dollars to fix it before any of the BIG problems then your use-to-be-nice car would still be in great shape! now you have to spend a couple thousand just to repair it.
my case and point is that not everyone is trying to scam you dude.
what youre talking about is just business. you see a need, make it a convenience for others.
fokensheatman 2 years ago
WOW!!! For not caring, this is one GIGANTIC comment!?! LOL!!
angelshoulders 2 years ago
@briot13 the irony in what you said is that if it was to be illegal you would no longer use what was legal or not.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
thumbs up
Natalii84 2 years ago
There you have it.
An actual person is worth no more than a FETUS to an anti-choicer. Disgusting.
eljagg01 2 years ago
Thanks man. I was thinking the exact same thing. Women can do what ever they want to do so long as it isn't killing another human being.
And anyone out there that says "oh well a fetus isn't a human". life begins at conception. period.
Give me any kind of proof that life doesn't begin at conception.
TheCandyManCan1 2 years ago
woo hooo i love dis video
babyeater13666 2 years ago
AHHHHH!!!! i made a pro-choice vid tooo!!! Great minds think alike ;) Will you vid response this to my pro-choice vid?
caffeinequeen89 2 years ago 6
maybe instead of killing the baby we can remove the fetus from the womb and see if it can live by itself. nobody has the right to live inside another person and use their organs to live.
XxXxHiddenNinjaxXxX 2 years ago
Of course they do.
Women are property of the state, for backward religious interests to do with what they will. Haven't you heard?
eljagg01 2 years ago
you are once again demonizing the opposition. integrity and autonomy are states of mind? fine, give me your address. ill bring my saddle and strip you naked and ride you through town. lets see how well your "state of integrity" holds up. i would never be enslaved for 9 months because i was the victim of a violent crime.
leiapeison 2 years ago
OK... Then by using you very own logic, abortion is perfectly fine so long as it happens before the first trimester is up... I mean the fetus doesn't have a functioning brain, a beating heart or any fingers or toes up until a certain point.
BuryMeInGames 2 years ago
wow... you ALLOW women to do all of that?! THANK fucking YOU!
the beating heart? an embryo does not have a beating heart etc for quit a while after a woman is pregnant you moron
EvilFluff85 2 years ago
they need things for their benefit just like a dying person needs new organs. but that doesnt mean we should be compelled to give them ours. and i have explained before that abortion is stopping the fetus from controlling my body not the other way around. if anybody tries to turn me into an incubator they better start running.
leiapeison 2 years ago
you should have been aborted
cxxpxxc 2 years ago 2
@cxxpxxc
i made a vid just for ppl like you.....the question one.
caffeinequeen89 1 year ago
i have every right to dictate someone elses life when that life is imposing itself upon me. yes YOU would choose to. that is not for you to force on me. pregnancy is a heinous offense when it is FORCED. no born person has a right to life at the expense of my body. neither does a fetus. abortion is not like rape. only if it is a forced abortion. the unborn need and want nothing. i am only denying the fetus what it had no right to to begin with. my body. not yours mine. end of story.
leiapeison 2 years ago 3
I couldn't agree more with you on the abortion comment..finally someone with a brain!:)
boricuaLexi 2 years ago
Nice Shirt. Where did you get that?
tirobiz 2 years ago
to be more important, than just say so. but dont act like you are not advocating a truly heinous offense against the woman in question. a womans feelings are not for you to dictate. she isnt wrong for feeling how she feels. you have no business inside my most personal space, my own body. i am pretty sure if someone was trying to force you to carry something around in your body you did not want there, you would be pretty ticked. it is an object like it or not.
leiapeison 2 years ago 3
dont even try to argue that forced pregnancy is not a violation. you are sounding desperate. anyone with any sense of raitonality can see that it is. the only violation is the presence of the child? uh yeah!!! we cant use the organs of dead people to sustain human life without prior consent. and yet you want to with human females. you are doing the exact same thing as a rapist does. forcing a woman to use her sex organs against her will. if that is fine with you because you deem the child
leiapeison 2 years ago
abortion doesnt overrule the childs right to live. it has none until it is viable. it has no right to life because its survival is violating her bodily sovereingty. you cant force someoen to carry an unwanted object INSIDE them let alone one as draining as a fetus.
leiapeison 2 years ago
The fetus' brain isn't functioning until after it is out of the womb.
eloistrion 2 years ago
It's always: Women get to choose. IT'S THEIR BODY!
But WHAT ABOUT THE CHILD'S rights? When women choose to get rid of their babies, they are running away from their problems. It was their fault in the first place by having unprotected sex and they should deal with that responsibly. You want the best for your child, don't you? There is adoption. Thousands of parents are looking to adopt a child and give it the love and care they need. Also, abortion causes problems PSYCHOLOGICALY.
sneakerlaces56 2 years ago
Thats like saying
Germany has the right to choose to kill Jews.
oh its only THEIR COUNTRY.
Not anyone else's to tell them what to do with it.
I think your argument just got DESTROYED.
AMPatriot4Life 2 years ago
.It's a woman's choice to choose to have an abortion.
How can you not want to allow women rights to choose what is to be done to their bodies?
Oh I got DESTROYED?
Not really.
You're a fucking moron.
I guess I'm a "pro choice hippy" like your shirt says =)
By the way
Why did you post your stupid little pro life video on a facebook group that had NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION?
You're a fucking moron.
iheartbulletsx 2 years ago
Hey Buddy don't forget DRUGS and PROSTITUTION are illegal. So making ABORTION illegal will change nothing...I lived in MEX for 8yrs a PRO-LIFE catholic country where there are over 500,000 abortions a year. Oh and DRUGS are illegal as well and you won't believe how many DRUG DEALERS i knew. The only way you will end ABORTION is not through GOV. but like GWB said by changing peoples HEARTS and i couldn't agree more.
Bababooey
HowardSternn 2 years ago
And there are over 500,000 RAPES each year in this country despite it being illegal, The only way to change that is by changing peoples HEARTS.
But guess what some assholes have evil hearts and do messed up things regardless. So just because something is gonna happen anyway doesnt mean that society should endorse and decriminalize it.
AMPatriot4Life 2 years ago
exactly. im with you. pro-choice people are very evil and dumb
Delminator2k5 2 years ago
"Let's not give women the right to choose"
oh It's only THEIR BODY.
Not anyone else's to tell them what to do with it.
iheartbulletsx 3 years ago
She makes a good point. Women should be allowed to kill their unborn child because people starve to death every day.
We should kill all those who are in danger of starving to death BEFORE that happens.
Since God doesn't want His children to suffer, we should kill God's Children in the womb BEFORE they starve to death.
That just makes good sense.
starcarrillo 3 years ago
what is life anyway?
a baby can live outside the womb at 7 months(not always without complications)
and im sure you know that abortion happens long before then
could the baby have survived outside the womb when said woman got the abortion?
and its her body let her do what she wants forcing her to do something she doesnt wanna do is also a violation of rights
women have been pushed around with the idea that a baby is the womans problem
well you go through pregnancy and tell me what you think
alyaly8545655 3 years ago
then you take the unborn featus and put it in yours
MidnightCardinal 3 years ago
you're an ass, and you are just going on your conservative views that your parents and you CHURCH forced down your throat when you were young and impressionable, get some views of your own..
heyheywannabe911 3 years ago
First off im not religious at all, so nice try on that one.
Second off your right, the view that abortion is murder is my own. Its the view of science, objective reasoning and logic.
AMPatriot4Life 3 years ago
Murder is not a matter of science...murder is a legal term for the unjustifiable killing of another with legal personality. As a fetus does not have legal personality, it might be killing, but it is not murder, you're just a redneck.
mrcanyoudigit 3 years ago
Logic? Here's some logic for you. You are easily the most inarticulate person I have seen to date on YouTube. Logically, one would argue that you therefore aren't doing your side of the argument any favours with your poorly constructed, poorly substantiated little rants against women's rights. When you are put in a position where you have to make that decision for yourself, then you can preach to me, so be sure to let me know when you fall pregnant.
Oh wait. You're a BOY.
katherinemwatson 3 years ago
yea omg, do these pro-life men have to grow fallopian tubes in order to really get this situation?
VeeVeeNorCalBabe 2 years ago
I know eh , like they should all just die -_- they dont know what we have to go through for it , they should have to have the baby and not us , and see how they feel about it then .
elwoodamie2007 2 years ago
You are male, therefore incapable of having an unintended pregnancy. Your opinion is invalid.
A fetus is not a human. A human is aware it exists, feels pain, fears, responds, lives. A fetus lives off of the well being of its mother, therefore making it parasitic.
It cannot think, feel anything at all, and therefore is not human. Without the mother, it could not exist =Parasite. It owes its existence to the mother, and you claim she cannot chose to do with it as she wishes?
Go back to church.
LuckyPaopu 3 years ago
A pregnancy can bring on terrible mental and physical strain. This endangers her life. My friend nearly killed herself during her short pregnancy before she aborted. I do not wish to raise arguement, but merely give you some food for thought. A pregnancy, especially an unwanted one, can lead to great trauma and termoil that can scar women for life. In many cases, it's just not worth it to keep it due to the hazards. The fetus is hurting her in this way, and she can protect herself, right?
jaythewicked 3 years ago 2
great video.
chickydum 3 years ago
im glad you worked the word "arbitrarily" in there, you totally look smart now.
the4thskoot 3 years ago
So, can I abort before the heart is beating and before the brain is functioning?
CCard83 3 years ago
4. Fetus is not an independent organism until 24 weeks, but oftentimes even later. As ugly as it sounds, up to this stage fetus operates as a parasite.
5. Know anyone who adopted a crack baby?
6. Woman's body, woman's decision!
roarintheforest 3 years ago
Operating as a parasite does not automatically make something a non-human. It just means the fetus lives in and survives off the mother.
And the fetus has it's own body so it's not just the woman's body at play in the abortion decision.
Sukov 3 years ago
Fetus is not an independant organism. Woman is. Slug also has it's own body, plus it does have brain wave activity.
Young fetus is not even aware of its own existance. To this stage, chimpanzee is more "human" than the fetus.
If "sanctity of life" played such a major part in lives of anti-abortionists...How come they don't try to FORCE the rest of population to give organs to those in need to CONTINUE an actual human existance, to SAVE a life?
roarintheforest 3 years ago
roarintheforest, I agree the fetus is dependent, but dependency does not necessarily make someone a non-human. And forcing people to artificially give their organs to others is not the same as the natural mother/child relationship.
It could be argued that a chimpanzee or even a dog has more functional ability than a newborn infant. Do you therefore think newborn infants are not fully human?
Sukov 3 years ago
How come, in every civilized western nation, decision on when to pull out the plug is entirely based on brain wave activity? Person with a damadged brain is more human than fetus.
"Sancticy of life" is complete bullshit.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
roarintheforest. The unborn's lack of brain waves is only temporary. Not the same situation.
But you didn't answer my question. Please tell me if newborn infants are fully human.
Sukov 3 years ago
Newborns are AWARE of their existance, capable of living outside of woman's body.
A new wave of research suggests that the 32-week old fetus can feel and dream.
Yes, 'even' a very YOUNG fetus or zygote is a POTENTIAL life but it is NOT in fact a living being by the definiton of Christian grief councelors. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings—and not parts of beings—survive by reason. Woman's body, woman's choice.
You still haven't answered my last question.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
roarintheforest, isn't a chimpanzee aware of it's existence and capable of living independently? So then tell me why you consider a newborn infant fully human when a chimpanzee or even a dog can surpass it in personal function.
What is the question you want me to answer?
Sukov 3 years ago
To begin with, a young fetus is not a phisologically independent organism like a baby or an adult.
Babies, adults and developed fetuses survive by the use of reason - unlike cows or trees; therefore a physiologically independant human form is actually human.
An unvoitile fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
True, the behavior of a chimpanzee does surpass an infant's behavior when it comes to "humanity"; however a baby is phisiologically independant human with a sense of self and abilities such as feeling and dreaming, unlike an undeveloped fetus.
I asked: how come people aren't FORCED to give organs to those actually unquestionably living, to save an existing life?
roarintheforest 3 years ago
How does being dependent on another human make an embryo not a human? Biologically that doesn't work. It's a dependent yet distinct organism from the mother and it's species is human.
My answer to your question was that organ donation is a different situation from abortion. People aren't obligated to artificially give up their organs for someone else. However, abortion deals with a natural dependency between mother and child.
Sukov 3 years ago
Yes, organism.
'Real' alive thing is physiologically independent or at least developed to be independant of its host's body; organism with no brain activity is not really alive. It may grow to be alive, yet is not alive at the time. There is no such thing as to 'unquestionably' enslave someone's body.
Organ donation or possible inforcement is no different than abortion - the fact that we're dealing with bodies of BOTH alive humans.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
roarintheforest, the embryo/fetus is an organism. An organism is by definition something that lives. Therefore it is alive.
No, organ donation and abortion are not the same. Organ donation is ARTIFICIALLY giving an organ to a human so that they will avoid a NATURAL death. Abortion is ACTIVELY KILLING a human rather than allowing them to exist in the NATURAL place they belong.
Sukov 3 years ago
"Human organism" is a potential life, but it is not in fact a life. If there is no brain wave activity then the organism is NOT yet alive. And I repeat: Undeveloped fetus does not deserve any rights to take any actions but survive on suistence of its host. That is how a fetus differes from a baby, child or an adult.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
An organism IS life, not potential life. And yes, a plant is life too. Life in general does not require brainwaves.
Dependency requires TWO organisms. How is a fetus only part of it's mother when it is a distinct organism with it's own separate DNA and gender?
Sukov 3 years ago
No, an organism with no brain activity is NOT alive in an animal form. It is questionable whether a common plant is aware of its own existance. Do you cry every time you step on grass?
An egg is not a chicken; it has all the DNA. Do you mourn skin cell loss?
"How is a fetus only part of it's mother when it is a distinct organism"- it is a part of its host and there is no right such as to enslave someone's body if you're not alive (acitive), not aware of your presence and can't even feel.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
If by "not alive in an animal form" you mean it has no brain activity, then I agree. I've never said an embryo has brain activity.
However it certainly IS alive in the general sense. And unlike a plant or a skin cell, it has the natural, inherent capacity to have brain activity and perform personal acts.
So who says a developing human can have no right to use her mother's body?
Sukov 3 years ago
"However it certainly IS alive in the general sense". Growing does not exactly make it alive. It will become alive, but is NOT YET alive, therefore it does not deserve the right of an alive human, while the mother certainly does. A woman is not a breeding pig for the state.
If you look at the statistics of the misery of unwanted childgren, you will discover that "pro-life" is ANTI-LIFE.
The precedent is well established: no nonliving creature has a right to enslave someone's body.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
An embryo does more than just grow.
So by your definition of "alive" you are in effect saying a human which has not yet developed brain activity does not deserve the rights of one who has. Why should we ignore their inherent capacity for fully human brain activity?
And where is the precedent for saying a HUMAN which is by nature PERSONAL has no right to it's own mother's womb until it can reaches the point of brain activity?
Sukov 3 years ago
"Why should we ignore their inherent capacity for fully human brain activity?"
I don't mean to offend you but this one is quite laughable. Why ignore the woman's right to HER OWN body? We are entiled do our own bodies, no?
Second point: by nature, a sperm is 'supposed to' reach the egg. Then you may also state that condoms are unnatural. Why does a WOMAN have to be PUNISHED for an unprotected sex?
An organism that is not alive does NOT deserve to right to use the body of the living.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
I never said that we should ignore a woman's right to her own body. That right should be balanced with whether or not it unjustly violates someone else's right to THEIR body. So the question still stands: why should we ignore inherent capacity in humans? Do you treat infants as animals?
And again why must a human reach brain activity before they have a right to live in their own mother's womb? You can't just say because it's not "alive" when you are defining "alive" as brain activity.
Sukov 3 years ago
Well then, why should we ignore the high rate of poverty and misery among the unwanted childgren? Adopted any crack babies lately?
"Capacity" does not, in fact, justify taking away woman's actual liberty to decide about her fully existant body.
A living being deserves a right to ITS body when it IS indeed a living being.
Fetuses past 24 weeks and infants are uquestionably alive [human beings]; I strongly advise you not twist my words.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
I never said we should ignore problems with unwanted children. So explain why you ignore capacity with the early fetus but take it into account with infants. Sounds like a double standard to force the results you want.
Sukov 3 years ago
Well, the difference is that a fetus under 24 weeks is not alive in an animal form unlike an older fetus, infant or an adult.
A woman is alive and therefore she is entitled to making decisions regarding her own alive body.
"Capacity"...how about so many miscarriages (rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent)?
roarintheforest 3 years ago
I realize the early fetus cannot function like a conscious animal. But if you're going to value it according to it's CURRENT functionality...why not consistently apply the same reasoning to other stages of development? Why not value an infant as less than fully human since it cannot yet perform all human functions? Do you see the double standard?
Sukov 3 years ago
"infant as less than fully human since it cannot yet perform all human functions"
Infant is ALIVE and so is a woman.
"Capacity". Should we value gametes because they are "potential human lives"? Not every menstruation and not every ejaculation deserve names.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
"Infant is ALIVE and so is a woman."
You're basically just saying they have brain activity right? But their brain activity is not equal. So why do you consider them equal when their brain functionality is not the same?
Sukov 3 years ago
"equal when their brain functionality is not the same"
Brain activity differs, yes. But an an older fetus or an infant is a-l-i-v-e (unlike lets say a zygote), so therefore it is considered a life, less or more functional but it is then a life.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
So then a dog with a functioning brain is "a life" too. If it's brain functionality surpasses a newborn, why should the newborn be more valuable? If you say because it's a "human" life, what does that matter?
Sukov 3 years ago
"So then a dog with a functioning brain is "a life" too".
Human life is valued when there is an actual existing life. In all accepted medical science, life begins with the apperance of brain waves. I think I already went over this.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
You did not answer my question.
Sukov 3 years ago
"because it's a "human" life, what does that matter?"
Because in our society we established the so called "sanctity of a human life".
roarintheforest 3 years ago
So you only value the newborn above the dog because our law values humans?
Sukov 3 years ago
"So you only value the newborn above the dog because our law values humans?"
Not just the law, I believe we were all raised that way.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
So you only value humans because we're raised that way and the law says so?
Sukov 3 years ago
Isn't it that way with all of us?
roarintheforest 3 years ago
That might be what initially causes someone to think that way. But people can reject those influences too. And people can have reasons for what they believe.
So you don't think there is any reason to value humans outside of people telling you to do it?
Sukov 3 years ago
We've neglected the topic a bit, but all right.
"might be what initially causes someone to think that way". Yes, stimuli of the society. For better of worse, we are the products of our society (every sociologist will tell you the same).
If you were raised in the malevolent cannibalistic society, you would not value an actual human life nor believe in equality.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
roarintheforest - People do rise up and condemn their own societies.
So are you telling me there is nothing about humans that merits our value? That we should just blindly follow whatever society tells us?
Sukov 3 years ago
"People do rise up and condemn their own societies"
Yes, those have been impacted by an outside influence or just an opposing influence.
As we already discussed, fetus, before it reaches 24 weeks, is not equal to a newborn or an adult.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
Uh. Of course it's alive. Life didn't start at conception, life started billions of years ago, once, and it's a continuous process. It's always been a life, from sperm and egg and way before that.
hazelfo 3 years ago
George Carlin? ;)
Life that we value begins with an activation of a brain.
EVEN the Bible doesn't claim life begins at conception; many Christian followers easily for that bullshit.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
Yes, that is true. But you can't claim that it isn't alive (that just gives pro-life people fodder.) You can say that life has no value until it has a functioning brain (you can even say life has no value until we as a society place value on it, considering how many soldiers and inmates we kill). In medieval times we didn't consider a newborn a person until it survived a few years and its survival was a little more assured. Fertilized eggs die ALL THE TIME, naturally or from abortions.
hazelfo 3 years ago
Yes, I statemented "life that we value". Perhaps I didn't elaborate myself well; I meant to say "life that we tend to unconditionally protect", which would indicate children, teenagers, adults, and elderly (with active brains, sens of self, ability to feel pain, hear and think).
About 50% of pregnancies end up miscarriages, especially in early stages (like for instance, two weeks).
roarintheforest 3 years ago
I'm just saying that outlawing abortion after 20 weeks would just open up the right to more restrictions... Which is happening now.
hazelfo 3 years ago
We DO value them less. They can't vote, drive, be remotely independent, assemble, petition, speak, etc., and so they have less rights. They aren't even responsible for their own criminal actions until they can be tried as an adult at age 18.
hazelfo 3 years ago
Double standard? THE LAW IS FULL OF DOUBLE STANDARDS. We have different levels of rights depending on our age. A child isn't allowed to drive because s/he will one day have a driver's license. An acorn is not an oak tree; to treat them the same would be ludicrous.
hazelfo 3 years ago
Yes, however, what applies to zygote or fetus in a way applies to an adult on life support as well, hence the family [having consulted the doctors] makes a decision on when to pull out the plug.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
Fail; fetuses don't have rights. To give a fetus /embryo/zygote rights would be a completely unfeasible process, especially giving them rights over a developed human woman whose humanity and personhood is unquestioned.
hazelfo 3 years ago
Right on. Zygote or fetus is in the womb by woman's permission, permission is not the same as a right.
However, I do not agree with abortions past 20 weeks of gestation, unless it is to save the woman's life.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
Women do not have late-term abortions for the same reasons they have early-term ones. Those abortions constitute less than 1% of all procedures are virtually all of those are to save the life of the woman. In fact, the usual reason a woman waits to have an abortion is because she can't afford it right away.
Maybe we should make abortion free?
hazelfo 3 years ago
I am aware that the the vast majority of women has later-term abortion because of the economic status.
Making abortion free would raise taxes...
roarintheforest 3 years ago
I can't locate your previous comment. I heard that a few months ago in the UK, a proposition limiting the term to 20 weeks was rejected.
Here in the US, we have a Partial Birth Abortion Act that outlaws abortion on demand past 20 of gestation.
I'm incredibly pissed off over the "partner consent" required in several states.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
No, it was passed. It moved from 24 weeks down to 20.
Yeah, it does piss me off greatly that there is "partner consent". As though the man irresponsible enough to accidentally get me pregnant should be responsible for my womb.
hazelfo 3 years ago
The cause of banning it in the UK was detecting brain activity in a single 20 week old fetus (hope I'm correct on the matter). Here-because the procedure LOOKS inhumane. I'm not opposed to having ended this procedure, I agree with UK's reason.
AND partner consent...if the guy doesn't sign the form, his decision technically overrules woman's choice over her body...
roarintheforest 3 years ago
Brain activity? How on earth did they determine that? That sounds super BS to me.
What do you mena, "if the guy doesn't sign the form"... How could any decision by someone OVERRULE another person's bodily right?
hazelfo 3 years ago
because they are not yet human, and they are not more important than a living breathing conscious woman. They are also not completely ignored. They are taken into consideration as a lesser being. Even after it has brain activity, it shouldn't have rights to her womb unless she agree to let it.
LuthienC 3 years ago
It should have the right to use her body if she chooses to let it, but when it overrides her right it is wrong. The important word to focus on here is "developing". If it is developing, it is not yet human and should not have rights over the mother, who is undeniably human.
LuthienC 3 years ago
We are entitled to our bodies. If we followed nature when it comes to means, there would be no use of medicine because it is "artificial".
roarintheforest 3 years ago
"something that lives", so does a plant.
Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual, phisiologically independant human being.
Abortion is a limit of terms.
roarintheforest 3 years ago
a natural dependancy between mother and child? that doesnt mean it can be forced. just because something is natural doesnt make it moral or desirable. pregnancy is not a mandate. like any other sexual or reproductive situation, it must be taken upon solely through free will and not through force or coercian. it is genetically distinct but that doesnt make it an individual. if it was, we could remove it without it dying. as long as it exclusively needs my body for survival, it is my decision.
leiapeison 2 years ago
Well since you like to stick to the dictionary, probably the most common use of the word "lie" refers to *deliberately" trying to deceive someone. And it's absurd to suppose that the person in this video was deliberately trying to convince people Roe v. Wade never happened. It's also absurd to suppose he just isn't aware that Roe v. Wade happened. So the reasonable conclusion is he meant something else other than your literal interpretation.
Sukov 3 years ago
Abortion is NOT "illegal", as you said! I have yet to see a pro-life advocate that can tell the truth. Its an amazing phenomenon! When you lie, you lose all credibility, & your ideas are then moot! Also, the fact a fetus has ten toes dosen't matter much when a woman dosen't want the child..and may even hate it. Lastly,you forgot to mention one other reason to kill people...the death penalty, which if often done to cheering crowds. PRO-ROE...PRO-WOMEN...PRO-CHOICE.
sueezee 3 years ago
C'mon sueezee, don't you think he knows abortion is legal? Couldn't he have perhaps meant that is illegal in relation to other laws so that the law contradicts itself? I understand you feel strongly about this issue, but jumping on him and accusing him of lying seems a bit over the top.
Sukov 3 years ago
sukov: don't you think he knows abortion is legal? Couldn't hemeant that is illegal in relation to other laws so that the law contradicts itself I don't deal in semantics, so abortion is not illegal..period. I don't care how the person "sees" it. Saying abortion is murder or illegal is a pro-life advocartes favorite song, and it's a lie. Don't blame me, blame Webster.
sukov:accusing him of lying seems over the top
But....he lied.
sueezee 3 years ago